CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(24-25), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

I have actively involved in Speech and Debate for the past two years. It was only this year that I took over as head coach after being assistant coach last year. I have judge rounds in Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Prose, Poetry, Extemp and Congress. With the understanding that each competitor is at different level and that we all have differing levels of knowledge using technical jargon is not high on my list of requirements. Sometimes its easier to say the simple way. Having said that if you are familiar with technical wording then please use it as you would. When it comes to your speed of delivery, please try to keep it at a conversational speed. I have been in rounds where the speaker was talking so fast that what was being said was lost. While I understand this is a good way to keep your opponent from keeping up, I think that in an event that is based around debating you need to speak where your opponent and judge can understand you. I have found that the best signal for me is to put my pen on the table. If I'm not holding it, I'm not flowing. My note taking can be moderate to detailed depending on the arguments. I tend to flow in detail and in addition to recording your arguments I will stop and add comments on why I think it doesn't work or if I have any suggestions to make it better. I will also leave notes on how well you spoke and ways to improve. I value both style and argument but I believe that the focus of the debate should be on proving your case - which is argument. However, you need to be organized and able to think on the fly to do this successfully.

Policy- I am a policymaker I am looking for one of two things either the best plan available from either team or if the neg does not have a CP from them to prove while the aff's plan will not succeed. I do not think that nuclear war is the most imminent bad thing. Is it bad yes - am I going to automatically say neg wins they pulled the nuclear card - no. Because sometimes the aff's harms are more immediate and need to be addressed first.

LD- As far as argumentation goes I lean progressive.

In round I expect debaters to handle themselves in a professional manner. I understand that things can get heated and that is okay as long as it does not devolve into arguing, name calling and a refusal to listen to each other. You may attack, and are expected to, each others case, you may not launch a personal attack against your opponent.

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.

email is harlin3@deansrus.net - Please put me on the email chain

I debated in LD and Policy for 4 years all through High school, and I am currently doing NPDA at college. I mainly ran LARP in high school because I never had the opportunity to do other debate types. Towards the end of junior year I started debating K's, specifically Baudrillard. In college I mainly do K debate with mostly proximal kritiks such as Psychoanalysis and identity K's. as for my Paradigm, I like all arguments but it will take a lot of work to win my ballot off trix. I evaluate Tech over truth, and if an argument is dropped then I will assume it is true regardless of what it is. Speed is fine, as long as it's coherent. Language doesn't bother me, and the only things I will auto drop a debater on is violence in round and hate speech (basically dont say a slur - Duh - ). I believe in cross checks and I will flow a gut check if someone forgets to ask about the status of a K, CP, or T/Theory shell. - I want the arguments extended and I like to see clash in the round. T and Theory are fine - I just need a clear violation with good standards - I will vote on RVI's in so far as they make sense - If you blip an RVI I'll simply ignore it. Friv theory is fun and all, and I will vote on it so long as you don't run like 9 different shells and blip all of them. Lastly, When I debate K's, I read the literature and understand it fully before taking into a round and I expect the same from you. If you can't answer an attack on your argument because you don't know the literature, then you should probably run something else.

Debate is inherently an ivory tower echo chamber where nothing gets done in the real world. I think that the only real impacts there are in the rounds are the words you speak and how you treat your opponents. For this reason I will vote for an IVI so long as there is a real reason for it being brought up (racial slurs, hate speech, etc.) I absolutely love philosophy and I will happily listen to anything brought into the round. I will not do any intervention in the round, and if I hear a misreading of an author that I know of I will let you know after the round but I won't drop you for it. That being said, I will laugh if your opponent clowns you for not knowing the argument. I am not a judge that can't leave my personal feelings at the door, and I will absolutely vote on something I don't agree with.

Something I feel important to mention is my allegory of chess for debate. Trying to set up checkmate is the goal of the endgame. Just as important is your opening, mid-game, and your board awareness. Even if you have a super sick pawn setup, a single blunder can lose you the game. Similarly, if you have your sick K with tons of evidence, solid links, and really good framing, I will happily throw it out the window if you don't answer the Impact turn or the perm. The best Cap K in the world can lose to 8 minutes of "Cap Good" as well as the USSR and Cambodia genocide case turn on the alternative. What is more important than prep, speed, and speaking ability is your strategy in the round.

We do debate for no other reason than to have a good time. I enjoy it and I like to judge, so lets just have a good time.

Attached is the paradigm for my coach Joseph Provencher, and I think it sums up how I feel quite well.

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.

- P.S. I Silence Kritiks are an uphill battle in front of me. You need to be seriously ahead in the framing game to win that.

I weigh the value of communication highly in the round. Clear speaking with an organized presentation of value/criterion and organization of attacks. Do not be rude to your opponent, but believe in what you are trying to argue. Speed without clear communication will not earn points with me.

I consider myself a tabula rasa because I am open to hearing most arguments and try to stay open-minded. I usually vote and weigh heavily based on traditional stock issues but I expect both sides to be very convincing persuasive speakers. Be polite and professional to each other, especially during cx. I will time flashing evidence. If you use a computer, please do not let it be distracting to your speaking.

I do not like speed. I feel gasping and spreading to the point of lacking proper communication leads to significant holes in my flow and lack of clash and resolution of important issues. I also time roadmaps as I feel debaters are abusing this and providing speeches instead of true roadmaps. I am also the official timekeeper. If you prefer to use a timer as well, please do not say "starting time now" as I am the one that officially starts it.

I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

If you need to reach out, my email is hunterparrish460@gmail.com. The order is going to be high school CX, college parli, high school LD, and high school PF. As I judge more things, the list will get longer. I did CX for four years in high school and parli for three years in college. In CX, my highest achievement was octafinalist at UIL state and in parli, my highest achievement is second in the nation.

High School CX

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make. It is your round and I am simply here to see how good you did.
2. Tech over truth.
3. I like to see teams that can collapse to their winning arguments. You should not be reading everything from the first constructive in the last constructive.
4. Please don't reread cards. I heard you the first time.
5. Framework is not negotiable. I need to know how you want me to vote. I need to know what impacts are the biggest. I need to know what to do, they did not tell me in tab room.
6. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments with what I think about them.

A. Policy affs - 5/5 - The bread and butter of being aff. I don't have too many notes on what I want or expect. At its core, I think you should be identifying a problem and how you fix it. Some framing about why your problem is really bad never hurts. Remember, as the aff, this is your only offense, and therefore, you should be protecting it like the precious baby it is.

B. K affs - 5/5 - Sometimes the topic is problematic and you don't want to be associated with the state. That's OK, you can be untopical. My only prerequisite question is why are you untopical? If you have a good answer for that, then your k aff is welcome and will be evaluated fairly. This doesn't mean I won't vote on T, so make sure you are ready to defend that answer to that previous question.

C. Disads - 3/5 - I have nothing against the disad, but it can't win alone. You either need to prove the aff can't solve, outweigh the aff, or solve the aff through a CP. The disad alone is like a ship in the night, and guess what, it is passing other ships. With that, I don't think any negative policy strat is complete without it, it is truly a filler for the ages.

D. CP - 4/5 - I don't have anything against the CP, but I never really read it. I went straight from defending the squo in high school to being a radical k reader in college. With that, I am willing to vote on the CP and have no hesitation doing so if it is competitive, solves the aff, and avoids net benefit offense. With that, net benefits can be a form of competition. In regard to all CP theory, check out what I have to say about theory.

E. Theory - 5/5 - I love theory debates because they alleviate crucial burnout by giving debaters and judges the ability to hear something other than the topic again. With that, however, a theory argument is like any other argument in the sense that it has parts that can't be ignored or neglected. Too many debaters think it's ok to simply say "this is abusive" and think they deserve the round. I need you to create an interpretation, show a violation, give standards to defend your interpretation and give voters for me to care. Without this, you're just wasting time you could use to read more disads.

F. Topicality - 4/5 - It's just a theory. I'm voting it lower, not because I'm less likely to vote on it, or even that it is bad. I simply see too many teams decide that they don't have to do the work of voters, and that being untopical is simply enough. It is not. If the affirmative is hypothetically solving all poverty, I don't care if they cheated in a debate round. I need you to make me care, by saying why education and fairness are actually super cool.

G. Kritik - 4/5 - I like the kritik. I think more people should read the kritik. With that, you have to know how to run a kritik and what your kritik is about. If you don't know the four parts AND you don't know at least the basic level of your kritik literature, don't do it. Otherwise, I'm really cool with the kritik.

College Parli

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make, but warrant analysis is where these arguments should really be weighed.

2. Tech over truth.

3. Framework and collapsing to a win condition is not an option. I need to know how to vote and I need to know what a vote for either side actually means, not options for what it means. Short of framing, I will default proximity impacts over everything, and structural/systemic impacts over big stick impacts.

4. I think I'm ok with speed. 7 or 8 out of 10.

5. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments and what I think about them.

A. Policy affs 5/5 - I think policy affs are good. I don't have a lot of notes on them. Usually, framing in the PMC, be it impact framing or round framing, helps me know what the aff is supposed to be doing for me.

B. K affs 4/5 - Slight preference for policy, but I'll vote on them no doubt. I read them more than policy affs myself. I just think that in a world with a new topic each round, you have to have a good reason to read your k aff. If you don't have strong topic links or links to standard debate, then that TVA is going to be fire against you.

C. Disads 2/5 - I don't hate disads, but they are useless on their own. Case defense, impact framing, or a counterplan is required to make them work. I need to know the aff doesn't solve, your impacts are larger, or that you can solve the aff, otherwise I just have to pick the impacts I like.

D. Counterplans 5/5 - Really cool way to create advocacies with direct competition to the policy aff. Needs a net benefit.

E. Kritik 5/5 - Negative kritik is a great way to question the aff.

F. Theory 5/5 - Meta debate is fun and I feel comfortable analyzing it. Frivolous theories aren't great, but the staples (condo, be topical, multi-actor fiat, spec, etc.) make great debate when done right. Make sure you have standards and voters, they are not the same.

G. Topicality 3/5 - I don't dislike it, but in an event where only half the community reads the topic, someone who is getting there deserves some leeway.

6. Based on what I've been told in round, I will paradigmatically vote against any white debater who reads afropessimism.

7. I will paradigmatically not flow things outside of speech times.

I've done competitive debate for 7 years and currently do NPDA style of debate with UTTyler. I did 4 years of policy in High School 2018-2022. I will say my view of debate has changed a lot since debating policy in high school, so if you have any specific questions revolving my paradigm feel free to ask questions before the round. Other than that I'm pretty tab, just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or just outright derogatory to your opponents.

Policy - General Notes, please tell me how I'm voting in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me why I'm voting that way. I like to see ya'll pull your best piece of offense and collapse to that in these speeches, I think we've become to comfortable going for multiple positions, but if you think a simple Advantage outweighs the DA/CP then go for it, or if you're the neg and think Theory is the best out then I want to see you go for it for 5 mins. I think you should always being pulling your best peice of offense and telling me why it comes first, why it outweighs, and why the other potential win conditions by your opponents fall short. Also, I'm fine with speed, I just think that you should be willing to sign post- and I don't think you should be spreading all the time, I think it's beneficial when getting the initial arguments down, but If you're going to spread through cards and not even engage in the clash of the warrants I don't think spreading is doing you any favors. It's ok to slow down and make common sense arguments, and I don't see enough of them in policy so please just make them.

1. Topicality/Theory - Idefault to topicality/theory being apriori even if not articulated, I think this comes from the view that topicality is a procedural. However, if you can articulate to me why topicality/theory are not a voting issue then I can buy that too. I will vote on a risk of abuse if it's articulated well by the negative, however, the aff can also win that potential abuse is not a voter in the round. I think a lot of times, especially in high-school policy, we aren't terminalizing impacts on topicality. (What I mean by this, high-schoolers often group fairness/education as a standard when I think they are more of the impact of topicality - i.e., if we can't test the aff then we don't know why the aff is true, or If we can't engage in clash that means we don't get the educational benefits of weighing and portable skills because we can't access the aff solvency method). Theory is a friend, if you think the other team is being abusive I don't mind hearing your articulation, but my threshold for voting on 2NC/1NR theory is higher then 2AC theory if there is no direct proven abuse.
2. Framework - Often times I don't see framework debates in high-school policy, so I feel like I should clarify how I will evaluate the round if there is no articulation of my duty as a judge. I feel as though debate is a game and I default tech>truth (i.e., I will vote for an impact that is terminalized with a clear articulation of either magnitude/timeframe/probability over the risk of an impact that is not sufficiently weighed, however true it may be). But just because this is how I default doesn't mean I don't want to hear your framing shells, If I'm told to evaluate utilitarian impacts over structural impacts or vice versa, I will evaluate that level of the debate before I go through the rest of the sheets.
3. K's - Ok so I only every ran Cap and Set Col in high school, however, being in college my partner (Leilani Hurtado) and I have read a wide variety of K's. So I will say I'm pretty comfortable with them, however, that doesn't mean I will know the literature you're pulling from, so explanations are always good. I also think that alternatives should be labeled clearly when running k's, I think the framework of the K should make implications about either how I evaluate debate or how I evaluate the topic and the alternative should be the best way to resolve your mpx.
4. Everything Else - I'm cool with anything, if you have any questions about how I evaluate certain arguments, my default answer is I'm going to be cool with anything, just make sure you're collapsing to a piece of offense and not going for pure defense, otherwise I'm mostly to outweigh a risk of an mpx vs. that mpx being improbable.

I am a current speech and debate coach in Texas. I have coached multiple state medalist and NSDA qualifiers across the different speech and debate events.

CX Debate:

Topicality: On face topicality is a voting issue for me. It needs to be run correctly with standards and counter standards weighed out in the round. I usually default to reasonability over dueling interpretations at the standards level. To win T the negative needs to prove in the standards why this case is so problematic to the debate space that it isn't worth evaluating.

DisAds: I enjoy evaluating a good link story that has a clear bright line to impact debate. Impacts need to be weighed out in the round and shouldn't be overly weak to thumper arguments. In the impact calculus I care more about probability and time frame than I do magnitude. With that being said if you are running soft/social impacts instead of extinction you need to provide a framework argument for why I should value those over loss of life.

CPs: Counter plans should meet the following criteria or I will have a hard time voting for them. 1) Untopical 2) Competitive 3) Mutually exclusive. Perm arguments need to make since. Perm do the Plan then the CP seems strange if the CP calls for abolishing infrastructure that the plan will live in.

Oncase: Strong up to date oncase arguments are my favorite in the space, because for me they are the quickest way for me to evaluate if the affirmative is a credible policy option. The negative team should try to turn the case or at least go for solvency take outs.

Kritiks: I do not have the time nor the desire to read your literature base. So you should assume that I have not. That being said I will listen and flow the K in the round. If the affirmative team can handle the link argument and/or discredit the alt I will usually go affirmative on the K.

Theory: I enjoy theory arguments in the space, but they really need to apply to something that has happened in the round. Just like with T the negative has to carry the standards and voters of the theory through the entire round if I am going to vote on it.

K Affs: I mostly judge the UIL circuit in Texas so I am not super familiar with K Affs. In round education is not just for the debaters its for the judge as well. I have given up my time to judge the debate and want learn more about the topic. If your K Aff meets the standard of expanding my knowledge on the current topic I am more likely evaluate it favorably.

LD: I will update this later.

email:

vasquezamandarenee@gmail.com

-- add me to the file share -- please send speeches --

CX/Policy:

No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments.

Speed : I don't care, just make sure I can understand if I don't have the doc. Signpost and clearly read tags. Also make sure if I'm on a panel to check the other judges' prefs on speed if other judges don't like it, it's probably in your best interest to talk slow. Watch me/my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I'm not following you, and the only saving grace is the speechdrop/file share.

SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. SIGNPOST THROUGHOUT THE ROUND

Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with (IE CP, K).

I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument. It lets me know you know what you just talked about.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING TEAM DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.

LD Debate

No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments. I will say that I don't have much experience for "progressive debate" so keep that in mind when developing arguments. If I can't understand it, I can't vote on it.

Speed : Know your circuit and the expectation. I don't want to hear spreading in a UIL round.

Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. Aff/Neg or Neg/Aff.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING SPEAKER DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

I will also add that VERBALLY SIGNPOSTING is big for me. Make the body points super clear. Also, I love when you tie your hook back into your conclusion. It makes the whole speech feel very well rounded.

Interp

I don't mind extensive blocking, nor do I mind profanity as long as it serves a dramatic purpose (basically don't cuss just to cuss). I also try to evaluate on "topicality". I need to understand in your intro how you link to the category you are reading. The more you can look up from your book the better! Don't completely ignore it, but I want to know you are familiar with your piece.

Overall, I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

I competed in Lincoln Douglas for three years in high school and I have been judging since August 2019. I am a super traditional judge. I will vote in favor of the side that presents the arguments in the most logical and sound fashion. I am not a fan of spreading or speed reading in Lincoln Douglas, I prefer a more elegant and persuasive tone to the round. Impacting and clashing are two key components that I look for in a debate round.