Hey dudes !

I am a rad debate dad. I’ve judged world schools pretty frequently and consider myself to be a pretty okay judge. I’ll vote you up on style content and strategy, but really try and sell what you’re saying to me.

truth> tech

signposting will help you a lot

im a proud speech dad:)

speech events for me:

info, OO :

am I being informed , am I being persuaded and am I being entertained? This all is important to me in these events

try your best to know your material back and forth so you are able to make the best presentation possible when it’s Go time ????

DI, HI:

Does your piece move me and bring emotion to the surface-is it thought provoking ?

Congress : this always is entertaining to me

a good mix of speech and worlds debate here-

Please know your bills and cases for them - I pay attention close to that as well as the cross fire of questions afterwards and how you respond or how you are asking the questions if you are in that case

PF/LD-

this is all about your cases being built very strong - so this is research and memory and able to be quick on your feet in the crossfire questioning

please no spreading

amen.

let’s have some fun!

TLDR: I am a parent judge. Tech over Truth until Truth overwhelms Tech. Make sure everything you ask me to vote on is very well articulated and fully warranted.

While a large part of the day to day in my professional life seems to be one form of debate or another, I have neither debated in school nor have I been part of a debate team. I did judge a few tournaments previously but that is not an experience that would allow me to lay claim to any level of expertise. I would consider myself to be a novice.

Having said that, there are a few things I would submit to debaters and teams that I will have the opportunity and privilege to judge as my preferences

• First and foremost, be respectful to each other, whether it is your own team or the opposing team. I will not entertain any form of condescension
• Please introduce yourself at the beginning of the round. This helps me immensely in collating any feedback I might be able to offer each debater
• To the extent I can and am able, I will share as detailed a feedback as I can. However, please know that at times, 'time' is very limited and I might not have the opportunity to offer feedback commensurate of the effort that you put into preparation and the rounds
• If I see a clear separation amongst the competitors in terms of quality of argument and am allowed to (and able to), I will share who won the round and why. However, more often than not, I find that participants do a really great job and it takes time for me to review my notes and reflect back on the performance to judge the winners. In such cases, I will refrain from sharing any specifics on performance immediately after a round
• Given my status as a novice, I will attempt to prepare and read up on the format I am to judge ahead of time so I have an idea on what to expect. However, if the competing teams could take a minute to lay out their understanding of the format, I would greatly appreciate the consensus

Hope this helps and if you are reading this....wish you the very best in the tournament!

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Citations after the article introduction are preferred.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build a value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and the criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

An empirical, but highly persuasive philosophical approach can potentially work just as well.

Please explain your views on Kritik arguments.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support: as every criticism needs at least one "For example" or at the very least a thorough clarification with a credible referenced source.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. Avoid paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be on winning the debate, not just attacking a person's style or flaws, or method. Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

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. This is especially important for Policy and World Schools: teams will lose points for whispering audibly during their opponents' speeches; learn to communicate with your teammates by writing!

Graceful winners are as important as those with the maturity and fortitude needed to learn from each loss.

Hi, my name is Holly Garrison (They/Them) and I'll be your judge.

I have done debate for long enough to understand how most of this stuff works. I'm a senior at Colleyville Heritage.

You don't have to but if you do make an email chain add me at Hollydebate22@gmail.com

PF

• Tech over truth(If you make an argument back it up)
• I'm okay with progressive arguments
• Please don't spread My therapist said it was bad for me
• No bigotry, please
• It's PF so please don't run a K, there isn't enough time in a round to do the discussion justice so you are just reading it for a win
• When it comes to weighing my value, unless otherwise disproven, is utilitarianism(most good for most people)
• I don't flow crosses but I do pay attention
• #abolishgrandcross

LD

Short and Simple

• I will value any argument so long as it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything bigoted.
• DO NOT spread. Even if you have a speech doc if you are not coherent I will not flow your argument.
• I'm very tech so if you are going to present an argument please provide some sort of evidence(either analytic or sourced)
• I prefer if teams disclose without it being a big deal but feel free to not disclose as long as you are speaking clearly
• I have experience with a lot of the theory arguments but if you are unsure if you should run something then show up early and ask me

Long and Complicated

Framework- I will value any framework. I do believe when submitting a framework you should have some definitions of your value and your criterion that way there can be an actual framework debate. I do like a good framework debate but I believe that they should have substance more than "framework is better." That said, I will still flow all framework debates. I also do not need a philosophy with your framework but if you have one more power to you.

Disclosure- I would prefer if everyone discloses sometime before your speech. I'm open to any form of disclosure(Speechdrop, Email chain, the new Tabroom speech drop, case list) so long as I get the speech doc. I also don't believe in this new contact disclosure theory so please don't run that.

Spreading and Speed-I'm fine with spreading and can handle a decent amount of speed. If you are going to go 80+ words per minute please send a speech doc and be clear in your delivery. If you are just mumbling to try and get out all 6 of your contentions then I will shout "clear" that way I can understand you.

Topicality -I need either limits or grounds to flow them and I need appropriate voters to properly value them. Do not just stand up and call your opponent abusive and tell me to strike them. Tell me why your opponent's argument shouldn't be valued or I will still keep it on my flow.

Theory- Like topicality, I typically need some grounds and you CANNOT just stand up and call your opponent abusive. Theory(when done well) will be valued first before impacts so please if you are reading some sort of theory or theory shell please just do it well.

Kritiks- I've read some of the literature(Edelman, Puar, Marx, Engles, Fisher) but I've never loved K debates. If you want to read a K I do have high expectations because you are purposefully changing the round away from the resolution so I need this to be a well-thought-out argument if you are planning on running some like a K.

DA's- For the Disadvantage to win it needs to either Turn, Outweigh, or Solve the case. And I am not going to be doing the work for you on this one. Tell me why you are winning and show me where you are winning.

Counter Plans- I will always love counter plans. I think, when done well, they are really strong. Just make sure that if your opponent doesn't provide their own plan text your counter plan is against the whole resolution.

Perms- I understand perms and I think they are strong counters to counter plans but I need proper answers to the counter plan and not just "perm do both"

Plan/No plan aff- I do not require a plan on the aff and I'm ok with any type of affs so long as they're clear and understandable. So long as the argument isn't bigoted I'll flow it.

Tricks/Spikes/Small Abusive stuff-Please don't. If you do decide to run these arguments just try to keep them fair.

I prefer if everyone keeps their own time. I will have a stopwatch going to keep your time but the round will go a lot smoother if you keep your own time. I will allow a grace period of about 10 seconds before I just stop flowing and I will cut you off after about 25 seconds over.

Also, try to pay attention during the round but if you need to check your phone or type something just don't be disruptive

If you have any questions before or after the round please email me at Hollydebate22@gmail.com

Let's have a good round y'all

Hello everyone!

My name is Gianfranco Laddaga (Gian for short is fine), I'm currently a law student at Texas Tech Univ. of Law, I graduated from and debated for UNT. I have and still do coach for college-level IPDA, and used to coach high school level CX and LD. I've been debating for about a decade now, and am globally ranked within the top 8 of IPDA forensic debaters 2024.

If you have any questions about your ballot or decision, feel free to email me at gianfrancoladdaga@gmail.com

My paradigms are pretty simple;

Debate:

In order to get my vote, your argument should be an even mix of logic and evidence used to properly present your argument, knowledge of your argument is vital to me, which means if you are just reading off a script or cards and have no further knowledge or way to synthesize your words and argument, that might not translate well. Please do not just spout sources and assume that wins you the round, if you as a debater cannot synthesize your sources with logic and make it flow, your source has no value. I enjoy when arguments are made in conversational manner where it feels like you are talking to me as a judge, rather than just blurting out whatever you wrote on your paper/word doc.

I prefer a consistent speaking pace, I understand spreading, but I do not like it. That being said, I understand that our cases are loooong, so if spreading is NECESSARY for you, I recommend that after any important card/source/argument, you slow it down and explain to me the gist of what you said before you move on.

I've debated CX, Extemp, LD, Mock Trial, IPDA, and Moot Court over a span of a decade now, so I promise I'm well rounded and can accurately judge the round. Even so, it never hurts to crystallize your points and make it clear what you are saying, explain your argument to me as if I had no clue what's going on.

Links and impacts are important to me, don't just read off your evidence, tell me why what you are saying is connected with what the opposition is saying, and why it's more important than the evidence they brought up. CLASH! Do not ignore any evidence or points brought up by the other team, even if it's a small one, address it and tell me why it doesn't apply or should not outweigh your own.

Overall, have fun and be respectful, debate is about civilized conversation, I will downvote any rudeness or inappropriate language towards anyone.

and don't worry, I give HIGHLY detailed ballots, I know how annoying it can be to get a vague ballot as a competitor after a round that you want to improve in.

Speech Events:

All I ask is that you provide warnings if you will be discussing any potentially triggering topics so that your competitors may exit before your speech if they so choose. Stepping out due to a trigger warning will not affect your score.

Please note that on the ballot itself will be almost exclusively constructive feedback, this does not mean your speech was bad and/or I didn't like it. I firmly believe every speaker has room to grow and improve, so please don't be discouraged.

Most importantly, have fun! :)

I am a parent judge. I have judged PF, LD, World Schools, and some IE events, as well.

If you speak too fast, and it gets to the point where I cannot understand, I will stop taking notes and anything you say fast will not be on the ballot.

I judge mainly based on the information in your case and the way it's presented. The format/structure of your case is not as important to me as long as it's easy to understand and flows well.