My pronouns are she/her/hers. My debate experience started in High school with Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, Parliamentary debate, and most extensively World Schools Debate. I am currently a student at George Washington University continuing in Parli.

The main thing I expect to see in a round is respect for your opponents. Keep your arguments on the topic, don’t resort to insults or petty commentary. It will not win you the round.

My judging is focused on two areas: Content and Style. Do not expect to win a round solely off of one or the other.

What do you need to do to win?

1. First, follow the rules of the debate and respect your opponents; obviously. Don’t bombard a speaker with POIs to the point they cannot provide adequate argumentation (this can get annoying and is far too aggressive- plus it kills the vibe honestly). Don’t ask another question/provide a statement right after your POI has been answered or acknowledged by the opponent UNLESS you have been accepted for a follow up. If your POI hasn’t been answered or even acknowledged for more than 20 seconds, please sit down (I will for sure notice this and consider it during the ballot and for my decision). You’re only wasting time you could use for flowing at that point. Lastly, just respect your opponents protected time.

2. Next, structure. If you haven’t practiced your speech as first speaker, or done mock rounds, it’s clear as day in your timing. I want definitions, burdens, first and second substantive, and a foundation for framing in first speeches (1st opp: you can decide if you want to do rebuttals first or case, that’s a strategic decision that can either give you a strong head start or kill you depending on how well your first speaker is. So be smart about it, especially if your case is lengthy). Second speeches MUST start with rebuttal first, flowing your previous two substantives to ensure they are not dropped, (even if they aren’t the BEST, it’s better to have some material than to be left with nothing by the end of the round because you dropped all your subs..) and then finally introducing your third substantive. Third speech should not include any new arguments; they will not be flowed by me. You should be painting a picture to me of your world, comparing how both sides would look, and of course THREE BIG QUESTIONS. Please! These are big in my decision making. And finally, fourth speech should flow those three subs once again, connecting them to the framing of the debate, proving you have met the burden (or how opponents have failed to meet) and finalize with your voters (as many as you feel there are).

3. Argumentation.
- Fallacies are stupid and dumb please don’t try these during a debate. Same with over-exaggerations, hyperboles, etc etc. If you know an opponents information is false too, please, speak up because catching someone in a lie or proving they don’t really know what they are talking about is truly satisfying.

- Like I said with structure, three big questions and voters are important. If your subs have been dropped, don’t stop including them in your speeches in ways that tie to your opponents big questions; then you kill two birds with one stone.

- Impacts. Not only will these help outweigh your opponents big questions, basically rendering them useless, they add personality and urgency to your case/side. A team that doesn’t recognize the importance of impact is a sad one.

About Me:

Jack C. Hays High School CO'2019

UT Austin CO'2023

Add me to the email chain: jackcoffey@utexas.edu

Events I have experience from actually doing in High school: Extemp (FX/DX/UIL Extemps), Congress, PF, LD, World Schools

I have experience judging other speech events too: Info/OO/DI/HI/Duo/etc.

My primary events overall were extemp & congress and I have experience on the local, state, and national level after having competed all throughout high school.

PF/LD Debate:

For PF, I generally always vote based on impact calculation. So pretty much tell me why your side does more for whoever or why the other side doesn't do enough for me to vote for them. Weighing on what side is more important and which has more to gain is really how I prefer to do my ballots. Always tell me what side is winning and why I should vote for them and how the debate has progressed to preferring their side. For framework, I won't vote based on it unless you make a point out of it on why I should. Really framework doesn't make or break a ballot from me unless a team explains why it's relevant and why it essentially causes one side to win over another. Overall, the easiest way to get a ballot from me is through impact calculation on which side brings more to the table or why the other side does not do enough. My biggest evaluation for a ballot is always impacts. Please avoid spreading and watch the speed. I am a more traditional judge so speaking so fast to the point I can barely understand you is not always going to be the best option for you. Please avoid speed, especially when explaining things. Being a bit faster on reading cards is okay I guess, but I prefer having less speed overall.

For some niche things, if you do not mention an argument from either side or touch debate it in any way, I am just going to assumed it has been dropped. While I can keep time if you want, it is not preferred, so please time yourselves.

In regards to presentation, since it is PF debate and meant to be easily accessible to the public, please don't spread especially in the later speeches. More speed will make me less likely to understand what is being said and gives me little reason to vote for your team. Pretty much consider me more of a lay judge than anything. For speaking, just be clear and concise really. Also I really don't like rude or spiteful speeches no matter how the debate has ran.

More LD Specific Stuff:

I am not a totally progressive judge when it comes to some arguments so if I do not mention them below, just assume I have no experience in those types of arguments and avoid running them at your own discretion unless you think you're just that amazing to introduce me to a new argument and compelling enough to get me to vote on it:

Plans/Counterplans (CP) - Completely cool with me, just be sure to explain what it does and how it causes your side to win the debate. Plans/CPs are acceptable in PF for me.

Topicality (T) - Topicality is cool as long as you explain why the other side violates topicality in regards to the debate.

Kritiks (K) - I am very new to this kind of debate, but I am generally okay with it as long as you don't have a ton of speed whilst explaining. Additionally, you need to explain what harms/impacts are brought on when you assert your opponent violates the K argument. For example, if you run capitalism K, explain to me why capitalism is bad. So many people have just said that I should vote for them because capitalism is bad without explaining much how or why it is bad. I know this is super basic but you have to explain why other teams violating the K argument is a bad thing (whether it be capitalism, settler colonialism, states, etc.). Tell me why capitalism is bad and why I should vote for you!!

For speaker points, I generally give higher speaks to people who are more clear, articulate, and organized. The lowest I usually give to people is ~27 unless they have done something so bad such as being rude or very disorganized throughout the whole round to warrant something lower. Speed plays a part in speaks in that I do not prefer spreading and speed is not my forte in a round. Overall, as long as you are organized and well articulated and respectful throughout the debate I will give you decent speaks.

Extemp/Speech:

I did both FX & DX in high school so I have experience in these events and know what an appropriate speaker looks like. For your speeches, you should obviously be well-spoken and organized in throughout your round. In particular for content, good extemp speakers are able to articulate information from a wide array of sources and convey it in a manner that is articulate and entertaining. Specifically, I prefer speakers who are informative and/are entertaining by incorporating humor, emotional content, pertinent information and a wide array of relevant sources. Being funny when relevant and doing it well will always gain good points with me! Additionally, always be sure to EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Many people often just give me some facts and expect the audience to make something of it. Explain what information is important and why! Tell me what it means and how it pertains to the question of your speech. For the beginning of your speech, it should be a well done introduction that at least initially catches my attention through a thought provoking or funny statement, provides some background to your topic, tells me the question verbatim, provides me your answer and a preview of your points. For your actual points, you should aim to provide at least 2 sources of relevant information and have some structure within each point to have some flow and organization. Within each point you should again always explain the information you present to give some good insight into the importance of each point and why the audience should essentially care.

In regards to performance and presentation, I prefer speakers who speak clearly with adequate speed since a lot of people get nervous and tend to speed through their speech and use up their time. As a speaker, you should aim to be relaxed and be able to balance the time you are given throughout your speech to make the most of your presentation. Moreover, having a good physical presentation is preferred such as a good usage of hand gestures, appropriate movement (such as a slight walk when transitioning between points), and maintaining eye contact with your audience.

For cross-examination, I don't put too much emphasis on this as it is not something I would consider making or breaking your speech. Really, I just look for speakers who are kind and respectful and are able to defend their points and know their own topic well. Pretty much just don't be rude or sarcastic and you'll be fine with me.

Congress:

Pretty much refer to my extemp/speech paradigms. I have tons of experience of doing Congress from high school so I know what to look for and how good speakers are supposed to look. For your speeches, aside from the first or second affs/negs of the bill, all speeches should include some sort of clash or argumentation of the other speakers' arguments. This is congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving.

Presiding Officers should aim to be quick, effective, organized, and knowledgeable on parliamentary procedure. Just maintain precedence for speakers and be transparent about what is being done so the whole chamber understands what is going on. Making mistakes is okay as long as it is not a pattern so I know you really know what you're doing. Also it's cool with me if you time with your phone as the P.O., just make sure it does not become a problem through using it for communication or if you have tons of notifications that can be distracting.

World Schools Debate:

Just refer to the Speech and LD/PF portion of my paradigms as that is how I generally judge speakers and how I view a round is supposed to look. I do have experience in Worlds so I am pretty aware on how the event runs. Just be well organized, clear, and articulate. As a side note: avoid using more progressive arguments (theory, topicality, k's, etc.) as they are not to exist in worlds in my opinion. Overall, just provide clear impacts and weighing throughout the round and you'll be fine.

CX Debate:

I have no experience in this event and should not be judging it unless you like relatively traditional PF judges.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 24 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at UTNIF and also at Stanford. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

Hello everyone! My name is KJ (he/him), I competed all 4 years of high school and now go to Texas State University.

I am primarily an IE person. I competed in every IE event including OO, Info, and Extemp. I as well competed in World Schools a bit too. I was a 4x state qualifier, state finalist, 5x state semi finalist, 2x NIETOC semifinalist, and a 3x NSDA qualifier. I was as well an All-State and All-American competitor with over 2200 NSDA points. What I am looking for is understanding of the piece. How well thought out it is and how much effort you have noticeably put into it goes a LONG way.

IE's

- Needs to be clean, concise, and have a deeper meaning as to why you're telling the story, interp is acting with a purpose

- Be proud of what you're performing! and have fun with it!

- Characterization is key, I want to see real peoples stories that I am actually able to connect to

- I want to know what's going on! Don't just throw us into the middle of everything, give us some exposition, who are you? Where are you? What is going on?

OO, Info, Extemp, WS

- Are you just telling me the facts? Or are you engaging with the information and the topic you've chosen and presenting it in an effective way?

- Charisma is KEY, you wrote this speech, be proud of it!

- How well thought out is your argument or topic?

- Are you speaking fluidly and confidently or are you using filler words and swaying nervously?

- Make sure that you're applying the facts that you give to the grand scheme of things, what are the implications?

Like I said earlier, I was always more of an interp person. However, I do know all of the rules and the ins and outs of debate! I may not be as adept as I am with speech but I know my way around. Essentially just treat me as a lay judge who knows a lot about the subject.

Debate

• Well thought out arguments will go a long way, the more you put into a speech the more you will get out of it, and trust me when I say that we as judges notice how much effort you put into it
• How well do you structure your speech? How well does it flow?
• How do you respond to questions and how do you interact in the round?
• Don't just tell me what you are going to do but also HOW you are going to accomplish it and WHY
• Add me to the email chain plz - kjamarino@gmail.com
• As far as flowing goes, I'm not a stickler for it during cross so don't worry about it
• I can follow spreading but if you'd like to have mercy on my soul and not that would be awesome
• I'm not a huge theory argument person, so if I feel you're twisting the resolution in a way that it most likely wasn't intended as may not work if its too far out there

All of these are just my personal opinions regarding judging, please do not change your speech or performance based on trying to get my 1. So long as you have fun, enjoy what you're doing, and you are proud of the work you've presented, that is all I ask.

Email: kjamarino@gmail.com

Email: teahmbang@gmail.com

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

Hi! I'm Teah Mbang, and I competed for Tuloso-Midway High School from 2017-2020.

I did LD, WSD, Congress, Extemp, Info, and OO. I've been in out rounds of Congress on a national and state level, qualified to the national tournament all three years I was in debate, been invited to the extemp round robin, and I was TOC & NIETOC qualified in Congress, and Extemp.

First, I want to start off by saying, do what makes you comfortable and what you're good at. I firmly believe that debate is about education and having conversations that allow us to be better people and debaters. I would rather judge a round that you are comfortable having than a round where you're trying to satisfy my paradigm.

That being said, some things need to happen for me to judge the round to its full potential:

That being said there are some things that need to happen in order for me to judge the round to its full potential:

1. Ensure that you adequately explain your claims, warrants, and impacts. I shouldn't have to connect the dots when listening to your cases/rebuttals/speeches. Not only will this help me judge the round, but it will also help you and your opponent better understand what is happening.

2. Be persuasive! At the end of the day, you pulling me to your side of the debate is what you want, and it's what should happen.

3. Please, please, please, do not be rude in any way. As a former competitor, I know that rounds can get heated, but keeping calm is always the best option. I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS IN ANY FORM. Simply put, I will not vote for you if you're acting rude, racist, homophobic, classist, xenophobic, etc. Let's create a safe place for everyone. :)

4. Tell me how to vote. If you tell me how to vote, why I should vote that way, and why it matters in the round, it'll be an easy ballot. Paint the picture for me, and don't leave me guessing.

LD:

In terms of LD, I've always preferred a traditional debate. I enjoy traditional value, criterion, and contention level debate. I firmly believe that a framework is essential and can sometimes make or break a round. With that, I'm not a fan of theory, unless there is clear abuse happening. I don't enjoy debates about debates because I think it takes time away from the topic and doesn't truly show your skill as a debater. However, I will vote for theory, if executed correctly. (If you run theory, have all the correct parts, and really stick with it through and through, then I'll vote for it.)

I'm also really fond of comparative worlds. What does the world of the AFF look like? What does the world of the NEG look like? Explain why I would rather live in one world over the other, and why that should matter at all in the debate.

Lastly, I do listen to the CX in rounds. I think it's excellent when debaters bring the questions or answers from the CX into their rebuttals. It shows that you were listening and genuinely trying to find a way to have the debate on your side.

Congress:

I've always had a love-hate relationship with Congress (as I'm sure you all understand). I think the debate concept is great. However, when you're actually in the round, I know it can be intense and often even toxic. As a congress judge, that's something I note. I don't care how great a speaker you are; if you're belittling others, I won't rank you high. Period. :)

Judges say this about a million and one times, I genuinely hate rehash! I know it's bound to happen, but keep it at a minimum, or just move on, so the round doesn't get bland. Additionally, I LOVE unique arguments because they add a lil something to the round, so if you make out of the box arguments, I'll note it.

I think crystals are great, especially if you're one of the last speeches! That being said, a crystal isn't you reading an early-round speech with just some refutation. It should be a whole lot of refutation about some of the biggest arguments made in the round.

Lastly, I do listen to the CX in rounds. I think it's great when debaters bring the questions or answers from the CX into their speeches. It shows that you were listening and truly trying to find a way to have the debate on your side.

Have fun, and good luck!

EVERYONE READS

Clements '22 | UT '26

4 years of PF, state and nats qual a few times. etc you know the deal

email: krastogi4444@gmail.com, put me on the chain

If I hear you were discriminatory or bigoted in any fashion at any point, in or outside of the round, you will immediately get tanked speaks for the rest of the season. and obviously lose that specific round If you have questions about this, ask.

I will give you more speaks if you bring me food or energy drinks or candy; the better the food the more speaks you get

if for ANY reason you want to forfeit the round before it begins, I will give everyone perfect speaks.

i try to be relatively chill but the longer yall take to get the round started the harsher ill be with speaks

keep track of each other's time, I won't intervene but if someone goes over, bring it up in a speech and I won't evaluate it

PF is directly below, WSD is at the end, ask if you have any questions

PF PARADIGM BELOW

if you need to preflow do so before the round starts, especially if it's running late.

Case

• Send cases to me before you speak. Cut cards get +.5 speaks for both speakers.
• Slow down on tags and impacts.
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case.
• Some speed is fine but if you spread, I'll say clear once, then I'll dock speaks and probably not flow it how you want.

Rebuttal

• If you read an off, send it before you read it.
• The second rebuttal must defend its own case or it's considered conceded, unless you read something warranting why you shouldn't have to, which must also be read in second rebuttal or case.

Summary

• By far the most important speech in the round so be careful
• If you want to extend links, do more than say "extend x link/author/contention". Actually explain why you circumvent any defense.
• A clean extension includes uniqueness, warranting, links, and impacts.
• If you're going to extend a turn, implicate the response through to an impact, or I'll consider it defense at best.
• Now that summaries are 3 minutes, defense is NOT sticky, so it needs to be extended.
• If you want anything to be in final focus, it needs to be in summary, including weighing. That's the case for BOTH summaries.

Final

• A perfect final focus would mirror summary in both content and order.
• Do not bring up new warranting, evidence, or weighing. I will simply not flow it AND I will dock speaks.
• Please do actual weighing, don't just start listing weighing mechanisms.

Cross

• I won't be paying full attention, but don't steamroll. Let your opponent ask and answer questions.
• Cross is binding, so long as it is brought up in a speech.

Extra/General Stuff

this part is all over the place so just read through it all

• If your opponents are clearly novices, don't spread or dump on them. Just be nice.
• I have very little experience with progressive arguments, but I am not opposed to them. If you want to run them anyway, good luck. I'll evaluate it but it may not be how you want me to. Email it to me before you read it and mention it in the signpost.
• Just because I'm a flow judge does NOT mean I have prior topic knowledge, don't act like I do.
• If you read a trigger warning before a speech and someone speaks up, change the argument. If you don't you will get an auto 25L.
• Flex prep, open crosses, and open speeches are fine if everyone in the round is fine with it.
• If there is no offense in the round please trigger presumption, but warrant out the ballot. I don't want to hear "no offense means you vote neg/first speaking/coin flip loser". Judge intervention defeats the purpose of debate, but if I have to, I will.
• I think speaks are stupid so if you read something that says I should give everyone 30s, I’ll buy it
• I'm stealing this from someone idk who but I'll buy Technical Knock Outs (TKO). At any speech in the round you can directly address me and claim a TKO if you believe the opponents have no routes to the ballot. If I agree, you'll get an auto W30. If I disagree, you get an auto L25. The round will end immediately. High risk, high reward.
• If you play music THAT I LIKE during prep or your own speech, I will boost speaks.
• The only situation in which I will read evidence after round is if I am explicitly told to in a speech. Implicate why the evidence matters or doesn't, poor evidence ethics is not an RFD.
• I will dock speaks for poor evidence ethics if it's brought up. If you want me to do more, you can try reading a drop the debater arg, no promises I'll buy it.

If I specifically ask you if you have questions before or after the round, feel free to ask me questions. Don't postround me into trying to change my decision though.

WSD PARADIGM BELOW

I begin each round by assigning points as honestly as possible according to the WSD rubric for speaks. However, I am of the strong belief that whoever wins the actual debate should win the round, NOT whoever has more arbitrarily assigned points. Hence, as the round progresses, I will go back and tweak points as I think is consistent and fair. If, for example, a team brings me food but gets beat badly in round, the food will increase their speaks but will NOT win them the round.

• I have judged and coached WSD longer than half of y'all have done WSD just keep that in mind
• Model/CM + burden + "worlds" should be in the very first speech and extended from thereon
• WSD should not be evidence heavy, but a few examples are fine
• I will dock points for having a US-centric or Eurocentric model/argument
• The round is supposed to progress and evolve; do not spend the entire reply speech talking about arguments from the first speech.
• I have judged so many rounds and have seen maybe one example of actual weighing in WSD. Please please please weigh; weighing is more than just listing mechanisms
• The round is so long and so boring, you will do better if you make your speeches engaging
• please know the rules concerning POIs, especially when you can and can't ask them
• speeches are directed at judges, POIs are directed at debaters, it is very annoying when you do the reverse
• Either/both teams can make the argument that teams should get close to/perfect speaks and if it is warranted, I will buy it.
• i have some fun things in my pf paradigm in the 'extra' section above, you can do them in WSD so long as you talk to me before round starts (TKO, presumption, etc. )