Pronouns: they/he | Email: ixdebate at gmail.com

Seven Lakes '21, University of Houston '25

Howdy! My name is Nine (pronounced like the number). Assistant coach for Seven Lakes. College Varsity Policy debater and VP of the team at the University of Houston. In HS, I competed in WSD and various IEs (OO, Poetry, Extemp). I was initially hired by Seven Lakes to coach WSD and Speech but I’m coaching a little bit of every event now, including Interp.

General Stuff:

- I do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc. Please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities. Just be respectful, it's really not that hard.

- Debate should be a welcoming and accessible place. If you have concerns, please let me know and I will work with you to try to resolve them.

- Feel free to email me with questions! I love talking about speech/debate/interp and am more than happy to answer questions or have conversations about it. Even if you have questions about college, debating in college, etc., hit me up!

- If you don't have questions but have a pet, feel free to email me ur pet pics :-)

- I'm a double major in political science and women's, gender, and sexuality studies with double minors in leadership studies and anthropology (i love collecting useless degrees), and doing academic research for a few programs on Filipino indigenous cultures/religions, folklore, nationalism and diaspora, and its interactions with gender minorities. Doing work in museum/library archives for Women’s and LGBTQ+ collections. Do with that what you will. Ask me about it if you're interested in academic research, attending UH, archival work, etc.!

- Have a good debate! Have a good performance! Have a good attitude! And most importantly, have fun!!!

__________________________________________________________

Policy:

tldr: Put me on the email chain. Set up the email chain even if I'm not in the room yet. I'll vote on almost any arg. Specificity, comparison, and contextualizing is important. Offense over defense. I'm more than fine with spreading, Ks, etc. Probably not going to vote on condo bad. I flow CX. Debate is for debaters! You do you and I will adapt accordingly! Also "Nine" >>> "Judge.” I will always try to disclose my decision and provide feedback if the tournament allows it. I will not disclose specific speaker points.

the longer version:

I can not express this enough: Debate is for debaters. I will adapt to your debating style accordingly. I don’t really have preferences about argument types when I’m judging because I fundamentally believe it is a privilege to be judging y’all’s hard work and commitment to this activity and am just more than happy to be in the back of y’all’s round to provide whatever feedback I can. So again, you do you! I will evaluate based on what’s on my flow. And have fun :-) !
The rest is in no particular order.

Tech >>> Truth. Exceptions are, of course, if you are being explicitly racist, homphobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Everything else is fair game.

Good spin/articulation = Good Evidence >>> Bad Evidence. Good and specific ev that says the thing you want it to is obviously very very very preferred, but good spins are also very appreciated and if you have done the work to pull out lines that indicate the spin, then I feel comfortable evaluating it. This is obviously dependent on the ev and the spin, but good ev can trump good spin depending on how intuitive/well explained each is.

I think I'm pretty expressionless when I judge. My debaters have told me I'm very expressive (and that they get anxious about it). I'm ngl, I can not tell, so I guess err on the side of caution regarding my non-verbals. I have also been told by my debaters that I will type without looking at my laptop and instead look at the debaters while typing, and that it is slightly intimidating. I promise I'm not trying to intimidate you, but I'm just trying to get as many comments and keep a detailed flow while making sure I'm getting your non-verbals, hand movements, facial expressions, etc.

Email Chains/Evidence: Yes, email chains. Yes, I want to be on it. Yes, email chains are prefferred over speechdrop. Yes, card docs are appreciated. I will look at the docs when prompted by debaters, if card docs are sent, and to make sure I’m flowing an author’s name correctly. Otherwise, I won’t really look at the docs during the round much. I will give a warning if I catch someone clipping cards. If it continues to happen after the warnings, I will stop the round. Ev with missing paragraphs in between highlighted lines, misquoted or misattributed authors, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round on evidence ethics. I will stop the round and evaluate the evidence when the team calls for an ev ethics challenge. Cards that start in the middle of a paragraph or clearly omit paragraphs (even if unhighlighted) ARE forms of cheating and I will drop debaters on it.

Speed: I am absolutely more than fine with speed. Spread at your top speed if you want, but make sure to slow down (or at least, change out of your "card voice") for tags, authors, and analytics. I flow on paper so give me pen time when necessary. Clarity > speed – I can't flow if I don't catch what y'all are saying (especially true for analytics). Also especially true for online debate. I will yell "Clear" if I can not hear you. If I yell clear enough times and it is still unclear, I will stop flowing.

Framework: Just defend your model of debate and tell me why I should prefer it. You should be able to stick to an interp/counterinterp. You should be able to articulate the specific abuse that happens (or, why it didn't happen and how your model of debate solves that). In general, specificity is best – just reading some generic blocks probably won't fly. I will evaluate education/fairness impacts based on what happens in the round (i.e. judge instruction, framing points, etc.)

Case: Offense oriented case debate is so fun. I think a good case push from any angle is just a fun debate to judge. I am comfortable voting on presumption if I think there is enough defense on case and/or I could not tell you how the aff solves by the end of the round (though these instances are very rare). Case turns are cool. Impact turns are cool. Case debate is cool.

Topicality: Yes! Big fan of punishing policy teams for being untopical. I like hearing analysis on (legal) education, how they make debates unfair, why it's important, etc. T debate is best when the arguments are specific to the aff and when you're not just reading generic shells and blocks. The most important thing here is detailing your model and world of debate. I don't judge HS Policy nearly as often, so you should ESPECIALLY describe key actors, laws, treaties, etc. if you plan on going for T.

K: I'm comfortable judging and voting on any strand of K you decide to go for. Don't expect me to fill in the gaps for you. You need to tell me what the alt looks like (imo, comparative worlds works especially best for this), have clear links to the aff, and articulate the more intricate parts of the K (don't rely on buzzwords and expect me to know them!). I think well articulated offense against the thesis or the alt of the K are always fun debates. I like link turns case arguments that are specific and contextualized using the same language or warrants as the aff. Do not turn racism, transphobia, etc. I will stop the round and it will result in an auto L.

DA: I love judging policy debates, but similar to case debate, the internal links and/or the links probably suck. Don't give me a contextless card dump. Direct clash is nice to have in these debates. The more specific you get with how the aff interacts with the DA, the better. Explaining how the link or the DA turns case is always nice.

CP: The best CPs come from the aff's solvency advocate. I think uncarded advantage CPs are also fine, but require a lot more explanation of them and how they solve. Uncarded CPs should probably be relatively intuitive. I don’t really have strong opinions about other types of CPs otherwise and will vote on whatever CP you throw my way. I default to judge kick but can be persuaded otherwise in round.

Theory: Condo is probably good. I'll still flow these responses, but my threshold for voting on condo bad is suuuuper high (and my threshold for answering condo bad is super low... just point at it and laugh and it's good enough for me). Otherwise, I try my best to set my thoughts on other theory aside from the round, so just do what you're good at. Please just make sure you tell me why it's important to the round. Regardless of my opinions on theory (other than condo), I defer to my flow at the end of the day. Make sure to slow down a bit and don’t blitz through pre-written blocks!

K Affs: Yes! I'm admittedly a bit less familiar with these than policy affs but love judging K Aff rounds regardless. I'm very sympathetic to the education of K affs and especially love seeing unique and well thought out ways to discuss the K. On the flipside, I am also very sympathetic to the presumption ballot and/or framework here.

Speaker Points: I start at around 28.4 and go up or down from there. I'll try to adjust a bit based on tournament. I think it's normal for debates to get heated sometimes and don't mind mild roasts or whatever (sometimes it's just straight up entertaining and makes me love my job), but if you are being just flat out insulting to your opponents or other people or are making people feel uncomfortable, I will lower speaks (and stop the round in extreme instances). Speaker points go up based on strategic choices, articulations, etc.

__________________________________________________________

WSD:

The following stuff on this part of my paradigm includes some of my most common pieces of feedback on my ballots. If you internalize these, it will be incredibly helpful for getting my ballot.

the short(ish) version:

– I flow and will vote based on what’s on my flow. I would rather vote on content, arguments, and warrants over speaking pretty.

– I value organized speeches!!! Messy speeches = sad Nine = sad ballot. Ways to make sure your speech is organized: 1) Enumerate your responses, 2) Signpost your arguments, and 3) Condense into clash.

– I would MUCH rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. Different events define offense/defense differently sometimes so here’s what I mean: offense = a change to the squo, defense = no change to the squo. If you’re still confused about this, let me know after the round or send me an email. I've noticed worlds debaters are really really good at making defensive args, but not necessarily offensive ones. Please have offense. I want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

– The most judge intervention I will do in a WSD debate is deferring to what I think is the most reasonable interpretation of the motion. This happens ONLY IF debaters have competing definitions/characterizations/interps AND it has NOT been resolved by the end of the round. That motion interpretation is probably key to where most of your offense lies. To be very clear, I do not like adjudicating rounds based on what I think is most reasonable – I would much rather the debaters make those arguments in the round and on my flow.

the longer version:

– Format: Follow it. That means no spreading, no “off the clock roadmaps” (I start the clock as soon as you say "as an off the clock roadmap"), taking 1-2 POIs, etc. That also means no using heavy debate jargon (topicality, condo, etc.). You’re probably using those words in the wrong context anyway. “Fiat” is definitely a word/arg that exists in WSD, but make sure you’re using it correctly.

– Please actually debate. That means having impacts to your arguments, weighing those impacts, etc. That also means warranting out your arguments, explaining your world, etc. Everytime I walk into a debate round I'm beginning to feel more and more like a grumpy old man because teams are just not doing this. Please debate.

– Explain and characterize! The best debaters are the ones who can best explain their clash, how and why actors will act a certain way, etc.

– Word efficiency: there's a difference between explaining and repeating – word efficiency is extremely important to me. Spending 15 seconds to flag, cross apply, or group arguments (as long as you already did the work to explain them) is good enough for me to apply the same explanation to multiple things on my flow.

– Strategy and style are important! I highly value strategic debaters (ex: speech consistency, taking timed POIs, not being contradictory, etc.) and if you have style on top of that, you will get some great speaker points at the end of the round. BUT don’t sacrifice style for content. I'll always prefer analysis > speaking pretty. The best strategic choices debaters can make in WSD is being explicit and giving me some judge direction, telling me what arguments I should prioritize in the round, and *actually* attacking the other team on their highest ground. The best replies are embedded with good judge instruction.

– Issues about the debate can be resolved in-round. Ex: If there is a debate about whether the team gets fiat or not, make the arguments in round and don't rely on me to default to whatever opinion I have of fiat. Or, if you think the team isn't debating the heart of the motion, make those arguments in round. I expect a defense of what exactly the heart of the motion is from both sides in that instance. I'll evaluate those arguments based on what's on my flow.

– Replies: The replies should be holding my hand and telling me what happened in the debate. Tell me what I should be writing down in my ballot. Tell me what you're winning and what they're losing. Tell me how you've closed off the other team's path to ballot. Please please please give me some judge instruction here.

– Ideological lean: Just because I do policy debate does not mean I lean towards policy style arguments. I truly and genuinely don't care what kind of arguments you run or go for as long as you give me a reason to vote for it. Seriously, you do you. I'll vote on any kind of argument.

– Principle debates: If it becomes a practical v. principle debate, I'm expecting A LOT of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. I'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). For instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!). If you're running something about marginalized groups being harmed in some way, the impact could be structural violence or psychic violence to those people, which is on-face, bad and is probably overlooked. I love creative principles and creative impacts here.

– Model debates: Both models and countermodels need to be characterized. Teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with core stakeholders. Prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where I usually see prop fail). Opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model AND why it is preferable, i.e. net benefits or what the opp countermodel does better/how it avoids prop's model's harms (and this is where the opp team usually fails). I think model/countermodel debates are appropriate for a few policy leaning motions.

If the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish 1) what in the wording of the motion grants you a model (usually the action verb and applying it to the context of the rest of the motion) and 2) why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). Regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, I will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.
__________________________________________________________

PF/LD:

Most of my policy paradigm applies here. I’m probably not a great judge for you if you plan on going for tricks/blippy theory. But, I will (and have) vote on them.

If you're a prog debater and tell me the order is "the nc then the ac" I’ll be annoyed. If you're giving an order, tell me the order of the advantages and the order of the offs. For trad LD, I don't think the neg necessarily needs a value/criterion if they choose to concede the aff value/criterion and just win under the aff framing.

I don't have a preference for either trad/prog. I tend to evaluate trad closer to how I evaluate WSD rounds and I tend to evaluate prog closer to how I evaluate Policy rounds. That being said, I still look for who's winning the offense, what the judge instruction/framing points are, and who made the better articulation of arguments in both settings of debate.

For PF, I have the least experience judging these debates. For the PF rounds that I have judged so far, I feel like I am doing the most judge intervention in this event simply because debaters are not resolving the debate by the 2 minute speeches (also just like. 2 minute speeches?!?!?!). Please please please give me some kind of judge instruction or at least impact weighing and tell me what impact I vote for and WHY. It is perfectly okay to kick whatever you need to so that you can get the most explanation on the argument you plan to go for.

__________________________________________________________

Speech/Interp:

A Speech/Interp paradigm feels useless sometimes just because y'all have already memorized/blocked out your pieces and there's little my paradigm will inform you about how to better adapt to me as your judge. But I guess my brief thoughts are here in the off-chance someone reads this and gets something out of it:

You do you, just follow the format and perform the best you can!

For extemp, looking for format things (i.e. having a roadmap, using on-tops, following the speaker's triangle, etc.). I prefer content over speaking pretty most of the time, but since it's a speech event, I still take presentation seriously. I don't really care if you do a three or two point speech, but the content should still be in-depth and make sense.

For OO/Info, most of my ballots come down to the implications/why it matters portion. Humor (even attempts at humor) is always a plus.

For interp, I'm mainly looking for clarity of plot (also, if there is a plot to begin with), embodiment and distinctions between characters, and clear blocking/binder "mojo".

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win. Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

I am an old school traditional judge.

PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.

LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.

Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglass debate. I qualified for nationals twice in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, although I rarely tend to vote on it unless the proven abuse is egregious or its severely under-covered by one side.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

Spreading is in the nature of the debate beasts in the modern era…please keep it to 50% of your max.

I am a newer judge and coach, but I can appreciate all intellectually sound arguments. My largest concern is your understanding of your material and capability to defend it. 

High school LD in the dark ages before the internet. I prefer traditional LD, and arguments to be flowable. 

Superior logic, evidence, and skill in defending/refutation will always dictate my vote. In a very close race speaks will turn the tide in your favor. Strong presentation skills are part of the persuasive package.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.

In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.

In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.

In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.

My paradigm is simple- be good.

When it comes to debate, I won't reward "debate tricks"... you need to do a better job with your case than the opponent, not Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Additionally, keep your facts straight. Don't overlook common knowledge facts.

With speech, I want to believe the character(s) you create. With humorous pieces, I want to be entertained (and maybe even smile). With dramatic pieces, create the scene for me... you do not advance/place because you have the "saddest" piece.

I can adjust to different styles of debate but spreading is likely to hurt you more than help you.

CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park Hs.

Individual events: I look for strong characterization, rhetorical appeals, vocal variety and inflection, expressive facial/ body movements, clear enunciation, confidence, and creative delivery.

Debate events: I look for conversational tone of voice, clear and average paced speaking (No spreading), Rhetorical appeals, strong reasoning and logic, current and credible evidence, and impactful connections.

LD: No spreading, stand up, don't lean on desks or chairs. "No spreading" includes talking too fast to understand you. I prefer to hear passion and enthusiasm for your side of the argument.

DI, HI, Duet, and assorted interp events: Certified theatre teacher and director. Focus on physicality, blocking, and vocal variety. Does the lower body physicality match the upper body physicality? Is movement done with a purpose, or not at all? Is there clear and fascinating characterization and interpretation of the material? Loud does not equal emotional, or good acting. Stop shouting. Don't be afraid of pauses and silences. Let the moments breathe.

IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE ROUND CORRECTLY I NEED TO SEE THE EVIDENCE!

ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN - IF YOU DON'T 25 SPEAKS ---> carvajalmiguel1959@gmail.com

context: As a new parent judge, I'm still learning multiple aspects of Speech and Debate. Consider meextremely lay.

YOU must be respectful of others in your room, don't be nervous, stand confidently and give your speech to the best of your ability; it can get nerve-racking at the front of the room. Just know I'm judging you for all the good things you do, not the wrong things

Speed- I'm not too fond of speed. Nothing faster than 165wpm at most. A conversational pace is preferred.

Kritik/Theory/Disads/Add-ons/Framework- I don't debate, nor have I ever done debate. I won't be able to evaluate these arguments, soDON'Tmake them.

How to get my vote- Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Please don't assume that I will grasp any argument made; I won't, so explain them; I evaluate everything from primary content to cross-fire to presentation. I enjoy it when the debater is persuasive and can stay calm and collected. Of course, debate to the best of your ability, stand confidently and do your best.

Cross Fire-Be kind to each other; I will be accounting for crossfire during my ballot.

Speaker Points-I will give points if you follow the other aspects mentioned. I don't want a rude or condescending tone, BE RESPECTFUL to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent. Don't say anything racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic I will down you and give you the worst speaker points I can give. Debate well and be confident. Explain everything, and you will get better points.

If you have any questions that aren't answered, please let me know!

Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true (whether this is in terms of proving a practical impact or establishing/fulfilling a principled argument) and weighs why the argument means that they deserve to win the round.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech.

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount this year, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

Speech:

Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.

Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life.  Draw me into your world. 

Debate (PF/LD/WSD):

Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me.  I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence. 

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.  Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.  

Congress:  Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in.  Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons. 

Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points.  I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro.  If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.   

Iyad Chowdhury | University of Houston '26 | he/they | iyadchowdhury@gmail.com

King Round Robin Update: I'm entered for both PF and LD. For PF: I'm a current college policy debater with a background in LD. I am best with policy args and I keep up with the news, so very recent uniqueness evidence is impressive to see. I don't necessarily have a specific PF paradigm so if you have any questions before the round please don't hesitate to ask!

pref sheet shortcuts:

1--K

1-- LARP

2--Theory/T

5/Strike--Trad

2/3--Phil

4--Tricks

tech>truth – i'll vote on anything that has a claim+warrant+impact and is appropriately extended. only exception is anything that is exclusionary.

brief debate views

LARP: i'll be great for this

K:ill be great for this

Theory/T: i'll be good for this

Trad: i'll be bad for this

Phil: i might be okay for this

Tricks: i might be okay for this.

who am i?

hi! my name is iyad chowdhury (eye-odd chow-dur-ee). i'm an econ major/art minor at the university of houston. i have a lot of respect for the folks that run tournaments and participate in them. with that in mind, i take my job as a judge seriously, because i know you put in a lot of effort to do what you do, so it's only reciprocal for me to do the same. i believe that debate is for debaters. do you whatever you want and i will follow along as best i can. regardless of any preferences i have on my paradigm, i think that any argument that is communicated with precision and accuracy, while having a warrant and an impact, is sufficient for me to vote on it.

brief debate cv (not like debate experience = good judging, but it could be helpful to know i guess): i did LD for two years at clear brook high school. i didn't have an opportunity to compete at any bid tournaments because of financial constraints + started debate in my junior year, i qualified for TFA state, and got first in my UIL region (20-6a i think but not sure). i currently compete in policy with the university of houston. if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round. i prefer judging ld but i'm pretty much fine judging anything, so in round i might use a lot of ld jargon, sorry in advance :p

"the round is about to start, what should i know about you?"

1-- flex prep/open cross is fine

2-- keep track of time

3-- i don't care about what your wear and i don't care about whether you sit or stand during speeches. do whatever makes you feel most comfortable.

4-- fine with spectators if the competitors are fine with it

5-- good with speed in person, go ~70% of your max speed we're in an online round. i have tinnitus so it would help me if you talked a bit louder, especially on analytics.

6-- send me your docs! my email is at the top of this paradigm. speechdrop works as well. i don't have a preference.

7-- word docs please, not pdfs. i prefer word docs because, for me, it's more efficient than a pdf. no rush if you need to take some time to convert your docs.

8-- please be kind and respectful in round and out of round.

9-- make sure to take care of yourself! nuke war will definitely trigger if our future policy makers are running on 2 hours of sleep right now

The Fun Stuff:

Most Comfortable):

LARP—

1. have a clear link story in your adv/da and walk me through it.
2. for cps, mutual exclusivity, net benefits, competition, and normal means are important. perms on cps need to explain a solvency deficit and how the perm resolves the solvency deficit.
3. i find straight turns very impressive, it was my favorite arg to go for when i competed
4. i have a very high threshold for voting on condo bad. on the other hand, i have a very low threshold for condo good. condo good >>>>>condo bad
5. weigh, the earlier in the round the better
6. i vote on offense, don't expect to get my ballot if all you make are defensive args
7. zero percent risk of a da is a thing
8. huge fan of ptx das, i like to keep up with the news so really recent uq ev is always cool to see

Ks–

1. what do i know?
1. familiar w
1. cap (& derivatives e.g. racial cap & semiocap)
2. setcol (Tuck+Yang)
3. queer theory/pess (Munoz, Edelman, Puar, Preciado, Butler)
4. fem (Ahmed)
5. psycho (Lacan)
6. Afropess (Wilderson, Gillespie & also non pess crt like Wynter/Weheliye, Fanon, Hampton, and hooks)
2. im somewhat familiar w
1. Baudrillard
2. Glissant
3. Bataille
4. Nietzche
5. Foucault
6. Agamben
7. Levinas
8. Deleuze & Guttari
3. not too familiar with security, ableism, and anything else i haven’t listed but dont let that stop you from reading it because ill still vote on it if you explain it well
2. most important thing is framing and ROB/J needs to defend your theory.
3. i love clash on alts-- give me reasons why the alt happens/doesn't happen, perm the alt, etc. but if your strat is to kick the alt then im fine with that given the context of the round
4. in the link debate, i really like strength of link args and evidence comparison. in tandem, quotes from the aff to strengthen your links are the highest artform given you find the correct links in their ev.
5. find loopholes/flaws in the k framing and i'll be impressed if you can point them out.
6. if in a util v k round and u are reading util, framework + extinction outweighs is cool to see and probably always the best 2ar
7. i like non-generic links and will be rewarded with high speaks
8. in kvk, aff: be ready for topicality and the presumption push. neg: do more than just indicting the solvency and give me at least one substantive piece of offense on the aff
9. i'm fine w floating piks just make sure to flash that it is a floating pik before u kick the k
10. way too many of these authors are problematic so use author indicts to your advantage
11. do not drop case in the 2nr
12. i subscribe to the school of thought that you probably shouldn’t be reading identity k’s that don’t pertain to your own identity. however, i don’t think it’s okay to ask whether the k does pertain to someone’s identity, i.e. don’t ask if someone has a disability if they are reading a disability k
13. specifically in the context of afropess: reading afropress without being black is definitely parasitic to black debate. if you are going to read afropess as a non black debater, your speaks will be no higher than a 27. however, i do think that it’s on you to call it out if you see it happening and extending it through the flow if you want me to vote on it and i very gladly will.

Comfortable):

Theory/T–

1. default to competing interps, dtd, and no rvi but it can be proven otherwise. if you want to go for reasonability make sure to have a brightline.
2. fairness > education, debate is a game that has educational value and i think we get the most education out of the game if it’s fair in the first place
3. i like to see techier styles of debate here but crystallization is key. give me a clear definition of what the theory debate boils down to and paint a clear abuse story.
4. i lean heavily towards disclosure good but identity-based disclosure args like “debaters that are a part of marginalized groups shouldn’t have to disclose” are convincing
5. i presume theory = highest layer
6. for T, i like when the shell is specific to why the aff is untopical instead of generic shells and blocks. nebel is cool but personally it gets a bit boring to hear.

Phil--

1. what do i know?
1. Great with Kant
2. okay with
1. Hobbes
2. Locke
3. pretty much unfamiliar with everything else so err on the side of overexplaining.
2. i understand phil in more of an academic sense than in a debate sense
3. framework in these rounds is especially important, so make sure to allot time for framing in your rebuttals.
4. if you are going against consequentialist framing as a phil debater, prove why consequences are bad.

Non-T Affs–

1. be v ready for t framework and the neg presumption push
2. for k-affs, be sure to explain why the topic is bad, why debate is a space for the aff to be read, and voters so i don’t have to vote you down on t framework bc i really do like non t k affs.

Tricks–

1. dont read against identity-based affs
2. slow down on underviews
3. don't be shifty in cx
4. what do i know?
1. good w
1. gsp
2. kripke
3. sand
4. menos
5. condo logic
2. okay w
1. skep
2. indexicals
3. trivialism
3. idk / idl
1. theory spikes
2. anything that i haven’t listed
5. condo logic is really fun for me, if you go for condo logic and you make a truth-testing table w the rez as a condo statement, ill be impressed. i have a really low threshold for answering condo logic though.
6. if you're going for an a priori please make sure to have a truth testing role of the ballot.
7. i do think that there is some educational value that can be extracted from tricks debate. i think that there is definitely ground to learn about different paradoxes, condo logic, and different phils. this is just my reading of tricks at face value however, im still uncertain as to how it’s executed. i’m taking a logic class right now that i find pretty interesting, so show me how it applies to debate!
8. i find substantive spikes more interesting than theory spikes
9. maybe pref me if you’re thinking of running tricks in out rounds so you don’t have to worry about speaks. that said i haven’t actually judged a lot of tricks rounds (maybe 4-5 rounds) so maybe you can change my mind

Speaking and Speaker Points):

1. what do my speaks look like?
1. 30-- expect you to win the tournament
2. 29.5-29.9-- late out rounds
3. 29-29.4—breaking
4. 28.5-28.9—bubble
5. 28-28.4—average/positive
6. 27.5-27.9—even
7. 27-27.4—negative
8. <26.9– need to contact someone important ab you/ you were disrespectful in round

Summary):

1. when you extend, give me a summary of your evidence, don’t just say “extend XYZ” and move on bc i wont accept that as an extension so i wont vote on it.
2. ballot painting/crystallizing is important. in addition to weighing, i really like layered rebuttals where you tell me which layer comes first and win it.
3. signpost!! tell me where you're at.
4. give me a roadmap before every rebuttal in the order of which offs you are going in.
5. slow down on analytics. if you have prewritten analytics i would prefer if you sent them to me.
6. remember that you are trying to convince me that you are correct. in both trad and prog rounds, looking at me while you speak will probably make you look perceptually better than your opponent.
7. the more interesting and unique your argument is the happier i will be. still, there is a silver lining between being interesting and unique and just plain silly so measure accordingly.
8. be kind in round and out of round.

influenced by: Rob Glass, James Allan, Clark Johnson, Michael Wimsatt, Richard Garner, Ben Erdmann, Breigh Plat, Sesh Joe, Sarvesh Subramanian

fun paradigm

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

I have been a judge in some capacity (coach, hired) since 1998. I've seen many trends come and go. I used to be a traditionalist when it came to interp and blocking, but understand how the events have evolved and adapted my judging to suit what the community has deemed appropriate. However, here are some event specific elements of my paradigm.

Extemp - I believe that fundamentally, an extemp speech must be founded on answering the question that is posed. I think the unified analysis is the best way to support your thesis, but am open to other organizational methods. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. I know what's going on the in the world. Do not lie or embellish with me. It will not go well. I would rather have someone give their best try with a hard topic than to have someone make things up or misrepresent the facts of the matter. Especially with having access to the internet, there is no excuse for making things up in Extemp.

Informative - I have been around Informative speaking for a lot longer than it has been a TFA event. This event is one where you can do a speech about anything, but that doesn't mean you should do a speech about anything. It should be something where you are informing us about a topic with relevance to you (the speaker) and which you can "sell" to us as interesting and relevant to us. The quality of visual aides matter. Sloppy VAs speak volumes about the speech. Neat and clean VAs speak well and set a good impression. This should not be Infosuasion (meaning that it is a persuasive in tone, but using VAs). The best informatives have balance in them (pros and cons) and a lot of information that we wouldn't otherwise know but for this speech. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight.

Oratory - I think the best oratories are ones where they are relevant to everyone in the audience, as well as the speaker. Oratories that are overly-focused on the speaker tend to be exclusive and I think feed into the perception of this event as "bore-atory" I like advocacy focused on Problem - Cause - Solution or Problem - Cause - Impact or something similar. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. Personal examples are ok, but should not be the main part of the support for your speech. Research is important for good persuasion for a Logos person (that'd be me).

DI/HI - I lump these together because I view good interp from the same lens. I think that the best interpers make you forget that they're a high school student performing at a speech and debate contest. If it is serious, I want to feel like you set me in that scene and that you are your character(s). If it is funny, I want to see the scene play out with the humor being an integral part of the cutting and your performance. I think blocking is a compliment to the performance. It should not distract from it. The choice of literature matters. DIs should present a good exploration of the dramatic curve - in otherwords, don't stay at one level the whole time. Have some development from start to climax to conclusion. HIs should similarly utilize the dramatic curve to build to the climactic humorous scene or event. Audience appropriateness is also an element in my judging for these events. Both in the performance choices and in the literature selection.

POI - Notice I didn't lump POI with the other individual interps. While much of the same is true of the performance elements as those events, I fundamentally believe that POI must have a thematic argument that the program explores. It is not DI with a few poems thrown in. It is fundamentally different from the other interp events. The intro must establish what this argumentative framework is for me to really appreciate the thematic choice. I also believe that the best POIs are inclusive of the audience in terms of interest and relevance - similar to my thoughts on an OO. Book work should be complimentary and not distracting from the performance.

Duo/Duet - In addition to my thoughts on DI/HI, I think how the performers work together is essential to a great partnered interp event.

Impromptu - The speech must be based on the topic drawn. Please do not shoe-horn in a canned speech into whatever quote you drew. Use your knowledge. Distill a message from the quote/topic, take a position on the message, and back it up with examples. I think variety in example areas and mastery of what you're talking about are important. I think the best impromptu speakers used 1:00-1:30 of their prep time to leave 5:30-6:00 for the speech.

Prose - See my DI/HI and POI commentary.

Most of my debate experience is in WSD but I do have background in LD, PF, (and now collegiate level Parliamentary debate and IPDA)

In debate I look forward to well-constructed arguments/Speeches, I like organization!! The more sign posting the better, I also appreciate roadmaps, (OFF/ON CLOCK is fine) the more organized you are the better I can flow what you are trying to say. I need a good blend of offense/defense, please make sure to extend your points and build upon them, this will weigh big with me! It is important to engage with your opponent's case material, but you will not win on offense alone. I look for big level impacts and weighing of worlds, I need you to tell me directly who fairs better in "your" world. I will vote how you tell me to; does it boil down to timeframe, magnitude, scope, some sort of combination of factors? You got to be clear with me, I can only weigh what's on the flow. I don't like to infer!

I like quality speeches, refrain from spreading, take your time, and ask for clarifications if you need them from your opponent. This makes for a constructive debate!

Keep in mind, that we attack arguments, NOT people! I will NOT tolerate any mudslinging, so please keep it respectful and kind :)

If you need any clarifications from me, as a judge, during the round please don't hesitate to ask :)

Hi y'all! My name is Carlos Diaz and I competed for Spring Woods High School for four years and The University of Texas at Austin Speech Team for four years as well. I am currently the speech and debate director at Stratford High School.

My senior year of high school I was the 2016 TFA state champion in DUO as well as the 2016 TOC duo champion. My sophomore year of college I was a finalist in dramatic interpretation at the National Forensics Association tournament (top 6 out of 250 competitors). The following year I was a semi-finalist in persuasive speaking at the same tournament, (top 12 out of 250 competitors). Although I never competed in congress or extemp, my high school was state and nationally ranked in congressional debate, and I had the great fortune of having some of the best extempers in the nation as my teammates during my time in the UT speech team.

Extemp:

First- answer the question. Read the question carefully or you might give an entire speech that ultimately misses the mark.

Credible and great sources.

Strong format and structure. The speech should be able to flow easily and be coherent enough for non-speech judges.

Oratory/Info:

I want a solid structure of the speech. The audience (and I as a judge) must be able to follow along with ease. This means previewing in your intro.

Be sure to use your space, especially between transitions and with hand gestures. This adds another layer to the delivery of the speech and it makes an enormous difference.

For OO- solutions need to be tangible, meaning things that I as an audience member can take up and do. If the solutions are abstract, you are not fulfilling your role as an orator.

For Info- implications are the man thing that make the speech. They need to be out of the box, and make the audience think of something we would not have otherwise.

Congress:

Preview in your introduction.

You MUST have excellent sources and I will not look favorably upon a point that has no sources at all. How am I supposed to evaluate something that is purely opinion?

To PO's: I pay heavy attention to how you are conducting the round.

Be kind in questioning. Do not be abusive in any aspect of the speech.

Interp:

I will be the most picky in this event just because it's my favorite and I usually have a lot of feedback to provide.

The intro in interp should always have a strong argument, preferably backed up by sources or studies that support the theme of the performance (and yes, even in HI).

Dramatic/Prose: I am looking for a well developed character. Additionally, it's nice to have a set environment that the audience is able to observe.

Although this event tends to be more dramatic (haha), I also want to see levels throughout. A piece that only has one tone and mood is boring, give me more! Add the humor, the doubt, the regret, the hesitance, the anger, and so much more that makes your character a real person.

Programs: Having a clear argument is imperative. Your literature can be anything as long as it connects with your main theme.

Characters need to be unique. I should not be able to confuse characters, so make them stand out. Things like changes in tone, accents (if appropriate), mannerisms, etc.

Humorous: Although the main point of this event is to be funny, i'd rather see it be clean and easy to follow. HI can tend to focus too much on the humor and ignore the plot of the script. Make sure you don't.

Characters need to be unique but also BIG. The entire point of HI is to be exaggerated and to have no boundaries or limitations (as long as it makes sense and adds to the story rather than distracts from it).

Overall, I am looking for people that are having fun! The amazing thing about interp is that you are given a platform to completely personify a character, an argument, and a story.

Last but not least- CONFIDENCE. If there's something that I've learned from competing in speech for eight years is that confidence is key. As long as you think of yourself as a winner, you will perform as a winner, and the audience will see you as a winner.

Thanks y'all!

The art of storytelling is at the core of each IE event. As a Theatre Director, it is inevitable that I am looking through the lens of an actor and wanting to be swept away into the world of your piece. Clear and engaging storytelling should transcend the screen. To achieve optimum transference one should utilize purposeful blocking, supportive transitional devices, optimal camera framing, clear and distinct character physicality, strong articulation, vocal variety (quality force time and pitch) and above all convey character truths. Dynamic pieces are not strictly dramatic or comedic. Dynamic pieces ride the wave of style and tone while allowing for natural highs and lows. life is both intense and funny find those waves in every story.

For Oratory/Info/Extemp I am looking for the same. The performers point of view is equal to a character's point of view in an Interp. Convince me of the point by using solid presentation skills. A performer should speak from a genuine truth, create purposeful movement and paint a picture with their voice. I am looking to be spoken to not at. An audience member is more likely to be persuaded if a connection is made. Lastly, the audience needs to progress in thought as the argument progresses. therefore logical progression of information/argument is vital to a clear piece. Think of yourself as a good professor not an encyclopedia-teach me through engagement.

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers recon with their history (if its germane to the topic). When it comes down to relevancy and impacts/harms, I prefer debates that show how their resolution (whether we're going for opp or prop) will benefit or improve black and brown communities, or the global south.

Interp overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices)

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I'm not a good HI judge, please do not let me judge you in HI. I don't like the event and I do my best to avoid judging it. If that fails, I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. Please don't be racist/homophobic in your humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well research speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking, with obvious exceptions being that we might literally not know something, because its still being researched (but that is a different we don't know than say, "and we don't know why people act this way :( ")

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote up in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Add me to the email chain: hunterfoster.debate@gmail.com

Salado High School 18-22 | University of Houston 22-? | he/him/his | call me “hunter” nothing else pls, anything else makes me feel sad and icky inside.

Hi! I'm Hunter. I debated for four years at Salado High School on the UIL, TFA, and National Circuit. I’m now debating at the University of Houston (Go Coogs!)

As of TFA state my voting record for the entire year is 51% neg and 49% aff.

Main Philosophy

I'm an offense/defense judge, so I am good with anything you want to read as long as you clash with the arguments being presented in the round. This means if you are just throwing out conflicting arguments without warranting why you are winning them it’s going to be very hard for me to evaluate the round. I will try and evaluate all arguments as fairly and equally as possible. I sway more on the side of tech vs truth, but that does not excuse you from being silly about it. I love a clean round so if it's messy, that will SIGNIFICANTLY affect your speaks. Most importantly, have fun.

Please warrant and extend arguments throughout the round, I will not be doing that work for you. I want you to write my ballot for me, absent that judge instruction, I will most likely be voting on something you don't want me to vote on, and no one likes that.

I don't really pay much attention to cross tbh, mostly because I see it as clarification, not a speech. If you make an important stance in cross just point that out in your speech.

I tend to make faces without knowing, so if you see me making a stank face, you're making silly arguments, sorry in advance.

Now for the Stuff we care about.

Quick cheat sheet:

Tech --x------ Truth

Voting for policy ----x----- Voting for the K

Will read ev without being told --x------ Tell me what to read

Infinite Condo --x-------- No condo

Reasonability --------x-- Competing Interps

Overviews -------x--- LBL

Fairness -----x----- Education

"Neg on presumption" x----------K affs that do nothing

"It's pre-fiat"----------x Actual arguments

Counter-interp + offense –x-------- Impact turn everything

Policy --x------ Phil

"Judge" ----------x “Hunter"

Pref shortcut -

Identity K's - 2

Other K's – 2/3

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 1

Phil - 3

K-Affs - 3

Tricks – 4

Trad - 3

DA's

DA’s are very strongly recommended. I love policy debate and would love to keep loving it. Please have a good internal link story. This means it needs to make sense !!! 3 cards usually don’t cut it on a DA, but it can for some. If your 1n doesn't make any sense I’ll most likely err aff on the link and internal link story; sorry not sorry. The less you need to explain on the thesis level, the more time you get to explain the link/internal link story, the better the 2nc is, the better way to my ballot.

Please, please, please do impact calc and link comparison.

Counterplans

Along with DA's counterplans are a great position and I love to see them. Competition is important, but not always required. I am a sucker for a good consult or adv CP. Please have NB to the CP, if I can’t figure out what that is by the end of the 1nc then your probs not going to be winning the CP. Judge kicking is silly, I'm not doing that work for you, if you don't think you're winning the perm debate then you probs aren't. Condo is good. Perf con is bad, but competing worlds is probs good. I’m not to policy about uncarded/multi plank CP’s as they can be strategic and great proof of strong critical thinking.

Perm debate is great way to engage the aff with the CP so please shoot out a few perms in front of me and see which one sticks. I don’t have a particular dissuasion to cheating perms and am willing to hear any kind of perm you say aloud.

Framework/Framing

The more I judge LD the more I realize how much I like FW debates. I think FW is a very important tool for you to win your impacts. For me to evaluate your offense you need to be winning some level of the framing debate. I think a lot of debaters forget this then get mad when I don’t vote for them.

I probs default Util but idk, I just work here.

Phil

LOL. I do not understand phil to the capacity to evaluate high level phil v phil debates. For these kinds of debates, a good overview is greatly appreciated. I am most familiar with Kant, Maslow, and Korsgaard (the usual).

Kritiks

I'm comfortable with K debate. Feel free to read them on aff or neg, but don't get silly with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. I love identity K debate (it provides great discourse that isn't talked about critically) but if you're reading an identity-based argument please be of that identity, if not I will be very skeptical of your argument.

I will NOT vote on nonblack afro-pess.

Framework is important, it isn't the end all be all of the round. I think it can be a very good tool for both aff and neg. I understand a fair share of most K’s except for pomo, so please explain what you’re alt does if you are using big buzz words only 3 people know the meaning of.

Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are very important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to win the K for me. Impact and alt debates are often very muddy, if it is messy by the 2NR find out how to fix it.

Go crazy with the alt? Idc :) - just explain how it can overcome the links/solve.

When responding to identity K's be careful of what you say, it will probs be racist, homophobic, or ableist . If it makes me feel icky I just won’t evaluate it, sorry not sorry.

Topicality

I think that aff's being T is important, and if T is argued correctly, I will vote on it. I think a lot of T is read as a time suck (guilty), so if that is pointed out I will have a hard time voting for it. I think that limits > ground and education > fairness but can be persuaded otherwise. I default to competing interps. Reasonability is about the counter interp not the aff, at some point reasonability collapses to competing interps. I am not a T hack tbh, but don't let this scare you away from reading T because I will in fact evaluate it.

Theory

Theory is cool and a very good argument when it is warranted. I enjoy watching a good theory debate. I default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise.

RVI’s are ok, have a counter interp, prove why their model is not good. 1AR theory is also ok, but for the love of god please don't use it as a gotcha moment to dodge actual substance in the round.

Tricks

If you want to read these I don’t mind, I will be very skep of unexplained arguments. But if you debate these well, I will vote on it.

Policy v Policy

Love, prefer this type of debate the most. Make sure to do good impact weighing and impact calc towards the end of the round, it’s much appreciated. Be smart and logical about things. I will reward good strategy.

Idk why I have to say this, but a DA with a SV fw is not good strategy. If you want to have a trad debate, please do it, but don’t be mad when you lose to 30 second util fw.

Please do not be discouraged from reading other arguments, even though I hack for policy debates, I love to have fun!!

K v Policy

I enjoy watching/judging these debates more than I do having them. Please make sure to do good impact calc and weighing. Like I said before FW is good, specific links are great. Make sure to compare worlds.

K v K

This is where my knowledge starts to fall apart, and you'll have to do a lot of weighing the two worlds for me. I have not seen enough of these debates in my career to evaluate them right, so I would default to this kind of debate if it’s the last-ditch effort to win my ballot.

(This excludes K v Cap)

Speaks

I think that at the end of the day debate is an educational event, so I will give you speaks on how well you communicate to me and your opponents. That means be strategic and make good args. Speed is fine, I will yell "clear" if you are going to fast for me. I don't care about profanities unless it is used at or about your opponents. I do think how well you sound does play a factor in your speaks, so I would like to hear a more polished side of your speech.

I will start at 28.5 and work up or down

Point Breakdown

29.5 – 30: I enjoyed the round. You should be in deep elims/win the tournament.

29 – 29.4: This round was great but a bit messy, you should probs break.

28.5 – 29: This round was alright and average. You should go even.

28 – 28.4: This round was very messy; you were making silly mistakes and I was frustrated.

28.4-27: You should probs go back to JV.

25: You got an auto loss and are being reported to tab.

Few More things

1] Feel free to post round if you don't think I made the right decision, I won’t take offense. I think post rounding can be a good way for both of us to learn. I am human and will make wrong decisions just like you :)

2] +.2 speaks if your doc looks aesthetic.

3] Please add me to the chain, I like to look through cards to give the best decision I can give you. Keep the email formatted as: "Tournament --- Round x --- School v School". Also send a word doc, I don't like PDF's.

4] I'm not the greatest at flowing, if you're going to go full speed on analytics, please send them in a doc.

5] Please explain why a drop matters in the round, don’t just flail your hands and throw a big fit about a drop and then move on. I don’t care that they dropped extinction outweighs, tell me WHY that drop warrants a ballot.

6] Feel free to be silly in round, after round 5-6, I will have judged 10 policy rounds with the same DA impacts, i will reward fun debates.

Hello, my name is Darren Frazee. I debated (policy debate) at McNeil HS (TX) went to the University of Kansas for college. I currently help coach debate at Klein HS.

CX/Policy

Please include me on the email chain -dfrazee1@kleinisd.net- just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.

Overview

I have no problem with K's, theory, or speed. I ran all types of arguments myself as a debater. I evaluate a round based on impacts in the 2NR and 2AR. An argument without an impact gets you nowhere. Weigh your impacts for me. If you can paint me a clear picture of the debate round and why you won, I am much more likely to vote for you. Be kind.

Kritiks

I love Kritiks, but you need to put in the work. I do not like vague links and warrantless claims.

Counterplans

I think counterplans are best when they are unique and creative, but I will consider pretty much any counterplan. Its up to the AFF to tell me why a certain type of counterplan should not be allowed.

Speed

I have no problem with speed, but you must be clear. If I can't understand you, I will yell clear. I will not flow arguments that I could not hear. I will not evaluate arguments that I did not flow.

Demeanor

Be kind and respectful. If your opponent is being abusive, tell me why its a voting issue.

Hello I debated for 4 years in High school and have been judging for 4 years going on my fifth

I have individual paradigms for the different events but to go over a few things

First: this is a communication event it does not matter if I can understand speed DO NOT SPREAD

Second: be respectful the easiest way to get me to drop your speaks (and you'll likely loose the round too) is if you are being rude

Third:DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I will fact check you and I will get in touch with your coach and the tournament director

Fourth: Debaters I DO NOT DISCLOSE Do not ask me to disclose and all comments will be on the ballot

Congress Kids: do not wait until the round has started to take splits do that before the round. and I HATE in house recesses to take splits especially when y'all just started. another thing, when y'all take splits and you need to write a speech in round go with the least popular side of the debate as it increases your chances at getting the speech

Debaters: If your opponent clearly is less experienced than you and you exploit that to stroke your ego I will drop your speaks to the lowest number I can and i will down you even if you won the round on the flow and I will contact your coach. Practices like that are unethical and takes away the educational aspect of debate. Also I don't like these progressive things that have been ran at recent tournaments, I have no problem with progressive arguments that are ran well however most of the time they are not done well.

do not ask me to pre flow you should know your case already, I like big picture, impact calculus, make sure you weigh for me, I HATE FRIVOLOUS THEORY, and also don't run anything you don't understand. Be respectful and have fun

PF

LD

Congress

Policy

Extemp

Conflicts: Cy Creek HS, Bridgeland HS, Blanson CTE HS

I was a policy debater in the 1990’s and have been coaching since 1999, currently, I am the coach at Bridgeland High School. I know that ages me, but it should also tell you that the debate I grew up with was much different than what is going on today. I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate. As a debater, it is your job to be clear at all times so you don’t lose me.

General:

• DON’T BE RUDE

• I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS

• It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage

• Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues

• I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage

• Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.

• Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

Speed: I am good with moderate speed, but I can’t judge what I can’t understand. Keep in mind that I am old so you probably need to slow down a bit.

Weighing: Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to. If you don’t weigh for me I have to do it for you and you do not want that to happen.

Other:

Please be respectful to one another I hate judging rounds where the debaters are being rude to one another, debate is supposed to be a respectful exchange of opposing views on a topic and when you take the respect out of that equation debate loses its productivity. Also please do the work for the judge, don't make your judge try to piece things together. Remember I am old so I will probably lose pieces along the way.

One last thing, I am old fashioned. You are participating in a speaking event. Stand up during your speeches and CX/CF periods (Grand Cross would be the exception). You need to persuade me as to why I should be voting for you.

Speaker Points:

26-30

Anything under 26 means you were being rude, discriminatory, or exclusionary.

I have a very long history in speech and debate activities as both a coach and competitor. I have coached all formats of debate along with public speaking and interp events over the last 35 years. I attended high school in a small town Texas school back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, where I competed in policy debate, extemp, oratory, dramatic, prose and poetry. I also competed in college at Southwest Texas State University (which is now Texas State University) in NDT and CEDA along with individual events.

I have been the coach at James E. Taylor High School (Katy Taylor) in Katy, Texas for the last 23 years, where I have coached all events.

In public speaking events, I generally weigh 3 things: analysis, organization, and delivery (in that order). In any public speaking event, I expect to hear citations of credible sources. In extemp I normally expect a minimum of 2-3 source per area of analysis (more is fine). In oratory or info, I expect the student to explain a source's qualifications. A clear organizational structure is required. In terms of delivery, there should be an appropriate level of gesture and movement. But all movement should serve to reinforce the content of the speech. Clear diction and intonation are also important.

Extempers--The analysis in the speech should stem directly from the topic question. If the speech doesn't directly respond to the question asked, you will end up with a low rank from me, no matter the quality of the speech itself. My number 1 rule in extemp--answer the question.

When evaluating interpretation events, I tend to look first to characterization. Blocking and use of space are also an important considerations, but I expect all movement to be motivated. Random movement, or movement just for movement's sake, is distracting and confusing. I have no particular preference on the use of a teaser, but I do want to hear YOU in the intro (as a contrast to the character(s) you are creating). In prose/poetry, the rules of the event require the use of a binder, so I expect you to at least pretend to occasionally look at the pages.

I am not offended by the use of profanity as long as it is integral to the selection performed. I am not a fan of using it just for shock value. Along the same lines, I am not easily offended, and willing to give some latitude on content of the performance. However, I am uncomfortable with selections that are extremely graphic and/or vulgar, or bordering on, or completely pornographic. I realize that it is difficult to explain where that line falls, and I do take that into account. Shocking just to be shocking doesn't score lots of points with me. Basically, if the piece would get an X-rating in a movie theater, I don't want to watch it in an interp round.

Online competitors: I will always take into account limited space, technical issues, etc., when evaluating competitors online. I understand that some things are just out of the student's control when competing online and I do not count that against the student.

Debate: No spreading. Offer clear arguments and reasons to direct me in RFD of the round.

Speech Events: Interesting and unique topic that holds my attention the entire time. Simple and clear presentation of speech. Good use of humor and research throughout the speech.

Interp Events: Great use of characterization and blocking. The piece should paint a clear visual of the scene that holds my attention. The topic should be relevant and important to the competitor and society.

I would consider myself a traditional speech judge. I am very comfortable judging all interp, public address/platform, and limited prep events. I have competed, judged, and coached at all levels (middle school, high school, and collegiate) and am open to the many styles of interp/performance.

As a judge, the thing that matters most to me is that your performance choices are intentional/purposeful. I want to feel like the choices you make are driven by the text. While I appreciate super cool tech/transitions and visually interesting blocking BIG TIME, I also don't like blocking for blocking's sake. If you are incorporating sound effects, etc. in your HIs and DUO/Duet transitions, they need to make sense and have artistic purpose.

Intros matter.

In all speech events, I am looking for the performer to truly CONNECT with their audience. This is just as true (perhaps even more so) for virtual performances. I like polished/clean performances that also feel conversational and authentic. I should always feel as if this is the first time you've spoken these words.

I am pretty picky about clean binder technique in binder events. Your binder tech (sloppy pages turn, etc.) should never pull my focus. This does not mean I don't LOVE cool binder tricks/additions to enhance POI/PR/POE performances. As long as they are clean/polished/purposeful, bring it on! :)

For Platform/Limited Prep Events, I am looking for solid structure (intro, preview/roadmap, conclusion, etc.), good variety of current sources, depth of analysis, and clean/fluent delivery. While delivery is certainly important, a few small fluency issues in limited prep won't bother me - I would ultimately prefer a speech with a strong analysis of the topic that isn't canned.

Overall, just try to have fun, take pride in sharing your stories, and I will have fun with you! :)

I am a Parent judge.

I have judged a couple of debate rounds and have little experience with debate jargon. Please simply your language.

Please speak clearly and slowly and create a narrative throughout the round. The cleanest narrative will have the best chance to win.

I have worked in the software development industry for years and love to hear arguments about technology and software.

Please be nice to each other in round and respect each other, debate is a learning experience and everyone should have fun doing so!

Speech: For speech events, I first look for good structure within the speech. Organization of claims and data is important and valid source material and smooth presentation of the source is needed. The tone of a speech should not be 1 note. There thould be variation in style to drive the emotion and level of importance of the material presented.

Interp Events: Teaser, intro, piece is the traditional presntation structure. The intro must brdge the gap between the teasser and the primary presntatio by unveiling the importqaqnce and merit of the literature. I expect the performer to have a deep understanding of the authors purpose and message. Blocking when needed muist be creative. I put a heavy emphasis on the small technical details. For example, POI: binder blocking and smooth transitions between pieces in the program. The transitions should melt together, not shift abruptly. HI: popping and charater differentiation are important. DI: Character depth and use of space. Duo: Coordination. charaterization, and synchronization.

Debate Events: I evaluate each event differently. I tend to gravitate to what I interpret as the purpose of the debates style when evaliuateing.

Policy: I evaluate all argument types when presented effectivly. LD- I lean more traditional, but I am open to progressive arguments if presented well and properly. PF: I evaluate more traditiotnally and put heavy emphasis on professionalism and personal character, espcially in crossfire. WSD I stick to the governed norms you would see in most judge training sessions. Congressional debate, I evaluate class and well as speech structure heavily. I put wieght into participation and leadership.

In general for debate, I am not a fan of spreading, speak fast at your own risk.

I am a stickler for good presentation and civil debate. Respect and clear argumentation are important for me in all events. I will be very focused on the flow of argumentation and will judge off of what was presented and how.

Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.

CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid Kritiks and spreading.

IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery!

PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.

WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is not encouraged.

Experience heavily concentrated from high school competition and coaching in IEs. However, I've judged debate for about 2 years so I'm aware of most of the nuances of the craft. I have a lot of respect for you all who do it- and respect for those of you who really know the ins and outs and the tech-y stuff (that phrase in of itself should be indicative of my in depth debate knowledge).

I'm a Novice college policy debater, so treat me as a semi-lay judge. I LOVE K debate (red flag), and honestly could care less for T debate, why lie. I have been told I'm a "progressive" LD judge. I approach debate from my background and knowledge of policy debate.

I view debate as above all else, an educational and safe space for all to learn and to express their ideas. With that said, be respectful of your fellow debaters, and if anything in the round makes you uncomfortable- let me know. Speech and Debate is a powerful forum for me to hear your voice, your story and see your personality and narrative. Those aspects are paramount to me as a judge.

Err on the slower side with speed, and don't be messy with your spreading. My background is in speech so you gotta earn your speaks with me- especially if you wanna go fast. Be charismatic in your speaking and present clear and well-articulated arguments, don’t use too much debate jargon or run uber-complex theory. Convince me why I should vote for you.

LD and CX:

TRUTH OVER TECH.

Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine*. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.

*Don't run Topicality unless you're actually checking abuse - I haven't voted on T in, like, a decade.

PF:

Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.

Congress:

I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.

Speech Events:

I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).

Interp Events:

With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question. A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me. Be sure you have several cited sources and have at least 5 quoted pieces of evidence to support your claims.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content. Again, use several cited sources and have quoted evidence for claims you are making in your speech.

Speech Events: I look for a clear preview of your main points of analysis, integration of multiple sources, effective use of gestures and a speech clear of fluency breaks. Nonverbal cues are important and help make your analysis more effective.

interp Events: Great performances will feature clean transitions between characters that have distinct voices for unique characters. I look for students/teams that are well prepared and jive well together. Your personal analysis in the teaser should be easily tied to your piece and a greater theme throughout.

Debate: In all forms of debate I look for a clear impact calculus that sets your impacts apart from your opponents. You are safe to speak at a brisk pace but if you spread I won't be able to keep up well. I'm not a great judge for theory debates, though I understand the basics of topicality. Try your best to persuade me and I will consider any argument.

For Interpretive Speech Events (POI, DI, DUO, HI) I prefer a clean presentation of book etiquette in the events that a black book is needed. Clean page turns and blocking with your black book is preferred.

Clean and syncopated blocking and use of tonality and vocal expression is preferred. Also scenes from exposition to rising and falling action should be well expressed with a variety of emotions and transitions should be clearly articulated in a way that connects audience with characters and literature.

For Debate (CX, PF) I'm a solvency person. Show me plan text and why it matters and how it translates into tangible results that can either maintain or improve the SQ. Overall, as long as AFF and NEG stick to STOCK Issues, I believe it will enhance the overall debate and educational outcomes. I'm open to Kritiks as well.

(LD, WSD) how does your presentation make the world a better place both practically and theoretically. Whichever team can uphold its criterion and prove how the world is a better place under the construct of its case will win.

For INFO, OO, EXTEMP, I prefer quality sources and clean speaker transitions throughout the speech.

Assistant Coach at Spring Woods High School Speech & Debate for Victoria Beard.

Interp: Source of the majority of my experience in Speech & Debate. I look for multiple levels to a performance; character portrayals by students with an understanding of the emotions and stakes of their piece; a concise plot to the cut, coherent from beginning to end; the greater the attention to minor details (mannerisms, gestures, inflection, etc.), the better.

Public Speaking: I enjoy interp-flair, but it cannot supersede the content, argument, or sources of your speaking. I will call you out on inaccuracies.

Debate: Rank your Spread from 1 (slowest) to 10 (fastest), then keep at 5 maximum -- quantity will never match quality. I appreciate excellent enunciation and clarity, and support debaters providing roadmaps for judges. Dropped contentions are watched for. No disclosures after round end.

I mainly judge Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I've coached a small team for about 5 years. I have strong beliefs: 1) Debate should be resolutional. Making up ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with the resolution will count against you. 2) Your case should have good organization. It should be easy for me as a judge that flows to follow your logic and argumentation. 3) Any good argumentation will have not only logic, but 2 or 3 solid pieces of evidence to back up your position. 4) You should be able to have solvency under both your framework and your opponents. Finally, and most importantly, 5) You should show your opponent respect. At no time should you use language intended to intimidate, insult or disrespect your opponent. I have no issue with speed. However, there is a difference between spreading and speaking quickly.

I have been teaching Theatre/ Speech and Debate for 30 years, participated in High School. I am an IE Coach primarily. Although I have coached and judged debate rounds for LD, PF, and most recently Congress and CX.

Articulation is key for me. I need to understand you, the use of the voice and body is also pretty important. The emotional connection to the character needs to be very clear, and there should be motivational beats that I discover in your performance.

Simply put, I am looking for the total package for performers, someone who can immerse themselves in a character but also show me differentiation between characters.

Sandra Peek

CX Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 29 years and coaching 16 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

LD Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 29 years and coaching 16 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are often out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

For congressional debate:

it is called debate not repetition. Clash is not optional.(there is a fine line between clash and disrespect, tread carefully)

I value the ability to adapt, control the room don't let it control you. Be calm, and respectfully dominate, earn respect and you win the room.

if you cause the room to not move to previous-question, you better have the most important speech of the legislation.

if you volunteer to PO, have a very good understanding of parli-procedure

you know the rest.

As a IE judge I look for a clean and polished performance. Good Analysis and Interpretation of characters and a powerful performance.

For Speaking events - Structure and Sources are important as well as a polished performance.

For Debate - LD I prefer a traditional format and value debate. PF I want to see clash, evidence and a clear job going down the flow to show rebuttals of arguments.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park High School

As of 2022 I am a policy debater and Economics student at University of Houston. Back in high school I used to compete in debate and speaking events. I've done World Schools Debate, Info speaking, Extemp, and I did LD for a year. Put together I've been debating for 5 years.

I will try my best to be a “blank slate” for the purposes of the round. If you can convince me, in the context of the debate round, that your argument is true, I will accept it as such. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and why you should win. I am open to all kinds of arguments, as long as you explain them, but prefer when you can show me concrete impacts to vote for.

For policy rounds please put me on the email chain. My email address is: wajih2003@live.com

I.E

The speaker captivates its audience. Is very precise on the approach of persuading or informing. Whether you use your body or not, nonverbal communication represents 93% of my understanding. Speech and debate is a great stage for inclusion and creativity, but use of vulgar words and content should be communicated before hand as to show respect to judges and audience. It is important to protect avenues we use to grow and uphold values of professionalism.

Debate

Purpose of debate at its core is argumentation. Winners in debate events bring not only the passion they have for their side but clear communication that judges and opponents can understand in attempt to create a well exchanged debate. Successful debate research hit the core of the cause at hand, assertions are impactful and are supplemented with recent/reliable evidence. Winners in debate do not always have to prove they are right , just that you are wrong.

Individual events: in exemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.

In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.

In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.

PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.

I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.

Being the presiding officer it means that you have to dedicate your life and your time at the chamber to the speakers and making sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.

I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

SPEECH CATEGORY PARADIGMS:

1. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I LOOK FOR GOOD VOICES, TONE, DICTION, EYE CONTACT, APPROPRIATE GESTURES, AND PURPOSEFUL/SMOOTH MOVEMETS THAT SEEM NATURAL VS MOVING JUST TO MOVE.

2.BELIEVABILITY/EMBODIEMENT OF THE CHARACTERS VS ACTING LIKE THE CHARACTERS, MAINTAINING CHARACTERIZATION THROUGHOUT THE PERFORMANCE/PRESENTATION INCLUDING CLOSING THE PIECE WITH A "BUTTON"/LEAVING A LITTLE GESTURE OR WORD OR PHARSE OR EMOTION THAT CAPS OFF THE PERFROMANCE, AND UNDESTANDING WHAT THE PIECE IS ABOUT AND MEANT TO CONVEY

3. GOOD ATTENTION GETTERS, SOLID STRUCTURE OF THE SPEECH WITH CLEAR THESIS STATEMENTS OR MAIN POINTS ALONG WITH GOOD VISUALS, GOOD TRANSITIONS THAT SMOOTHLY CONNECT IDEAS/POINTS, SOLID CONCLUSIONS THAT PROPERLY SUM UP THE WHOLE SPEECH/PRESENTATION, EVIDENCE WHERE NECESSARY TO BACK UP CLAIMS/INFORMATION

4. PROPER DRESS/STANDARDS SET BY THE TOURNAMENT

DEBATE CATEGORY PARADIGMS:

1. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTIONS BEING DEBATED

2. SPREADING IS FINE, BUT NOT TO THE POINT WHEREBY THE DEBATER CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD

3. GOOD EVIDENCE/SOURCES IS A MUST/THE ABILITY TO PROVE ONE'S POINTS (RESEARCH BASED WHERE NECESSARY)

4. GOOD DICTION, TONE, GESTURES

5. ABILITY TO THINK ON ONE' S FEET WHEN CROSS EXAMINED

6. ABILTY TO PROVE ONE'S ASSERTIONS/CLAIMS AND DEFEND THEM

7. SOUND LOGIC AND GOOD AGRUMENTIVE SKILLS TO COMPLIMENT EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS CLIAMS

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows the judge [me]to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

IE: I believe that whatever you can bring to your speech or performance that is unique and authentic, while drawing an audience in to be fully present with you displays a certain kind of creativity and skill to be appreciated.

Speech: Structure and content are in focus with an appreciation for originality when possible.

Interpretation: Flow of storyline, depth of character, authenticity, as well as the minute details you’ve added throughout your piece displays how much effort and thought have gone into your performance.

Paradigms are cool, but I don’t have anything to say here :)

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent. Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas. I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied.  Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals.  Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy.  Flex prep is fine.