Debate- I look for good clash. I don't mind spreading but I am getting older and if I miss something I feel that's on you. You should know what your cards are saying beyond just reading them. Yes, reference and use them, but also know them. Extensions are good. For Policy- K's, Topicality, Theory should be well framed and explained, when used well I will hold value to them.

IE's-

Speech Events- Organization and use of evidence is key. I look at movements and hand gestures matching the piece and being purposeful. You pacing should be understandable

Interp Events- Emotions should match the piece as well as movements. I also enjoy when they sound natural. It should flow smoothly and make sense. Time is important but not a deal breaker if the piece is more solid than the rest, but being too short in time could make it harder to advance you in later rounds when everyone is so solid. Your vocal variety and pacing should make sense with the piece.

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers reckon 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.

Delivery and form are important factors for me: in competition, just like in life, when I am the audience, I do not want to have to strain to understand what is being said. I want to be intellectually challenged, with interesting, innovative and well connected arguments, not by having to follow the debate in a foreign language that I am not very good in.

Attack and defense should be respectful and focused on the content of the points made. We are not at court, and a debate is not won a technicalities, but on the strength of arguments and the evidence for the related support.

I like to see debaters make connections to historic and scientific evidence, really put their argument into context.

How well a debater is able to engage with the argument of an opponent and rebut it with evidence based new support that has not been brought up in the prepared speech is an important factor for me.

memorial '25

im a flex debater for memorial. id like to consider myself laid back so do whatever you want.

1 - k

2 - theory, phil

3 - larp, trix

Head Coach for Kempner. LD / Extemp when I was in school, but LD was very different then.

I approach every round as if I know essentially nothing about it, beyond what an average person who has normal levels of world knowledge would know on it. While I probably have researched the topic or know it from working with my students, it is your job as the debater to explain and convince me of your argument.

Be kind and have fun. While debates can get intense, they should never delve into rudeness or unprofessionalism. If your opponent is being rude to you, I've already documented it and will report it accordingly.

Spreading is highly and actively discouraged. Debating should be about logic, argument, and genuine debate. Spreading removes the ability to have an effective engaging back and forth. Jamming 100 cards into a speech and does not provide anything to anyone, nor do rebuttals where the entire time is "opponent missed this card, and this card, and this card" when neither me nor your opponent know that you even said it. You're here to debate and argue for why I should agree with you. If I do not hear it, it will not count in your favor. If you see me not typing (with exception to cross), I'm not flowing/understanding it.

Explain the why. Claims made that don't explain how or why something would happen will be weighed significantly less. Example: If you state that raising taxes will lead to nuclear war, then immediately move on to your next point without having evidence or a direct chain of events that will lead to this impact does not hold any weight at all to me and is just a baseless claim.

I disclose in out rounds, but not in prelims.

I am the speech coach for Kempner High School, which means that your delivery matters.

Don't stare me down. Eye contact is good, but staring me down becomes uncomfortable. You have an opponent, so give them the courtesy of making eye contact.

Don't spread. The human brain can only process so much information. To me, this is about your argument and logic. I appreciate a compelling argument. I do not appreciate competitors who speak so quickly and fill those few minutes shoving in so much information that it become difficult to follow your argument.

I am a parent judge. I am a lawyer by profession, so I am very familiar with the black letter law of how these debates work and what each side has to prove in order to win their case. I have argued before a judge in actual trial proceedings.

I have judged Extemporaneous speaking as well. I like to see the candidates talk about each of their points completely before moving on to the next one.

I prefer no spreading by the students, as it can be hard to understand and follow for me. However, I appreciate the art of it, so if a student is most effective using spreading, then that is fine. I do not mind studying the documents provided. It just might take me longer to make a decision.

I do not disclose, as I tend to finish thinking about the arguments both sides made before I submit my ballot, so results are rarely immediate.

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

For some background info I'm mainly experienced in Public Forum. I can handle just about any speed, so long as you clearly state your contentions and the framework of your case. A roadmap before second rebuttal and summary would also be much appreciated.

I have some knowledge on LD and very limited on speech, thought I'm happy judging anything.

My biggest preferences are:

- weighing (this gives me a reason to vote for you beyond the arguments and cards you present at the beginning of the round)

- use your prep time to exchange cards (I don't like spending more than five minutes simply to exchange a card; if you think you might need more than five minutes, please use your prep time to ensure we don't take up unnecessary time)

- be respectful during CX

- clash (don't just state your points, prove why they're better than your opponents with evidence and make sure you actually go against your opponents, rather than avoiding what they say)

I try not to be too picky and, like I said earlier, I'm genuinely happy judging anything.

I am a stock issues judge. I believe that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens. If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. As a stock issue judge, I generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.

Hi my name is Annie Thomas and I'm a parent judge.

I haven't judged this year but I did judge some last year.

I'm not familiar with progressive arguments, I am a lay judge.

Be professional and if you read things with a policy approach stay within a value framework.

I am a parent judge that has slight experience with judging debate.

Please avoid Hurtful comments or rude behavior (ex: sexism, racism, etc.) ,will not be tolerated.

Please do not speak too fast or spread as I may not be able to understand what you are saying so it will not be on my flow. Keep in mind that I am a lay judge!

Time yourself, and if it is an event where you cannot then explain how you would like time signals.

Most importantly, be respectful, have fun, and good luck!

Most of my feedback will be on the written RFD.