Melissa Cardinal Classic
2023 — Melissa, Tx, TX/US
Extemp Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.
CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.
LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.
General: Send cases to email@example.com.Trained through NSDA and NFHS. Will disclose through writing immediately after the round.
Generally speaking, things I like to see:
-VCV explicitly stated and aligned to arguments and evidence throughout the case.
-a classical approach to debate that values depth of argument over speed and spread.
-Negative has the burden of rejoinder. No rejoinder, no win.
-CX that challenges to the links between definition and framework, evidence and impact, and VCV and framework.
-Clearly stated impact calculus (probability/substantiality, magnitude, severity, timeframe).
-direct and sustained clash that leads to clarification of positions.
-Voters being mentioned early and often.
-Players agreeing on fiat if we are not focusing on real world.
Things that I think weaken or sink a case:
-Poor definition work from generalized sources or definitions that play little role in case development.
-Citing specific data as 'common knowledge'.
-Hodgepodge cases: your definitions come from Blackwell's Law, your C1 cards come from 1980's Russian Nuclear scientist, your C2 cards come from The New Yorker, your c3 cards come from an experimental geological research journal and your framework is util and justice. Stick to a lane and work from that lane- legal, scientific, popular theory, something consistent holds more weight that trying to link disciplines that require multiple degrees before you can read the industry material with any level of comprehension. In other words, good cases require continuity of understanding and depth of knowledge.
-Jargon-heavy kritiks that lack definition work and teams that don't challenge these kritiks.
-Deconstructive kritiks, particularly in their anti-colonialist form, have their place in debate as red flags in our collective conscience, but they do not constitute a counterplan. You must provide an alternative.
-Kritiks are inherently philosophically loaded positions. If your K shifts the debate from policy to values you must define and defend your values. Kritiks require strong linking and framework not just a cut card of implications.
Case sharing and good sportsmanship:
-If your team asks to see a case, you provide the case first.
-You provide the case you are running, not cards that 'you might run'. Unethical.
-There is no rule that says you MUST provide a case to an opposing team. You can provide a framework if you wish, either on-clock or off-clock.
-Agreeing to share cases then sharing your case moments before you compete? Bad taste.
-Frustration and anger are expected but don't let it turn to sarcasm or passive aggressive remarks. How you react to a poor competitor reflects your confidence in your case and abilities.
Generally I prefer analysis and sourcing to style and delivery. Clearly structured is more important than having exactly three points. State your question and take a side. Bonus points for setting context and complexity through historical references and present/future impacts
I favor clear characterization and the elements of plot. Creating building tension, owning the stage, and balancing verbal/nonverbal elements of drama is important to me. Filling the entire clock is less important than the art of storytelling, but generally I don't rank sub 5 minute piece well.
Teaching Experience: Pre-K, Kindergarten, College, Middle School, High School; Language Arts, Reading, English 1, English 4, Certification Examination Preparation, Debate, Yearbook, Archery
Education: B.A. English, B.S.E. Secondary Education, M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction, Cert. in Women and Gender Studies, Cert. in Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies
Judging Expectations: I coach and compete in the UIL circuit so I mostly adhere to UIL guidelines and UIL handbooks. That means I will be looking at time limits, speaking abilities, sources and documentation, dress/appearance/nonverbals/posture, and topic/prompt/category representation/adherence.
All speech events: Speech is an art. I will notice and judge based on pronunciation, enunciation, pacing, projection, breath control, inflection, affectation, tone, etc.
Extemp: My background is English, so I like standard formats. I love road maps and theses, topic sentences and transitions. You should include an introduction which states topic/purpose/claim, a body which presents points/contentions and research/sources/citations, and a conclusion. I do not like the extemp triangle - I find movement distracting.
Interp: My background is English, so I will recognize tone shifts and semantic choices. I expect you to have identified these things and use vocal cues and variations to emphasize them and enhance your reading. You must connect to the prompt and have that connection explained. Please consult UIL expectations regarding binders.
All debate events: Your job is to convince the judge and attack the problem, not to convince or attack your opponent. Stay on topic, stay on message, stay on goal. Be kind, be respectful, and be civil. There had better be some solid research with reliable sources, that is non-negotiable. Aggression is not inherently a problem, but if it's personal or rude, I will deduct. Speed reading is not inherently a problem, but if it sacrifices clarity, I will deduct. Jargon is not inherently a problem, but if I do not understand, I will deduct.
LD: I better hear some philosophy and you had better explain it.
CX: I better hear some good questions and you had better use your time appropriately.
Relax, Breath and Have FUN!!
You GOT this...
I am currently a volunteer with Mrs. Meyer at The Colony High School! I am VERY excited to be working with her and ALL of the GREAT TCHS Speech/Debate Students!
I have 30 + years of experience in the Speech/Debate/Theatre Arena as a Coach/Teacher in North Texas (UIL, TFA, NFL, Etc.).
I have 6 years of experience as a competitor in HS and College. Competeing in Invitationals, District, Regional, State & National Tournaments!
I view the round more or less as a Tabula Rasa judge, but you can run just about anything. I'm pretty flexible I just need to know what your talking about, why its important, and what impact is has in the round. Pen down means your judge isn't following your argument. Spreading at a speaking event makes no sense, but I'll listen to it as I grew up with it in round. Spreading Theory blocks I listen to a lot because this is a speaking event and I have to give you speaker points.
I'll vote on it, but it has got to be obvious and perfectly executed. The logical ground work must be there as well as standards and voters.
I'm more of a realist, so abstract Alts are just that to me... abstract. real world Alts are good. I'll listen to the K because I'm a bit of a games player judge as well. Be sure you give me framework and do the mental and logical leg work.
I like a clean clashing rounds. If you can give me that, more quality evidence over quantity, and have a good strat and build in the 2NR (no shotgun arguments), you can have the ballot. I WANT SUBSTANCE!
Topicality is a necessary portion of debate, but one thing I really hate is time suck T's. Although, if the other team is obviously off topic, you better throw a T.
Love disads because most of the time they actually make sense. Humanity is consequentialist by nature so this is the most accepted argument for a reason. I am ok voting for a generic disad if you can make it stick really well. The more specific the better though. Practical impacts are better than the oh so common, nuclear war scene, but I will vote on nuclear war if it sticks in the round and you actually pull its weight across the debate. Just saying "drag across the impact of nuclear war" isn't going to cut it. GIVE ME SUBSTANCE, GIVE ME THE STORY.
I can work with performance debate. I will vote on a K AFF if its executed well. Make sure it makes coherent sense to me and your audience and its content is clearly expressed.
Flash Drive out of the computer and then we stop time. Hands off mouse/computer while opponents get the files up. TIME YOURSELVES! I'm ok with Speech Drop but no on internet usage.
Have a good time... Speaker points go down if you're brash, nasty, and being uncalled for. Explain yourself well, play the game when you must, and also use this time to prepare you to become a well educated and fluent speaker. You control how the debate works, not my paradigm. Lets talk Policy.Lincoln Douglas Touch on every contention. You should be able to keep a solid flow and touch everything. I use observations as framework in the round so point me in the right direction. Neg must clash, AFF must prove. If you want to provide a separate framework, let me know. IF you want me to vote for one contention over another you need to weigh that in round. For LD its all about ground work.
In debate, I value true debating. I look for clash and actual consideration of competitor's arguments, not just person after person reading their pre-written, un-customized speeches. I also value communication. If you talk too speedily and I cannot hear distinct words, those arguments will not be accounted for in my judging. This is not to be mean, but if I can't understand you, I can't really judge you. Finally, you will be polite and respectful. Yes, I want clash, but nothing personal. Debate your opponent's points, not their personality or appearance or whatever else. Honestly, that would just make me more sympathetic to them, so don't do it. And PLEASE, no lingo. Say real people words. I do not care enough to learn every swanky fancy term for something you could just call by name, so if you use debater's slang around me, I just plain won't know what you mean, and that's not good communication.
IEs are a little different. Of course you will not be clashing, so those parts don't apply. Still, I expect you to speak clearly, and I expect to not. be. yelled. at. I don't mean I don't want to be lectured, because extemp speeches and oratories are literally lectures, but do not raise your voice at me. Get passionate, vary your tone, all that good stuff, but don't literally yell. It's kind of the same principle, if I can't hear you well and you're just being mean, I'm gonna have a harder time giving you first place.
And for POs in Congress, please, be chill. I'm not saying be lax on the rules, but in my opinion, an amicable (but not lazy!) chamber is the best kind. I don't like being yelled at. As long as everyone gets to speak and you run the room fairly, you'll be good in my book, and you'll be satisfied with your rank on my ballot.
I just want y'all to be nice to each other. You're all overachievers who choose to put on a suit and debate politics on the weekends for fun, there's no need to get nasty or cutthroat or anything l like that. You're a lot more similar than you are different, which is a good thing! Just be cool, and I'll be cool too.
Good luck, all!
I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have done some CX and married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.
I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.
I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.
I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.
I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."
I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.
I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.
See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.
I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.
This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.
General Debate: I follow clear line-by-line arguments, I should not have to work hard to follow your arguments or understand what you are trying to prove. Clear extensions with solid analysis will win the round, being rude won’t. If your plan to win is to interrupt your opponents and be rude you are going to have a tough time. I'm good with speech, just slow down in tags, dates, and authors. That being said if you don’t slow down I won’t flow. Just because it’s on your doc doesn’t mean you read it. If you want me to flow it then slow it down. If you set up an email chain my email is Alyson.firstname.lastname@example.org. I have experience competing and judging in LD, CX, and PF so I know how the game is played. Let me know if you have any questions.
Case: Clear arguments that are well laid out are the way to go. I prefer the quality over quantity. Your goal should be to win because you have a better case not smother your opponent in arguments.
T: This is important. I don’t care how much of a positive impact comes from your case, if it doesn’t link in it will not win. Proving this sooner rather than later is key.
DAs and CPs: Do it, I’m game.
Ks and KAff: Prove that it’s is true and relevant and you got it.
Theory: I don’t buy theories that waste my time. If you are going to run a theory make it worth my time and energy.
Hi, I'm Lylliam! (She/Her)
I debated LD for 2 years and then switched to Policy CX Debate for my last two years. I competed in UIL, TFA, NSDA, and TOC tournaments and have qualified to TFA state, placed at UIL state, and have won a district championship in CX debate. I have also have competed in Persuasive Extemporaneous speaking for all of my high school career and have won various accolades.
Be nice, respectful, and professional to one another!!! If you create a hostile space within a round your speaks will take a hit. Include trigger warnings and respect respect respect all around! And no slurs you have no agency to use.
Be courteous and don't steal prep, or use the internet when you're not allowed to, or clip. Don't compete dirty.
Do not read anything anti-immigration in front of me under any circumstance please and thank you. The same goes for anything racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic etc. Use common sense, don't be hateful, and be good people.
Please add me to the email chain- email@example.com
If you're spreading some long typed out analytics and/or pre-written blocks please send them in the email chain it makes life so much easier.
My debate partner and I were K debaters so yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER don't assume I, or your opponents, know of your specific literature and are aware of all the jargon. Please don't assume I'm smarter than I am, explain the terminology and why your lit matters in today's round and all that good stuff. I'm probably most qualified to judge queer theory K's since I mostly read queer abolition in high school. I love a good K round so do it well and make me happy! :)
Be mindful of Performance K's and Theory in front of me, I don't feel I am qualified to evaluate these rounds.
Policy v. policy rounds are perfectly okay, I truly do appreciate a good policy round.
I love when you "write my RFD for me" in rebuttals.
Also I enjoy FW debate.
I don't like wash debates, don't make me vote on presumption.
Also I hate personal anecdotes in debate.
!!!WARRANT OUT ARGUMENTS AND EXTENSIONS!!!
ROB/ROJ arguments are great.
Open CX is okay.
Experienced teams need to be nicer to novices.
Love, love, love voters in rebuttals.
Tab, do whatever you do best. Comfortable with all arguments. I seek to minimize judge intervention. Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Absent a framing mechanism I default to Utilitarianism. I do not need an abuse claim to pull the trigger on T and Theory, my default is to consider them through the lens of modeling. I do not back fill warrants nor arguments. For example, a T and Theory require an explicit interp violation standards and voters. Commonly, non-extinction death impacts are not quantified, please quantify these arguments for me. For example, if your impact is a pandemic that does not lead to extinction, please tell me how many deaths per year. This makes it much easier for me to reach a decision at the end of the round without intervening.
Good with speed
Speaks: Organization and making the right game decisions are weighed heavily for speaks. I also enjoy a good cx period.
I did policy in high school and parli @ UT Tyler.
I am a high school science teacher and speech and debate coach. I've coached speech and debate for 9 years. I competed in speech and congressional debate in high school, then some speech in college. I am very passionate about the power of communication. Above all, it is extremely important to me that you articulate and enunciate well. This can still be accomplished with reasonable speed. Take care to explain your arguments well. I strongly prefer constructive speeches with resolutional analysis, framework, key definitions, and a standard that I can use to weigh arguments. I should have a solid understanding of what you think are the most important issues in the round. Please use voters! If you want me to vote on it, please make sure it is in your final speech and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.
Argue on logic, not emotions. Construct well-impacted, well-supported arguments. Quotations have no meaning without explanations. Therefore, always explain the significance of your evidence. The debater that most clearly presents a logical argument AND effectively refutes the opponent will be the victor.
I may ask you to post your case or cards, if a virtual tournament. I may call for cards if your opponents ask me to, if the card is widely disputed during the round, or if it sounds exceptionally sketchy. According to NSDA rules, you can also access the Internet during round if you need to show your opponent the full citation.
Speed and Flowing
Anything below spread speed is fine. If you go fast, you should: SLOW DOWN when using tag lines and signposting. Give clear citations. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow (off time roadmaps). Please look out for physical cues if you are speed-talking. If I look visibly confused or if my hand isn’t moving, that’s probably because I can’t understand you. While I don’t flow crossfire/cross-ex, I’ll remember anything exceptionally witty or smart you say. Make sure you repeat anything significant from crossfire/cross-ex in your next speeches. Rebuttal speeches should be well organized. Please go straight down the flow.
Don’t be mean. If you’re mean, my brain will naturally find a way to vote against you. Being assertive is valued. Being aggressive is unnecessary. There is a difference between a passionate debater and an abrasive or condescending debater. Crossfires/cross-ex needs to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I enjoy good clash.
Specific to LD
My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing value and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Impact all your contentions back to your value. Value, criterion, and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides. Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross examination will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
Background: I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I did two years of policy, two years of LD. I also competed in Parli on the collegiate level.
For my general paradigm, I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). I don't think it's my job to tell you that you can or cannot run certain arguments. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be I will default to policymaker. Speed is okay with me as long as you aren't sacrificing clarity. If I can't understand you I will stop flowing. Please keep your own time. As for how I feel about certain arguments:
Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework,a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well fleshed out arguments that are extended throughout the round.
Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win (hint: don't just say "that's abusive").
Counterplans/Disads: I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the case. In LD if you're going to run one, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you can, considering most of the time, there isn't a plan to begin with. Disads should be structured well.
Framework: I look to fw before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory obviously, specifically in LD. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for.
If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.
I'm an old school policy/stock issues judge, who likes to see debate over the resolution, & prefers your speech speed to be slow enough to where you can pronounce every word clearly & I can understand you.