I do not have a specific paradigm that I adhere to. I prefer the competitors to assume that I am green to the resolution and they are trying to educate me on the topic at hand. An informative, factual debate is preferred - philosophy optional. It is imperative that your value and criterion are strong and your evidence is supported by that and vice versa.

Ronald Carnes

I would consider myself a traditional-style LD judge. Argumentation on Value and Criterion: I will judge hard on those. The team that shows me the most substantial arguments will get my vote. I also seek the best speaker who gives me good eye contact, tone, etc.

For other events, the best speaker will typically get my vote as long as they follow the criteria for said event.

I did speech and debate all four years of high school and went to state. I have judged for local meets UIL speech and debate. As well as at the district and regional levels for LD, exempt, and poetry.

CLASH

Make sure you signpost arguments

Overall, I would rather you do you and I will flow it.

CLASH

Make sure you signpost arguments

Overall, I would rather you do you and I will flow it.

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

I’m a former CX and Parliamentary debater and current coach for the speech and debate team at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas with 13 years of experience as a competitor, judge, and coach.

Talk pretty. Don't suck.

I'm a strict content judge; I don't care about the fancy metadebate (K's, Faux-topicality arguments, etc). Debate the topic and do it well.

Nice, clean, intelligent debate is why we do this, so that's what I'm looking for. There is a distinct difference between talking fast and Spreading. Speaking fast may be a necessity but spreading will never be. This is still a communication event, and the communication behind good debate is just as important as the content you are debating. There is just no need for it.

If you say it, it goes on the flow and if you don't say it, it doesn't go on the flow. I'm not going to make connections that you don't make for me.

Nine times out of ten I will vote on impacts (including impact calc but also feasibility). I will never vote on impacts with poor links or that are not feasible. For example, if you’re going to run nuclear war as an impact, you better do a good job convincing me that it’s feasible. Impacts should have three things; please don’t forget the brink.

Lastly, the reason that we do this activity is because these issues and topics matter. Make sure that you tell me how real people are affected by your plan/the topic. Don’t be afraid to craft a narrative; that is only going to increase your speaks, and, in some cases, will win you the round.

I'm a policy maker judge. Whatever arguments you make in the round need to be guiding me toward the best policy option. I will vote on T/theory, if an aff/rule violation is especially egregious, but please don't waste my time - I'd prefer to weigh the positive/negative impacts of the policy.

I am a stock issue and flow judge. I would like to see a clean, well-organized, and signposted debate where both teams use their ground well and have clear, well-written arguments and cases. I prefer a more traditional debate round, but the biggest thing for me is "can I understand what you are saying." I do not want to just read your flashed case off of my computer, I should be able to hear you quickly reading your case to me and flow the round from your verbal communication.

While I recognize the Kritiques have their time and place, to win my vote on them they have a very clear link and a well-articulated alternative.

my email for email chains: breannaprater99@gmail.com

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com