Per state rules, I believe teams should follow the set standards of formality. This includes, but is not limited to, maintaining a timely debate, not facing the opposing speakers and refraining from any implication of perceived abuse towards another speaker. Eye contact and speeches should be directed toward the judge only. Additionally, a copy of a team's case or citation cards must be presented to the opposing team upon request. Rapid fire delivery that inhibits effective communication will be penalized. In terms of Topicality, I believe in a tabula rasa approach, and feel that there is room to allow some deviation from original language, and provide metaphorical examples to support a case, within reason. Proof that the affirmative's plan is not in line the with the resolution will be held to a high standard.

Tab judge (I.E. I will not connect the dots for you). Any and all arguments need to have offense behind them for them to be counted Stock issues, DA's, CP's, are all good. Theory and K's I will listen to and weigh as long as they are not being run just to run. This is a speaking event and not a speed reading event is my take on speed in a debate round. Meaning, if it is not on my flow, it does not exist in the debate. I do not like new off-case arguments in the 2 NC unless the affirmative opens the door.

Hey guys!

I'm so glad that you guys have decided to participate in such an amazing curriculum. I started to debate my junior year and got the fantastic opportunities to compete at state in policy and congress, as well as NSDA nationals for Original Oratory! I currently get to compete on an amazing Parliamentary team at UT Tyler with the most incredible coach who has raised several national title holders. I love debate, and you should too. As for my paradigm here it is!

Policy; I think the most important thing in the debate is education, Don't focus on winning or losing but what you take away from the debate, I think it is the affs job to prove that the world is worse than the status quo and if this is successful I will vote aff. However, if the neg proves otherwise, I would vote there. But other than that, I am open to any debate, I love K's as a parli debater, showcase what you have!

Congress; Congress can be aggressive, passionate, confident, and reasonable and you will succeed.

Extemp; Really focus on your movement and language throughout the speech, it really gets my attention, but also be organized in your speech and stances.

speech events; the more passion the better

For CX and LD:

I am primarily Stock and Policy. I.e. Framework, evidence, why this outweighs, clash, etc. I'm not a big fan of Kritics, but it's a case-by-case basis, and I'll still flow it. Give Voters!!

Seating isn't too important, but I prefer Aff on my Left, Neg on my Right. (Your Right and Left respectively as you're facing me.)

Speed-reading is okay as long as it isn't 1000wpm. If you do spread, at least slow down for taglines.

You can keep your own time if you'd like, but I will be timing as well, and my timer is final. My timer begins on your first word. For Prep Time, I will give 30 second intervals unless told otherwise. Be sure to tell me to "Cease prep time," otherwise it will continue to run.

Please ask "Judge/floor ready?" before you start, I may still be writing or getting my timer ready.

Framework/going down the flow is important, and sign-posting is much appreciated. If you jump back and forth from On/Off case, I may get lost and mistake your attacks for your defense and vice versa.

Off-time roadmaps are preferred, but not necessary.

I personally will not join your Speech Drops or take a copy, what I hear is what I write. This is so I'm not reading ahead of what you say, or adding in any cut portions. You can still share your speeches with your opponents if you'd like.

I'm not great at disclosures, but everything will be on the ballot and hopefully helpful to your learning experience.

For Extempt:

One person in the room at a time. Hand me your topic when you're ready.

The timer begins at your first word. Starting from 7m, I will start hand-signing at 5m-1m, give 30s (horizontal, extended index finger), 15s (half, horizontal, index finger), then hand-sign again from 5s-1s. For practice tournaments, a 10 second grace period past 7 minutes will be given, but you will not be in first place. I apologize ahead of time if I'm too engrossed in writing that I forget to hand-sign.

My scoring criteria is as follows, in order of importance:

Speech. Introduction (Attention grabber, topic, answer, preview of key points), Body (Key points with sources to back them), Conclusion (Restate topic, answer, closing statements.)

Body language and voice. Any or lack of: swaying, stepping into points, hand gestures, eye contact, stutters, changes in pitch, rate, pauses. Essentially, confidence. If a notecard is being used, are you reading it word for word, or are you just glancing at it?

Time. This isn't as important, because if the rest is done properly, a 2 minute speech could be better than a 7 minute jumble of words. Was each point given an adequate amount of time? Was it over the time limit?

Policy -

I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking but be aware that I will time them. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.

I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!

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

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

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.