I've been around for some time now and have seen how many things have changed. If I were to sum up my overall philopshy, I'm very much a traditionalist but reward originality and creativity. I competed in policy debate in hight school and Individual Events/CEDA in college. I am also a rules generated judge. If I feel you are on the wire or have leaped over it, I make mention of it.

On the IE side:

Interp - I belive in maintaining the authors intent. Of all the events, interp has changed the most over the years and in my opion in a good way. Today's interpers are unique, creative, and original. I have one steadfast rule in interp; I want to be drawn into the world the interper is giving me. If they can grab me from the beginning and keep in in that world throughout ther performance then they have succeeded. Anything that distracts or pulls me out of their world minimizes thier overall performance (crying, etc.).

Limited Prep: I judge on a 50/50 ratio. The first 50 is organization, content, and delivery. Firm beliver in the "walk-n-talk" philopshy that you walk only on transitions. The other 50 is content. If you make a statement, be able to support it. Make sure the question / topic is answered correctly.

Prep: Much like the limited prep but I reward originality on topics and their develoment.

On the Debate side:

Again, very much a traditionalist and don't particualy care for some "anitics" I have seen over the years. The affirmative must maintain burden of proof, counterplans are non-topical. negative wins one stock, they win the round. Rapid fire is okay as long as I can flow. If I can't flow it, I can't judge it. Depending upon the type of debate is how I judge it. Polcy debate must be fully supported with evidence. Public Forum is more on the philosphical (What the student knows and how they are able to communicate it), with LD being a combination of both support and philospical. Additionally, over the years some new "terms" have been develped. Basically, I don't care what you call it, all I want you to do is support it. If called for, I will give orals at the end but will not disclose my decision. The reason, I am not opening the the opportunity for the loosing team to debate me, that has happened a couple of times, I don't like the atmosphere when that happens so I have made it a rule never to disclose. I am also a firm believer in speakers roles and duties (don't accept open cross-x, etc.) . Each speaker has been give a role with duties and they are accountable for them.

I have a more detailed paradigm and once I locate it, I will attach.

I truly enjoy judging speech and debate events. In the 1990s, I participated in Cross Examination Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking and Original Oratory at Douglas MacArthur High School in San Antonio. While in high school, I competed at the TFA State Tournament (in both CX and DX) and the NFL National Tournament (in CX), as well as debate tournaments such as St. Mark's, Emory, Glenbrook South, Harvard, and the Baylor Round Robin; my CX team either broke, placed, or won at those tournaments. I finished my high school speech and debate career with the Outstanding Distinction/Quad Ruby Degree from the NFL. Currently, I am a volunteer coach for Incarnate Word Academy and a full-time lawyer in Houston. My favorite speeches are well-organized, analytical and persuasive. Please be sure to support your argument with credible evidence or authority. A good attention getter and closing go far in my book. Try your best to finish right around the end of your time limit. Overall, I value "stuff" over "fluff," but speaking style, clarity, and mannerisms do help to put gifted speakers at the top of my ballot. Don’t be afraid to offer differing viewpoints to provide balance to your argument; that demonstrates an intellectual appreciation of nuance. I view judging as a community service and am always available for comments after your round. Best of luck.

NOTE: I am always happy to provide additional feedback if desired (feel free to email me at klynpar@gmail.com). If you feel as if my feedback was unsatisfactory or if you didn't quite understand what I was saying, please let me know. I want speech & debate to be as easy and accessible to everyone as possible. Also, if my feedback ever feels patronizing or condescending, I *promise* that that is not my intention. It is a simple result of my high expectations for high school competitors. Trust me, I'm just happy that you're involved in such a wonderful activity! PLEASE stick with it!!

About me:

Current Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA). Deeply experienced in Public Forum (coached multiple state champions & TOC partnerships), decently experienced in Congress and Speech (but quite confident in my judging capabilities for both). My favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech event is International Extemp. Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life.

Public Forum paradigm

Just win baby! (I always laugh at these paradigms that are like ten pages long – like, come on, you should not make a high school freshman read for 15 minutes just to get a sense of how to win with you as judge. [I think people just like the sound of their own voice.] My paradigm is simple: try to debate in good faith or within the spirit of public forum. If you're a high school debater I expect you understand how to win high school debate, and if you don't, nothing I said just now makes any sense anyway, so it's fine.)

I'm a tech judge. I flow using Flexcel. Do the work for me -- the cleanest way to win is to make it so I don't have to think about my result.

It's imperative that you display respectful decorum – debate should be fun and welcoming for everyone!

Unless it is first rebuttal, please extend all arguments you plan on making through each speech -- otherwise they will be considered dropped.

I vote on impacts/voters unless the framework set forth is something other than benefits/harms or cost-benefit analysis (depending on the resolution). You should weigh as early as possible.

Theory is okay; I don't love it in lots of circumstances, but I do think there's a place for it. (Just think about what fits in with the "spirit of PF debate" -- use it if it's genuine, but I can tell if you're just throwing it out there to try and sneak an easy dub.) Like if you're from a mostly-white private school with 12 coaches and you run disclosure theory against an urban public school that barely has enough resources to scrape by, I'm going to vote you down. I will always caution that I may not follow Ks as well as you do, so read them at your own risk.

Include me on the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In evidence battles, please give me actual warranting as to why I should prefer what you're saying; I would prefer not to have to do that comparison myself.

I'm fine with speed-reading unless I straight-up can't understand you, so like probably not policy-level "spreading" but anything below that should be fine. I'll let you know if it's not by saying "SLOW" audibly.

I don't flow cross, but I do pay close attention. Please ask pointed, direct questions (questions that start "Don't you think..." are pretty much useless) and answers (if you're asked a yes or no question, answer yes or no).

Speech

Interp: Please have a clear theme or focus to your performance. This can be as simple as making me laugh or as complex as something like racial justice. (It's why piece selection is so important -- please don't get frustrated if I downgrade a performance if I don't enjoy the piece. A prurient example of this is me judging my local circuit's DUOs one year. There was a performance of an excerpt from "Little Women" that was performed/acted beautifully... but the script was just horribly boring and the outdated language + no context for the full story of the [excellent!] novel just made it impossible to get into, so I never ranked them very high despite their great talent. In other words, be entertaining and compelling!).

Extemp: Try to answer the question accurately (too often I see people perform a beautiful and well-researched speech... that misinterprets the question); I prefer in-depth research that backs up strong emotional appeals. Utilize the traditional hook + three main points + conclusion structure.

Impromptu/Spont: Do your best to convey a clear "thesis" or "theme" -- beyond that, I'm most interested in speech organization and just being generally entertained/engaged by what you have to say.

Congress

The combination of "in-depth research + emotional appeal" is undefeated.

Be judicious about when you speak -- speak only as often as you have something genuinely new and insightful to add.

I love interesting bills with tons of debate and clash and get really bored at bills that are not controversial or creative.

Provide impacts -- there needs to be a "why" to your bill.

I always rate POs highly, as long as they're performing the basic responsibility of the position, but almost never rank them in a way that will give them a first-place result.

Ask tough questions, especially if a bill or argument doesn't make much sense.

Lincoln-Douglas / Policy

Minimal experience, but I'm always excited to learn more. I'm confident in my ability to evaluate arguments and debate but I'll almost certainly get lost if you use excessive event-specific jargon. Please hold my hand a little -- it will help you out when it comes time for me to render my decision.