Timothy Adediran is a well trained professional orator, with experiences in speaking, judging and coaching public forums. Having years of experience in debate; from high school to university levels, I have all the knowledge there is about debating. Also as an educator, I am highly qualified to work with both students and adults alike. I believe, debating is built on growth of analytical skills and intellectual discourse governed by the principles of logic and adherence to the specific rules of engagement associated with the chosen debate format. I possess good knowledge across a wide spectrum of debate formats, including but not limited to Parliamentary debates, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), policy debates, and many others."

I'm not a picky judge, just prefer arguments and priorities comparisons and weigh ups(when necessary). As an average intelligent voter, I expect you treat as such.

Email Address: timmayostrings@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

"Here are some key considerations that will encourage the strongest analysis by the end of the debate, as opposed to arguments that may waste time, are unfamiliar, or lack strategic value:

One big thing you should know that can be your friend or enemy is the mighty K for Kritiks.

Clear and sufficient analysis of the links, impacts, and alternatives in kritiks will play a role in enhancing your chances of persuading me. Prioritize clarity in your articulation to strengthen the impact of your kritik.

Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative and examples, demonstrating its significance and how it plays in with other arguments in the round.

Be mindful of the pacing when delivering kritiks. If presented too quickly without ample clarification, it may hinder my ability to fully grasp the nuances of your position.

Consider the depth and quality of your responses to potential counterarguments against the kritik. Preempt opposing perspectives and address them convincingly.

While I appreciate innovative and critical perspectives, ensure your kritik aligns with the rules and norms of the debating format being used. Clarity and adherence to format rules are very important.

Things you should know and prioritize also:

Deeply research and understand the topic. The more familiar you are about the subject matter, the better you can generate and defend your arguments.

Organize your arguments in a clear and reasonable structure. Clearly state your claims, provide evidence to back them up, and explain the downside. A well-organized structure helps judges follow your arguments more easily.

Be prepared to adjust your strategy based on the responses of your opponents. If they present strong counterfactuals, be ready to adjust your approach and defend your position effectively.

Master the art of cross-examination. Use this time to challenge your opponents' arguments, highlight weaknesses, and gather information that can be used to your advantage in later speeches.

Cross-examination :how to spy on your opponents to reveal information and secrets, they don't want you to know.

Be ready to adapt your questioning based on your opponent's responses. If they reveal unexpected weaknesses, capitalize on them.

Practice cross-examination techniques and review successful cross-examinations from experienced debaters. Learn from both effective and less effective examples.

Quality Over Quantity: Rather than matter dumping, aim for depth and quality in your analysis. Well-developed arguments often carry more weight than a large number of shallow ones.

Evidence Use: Utilize evidence effectively during the debate. Reading cards is acceptable, but it's not always necessary to read them after the debate unless there's a disagreement. Use evidence when it enhances your argument's credibility.

Re-Highlighting: Consider re-highlighting when it adds value to your argumentation. Be discerning about when to use this strategy.

By adhering to these principles, you can contribute to a more focused, comprehensible, and analytically rich debate experience."

"As a judge, here are some key qualities and advice I value:

Active Listening:

I genuinely listen to your arguments and appreciate when debaters engage in convincing discourse.

Objective Evaluation:

My judgments are based on the arguments presented in the debate, not personal bias or preference.

Strive for Excellence: Push yourself to perform at your best, but also remember to enjoy the experience of debating.

Open-Mindedness: Be open to all perspectives, but apply critical thinking and discernment to evaluate them effectively.

By embodying these qualities and following this advice, you can enhance your performance and contribute to a more rewarding debate experience."

I want to underscore the importance of impact weighing in my role as a judge. It holds a significant place in how I evaluate the entire debate, shaping my perspective on the arguments presented and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Impact weighing is the tool by which I assess which arguments carry the most weight and significance in the debate. It acts as a framework through which I analyze both offense and defense. Effective impact weighing can bolster your position and provide a clear path to victory in the debate.

I encourage all participants to give due attention to impact weighing during their speeches. Explain why your impacts are more critical than those of your opponent and show how they outweigh or mitigate the opposing arguments. Skillful and persuasive impact weighing can greatly influence my decision and enhance the overall quality of the debate.

Remember, practice and feedback are key to improvement. Regularly engage in practice debates, seek constructive feedback, and refine your skills over time. Good luck!

Thank you for your dedication to delivering high-quality debates.

Your Favorite Immortal, or not,

Timothy Adediran.

Dear Debating Community,

With over a decade of experience as a debater, judge, and coach, I'm excited to share insights aimed at improving the quality of debates and fostering analytical skills. My expertise spans various debate formats, including Parliamentary, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and policy debates.

Effective Debating Strategies:

Kritiks: Enhancing Persuasion

- Ensure kritiks align with the debate context.

- Clearly explain links, impacts, and alternatives.

- Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative.

- Maintain clarity in delivery pace.

- Use real-world examples for accessibility.

- Anticipate and address counterarguments.

- Adhere to format rules.

- Engage in dialogue during cross-examination.

**Policy: Strategic Approaches**

- Conduct thorough research.

- Utilize evidence effectively.

- Organize arguments logically.

- Adapt strategies based on opponents' responses.

• Master cross-examination techniques.

Strategic Relevance: Stay Focused

- Prioritize arguments of strategic importance.

- Emphasize clarity over speed.

- Focus on quality over quantity.

- Aim for substantive contributions.

- Use evidence judiciously.

- Employ re-highlighting strategically.

Judge's Perspective: Valued Qualities

- Practice active listening.

- Evaluate arguments objectively.

- Strive for excellence while enjoying the process.

- Maintain an inquisitive mindset.

- Apply open-mindedness and critical thinking.

- Exhibit confidence in arguments and delivery.

Impact Weighing: Guiding Evaluation

- Explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

- Master impact weighing for persuasive arguments.

In conclusion, regular practice, feedback-seeking, and a commitment to improvement are essential for success in debating. Best wishes in your debating endeavors!

Warm regards

Email: temini532@gmail.com

Conflicts: None

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

Hi all! Feel free to call me Connelly.

connellydebate [at] gmail [dot] com

I’m currently a sophomore debating at Georgetown (Hoya Saxa!). If you’re considering debating for or attending Georgetown, please reach out! In high school I debated for Mount Pleasant in Texas (#bEastTexas).

---

TLDR

Ultimately, I believe my job as a judge is to evaluate whatever debate you all decide to have. Any preferences or biases I have can be overcome by good debating, and I would much rather judge you at your best than have you over-adapt to what you think my preferences are.

That said, I feel I am much better for policy strategies than critical strategies. Within critical strategies, I am better for ones that engage the case or affirm the resolution (even if that is in a creative way) than ones that do not.

I think about things through an offense/defense paradigm. Absent instruction to evaluate the debate differently, this will be my default.

I have a pretty strong disposition that the causal outcome of the plan matters. I can be convinced that other things also matter, but, if equally debated, it will be difficult to convince me to disregard the consequences of the plan entirely.

I will not evaluate things that occurred outside of the debate. If there is a serious issue of interpersonal violence, I will attempt to contact the appropriate set of people, whether that be coaches, tab, etc. I will not make a subjective determination on what happened via the ballot.

---

Critical Affirmatives vs Topicality

I will decide these debates, like any other, based on the flow alone. I am more than willing to vote in either direction.

That said, I am probably “better” for the neg than the aff here. The overwhelming majority of my own experience in these debates is on the neg going for T. I also have a pretty strong predisposition that the aff should defend doing something. If your strategy is dependent on defending nothing, I will likely be very sympathetic to the neg on T.

I think affirmatives should pick a strategy and commit to it. The 2AR should either center around a re-interpretation of the resolution (which should likely involve evidence) OR around impact turns to the negative’s impacts/performance/etc.

Ideally, both the 2NR and 2AR will include robust impact comparison as well as internal link comparison/interaction.

---

Critical Affirmatives vs Substance

Negative teams who take up the affirmative on the substance of the case will be rewarded.

I’m absolutely down for a big impact turn debate or big DA debate. If the aff will grant you links to those things, you should take them up on it!

I feel the least comfortable in K v K debates. If that’s your thing, go for it! Just please take the time to give me clear judge instruction as to how I should resolve the important questions in the debate.

---

Policy Affs vs Topicality

Great. Go for it.

Much like in T-USFG debates, I think about these through the lens of models. Giving me a clear picture of your model—including what affirmatives are/are not included, what core generics are guaranteed, and why those debates are good ones to have—will correspond with a greater chance of winning the debate.

Reasonability is most persuasive when it is packaged as a predictability DA. “Good is good enough” is not a winner.

---

Policy Affs vs Disadvantages

Great. Go for them.

Impact comparison is incredibly important. Give me clear tools for comparing impacts during my decision.

I am very persuaded by turns case arguments, even when analytical.

There can be a lot of utility in making smart analytical arguments, especially ones that get at the logical inconsistencies within a given DA.

---

Policy Affs vs Counterplans

Great. Go for them.

Process

I'm pretty good for the aff on competition when debated well.

I find the way people currently think about "textual" and "functional" competition to be strange and often devolve into word salad. To me, the important questions in a competition debate include:

-What do the words mean? What could they mean?

-What kinds of CPs would a given model include? What kinds would they exclude?

-Why is it good/bad to include/exclude those CPs?

Judge Kick

My default assumption is that I should judge kick the CP, the same way my default assumption is that conditionality is not a reason to reject the team.

If no one says a word about judge kick, I will do it.

If the aff would like me to not judge kick the CP, that debate -must- start by at least the 1AR. If the 2AR is the first time anyone is talking about judge kick, I will probably do it anyways.

This also means it is likely in the best interest of the negative to get out ahead of this debate by telling me to judge kick in the block.

Conditionality

Probably predisposed to think it is good, but that shouldn’t really matter. If the 2AR is condo, I will evaluate the debate according to the flow alone, not my own preferences.

This does mean, however, if large portions of the debate are left unresolved by the 2NR/2AR, I am probably more likely to resolve them in favor of conditionality.

Other Theoretical Questions

If the 2AC says it is a reason to reject the team, and the only thing the 2NC says is “reject the argument not the team,” I’m pretty good for the aff. I do not understand why neg teams consistently choose to leave this door open when it would take 15-20 seconds at most to close it entirely. If the 2AC does not make a complete argument, then the above 2NC response is probably sufficient, but if the 2AC includes warranted reasons to reject the team, failing to respond to those seems pretty dangerous.

---

Policy Affs vs Kritiks

I am a lot worse for the neg here than I used to be. That should not deter you from reading or going for kritiks in front of me, but it is something I feel like you should know.

It is hard to convince me the plan does not matter at all. You can do it, but if equally debated, I will likely give the aff the plan.

I will try not to arbitrarily create middle road interpretations that were not advanced in a given debate. I do think, however, it is often in the interests of both teams to advance these kind of interpretations, or at least give me some tools to resolve the debate in a middle ground way.

Like in any debate, impact comparison and judge instruction matters a lot.

---

Other Events

Lincoln Douglas

I did this like twice in high school. My background is incredibly policy so I will think about debates the way a policy-brained judge would.

If your thing is “prog LD,” I’m great for that.

If your thing is “trad LD,” that’s also great. I don’t feel super experienced with value/criterion debating, but as long as you give me clear judge instruction and tell me why you winning certain arguments means you win the debate, we should be all good.

I do not want to judge a trix debate. Those are for kids.

Public Forum

No idea how I ended up here. I do not know anything about PF specifically but all of my above thoughts apply.

Also apparently y’all paraphrase evidence instead of actually reading it? I don’t understand that. I would rather you read cards.

Extemp

I did this for 6 years and loved it.

I care about your macro structure as well as your micro structure. There should be a clear development of ideas within your points.

Source quality matters. Using high level sources will be rewarded.

Be sure you answer the question, not answer around the question.

Debate:

No two rounds are the same, so depending on the round, I can vote on framework, clash, structure, analytics, or impacts because those are all crucial to a good debate. Persuade me why I should care and vote for you.

Ensure every argument is sound, but I could easily go for outlandish arguments as long as they’re done right.

I’m good with speed, and progressive arguments are fine, don’t go overboard to where you do so much that you can't keep up with your arguments and structure.

I have a background in both traditional and progressive LD and PF. If I am in a CX round, then something has gone terribly wrong.

If you are rude, condescending, abusive, etc., in the round, you WILL be called out and possibly ranked down because of it. This is supposed to be a healthy, educational environment, and I don't condone people acting like they are better than any other competitor just because of how many rounds they have won.

Congress:

I should put this in all caps, but if you behave unprofessionally in the chamber, I will completely dock you. Nothing is worse than complete disrespect for the round, competitors, and judges.

Also, I don't automatically vote you up just for being PO. Don't run for PO if you don't have your Parli procedures down; I know them.

Content is key to winning in congress and being active in the chamber. Ask questions that make you stand out for the RIGHT reasons, not because you made someone laugh.

IEs:

I have multiple state titles and have competed in numerous national out rounds on the high school and college circuit, so I don't just go by "who has the best story." Characterization and development are important, as well as clean delivery. No topics are off-limits, and follow the parameters of the event.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at ashlyntrokey@gmail.com.

CX: To be honest over the last 3 years, I have transitioned primarily to a tournament director. I judge maybe 20 policy rounds tops each year of varying skill levels. My ability to keep up with speed has faltered as a result of not keeping in form. I will let you know if you are going too fast. It is typically theory/T standards/voters where I will lose you if you spread through them. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I would say that I am more a policy maker judge than anything else. This means that I will vote for the best advocacy in the round, which means you have 3 options as the negative (squo good, CP, or K). I would say very much tech over truth. Default condo good. On T I prefer a well developed standard debate. I tend to default reasonability but at the end of the day if you can sell me on competing interps, I'm not opposed. This should be the only thing you are going for in the 2NR if this is your strategy. DA's - I love good uniqueness updates on DA's and 2AC N/Us. Love a good Politics scenario. Will vote on the impact turn on either the DA or the ADV. I'm cool with CPs. On the K debate, I am unfamiliar with a lot of K literature, I know the basics of Cap and Security but because I haven't engaged with the arguments in a few years, I'm definitely a little hazy on the details. If you are going to run a K or a K AFF please make sure you can explain it well. I want to feel comfortable after the initial cross-x that I know what your world looks like. I will vote on Framework regarding the K debate. Finally, on the Theory debate, make sure there is a clear violation and that you have some real offense coming off the argument if it is something you are going to commit to.

PF: I typically judge policy debate. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I need reasons why your world is a better world for me. I don't think PF is the place for frivolous theory. I don't mind voting on critical arguments although I will grant leeway if you butcher the explanation of the criticism to your opponents. I am cool with speed, however, seeing as we will be online I urge you to stay at about 80%. Defense isn't sticky. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. I would like to be on the email chain. Julian.T.Erdmann@gmail.com.

LD: To be honest over the last 3 years, I have transitioned primarily to a tournament director. I judge maybe 20 rounds tops each year of varying skill levels. My ability to keep up with speed has faltered as a result of not keeping in form. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. Please slow down for theory spikes, any analysis, or what you deem important. I flow on paper, if I can't write it down it doesn't show up on my flow. I prefer not to flow off the document, if you are going to go so fast that I need to, send me your analytics. I would like to hear taglines. During the rebuttals when you are doing comparative work, please please please slow down. I'm not the fastest flow judge anymore. I will vote on the RVI especially if you can link in round abuse. I'm not familiar with the skep stuff. I'm not familiar with most K literature. I understand the basics of Cap and Security but outside of that don't assume I know your author/method/K. Your lack of explanation on the K lowers my thresholds on what it takes for your opponent to beat it. I feel you should probably defend some sort of alternative/advocacy statement. Feel free to reach out for any other questions. Add me to the chain Julian.T.Erdmann@gmail.com please.

CX Debate

I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

"I am a seasoned professional in the realm of debate, holding expertise as a debater, judge, and coach with over a decade of dedicated experience. As an educator, I am highly qualified to work with both students and adults alike. To me, debating revolves around the cultivation of analytical skills and intellectual discourse governed by the principles of logic and adherence to the specific rules of engagement associated with the chosen debate format. I possess extensive knowledge across a wide spectrum of debate formats, including but not limited to Parliamentary debates, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), policy debates, and many others."

I keep a rigorous note, I prefer argument over style but both are fairly important and I listen very attentively although I would encourage fair pacing and flow.

Email Address: 9cassassin@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

"Here are some key considerations that will encourage the strongest analysis by the end of the debate, as opposed to arguments that may waste time, are unfamiliar, or lack strategic value:

Kritiks : a good K is cheat code and a bad K is your enemy.

I appreciate well-articulated kritiks that align with the debate context. However, if the kritik lacks relevance to the topic or the arguments presented, it might not carry as much weight in my decision.

1. A thorough explanation of the links, impacts, and alternatives in kritiks will significantly enhance your chances of persuading me. Ensure clarity in your articulation to strengthen the impact of your kritik.
2. Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative, demonstrating its significance and how it interacts with other arguments in the round.
3. Be mindful of the pacing when delivering kritiks. If presented too quickly without ample clarification, it may hinder my ability to fully grasp the nuances of your position.
4. Use real-world examples or analogies to illustrate the implications of the kritik, making it more accessible for both the judge and your opponents.
5. Consider the depth and quality of your responses to potential counterarguments against the kritik. Anticipate opposing perspectives and address them convincingly.
6. While I appreciate innovative and critical perspectives, ensure your kritik aligns with the rules and norms of the debating format being used. Clarity and adherence to format rules are crucial.
7. Feel free to engage in a dialogue about the kritik during cross-examination if it enhances understanding and provides an opportunity for clarification.

Policy: Here are five solid cheat codes

1. Deep Research:

   • Thoroughly research and understand the topic. The more knowledgeable you are about the subject matter, the better you can construct and defend your arguments.

2. Effective Evidence Usage:

   • Use high-quality and relevant evidence to support your arguments. Ensure that your evidence is recent, credible, and directly supports the points you are making.

3. Clear Argument Structure:

   • Organize your arguments in a clear and logical structure. Clearly state your claims, provide evidence to support them, and explain the implications. A well-organized structure helps judges follow your arguments more easily.

4. Adaptability:

   • Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on the responses of your opponents. If they present strong counterarguments, be ready to adjust your approach and defend your position effectively.

5. Strong Cross-Examination Skills:

   • Master the art of cross-examination. Use this time to challenge your opponents' arguments, highlight weaknesses, and gather information that can be used to your advantage in later speeches.

Cross-examination :how to spy on your opponents to reveal information and secrets, they don't want you to know.

Here are some tips for conducting effective cross-examination:

1. Pay close attention to your opponent's responses during their speeches to identify areas to probe further.
2. Enter cross-examination with specific goals in mind. Whether it's exposing weaknesses in their argument or eliciting concessions, clarity in your objectives is key.
3. Formulate questions that are direct and easy to understand. Avoid complex or convoluted queries that may confuse your opponent or the judge.
4. Use questions to guide the narrative in a direction favorable to your case. Steer the conversation toward your key points and away from your opponent's strengths.
5. Craft questions that may lead your opponent to concede certain points or admit weaknesses in their arguments. These concessions can be powerful tools in your subsequent speeches.
6. Instead of giving your opponent room to elaborate, frame questions that require concise responses. This helps maintain control of the cross-examination.
7. Maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout the cross-examination. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the arguments rather than the person.
8. Take note of responses during cross-examination that you can use to your advantage in your subsequent speeches. Effective cross-examination should contribute to your overall strategy.
9. Be ready to adapt your questioning based on your opponent's responses. If they reveal unexpected weaknesses, capitalize on them.
10. Practice cross-examination techniques and review successful cross-examinations from experienced debaters. Learn from both effective and less effective examples.

Strategic Relevance: Focus on arguments that have clear strategic importance in the debate. Avoid going off-topic or introducing irrelevant points.

Clarity Over Speed: Prioritize clarity over speed. It's essential that arguments are comprehensible, and spreading too quickly can hinder this. Make sure your arguments make sense and are well-articulated.

Quality Over Quantity: Rather than flooding the debate with numerous arguments, aim for depth and quality in your analysis. Well-developed arguments often carry more weight than a large number of shallow ones.

Speaker Points: While you may not consistently receive super high speaker points, aim to make substantive contributions to the debate. Engage in meaningful clash and provide clear reasoning for your positions.

Evidence Use: Utilize evidence effectively during the debate. Reading cards is acceptable, but it's not always necessary to read them after the debate unless there's a disagreement. Use evidence when it enhances your argument's credibility.

Re-Highlighting: Consider re-highlighting when it adds value to your argumentation. Be discerning about when to use this strategy.

By adhering to these principles, you can contribute to a more focused, comprehensible, and analytically rich debate experience."

"As a judge, here are some key qualities and advice I value:

Active Listening: I genuinely listen to your arguments and appreciate when debaters engage in thoughtful discourse.

Objective Evaluation: My judgments are based on the merits of the arguments presented, not personal bias or preference.

Strive for Excellence: Push yourself to perform at your best, but also remember to enjoy the experience of debating.

Inquisitive Mindset: Don't hesitate to read and ask questions. A curious approach can lead to deeper understanding and more compelling arguments.

Open-Mindedness: Be open to all perspectives, but apply critical thinking and discernment to evaluate them effectively.

Defend Your Positions: Be ready to defend your ideological commitments with well-reasoned arguments and evidence.

Confidence: Confidence in your arguments and delivery can make a significant difference in the outcome of debates.

By embodying these qualities and following this advice, you can enhance your performance and contribute to a more rewarding debate experience."

I want to underscore the importance of impact weighing in my role as a judge. It holds a significant place in how I evaluate the entire debate, shaping my perspective on the arguments presented and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Impact weighing is the tool by which I assess which arguments carry the most weight and significance in the debate. It acts as a framework through which I analyze both offense and defense. Effective impact weighing can bolster your position and provide a clear path to victory in the debate.

I encourage all participants to give due attention to impact weighing during their speeches. Explain why your impacts are more critical than those of your opponent and show how they outweigh or mitigate the opposing arguments. Skillful and persuasive impact weighing can greatly influence my decision and enhance the overall quality of the debate.

Remember, practice and feedback are key to improvement. Regularly engage in practice debates, seek constructive feedback, and refine your skills over time. Good luck!

Thank you for your dedication to delivering high-quality debates.

Best regards,

Mohammed Habib.

Put me on the chain: zacharyhuffman701@gmail.com. Speech drops make me sad.

Debated at: North Lamar High School (c/o 2019),The University of Central Oklahoma (c/o 2023)

2021 CEDA Finalist

Coached at: Mt. Pleasant HS (TX), Chapel Hill-MP HS (TX)

Kind of consulted for: North Lamar HS (TX), UCO (OK)

---

Don't be a fascist.

I would only consider myself an expert in one argument: settler colonialism. However, I consider myself to have a pretty good knowledge base for all arguments: policy debates, K debates, and clash debates.

I will not do work for you. I am very strict to my flow and will only make decisions based on things that are said/done in the round.

I do flow CX but its only applied to your speech if you tell me to apply the CX moment in said speech.

Don't change your strategy for me.

Aff-specific neg strategies > Core topic neg strategies.

"T-read a plan" needs to have impacts other than fairness. Fairness is an internal link.

K affs should probably kritik the notion of T-read a plan instead of trying to conform to neg ideas of fairness.

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 22 years and I am an NSDA Two-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

I have been out of forensics so long that I'm practically a lay judge, especially when it comes to keeping up with speed, so keep that in mind. I tend toward being a tab judge, though I default to policymaker when not provided with voting issues.I am open to pretty much any line of argumentation and expect for the debaters to tell me what to vote on in the rebuttals.

I will not tolerate sexism, racism, transphobia, or any other form of discrimination in-round.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

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.

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

Nothing special. I judge Congress/PF/LD regularly. Keep arguments germane to the topic. Watch speed.

My name is Katlyn Owens, I use they/them pronouns

I am fairly open-minded for types of arguments and structure of the debates. I prefer no spreading in the round. I would rather hear a few good, thought-out arguments, as opposed to as many as possible in the time allotted.

Unless, the aff is so far out of the realm of the resolution, I don't tend to buy arguments on topicality. 

Clarity and organization of the speeches are important.

This is my first year judging. I am a professional stage actor, and in my theater work, I value performances that are clear, intelligent, empathic, and playful. In my limited experience judging speech events, I have gained an appreciation for presentations that deliver an abundance of well-organized evidence and information with warmth, professionalism, and confidence.

UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.

CX: I'm a policy maker judge. I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (Anna.rhea@kempisd.org), but I prefer Speechdrop. I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must. I DO NOT vote on CX. That is for you to get an advantage on your opponent through inquiry.

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes two framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

LD Philosophy

I'm up for about anything when it comes to arguments. Run what you feel comfortable running. I prefer the debaters to tell me what they want the round to look like. If you leave it up to me I will vote almost exclusively on framework and impacts. Not a big fan of speed at all. If you are spreading then you aren't trying to win my ballot. If I can't follow you then I won't flow the arguments. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

Background

I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.

Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net

Judging Philosophy

I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.

I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.

Speed

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine

Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.

I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.

If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.

Topicality

Full disclosure: I love good T debates.

The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.

Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.

I want the violation to be as specific as possible.

Standards and voters are essential.

All other arguments

Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.

Cross-Examination

I don't flow it, but I pay attention.

If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.

Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.

Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!

Policy -

I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking but be aware that I will time them. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.

I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.

Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.

LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.

CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.