PF/LD Paradigms

I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be sure to focus on cross-examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.

On an aside, I do like debaters to keep it professional. I like it when people stand for cross-examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents' speeches but also to their team member's speeches.

Congress Paradigms

I look for competitors who are prepared to speak on any topic - especially if they have prepared to speak on both sides of the topic. I look for quality speeches that add value to the debate; if we're four cycles in and you aren't bringing new information, crystallizing information we've heard, or providing a new rebuttal then it's easy for your speech to get lost amongst the masses. Activity in the chamber is good - I'm looking for you to be engaged in listening to other speeches, asking valuable questions, and working together to run a fair and efficient chamber.

Interp Paradigms

I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.

For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.

For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, and well-defined points supported by a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.

General note for everyone - I have a really bad thinking face and I'm going to look confused and upset. I'm not - don't take it personally! It's just my face and I don't really have a whole lot of control over that. Plenty of times I've had my own students tell me they were sure I hated what they were doing and then I was very complimentary of their work. So I promise you my face has nothing against you! It's just a grumpy face.

My preference is the stock issues model though I am open to all models. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals. I think impacts are important.

Hello! My name is Shaanti (she/her) and I'm excited to judge your round!

A bit about me: I graduated from All Saints Episcopal School in 2022 and am currently at UT Austin as a Sustainability Studies & Geography double-major w/ a Food & Society certificate. I did speech & debate all 4 years of HS, and it's actually the reason for the degrees I'm pursuing (lol). I'm primarily a Congress gal, but I also did DX pretty frequently—I've got a little bit of experience in IX, OO, and PF as well. I qualified to NSDA Nationals every year in House Congress and made semifinals in 2021 & 2022; my experience also extends to the TFA & UIL circuits, so you can rest assured that I'm not a lay judge.

Novices: I am going to judge you based on the listed criteria, but I will be more lenient as you are still learning. My critiques for you will be as constructive as possible, and I'll give as much advice as I can to help you eventually reach full proficiency. But practice makes perfect, and if you start implementing varsity tactics now, you'll improve quicker. Take a Congress round, for example: I don't care if you're stumbling because it's the first time that you're not staring at a legal pad; I prefer that over reading a speech word-for-word. It shows that you're taking the initiative to present more professionally.

Event-specific comments are headed and in bold/all caps. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read them before your round!

——————

GENERAL:

- Be a good human. It's not hard to show your opponents respect. If someone has preferred pronouns, make a conscious effort to use them. Sexism/racism/homophobia/xenophobia/etc will NOT be tolerated by any means—chances are high that you will receive low speaks and and an immediate drop (If I'm judging your round, you've got a queer female POC writing your ballot, so keep that in mind).

- Give content warnings for potentially triggering topics. You are given time before you speak. Utilize it to make the space feel safer for those who need it. Even if it's something you may think is insignificant, it's better to be precautious.

- Don't be rude. I don't care if your opponent is new to the event or doesn't understand something you said; if you are patronizing or condescending, you get low speaks and possibly a drop.

- Content is very important to me. Unsupported claims will go right over my head when considering my RFD—give me evidence & analysis. DO! NOT! MAKE! ME! CONNECT! THE! DOTS! (That's your job, not mine.) Argumentation > presentation (though I still care how you speak).

- IMPACTS! For me to even consider an impact as such, it seriously helps if I hear numbers/quantitative evidence. Without them, I tend to drop the argument. The main exception is if you're using some type of theory for your impact, which is when you should do an effective job to prove its worth and applicability.

- Be passionate! Showing genuine interest about what you're talking about makes the round immeasurably better.

- This should be obvious, but based on experience I feel obligated to put this here: PLEASE MAKE SURE I'M READY BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING.

- Have your cards/evidence easily accessible in case I—or your opponent(s)—asks to see it. If I hear sketchy evidence, I'm likely to ask after it; for the purpose of an honest debate, I encourage you to bring up any concerns about your opponent arguing misinformation so I can look into it.

- Also on that note, make sure your sources are reliable. Please don't cite from a random person's blog and call it a day.

- I have a few auditory processing issues, so it's easier for me to understand arguments when things are spoken clearly enough. I'm not asking you to present in slow-motion, though; just watch your speed.

CONGRESS:

- Quality over quantity. Always.

- That being said, I do want you to be involved in the round. If everyone gives 3 speeches and you only give 1, then I cannot consider that as anything other than you being unprepared for the debate, and I will not be as lenient. Also, people undervalue the importance of CX, but at the very least it reminds me of your existence.

- If you're a pretty speaker but don't contribute anything to the debate, I probably won't rank you highly. BUT that doesn't mean I want a card-for-card debate case as opposed to a speech.

- I understand that many of you learned how to debate on Zoom. However, it is far less professional and effective if you are speaking from a laptop. For my higher ranks, this habit MUST be dropped. Like, by yesterday.

- If you read your speech, I'm dropping you.

-- (Unless everyone's doing it so I can't drop everyone. Seriously, though, please don't read your speech. It'll make me sleepy and sad—AND I CAN TELL WHEN YOU'RE READING EVEN IF YOU TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK OTHERWISE)

- Don't yell at other representatives in crossfire. Don't yell while giving your speech. Don't cut other people off rudely. All these will do is get you a lower ranking than you otherwise could have received. Be respectful.

- Rehash sucks. I hate it with everything in me.

- If you're going to crystallize, do it well. Otherwise, it's rehash. And I hate that with everything in me.

- CLASH IS GOOD, EXCELLENT, AMAZING, ETC.

- Humor is good as long as it is appropriate. Don't force something funny on life or death issues.

- It's not like I have the legislation memorized, so if you're referring to something specific in the bill/resolution, then refer specifically to it ("Section 2A says ... " etc).

PO-SPECIFIC:

- Don't be afraid to be a PO! I presided at tournaments all the time, so I understand their importance. I will rank you if you do a good job. However, don't assume that just because you PO I'll give you the 1 (I rarely give POs a top 3 ranking unless you're doing an exceptional job compared to the rest of the chamber). Preside well and preside with purpose. A bad PO hurts the round instead of helping it.

- Make sure I and everyone else in the chamber know your housekeeping rules. Don't contribute to unnecessary confusion because your procedure isn't clear.

- I keep my own precedence sheet and will double-check your procedure for any bias. Be fair.

- I encourage you to be as assertive as possible. However, don't conflate this with rudeness. Don't let others walk over you, but be respectful.

- You are the most vital person in the round. Make sure you're efficient!

- Be gracious when possible.

PF/LD:

- I never really got into LD and it's been a hot minute since I last did PF, so please treat me like a traditional judge (but don't confuse this with a lay judge! I understand your args and a lot of debate terminology, but some of the events' fundamentals may be new to me).

- I judge on the flow so if you have a voter, make sure I hear it.

- I'm fine with decent speed, but if you talk too quickly it'll either (a) sound like German to me, which I do not speak; or (b) go in one ear & out the other. Basically, don't try to spread. I don't flow what I can't understand. (See above for the last note in the general comments.)

- For the most part, I'm tech over truth, but I prefer valid arguments to anything else. I'm not going to believe or vote for what is completely impossible or unfeasible.

- Please give a roadmap before speaking! Anything as simple as an "it's going to be aff, then neg" is good enough for me. If I don't know what to flow, I simply won't flow it.

- I listen to CX, but it's not something I actively flow. If there's something you feel is a voter, bring it up properly in a ref speech instead leaving it for the final focus or assuming I'll remember (and don't just hint at it; if it's important enough for you to bring it up, I want to hear everything you think is of value). Otherwise, it's a dropped arg and a lost opportunity.

- If you don't have a standard, I'll adopt your opponent's. If neither team/competitor has one, my job is made all the more difficult. Help me with my RFD so I can help you win a round.

- If you drop an arg, I drop it, too.

EXTEMP/OTHER SPEECH:

- Content > presentation.

- That being said, I do care how you speak. Make it clear which point you're addressing and keep things interesting. Help me stay engaged in what you're saying!

- EXTEMP: while this is a speech event, you still have to provide compelling claims. Argumentation is VERY important.

- EXTEMP: you're speaking on current events. I want to hear RECENT dates (please don't cite something from five months back unless it's the only applicable evidence there is).

- EXTEMP: I will be nit-picky about whether you've answered the question or not. If your speech doesn't serve the purpose it's supposed to, there's little reason for me to rank it above one that does (even when presented beautifully).

- Quality over quantity for your sources. If you provide strong, well-reasoned analysis, I'm likely to overlook an empty space for evidence. (However, it is much stronger and more preferable if I hear ~7 sources per speech.)

- When applicable, provide a qualifier in your intro! Help me understand the significance of what you're discussing.

- Don't talk slow to use up your time. If I fall asleep, I can't rank you accurately.

- If applicable, have fun with your presentation! Making me laugh is guaranteed to put you ahead.

——————

That should be it! Hopefully I've covered everything, but if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round starts. If you want more details about your ballot, go ahead and email me at shaanti.dasgupta@utexas.edu ! The earlier, the better—I can go into more depth if I remember everything more clearly.

Good luck, and I can't wait to watch you compete!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOUR EVENT IN FULL BEFORE THE ROUND. I WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO EVALUATE YOU SO I'M NOT REPEATING WHAT'S SAID HERE IN MY BALLOTS.

A bit about myself:

I did debate all four years of high school on the TFA, TOC, NSDA, and UIL circuits. My experience is primarily in Congress and IX, but I also competed in PF for a couple years. I graduated from high school in 2021 and I'm currently a double-major in Government and Sustainability Studies conducting research on politics and policy, so you can count on me to a) be familiarized with what you're doing and b) have at least a general knowledge of the topics you're arguing.

***DISCLAIMER: My paradigm may list some of my personal preferences on what I think makes for a good round, but you reserve every right to play to your strengths. Again, these are strong preferences; not end-all-be-all rules on how I'll vote. Don't try to over-adjust for the sake of winning me over!

FOR ALL EVENTS:

-Don't be a bad human being. At the end of the day, you need to be mature enough to detach your emotions from your logic; that means no eye-rolling, shouting matches, or derogatory comments. I will not tolerate any behavior which is demeaning or hurtful to another person andI will mark you downif you do so. If you felt uncomfortable with anything that was said to you during the round, please inform me so that I can report it to those running the tournament.

-If someone has preferred pronouns, respect them. It's not hard to ask someone before the round how they wish to be addressed, whether it's based on their gender identity, pronunciation of a name, what name they prefer, etc..

-Content warnings are more important than you think for heavier topics. The last thing you want is a judge's rationale being blindsided by a subject that sets them off

-I value empirical and quantitative evidence over all else. If you make an argument but can't back it up with numbers/past examples, then it's a low-quality argument. If you're using a certain political or economic theory, show me ways that those processes have played out in the past

-If your opponent is not on the same level as you and needs explanation on a term or concept, don't be pretentious and just help them out with a quick definition/explanation. Not everyone knows what the intricacies of ecofascism or post-structuralist theory are. Exercise basic courtesy.

-If there's a dispute over facts or your evidence is sketchy, I'll ask to see it after the round. If you're convinced that your opponent is using fake/misconstrued evidence, bring it up after the round and I'll give it a look. You should have all your cards available in the event of a dispute.

-One common issue I see is when someone will just make an unwarranted claim and think that it's enough to address their opponent's argument. I don't equate mere statements to arguments.

-IF YOU DON'T IMPACT I DROP THE ARGUMENT (unless I have the misfortune of judging a BQD round where impacts don't exist lol).

EVENT-SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Congress:

-I know you're supposed to pretend like you're all congresspeople, but don't personally attack your opponents as if they are.

-I value argument quality over speaking style, but both are very important. I'll mostly use speaking style as a metric to choose between equal argumentative performances; however, if it feels like you're giving me a debate case and not a speech then I'll rank you down. You're not meant to regurgitate information like a robot.

-DO NOT READ YOUR SPEECH. I promise you'll sound better and keep me more engaged when you make eye contact and naturally variegate your choice of language. I know many of you learned how to debate over Zoom and weren't held accountable for reading from your screen, but you need to drop the habit ASAP.

-Don't try to give as many speeches as possible just for the sake of doing so. You could very well earn the 1 from me if you only give a single, solid speech. However, if everyone in the round gives 3 speeches, for example, I expect you to give at least 2.

-Use credible, relatively recent sources. Some issues are time sensitive and render sources from anything over a year ago as useless.

-I will rank you down if you rehash. Give me new arguments after the constructive speeches and do weighing toward the end of the cycle.

-Yelling, especially in direct questioning, will get you nothing.

-If your opponent is giving a speech and you're aggressively nodding or shaking your head, acting confused, or fist-pumping, you're literally

-Don't be afraid to PO. I will still rank you high if you run a fair and fast chamber with little resistance from the room, but you BETTER be on top of things

-Don't try to force a funny/witty intro on something serious. Joking about issues of life or death often won't make you look like a comedian, but instead someone who's very unprofessional.

-KEEP EVERYTHING ON TOPIC AND RELEVANT TO THE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION. Reference the legislation frequently so I know which sections you're addressing.

PF/LD:

-Make sure to establish your definitions, standards, VCs, etc at the beginning of your case. If you don't, I'll just adopt your opponent's. If neither of you establish standards, that makes my job more difficult.This is incredibly important when the topic is a vague one: it's your burden as a debater to provide me specifics on what the plan would look like when enacted.

-I'd prefer if you treat me like a traditional judge in LD, but I'm semi-flexible. I don't really like Ks, T, etc., but I understand that they can be very useful to winning a round; use those at your own discretion. Definitely don't run those in PF though.

-I'm tech over truth unless you say something that's blatantly bending reality (ex. the sky is green). If your opponent starts going on an Alex Jones-esque rant, it's your responsibility to call them out on it. If they provide a link chain for it and you do nothing to pick it apart, then that's on you.

-If you incoherently spread, I won't flow your arguments. I'm fine with speed, but only up until the point where all your words amalgamate into a blob and everything just becomes noise. I'm not going to attempt to write down what I think you're saying (or at least trying to say).

-Please signpost/roadmap, ESPECIALLY in LD if you're running Ks and the like. Otherwise I won't consider anything if a) you don't tell me to flow, or b) you don't tell me where to flow it. A simple "I'm going their case, our case" will suffice before you start.Do not overlook signposting; do it as much as possible, even if it's from argument to argument. I need to know where to write my flows so I can accurately judge y'all in the end

-Please don't run identity arguments unless it's clearly related to the topic and I can impact off of it. However, I generally don't favor these sorts of arguments because they often can lead to ignoring the topic at hand.

-I drop anything you don't extend.

Extemp/Other Speech or Interp

-Though Extemp is a speech event, I still focus on your argumentation. Don't waste 2 minutes repeating the same thing in different ways; give me sub-points and sources to bolster the content of what you're saying. You'll inherently sound more convincing this way

-SIGNPOST AS YOU GO

-Providing context for your topic question in Extemp is not just something you should address in your intro; you should do it throughout your speech, especially for international or niche topics

-Any sources you bring up in your speech should have a date tied to them. If you're directly citing an individual, include the platform through which you sourced the quote (Ex. "President Biden told Reuters in an interview on January 26th this year...")

-For Info and Oratory, your how you speak is naturally more important than other events, but the content still plays a large role in how I evaluate you

-For Interp, my evaluation is 100% about your passion and ability to communicate a desired emotion or idea. Don't be afraid of feeling weird or awkward.

-Please don't go slo-mo just to take up time. That's a big pet peeve.

-All speech competitors should focus on fluency, syntax, pacing, and conciseness. A good speech will maintain the same cadence throughout its entirety.

Do NOT spread. If you choose to read quickly, you MUST be clear. Debate is about public speaking and developing skills that go beyond the debate round. Please do not yell, be mindful of the space in the room, you need to find the balance between being heard and yelling.

General: Signpost and Voters. I will diligently flow the round but, you must tell me where to put it. I debated in high school and college. Now I have been coaching and judging for over ten years.

CX: I am a policymaker who loves a good Topicality. You must demonstrate clear and concise links to accessing your impacts and provide an analysis of magnitude, timeline, and probability. I will flow, you just need to tell me where you want me to flow the arguments, so make sure you sign post. I will avoid judge intervention at all costs, so if you drop down to a single argument, that is what I am weighing regardless of my flow.

Don't run a K or theory argument unless you are out of other options. I will not buy any sort of disclosure theory.

LD: Value and Criteria. I am an old-school LD judge, I prefer to hear a traditional debate, not one person policy.

Congress: Speak often and early. I will score a P.O. well if they run an efficient round. I would rather hear multiple bills and good debate. If you are giving the 11th Aff on a bill, you probably won't score as well unless you can actually advance the debate.

You have worked hard. Now is your time to shine.

Interp: I have been teaching speech for 8 years; and teaching, directing, and performing theatre for over 40 years. I know an engaging, well-rehearsed performance when I see it. I will give you the kind of quality feedback I give to my own Interp students.

I am looking for clear characterization(s) both physically and vocally. Establish setting with blocking and business. Pantomime should be realistic and establish object permanence.(ex: a glass of water must be picked up and put down while maintaining a consistent shape and size. Refrigerators don't move unless the character moves them as part of the performance.)

Every performance must tell a story. You must convey the who, what, when, where, and why. Emotion is borne out of action.

Drama is is not all screaming and crying. Pauses and soft spoken words can often covey far more than NOISE.

Great acting may boost your rank, but I must understand what is happening and why. The performance must tell a story to receive a high rank in the round. Show that you have chosen material that is meaningful to you and with which you have a connection.

Humor arises from a character's total commitment to and belief in what they are doing and what is happening. Never TRY to be funny. It doesn't come off as humorous or believable. The absurdity of a situation should be evident to the audience, not the character. That's true comedy.

Most importantly, I want to be moved and entertained. Nothing is more thrilling than witnessing a great performance.

Please, let me know what time signals you prefer.

I truly appreciate all of the time and effort you put into preparing for these tournaments. Break a leg!

Debate: Please, make it clear to me what is happening. My audio processing issue makes it difficult to comprehend 350 wpm spreading. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow the round. I can't tell if you are making a good case or argument. I have judged too many debaters who have ignored this part of my paradigm, and I am left HOPING that I have chosen the winning side.

I am a 5th year coach who knows enough about LD, PF, and Congress to judge, but I am not a seasoned veteran. I teach speech and interp as well, so I KNOW about speaker points.

Simply because "everyone" in the debate world knows a term's meaning, doesn't mean your judge knows it. Ex: Flow that through to the neg/aff, structural violence, disad, block, kritik, voters, etc. (I know what these mean, but most lay judges do not).

I prefer to judge a debate that is won on your skills as a debater rather than running a theory shell. Show me what you know about DEBATE. I'm not a big fan of kritiks.

If you want to ensure a fair decision, you must give VOTERS. That helps me make sense of my flow.

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 22 years and I am an NSDA Two-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

In debate, I value true debating. I look for clash and actual consideration of competitor's arguments, not just person after person reading their pre-written, un-customized cards or speeches. I also value communication. If you talk too speedily and I cannot hear distinct words, those arguments will not be accounted for in my judging. This is not to be mean, but if I can't understand you, I can't really judge you. Finally, you will be polite and respectful. Yes, I want clash, but nothing personal. Debate your opponent's points, not their personality or appearance or whatever else. Honestly, that would just make me more sympathetic to them, so don't do it. And PLEASE, no lingo. Say real people words. I do not care enough to learn every swanky fancy term for something you could just call by name, so if you use debater's slang around me, I just plain won't know what you mean, and that's not good communication.

IEs are a little different. Of course you will not be clashing, so those parts don't apply. Still, I expect you to speak clearly, and I expect to not. be. yelled. at. I don't mean I don't want to be lectured, because extemp speeches and oratories are literally lectures, but do not raise your voice at me. Get passionate, vary your tone, all that good stuff, but don't literally yell. It's kind of the same principle, if I can't hear you well and you're just being mean, I'm gonna have a harder time giving you first place.

And for POs in Congress, please, be chill. I'm not saying be lax on the rules, but in my opinion, an amicable (but not lazy!) chamber is the best kind. I don't like being yelled at. As long as everyone gets to speak and you run the room fairly, you'll be good in my book, and you'll be satisfied with your rank on my ballot.

I just want y'all to be nice to each other. You're all overachievers who choose to put on a suit and debate politics on the weekends for fun, there's no need to get nasty or cutthroat or anything l like that. You're a lot more similar than you are different, which is a good thing! Just be cool, and I'll be cool too.

Good luck, all!

I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.

Hi, all!

I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.

Debate Events

I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.

LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.

I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.

WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.

UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.

CX: I'm a policy maker judge. I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (Anna.rhea@kempisd.org), but I prefer Speechdrop. I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must. I DO NOT vote on CX. That is for you to get an advantage on your opponent through inquiry.

LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.

CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.

SPEAKING AND INTERPRETATION:

I look for the three "P's" when judging events of this type:

(A) Is PRACTICE/PREPARATION evident?

(B) Is the delivery POLISHED?

(C) Is the delivery of the speech (and the behavior and attitude of the speaker, especially towards other competitors) PROFESSIONAL?

If applicable to the event, I also look for a deep and solid analysis of a topic. For example:

(A) Were objections to the speaker's position/thesis thoughtfully considered and addressed in a serious manner (i.e. not just mentioning an objection and then dismissing it outright as ridiculous without further argument)?

(B) Are statements overly general or well-supported by facts, evidence, or specific examples?

(C) Does the speaker, in their speech, contradict themselves or fall victim to the very biases or errors they are advocating against?

DEBATE:

You are there to persuade me, the judge. This means three things:

(A) You must speak clearly and at a rate that I am able to flow as you speak. This means DO NOT SPREAD. It does not matter how many arguments you have, if I as the judge cannot follow and understand them, I cannot be persuaded by them and you will not have time to sufficiently explain and defend them.

(B) You are there to persuade me that your argument is better than your opponent's, not to make your opponent cry. That does not mean you cannot be firm in defending your case and attacking your opponent's, but there is NO excuse for being rude or unprofessional.

(C) Never assume anything about your judge or audience. Do not get caught up in jargon or assume that your listeners know what Kant's categorical imperative (or anything else for that matter) is. If you're going to throw a term or thinker out there like that, you must define and explain it.

For LD, argue from your value and criterion, and use evidence (as needed) to support your arguments. Do NOT turn the debate into a debate over evidence. Persuade me that your value, criterion, and arguments are better than your opponent's, not that you have a “better” or more recent source/card.

Finally, you MUST keep to the allotted time limits, including prep time. "Brief off-time road maps" should be no more that 3 seconds. Period. If your prep time has ended, do not proceed to take 20 more seconds to collect your notes, stand up, and take a drink of water. If your prep time has ended, your prep time has ended.