Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I use She/Her pronouns. I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school, as well as Congress and duo interpretation, briefly. I have a decent amount of experience judging speech. I now compete in CX at Trinity University.

Add me to the email chain if there is one: mmalvarado04@gmail.com

Debate & Speaks:

-You will get good speaks and do well if you have comprehensive, clear overviews at the top of every flow and present your arguments with consistent organization.

-Indicate that you are switching from on-case to off-case arguments etc.

-Spreading is fine

-tech > truth but you need to explain why your arguments matter otherwise I’ll have a hard time voting for them

- dropped arguments are presumed to be true but do yourself a favor and explain what the original warrant was anyway and why it's important

PF Specifics

-blank slate when it comes to impact weighing in PF, so do not assume I will weigh anything unless you articulate it and defend it. A lot of debates always under-focus on impact weighing

-If you have similar impacts, like climate change and extinction, weigh probability or magnitude because I can't do anything if you just repeat your impacts.

-Both speakers need to take into account your summary and final focus. I pay the most attention and consider both speeches heavily as I think the summaries are the most important in the round.

-You do NOT need to address everything they dump on you, but summaries should address two or three major voting issues. I prefer that you address major voting issues and prove why they are important over spending 10-20 seconds on every single argument of the round.

More Specific Args relevant to CX/ potentially LD

T-It’s probably jurisdictional but you’d be more persuasive if you made that argument. Fairness can be a voter but try to show proven abuse in-round, otherwise, I feel more comfortable evaluating it as an internal link to education. Predictability is also important.

Theory/Procedurals can be very useful and fun when utilized properly. They can also be incredibly annoying. Disclosure is important, provided aff isn’t breaking new. Vagueness can get dicey but if you tell me why specifically you’re being harmed I’ll be able to evaluate. Condo is annoying, but again, if you tell me why it’s harmful in-round I’ll evaluate it.

DA/CP-I tend to be a little suspicious of the link on politics DAs just because they need to be frequently updated, but that won’t affect my ballot unless Aff brings it up. I think CPs are great and the perm is usually pretty competitive.

K-I love a good K debate and have a working familiarity with Cap, Security, Militarization, and SetCol. If you run something different, that's fine, just make sure you have good overviews and explain the moving parts. Link and impact debate are critical for me. For aff, perms are very competitive.

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.com. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

Tab judge. I have coached, or actively coach events, on local UIL, TFA and national circuit for over a decade. For Debate, please ask specific preference/style questions before round and in the presence of your opponent(s).

Interpretation: Very open to community standards and performer specific interpretations of literature. I try not to bring any preconceived understanding of literature into the round. I do prefer a teaser of some length before the introduction. Blocking and vocal characterization should be as distinct and clearly separate throughout performance.

INFO: I do prefer the use of a visual aid throughout the speech. Topics that are creative and challenging, or inspiring, are most intriguing and tend to separate themselves in a section. Sources are not as important in quantity, but the information should be presented in a fresh and relevant manner.

Extemporaneous: I prefer a balance of information and speech fluidity and personality. Clearly answer the question with a unified answer and give enough background/context in the introduction. Sources should be used significantly throughout the speech, but do not sacrifice a personable delivery simply to provide facts/analysis.

My name is Patrick Cook (he/him). I primarily judge congressional debate, although I have judged PF and LD and even Extemp once when they were desperate.

As a judge, I look for the three Rs: research, rationality, and respect. Great debaters do their research, have a clear and rational argument, and show respect for their presiding officer, and for their judges and fellow debaters. Those are the most important things.

My background is in academia, so I appreciate a precise citation.

With those basics covered, I appreciate creativity and humor, but I would advise debaters to make sure those never come at the expense of the three Rs. In particular, please take a second to think about whether any attempts at creativity and/or humor are going to detract from how seriously people view your argument or how seriously you seem to be taking the debate. If it doesn't detract and you can be witty -- go ahead!

Congress:

Be Respectful- Do not deliberately attack a person or their identity in bad faith, however while some may have opinions and arguments that you disagree with personally that does not mean you are being attacked.

Be Logical- Make it make sense. Stay on topic and don't just throw in extra information we don't need, or you won't use. Diction, your word choice matters so make it count. Convince me that you are right.

Be Confident- Fluency, tone, expression, and pacing. This isn't a race, and it isn't a library.

Secret fourth paradigm- Add something new and relevant when you speak or challenge what has already been said.

LD:

Delivery-It is hard for me to listen if you speak really fast, so I prefer a slower delivery, if your speech is unintelligible then I have nothing to judge you on.

Criterion and Value-Judging your arguments will be based on this. If you want me to use yours over the opponent's convince me that your value and criterion is the proper one to use.

Evidence-Use evidence when making claims, but feel free to use rhetoric to make your arguments.

PF:

Don't make arguments or use evidence you don't understand.

IE Speech:

While I understand that you may be very passionate about a topic, please approach it in an age/school appropriate way. Unnecessary shock factor is just that, unnecessary. With that in mind, don't be afraid of sensitive topics that are naturally shocking. For example, DO NOT Reanact an active shooter event. However, you could do a protrayal of the thoughts or feelings of the event, not the actual event itself

For all events creativity is key just as well as relevance. This is your performance, make it unique to you.

I competed in Congressional Debate for four years at McNeil High School. I now attend Texas A&M University and use she/her pronouns.

I believe respectful clash is necessary to Congress. Key word being respectful.

Show the impact of you argument and why your side wins the debate.

I really like it when people flip speeches to the needs of the round because I think it means that you have a full hand on the debate.

I love interesting intros/Taylor Swift intros/respectful humor in speeches. Congress speeches should be dynamic and interesting.

Please don't give constructive speeches late in round. I want to see clash/crystals/adaptation. I am also pretty against rehash. Every speech should add something new to the round.

I consider POs for all ranks (including first). However, I am also pretty harsh on POs, especially in finals rounds. Please don't use POing as an easy break/easy way to get top 5. That being said, if you are a good PO I am willing to rank you accordingly.

I have taught and coached at Round Rock Christian, TX, for 15 years across events. I am passionate about this activity and its value for competitors to 'find their voice' in their events. Please ask if you have any questions about my paradigm.

In Round Conduct

I have zero tolerance for bullying and disrespect directed toward anyone in the competition space. I have and will stop rounds if it is taking place. If you are competing against someone who is less experienced, please be gracious to them. We are a community and with that comes certain expectations of how we interact with others.

Time use

Across events, your strategy for time use will be noted on the ballot.

Overall thoughts

I favor bold, energetic, engaged debaters who best represent what the event they are competing in asks of a competitor. Teach me something new. I believe each debate event has something unique about it and do not consider events to be interchangeable.

As a communication activity, in my opinion, spreading does not enhance the education space. If you choose to spread, please sure to signpost effectively. Avoid it in rebuttal speeches. I refuse to yell out things like clear, as if you have any question about whether I understand, you need to adapt your delivery. While some jargon is warranted, the over use of it is not effective communication or an argumentation strategy.

I will weigh first on framework, then the contention level debate. Theory arguments will be dealt with secondarily.

Please note, linking everything to nuclear war without proper warrants is not effective. I am looking to see how your argumentation speaks to the resolution and what it asks of each position in the debate.

Giving voters allows you to narrate the round for me. If you cannot articulate why you won the round, you likely did not.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I favor a traditional style with lower speeds and attention to the value/criterion, but I can adapt to more progressive style of argumentation. This event is not policy debate for one. If you spread, please sign post effectively.

Public Forum

My paradigm is convince me. I strongly dislike the Negative team going first and I recommend that you do not.

Congress

Delivery: this is a competition and delivery style will be a factor in ranking. Please exhibit the expected decorum in a Congress chamber because I do drop ranks for behavior that is unbecoming, including being rude or yelling.

Speeches: I expect a balance between preparation and the ability to navigate through the arguments so far in the round. Crystallize. I am looking for more than a surface understanding of legislation and its impacts. Questioning: use questioning as an opportunity to showcase your knowledge on legislation and your ability to expose issues on the opposition. Avoid: wasting chamber time with irrelevant questions, unnecessary motions, being dramatic about taking a first speech, or ignoring Presiding Officer gavel taps. Being gaveled down is not a flex.

I expect competitors to come prepared on legislation and yes, I am listening when the chamber is planning the docket.

For the Presiding Officer, I expect a fair and efficient chamber. A strong PO will rank high, but it is not an automatic 1st place.

Interpretation

My paradigm for interp events is whether you are believable or not as your character(s). Do you have advocacy in events that traditionally expect it? What about your time use? I will be looking at your introductions that they are carefully put together. I am looking for a polished performance that demonstrates a fine attention to detail. Your performance across events should have layers, demonstrating nuance and complexity in characters. We don't like music played with just one note, don't perform any piece with no vocal, emotional, or pacing variety.

Artistic plagiarism: as a coach of those in the interpretation events, I take this seriously. If you are performing a piece that has been on the national stage, make it yours, not a duplicate of the performance.

Platform Speaking

Whether you are in oratory, info, impromptu, or one of the extemporaneous speaking events, try to stand out by not sounding canned. Teach me something new. Humor, well used, is always appreciated. Like debate, your use of time will be reflected in the comments.

Howdy, my name is Daniel Gardiner and I'm a political science major from Corpus Christi TX but most importantly I am the loudest and proudest member of the fighting Texas Aggie class of 2026. I competed in debate all four years of high school at the local state and national level having the privilege to attend some really great tournaments like Bluekey, University of Texas, TOC, and more. I have separate paradigms listed for each event I consider myself qualified to judge.

Congress: I did nats circuit congressional debate all across the country and man do I love the event. I think its important to remember that although the event allows for a lot of theatrics and really cool speaking styles it is a debate event. Presentation and argumentation are both extremely significant for my ballot. Present bad arguments that do not have a big impact on the round and I'll probably drop you. For early round speakers I expect you to frame the debate dive deep into the legislation and what it does and really outline the impact of an aff or neg vote. Late round speakers should have a lot of refutation with a mix of new points. Evidence and analysis work together to create solid claims and warrants I expect both in a point. Please be respectful to other speakers and address each other properly when bringing their name up in questions or speeches. With that being said I appreciate all types of AGDs in introductions as long as they are not canned. Never call me sir or Mr during a round I will not drop you for it but I much prefer Daniel or parli depending on my role in the round. For Po's you'll get a good rank from me as long as you do not mess up. If you speak off of a laptop the highest rank I will give you is 6. (unless the room is not super competitive)

Extemp: I competed in FX at the local level and DX at all levels. I try to keep up with significant news findings in both national and international news so do not BS or lie in round about a situation or crisis that is in your question chances are I'll catch it. With that being said things that lack objective truths such as "whether or not US impact in the Middle East has been positive" I will listen to multiple viewpoints as long as you have evidence backing your claims. Examples of good evidence for me include thinktanks, empirical studies, and experts regarding the field in question. Bad evidence includes opinion pages, encyclopedias, or highly controversial sites that generally misrepresent information because of bias. The most common ones I see presented too much are progon.org, Fox News, and CNN. Stick to neutral sources like NPR, Politico, or Carnegie. I am not afraid to vote people down for lying about sources if you forget an article do not BS and say some generic site like CNN I traditionally fact check all sources unless I miss the name of one. Dates, as long as you are close to the publishing date don't worry about it. I love great citations that explain author qualifications or how research is conducted.

LD: Lincoln Douglas debate is definitely one of the hardest events to find major success in so props to you guys for picking up the event. I competed in LD at the local and state level but nothing beyond that. First things first I expect to be on the email chain every time there is one if the competitors are both okay with not seeing the case that's fine with me just remember that if you choose to speak fast. I am okay with spreading it will not doc speaker points for me as long as you slow down for taglines and author names. If you are competing against someone that would prefer you not to spread please consider that before you start the round the last thing we wanna do is scare people away from the activity, prioritizing the ballot above someone's well-being is not cool and I will reflect that in your speaker points. I get that rounds can be frustrating but please be respectful in round do not swear unless it is specific to the literature you are using. Finally on the argumentation side I will evaluate any argument that is not offensive. Racism, sexism, homophobia I will instantly drop and not flow the rest of the debate. I hate K's that have no link to the topic or your opponents case. If your running a competing model of debate strategy I will try to fully consider it but no promises. I personally appreciate theory arguments like T and condo so feel free to run them. Framing is important but if you have no offense as long as your opponent does a decent job establishing that they will probably win my ballot. LARPing is fine. Performance aff is fine just explain the significance of it in the 1AC not the 1AR. I do not like music in the background while I am flowing it distracts me and I'll start dancing when I should be judging. Finally I would say this for all of you that see me my name before judging. I would much rather debate/judge a traditional round than a progressive round because I believe they are more fun and less stressful. That does not mean you have to go trad but I thought y'all would like the heads up. Have never voted for disclosure and do not plan on it.

OO: I have no competitive experience in OO but I have briefly coached the event and have had the privilege of being on a team with one of the best orators in the country. What I look for in a piece is something that has a very real impact and something that is relatable! That covers a significant number of topic areas so what will distance yourself from other speakers in the room for my ballot is presentation and analysis. I pay super close attention to tone, I love a speaker that can take me on an adventure using conversational tactics and then moving from conversational to funny, serious, compassionate, and other areas. I know this is not debate but I do expect at least some qualified evidence to back your claims. I do not think there is a 100% accurate formula in terms of speech structure but I tend to support speeches with a simple problem solution format as I think it makes the most sense for this type of event. Finally, I will always vote up the speaker that makes me think about the squo and what is wrong with it. If I have to question my actions or other people's actions as a result of the speech and the speech also gives me a way to solve those actions or lack of actions then you are in the right direction. OO's should not be interp pieces I do not like you pretending to be a character or having overly dramatic transitions.

Email: gardidk367@gmail.com

For Debate:

First and foremost I deduct points for Speed Reading/Fast Talk. If I can't understand a word you are saying, it doesn't matter what you're saying. Enunciate and show some emotion. You can't convince anyone of your position if you don't seem convinced of it yourself. Poise and confidence, or at least the appearance thereof win the round regardless of how big a pile of facts you happen to be reading. Show conviction without overt adversity when questioning your opponent... you aren't attacking them, you're attacking their position.

If you have questions about your ballot or want additional feedback, feel free to email me at leahartman04@gmail.com

CONGRESS TLDR: be unique, actually engage, actually debate, be civil

Please avoid canned AGDs. I know I should be the LAST person to complain about them because I used them all the time for my first 2 years competing. But your judge is likely to have heard them all before, and it establishes no sense of personality, no introduction to what you're about to talk about, no creativity. It's just a way to spend 20 seconds saying "I stand in ____"

Questions are important! It shows you're actually engaged in the round, and can help further the debate. Also, if there's a room with 20 people and I only hear your name called twice over the course of 3 hours, chances are I will not remember you. MAKE SURE YOUR QUESTION IS ACTUALLY A QUESTION. Rambling for 20 seconds and finishing it with "what do you think about that" is not a question and is extremely frowned upon. It is wasting ACTUAL questioning time.

Please please PLEASE remember this is congressional DEBATE. I want to hear clash, not rehash. It bothers me when the chamber turns into 20 people giving their own individual speech with NO ties to what was previously said in the round. Its even worse when the "ties into what was previously said" is just rewording what we have already heard for another 3 minutes. Rehash is the biggest reason I will drop someone. Also for clash- it needs to make sense. Naming another competitor before going on an unrelated spiel is NOT clash and will get you dropped as well.

Be civil. Do not SCREAM at competitors during a questioning block. Auto-drop. There's so many other ways to get your point across. Also on that topic, be respectful to competitors. In round, y'all are representatives or senators, so there is ZERO need to use "miss" or anything like that to refer to each other.

Make sure your energy matches the topic. Cracking jokes when the topic is about genocide or something similarly horrible is in bad taste and makes most people in the room uncomfortable.

Good luck, Have fun :)

IEs TDLR- be natural, organize well

For speech events, I want authenticity. If I don't believe your character, I cannot rank you higher than anyone who is authentic to the character. For extemp, if I am not convinced you know what you're talking about, I cannot rank you high. Confidence is key, don't be forced!

The organization is important. For extemp, I want to know what your 2-3 points are. I need the point, the evidence, and the impact. Make sure it actually relates to the question. Make sure the links make sense. Similarly, for speech, I want it to be very clear what "character" you are. Characterize differently, through body language, tone of voice, and attitude. I hate getting lost in 3 different stories that all sound like 1 person.

Congress-

Above all else, your arguement needs to make sense and be backed up with valid evidence. I heavily appreciate and value presentation, but it is not necessary to win. Preferably, speakers can combine strong speaking skills with intelligent and thought out claims. This includes both structural arguements and clash. If a competitor is speaking after the fourth speech of a given legislation, there needs to be clash with some arguement presented by the opposing side. This requirement only grows more important the later into a round you are. As for my PO's, the requirements to get a high rank on my ballot are to simply run the chamber efficiently. Don't mess up the rules and remain completely impartial and unbiased when at all possible.

Speech-

characterization is one of the most important elements I will focus on for things like DI and POI. Other than that note, my expectations and what I look for in speech and the usuals and fairly obvious. Speak well and pour yourself into your role or topic. For things like info, the topic should be presented as well thought out and planned as you can make it. Engagement is a pretty big deal to me, so make sure your listeners have a reason to care about what you’re saying.

rileydwing@gmail.com

Debate:

I am a firm believer that this is your debate not mine. As a result I view the round how the debaters ask me to.

The few things I request is professionalism, fairness, and politeness. This stops being an educational experience when you sacrifice any of those 3 things for a win. I ask that all debaters be polite and do not partake in any sort of shady behavior.

I am more than ok with spreading if I have the case in front of me.

Lastly write my ballot for me, tell me why you won. I can make connections mentally, but I vote off the flow so vocalize everything.

Speech:

Speech is equal parts argumentation as it is presentation, I believe that both are imperative to a high ranking. I will always prefer average speaking and great analysis to average analysis and fantastic speaking. If you have both expect a high ranking.

Hi everyone reading this! I am really excited to be judging your rounds, remember that just by being at a tournament you are already learning and improving so good job!

A little about me: I competed in Domestic/Foreign Extemp, Congressional Debate, Informative Speaking, and Policy in high school and my main event was Extemp. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in 2022, TFA state in 2020 and 2022, and the Kentucky Tournament of champions in 2020 all in extemp. I qualified for UIL State in informative speaking in 2021 and 2022. I always loved doing public speaking and extemp really was something I cared a lot about in high school and is something I pride myself on being knowledgable about.

Extemporaneous Speaking: I really like to see speeches with fluency, and not vocal fluency but grammatical fluency. What I mean is that It's nice if you keep talking but if you keep talking and it doesn't make much grammatical sense then I will have to take that into consideration when ranking you. Hand gestures are also a very important thing in a speech and I prefer that they don't seem forced or robotic. It really draws my attention away from you as a speaker and more towards your hands. Confidence is also important! If you aren't confident then it will hinder your speaking ability. Content-wise I really like unique arguments and using sources to back your claims ALWAYS helps. Make sure your arguments make sense and you aren't just spewing out random sources with no real warrants.

Interp/OO/Info: Personally what matters to me in these events is evoking emotion out of me and making me care about your performance or speech. If you can get me hooked then I am hooked, take me on a journey with your interp pieces! I did theatre in high school so I know about basic things like projection/articulation and I expect those to be good. As for OO/Info, I love niche topics, topics that no one picks, or topics that are super unique. I pretty much follow the norms in these events and presentation +confidence are everything!

PF: Your arguments matter and your job is to convince me that your argument is better than the other, I can adapt to most styles of debate although I will be honest and say I am a bit slow sometimes so try not to spread toooooo fast. If I can't understand the content of your argument or I don't even understand it then I won't vote for you. High theory debate if it is done in an appropriate way is fine, but if it is just a mess then I won't vote for you. Don't run racist/sexist/homophobic arguments, I feel like this should be an obvious thing to state but it is nice to clarify. When presenting evidence I prefer if it is specific examples and not just generalities, seriously my brain works a little slow when you just say a general and not a specific thing. I also really like it when things are explained and not just thrown out and hardly ever touched again. It helps a lot for me as a judge to fully understand your argument. If I can understand the argument then great, if I can't then it will make it hard for me to vote for your side. Also Source Wars are something I frown upon ( I really do not want to hear both sides clash back and forth about why their source is better than the other with very little explanation like how the author isn't credible without providing a reason as to why they are are not credible). If you can prove however that a source is genuinely biased and is bogus then I will drop that source from the flow

Congress: What I want most in a round is for it to be dynamic, Congress is meant to be a debate-centric event so I want to see some major clash (especially during the later speeches of a round). I want to be able to leave the round and remember you, preferably in a good way. Be memorable and make me remember you, round presence is super important, especially asking meaningful questions. Please try and get creative if your speeches have generic arguments and we have heard them in that cycle of debate already and change those arguments to shake things up more. It is REALLY helpful to keep that round and cycle of debate alive.

WSD: What I look for in these rounds is for clarity in the argument you are presenting (my opinion towards arguments is similar to PF so look at that part of my paradigm). Use the unique format of WSD and use it to your advantage by finding opportunistic moments to take down your opponent's arguments or prove why your arguments are better. I want to see strategy, be creative in the best way possible and utilize the format of the debate to your advantage.

Quick About Me:

Hello, my name is Matthew "Matty" Mandell (They/Them)! I graduated from Roosevelt H.S. in San Antonio in 2019. During my four years as a high school competitor, I did a mix of Congress, Exempt, IEs, and a bit of LD at the local, state, and national level. At the collegiate level, I competed in British and Asian Parli for 2 years.

Congress

It's been said a 1000 times already, but I need to see debate in congressional debate rounds. Basic and/or canned arguments will not resonate with me as a judge. To be clear, argumentation is not just citing evidence (even if it's "good" evidence). I want you to engage other competitors more than the literature. You should use sources to validate your arguments rather than using the source as the argument.Identify the largest arguments coming from the other side, point out holes in it, describe how your arguments outweigh theirs, and contextualize why that matters in the round.TLDR: Spend more time on links and impacts than on evidence. Tackle the substance of arguments.

I appreciate unique arguments. While I don't want to see Ks or counterplans in Congress (let's be real, there isn't enough time), I am fine with running one large argument, multiple smaller arguments (as long as they make sense), disads, or just doing clash. As long as you are moving the debate forward in a productive way, I will evaluate your argument fairly. However, if we are in the 3rd or 4th cycle and you are repeating arguments we have already heard without substantial differentiation, I will probably drop you. Also,I really, really don't like constitutional/lack of funding arguments on neg without clear impacts. In Congress, we have to have the suspension of disbelief that the bills/resolutions we are debating could exist. That being said, if the bill is absurd (and it does happen), you are probably better off not debating the item than giving a "meh" speech about why it doesn't make sense unless you can clearly explain why the absurdity has real-world consequences. Who does it negatively impact if it passes? How much does it impact them?

Regarding presentation, I really don't mind what you do. Congress is a debate event so I am mostly focusing on that. Presentation is what I use to decide ranks when argumentation is super close; however, if I cannot understand your argument because of poor presentation, that will impact your rank.

For POs - as long as you are doing your job, the round is running smoothly, and the rules are being followed, you will rank well. That being said, please make a dedicated effort to be gender inclusive in your language. Avoid "Mr," "Ms," and "Mrs." We are in Congress - please refer to everyone as representative or senator.TLDR: You're fine as long as you're not sexist/transphobic.

IEs:

I really, really pay attention to the emotional journey of characters and the overall "story" of the piece. I want to see distinctions between your characters and see them develop throughout the performance. I think an unfortunate trend in Interp is certain characters used purely as transition or as a device to move the piece forward. If you're going to have different characters, have each of them be well rounded. Whether it be HI or DI, I want to be able to tell: Who the characters are, what they want, what the conflict of the piece is, how the conflict impacts/changes the character, some sort of clear conclusion, and a message that is congruent with that conclusion/emotional journey. That being said, I appreciate when competitors intentionally break norms in Speech to do something interesting with a clear purpose.

I am a traditional judge and listen for structure in argumentation.

I highly value clear communication. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically, with well-structured speeches. Signposting and clear transitions are crucial for guiding me through the flow of the round. Avoid rapid speech that sacrifices clarity for speed. Analytical depth, backed by evidence and examples, is essential for winning. Show me how your arguments interact with those of your opponents. I prefer well-researched and credible sources. Maintaining a respectful demeanor towards opponents, partners, and the judge is crucial. Avoid personal attacks, derogatory language, or any behavior that undermines the respectful atmosphere of the round. Politeness and courtesy are highly valued.

The primary role of my ballot is to determine which team presented the more compelling case and debating skills. My decision is based on the arguments presented in the round and not influenced by personal biases. I am open to various debate styles and appreciate creative and effective strategies.

I’ll evaluate the round in whatever framework you place me in, and I’m fine with judging whatever form of argumentation you feel like presenting. However, I strongly prefer that you make that framework explicit — tell me what to vote on and why.

I want a balance between evidence/cards and analysis, especially later in the round.

Stylistically, I’m fine with speed as long as taglines and analysis are clear. If there is a clarity issue (not just speed but diction, volume, etc.), I won’t call clear or put down my pen; I'll continue attempting to flow and what doesn’t make it onto the flow won’t be evaluated — it’s your responsibility to make sure that I can understand you. **NOTE: in an online format, I’m much more lenient about speech clarity — if I can’t understand you due to mic issues, etc. I’ll let you know in the chat. I'll follow the TFA guidelines for tech time (10 minutes of tech time) for most rounds. Beyond this time, we will start running prep.**

I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, delineation between arguments, etc.

Add me to the email chain — my email is colbymenefee@utexas.edu. Also feel free to email me if you have any questions about your ballot, the round, etc. Do not email me paradigm questions before the round — I’m glad to discuss my paradigm further and answer specific questions in-round, where your opponent can also hear my answers.

Please be quick calling for cards and setting up email chains. You waste time and slow the tournament down when it takes super long in between speeches to show evidence.

Overall, use critical thinking skills and your own analysis to persuade me. Don't read straight through your evidence and count on me to understand everything; do the intellectual footwork for me. Weigh throughout the round. Framing is encouraged. Speed is discouraged. I'mokay with open cross if circuit rules and both teams are.

Read my written comments on the ballot! I give useful, constructivefeedback.

Disads: Try to make these arguments persuasive and reasonably believable. Sure, you might chain the impact to include nuclear war, but if it isn't likely, it's less important to me.

Counterplans: Please read the plan text slowly and thoroughly explain why it would solve better than the affirmative . The counterplan text should not be a paragraph long. Use your own words in the speech to signal that you actually know what you are advocating for.

Topicality: Please go very slowly on these arguments, because I want to write down every part of the shell. If I don't understand every part of the shell, it's difficult for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Kritiks:Only run these if you can explain every part of the shell in simple terms, especially what the alternative would tangibly look like. Provide authentic analysis in your own words on the kritik's substance so I can understand better.

Theory: Make sure it's an important enough of a violation to warrant the theory. This should not be kicked prematurely.

Conditionality: I get irritated when more than 2 off-case arguments are conditional because I feel like it turns the debate into a "see who can cover everything the fastest" match instead of a "use evidence and logic to prove why you're right" match. I also think multiple worlds theory is argumentatively lazy.

Disclosure: I do not vote off of disclosure theory. Good teams should be able to use their topic education and research as well as their argumentative and persuasive skills to engage in and refute cases that they've never seen before. Disclosure undermines critical thinking and creativity.

TFA LD:Avoided frivolous definition arguments. Off-case arguments are great.

Congress:Please don't just tell me how a bill won't solve the problem, argue against general purpose of the bill.Use evidence and clash with other people in the room.

Hi,

Update for St. Mary's. Do not spread. Do not read progressive arguments.

My name is Evan Ortiz, I debated for 4 years in Texas, and was ok. I now compete for the University of Texas at Austin and help coach for NSU in Florida (Speech only tho because I live for extemp). Feel free to reach out to me if something in my paradigm confuses you.

Please add me to the email chain evanortiz64@gmail.com

Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safer or better experience for you. I love debate and I want to make sure rounds are a place that you can love, too.

Judging Philosophy:

- I won't look at a card unless you tell me to do so!

- I am not a super big fan of paraphrasing. I feel like this is a big ethical dilemma in PF and I am just not a fan, please just read cut cards.

- Impact calc is the easiest way to win and the most important part of PF. Just please explain your impact clearly with a fully supported link chain to it and weigh and you will the round. I expect clear weighing in the round and it is beneficial for y'all to do so, if you don't weigh I may default to my own mechanisms and you may not like that. ---> you final focus should just write my ballot for me

- 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st in some sort of way... if not? Go off I guess the summary better do work then.

- Summary needs to extend defense - you have time now :(

- summary and final focus should mirror each other ALWAYS. Please don't make me play a game of I SPY on the ballot, it will much easier for you to win if you as a team know exactly what you are going for and mirror each other

- I would really prefer clear full extensions. I don't simply want just "extend Jones 12" because that doesn't really tell me much. Instead, extend Jones, the warrant, and any necessary offense from it. Explain to me why Jones is important.

- warranted responses >>> blippy card dumps

Miscellaneous Nonsense

- Have fun!!! Debate after all is an activity first, competition second. Please have fun in the round.

- Be nice to each other. Sass is sometimes cool, but know your lane and stay in it.

- Run whatever you want, you do you!

*Regarding the notion from above. Honestly, do not read theory in front of me. The only interaction I have had with Theory in PF is larger schools reading disclosure theory on relatively small and or inexperienced schools. I don't want to see it. Regardless of my debate background with a small school, frivolous disclosure theory is not educational for the round nor fun for me to judge. If you choose to run theory, it better not be disclosure theory. If it is, and you are from a large school with the institutional knowledge to engage with theory and you choose to read it against a small school or inexperienced opponents, you will not like the outcome. It is mind-boggling to me that this is a norm and will not vote for it. If you want to read other theory, I would prefer it not to be in shell form - just give me the jist. I don't like voting off of theory technicalities, so make it at least accessible. (Paraphrase theory is meh but if you can prove a violation then sure why not)

Hi! I'm Cameron (Jack C Hays '22)

I competed primarily in extemp throughout high school but dabbled in oratory/info and congress

• my biggest factor when determining ranks (in extemp) is analysis -- make sure your points answer the question!
• In all interp events I prefer pieces with solid points of advocacy that move beyond the speech/tournament.
• have fun!! this is for fun!!

If you ever have any questions regarding a ballot please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email at clr9188@nyu.edu

Thanks!

IE

I am comfortable judging any speech event, but am best when I judge extemp and oratory. I favor content and substance over style but believe that both are important in speech rounds.

Congress - I judge speech content/presentation over procedural skills. I will strongly consider a PO for advancement unless they are acting in an unfair way or significantly struggling with recency. Remember that where you are in the speech cycle impacts what your speech should be doing.

CX Debate

I try to be open minded in arguments but with this topic I have been more drawn to traditional policy case arguments and disads. With that said if you prefer to run kritikal arguments be prepared to show solvency arguments for the affirmative advantages. Too many people cannot explain what the K world looks like and I do not like it when K debaters go down the rabbit hole without a clear idea of what the world looks like.

Do not run T as a time suck only.

Framing arguments are crucial.

Some speed is ok but I have old coach ears and the virtual debate thing makes it easier to lose you if you move too quickly. If I cannot hear or understand it. I will not flow it.

LD

I try to be open minded but I hate progressive debate for the sake of progressive debate.

Some speed is ok but understand that historically LD was created as an alternative to CX Debate. In the final set of speeches you need to slow down and explain the argument that you are going for and why you should win the round. If you are spreading in the last two rebuttals it will not impact win/loss but it will impact your speaker points.

I look at arguments over presentation and believe that criterion are especially important.

Do not run generic link disads or K arguments. The evidence needs to have specific links and specific impacts to the resolution and the value/criterias used in the round.

I do not buy CPs in LD rounds since there is no presumption in LD.

Since there is no presumption in LD, negative must run a case and value/criteria not just respond.

Congress

For introductions, please try and avoid canned introductions. I want to hear what you have to say on a bill that you are passionate about, not what sounds clever.

When citing evidence, be sure to elaborate as to why that evidence is useful and actually link it to your arguments. Reading your evidence is not clash, identifying opposing arguments and using evidence to poke holes in other arguments is clash.

Be professional and polite to your fellow competitors. Debate is an educational experience where you can develop good life skills, establish connections and friendships, and speak on issues that you are passionate about. While this is a competition, it is not worth it to be hostile or disrespectful to your fellow debater who is also passionate about an issue.

Clash is a must in late round speeches, I do not want to hear a constructive speech 8 speeches into a bill.

While questions are important and show that you are engaged in the debate, please do not waste questioning time by asking a 20 second question with no real question. Make sure questions are clear, concise, and further the debate.

I generally rank POs favorably if the round is running smoothly and you are doing your job.

Congress:

• Respectful clash is a must!
• Looking for organized speeches with some kind of evidence (real-world impacts; examples/references, context/background).
• Prefer conversational, dynamic speaking style with good eye contact.
• Don't be afraid to let your personality shine through your speeches; that keeps the round interesting!
• Make your questions count; well-thought out questions that help bolster your side of the debate could make a difference in where you are ranked.
• Always looking for speakers who respond to questions directly; Answers should demonstrate you have done your research on the topics.
• It's always good to point back to the bill or amendment during the debate; remind us of the heart or spirit of the legislation.
• Original thinking and creativity is a bonus!
• Stay engaged during the round, and demonstrate you are actively listening to the opposing side's arguments.
• Effective POs will receive a high ranking as long as they demonstrate leadership and keep the round running smoothly. Don't let the room get stuck, and help ensure everyone gets a chance to speak.

Interp Events:

• The best intros represent your own voice/perspective, provide a little background to prepare us for what we are about to watch and set up the proper mood/tone for the selection.
• Looking for well-developed characters, complete with consistent voice, stance/posture/placement, mannerisms and facial expressions.
• Multiple characters should be distinct, and transitions between characters should be polished and smooth.
• Creative blocking/movement/use of folder is definitely a bonus! But be sure the movement has purpose and does not detract from the performance.
• Please don't forget to have fun with your performance and don't be afraid to let your personality shine through the selection. That will always help bring the story to life.

Joshua Wimberley
Speech & Debate Coach
Midland Legacy High School

Address for the e-mail chain: joshua.wimberley@midlandisd.net

Debate is a game designed to build a specific set of communication skills. At the end of the day you are a salesman trying to get me to buy your idea. If you don't sell me on it you can't expect to win the round. That being said, if you think you can sell me anything more than a bus ticket at 250+ words per minute you are grossly mistaken... Leave that life to the auctioneers, we are here to communicate.

I will judge the debate you want to have to the best of my abilities. I would say you are better to debate what you are good at debating, than change for me in the back of the room. I do, however, have some predispositions and beliefs regarding debate that you should know. Absent a framework set-up during the debate, I will default policymaker. I prefer to watch debates with good evidence and oriented around a policy action. What makes evidence good is the analysis of the person putting it in action.

Theory Debates: I do not like to watch theory debates because they are generally just taglines with out of context sound bites and impossible to flow. Having said that, I understand the importance and strategy of engaging in a theory debate. I recognize that sometimes you just have to deal with what you're given. If you go for theory in the debate, go deep and slow to analyze the debate. Continuing to read front-lines with no depth of explanation will be bad for you. Try to make the debate about in-round implications and not centered around potential abuse or "how" debate should be in the future. In general, if you haven't caught on by the descriptions, I tend to find education arguments more persuasive than fairness arguments. But fairness is important.

Framework/Performance (or the like) debates: If the debate is a debate about framework or how I should evaluate the debate, please don't forget to talk about the other arguments in the debate. In other words, there should be something "productive" that comes with the way you want me to vote. Debates about how we should debate are interesting, but make sure you engage in some sort of debate as well. Reading scripted/blocked out front-lines is very unimpressive to me. Make it about the debate at hand.

Topicality: I do not vote for T very often but I do think it is a voting issue. If you read a T argument make sure to talk about "in-round" implications and not just potential abuse arguments. With the caselist, disclosure, and MPJ, I do not find potential abuse arguments very compelling. Linking the T to other arguments in the debate and showing the Aff is being abusive by avoiding core neg ground in the debate is what works best. Discussions about predictable literature outside of the in-round implications do not carry much weight because in most instances the Neg knew about the case and researched a good strategy. The exception is when an affirmative breaks a new 1AC, then the neg should be allowed to make potential abuse arguments--they didn't get disclosure and the caselist to prep. I generally prefer depth over breath education claims.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific the better. The Link is very important. Please make evidence comparisons during the debate. I dislike having to call for 20+ cards to access uniqueness on a Politics DA (etc) when they are highlighted down to one or two lines. Read the longer, more contextual cards than the fast irrelevant ones. I tend to not give a risk to the DA. You need to win the components to the DA to have me weigh it against the Aff.

Counterplans: I do not like Consult CPs, please choose another type of CP. PIC and Agent CPs are OK, but are better when you have contextual literature that justifies the the CP. Advantage CPs are cool. Affirmatives should not be able to advocate the permutation; however, theory abuse arguments can be used to justify this action. Condo is OK, but you shouldn't go for contradictory arguments in rebuttals.

Case Debates: I like case debates; however, these debates tend to turn into "blippy extensions" and force me to read cards to understand the arguments and/or nuances of the case debate. Debaters should make these explanations during the debate and not rely on me to read the cards and make it for you. I tend to try and let the debater arguments carry weight for the evidence. Saying extend Smith it answers this argument is not a compelling extension. Warrants are a necessity in all arguments.

Critiques: I generally consider these arguments to be linear DAs, with a plan meet need (PMN) and sometimes a CP (often abusive) attached at the end. Yes, I will vote for a K. When I was in college I read a lot of this literature and so I liked these debates. Now that I am almost 20 years removed from school, I tend to see bad debates that grotesquely mutate the authors intent. This is also true for Framework debates. Your K should have as specific literature as possible. Generic K's are the worst; as are bad generic aff answers. While I think condo is OK, I find Performative Contradiction arguments sometimes persuasive (especially if discourse is the K link)--so try not to engage in this Neg (or Aff).

General things you should know:
1. I like switch-side debating. While you are free to argue this is bad, it is a strong disposition I have to the game. **Read-Affirmatives should have a plan of action and defend it. However, because of this I usually give more "latitude" to affirmatives on Permutations for critical arguments when they can prove the core action of the aff is a good idea.
2. Potential abuse is not very persuasive. Instead, connect the abuse to in-round implications.
3. Engage in good impact analysis. The worst debates to judge are ones where I am expected to weigh the impacts without the debaters doing the work in the speeches. Sidenote: Don't expect me to weigh impacts you didn't analyze effectively.
4. Research: I am a big believer that what separates "policy debate" pedagogically from other forms of debate and makes it a better form to engage in is the research and argument construction that flows from it. Hence, I like good arguments that are well researched.
5. Don't steal prep-time! If you are paperless, prep stops when you hand the jump-drive to your opponents, not when you say I am ready.

Any questions, just ask.

General Information about me:

I was a former Public Forum Debater and I also have some experience in LD.

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose. Be ready to get roasted in my RFD. I will not tolerate any rudeness or ANYTHING that would not be said in school. I will not allow either side time before the start of the debate to preflow. This is no different than saying "I need some time to cut more cards for my aff/neg". This is something that should be done before you get to the tournament let alone before the debate is scheduled to start.

If there are ANY Questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Public Forum

Round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will not go well for you.
• Never extend through ink. Every time you do, I dock half a speak.
• Any Terminal Offense or Defense must be in Summary and Final Focus for me to evaluate it.
• The 2nd Rebuttal must defend against the 1st rebuttal. It is unfair if you do not.
• It is abusive to have Offensive Overviews in the 2nd rebuttal, I will not flow it.
• I want a Road map for every speech after summary. Make sure you plan it out. Don't just say "I will sign post you", that for me is the same as "I don't know what I'm going to say". I expect you to signpost throughout your speech.

Arguments:

• I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive do it right. Extend the narrative starting from case across every single speech.
• If you decide to run a Kritiks, do not run non-topical Ks except if it is a Language K.
• Framework is not needed in Public Forum, but if you read framework, that will be the 1st thing I will vote off.
• If you run tricks, see what happens (don't blame me if you drop)

Delivery:

• When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I do not flow CX, bring it up in your next speech if you want it flowed. I will not tolerate rudeness in Cross Fire. Also, please do not make it a yelling match.
• If you are going to talk at a speed that is not applicable to a Lay Judge, you better disclose.

Lincoln Douglass

Round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will not go well for you.
• Never extend through ink.
• Road Maps are a must please.
• If you are going to spread please disclose. I am not that used to spreading

Arguments:

I prefer traditional LD, but that said, everyone will go progressive either way so.

• K: I do not prefer Ks and will most likely not vote off it. That being said, if you decide to run a K, please make it relevant in round.
• Topicality: Topicality is great. I want good standards if you want me to vote off a T shell. I don't really like RVI on T. Being topical is very important to debate to me.
• Framework: This is where you want to win for me. This will always be the 1st place I will vote.
• Theory: I think theory is a good way to check abuse, nothing else. If you run theory for something I do not feel is abusive, I will not evaluate it.
• CP: Counterplans are good. If you are winning the CP, don't be afraid to go for it. This is the 2nd place where I could vote for Neg.

Delivery:

• Don't sacrifice speed for clarity.
• Make a distinctive speed difference with Tags and Cards.
• Disclosing to me is the best option, if you are not clear, I will not evaluate the argument and I will lower your speaker points. If you decide to not disclose, the Tags MUST be clear

If you have any further questions email me at zhangallen05@gmail.com