Philosophy:

As a parent judge, I am committed to providing a fair and unbiased evaluation of the arguments presented by both teams. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and the effective use of evidence in debates. My role is to assess the quality of the arguments and the debating skills displayed by the participants.

Experience:

I have experience judging debates for 1+ years. I have observed various debate formats and am familiar with the general rules and practices of competitive debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to objectively evaluate the arguments and evidence presented during the round. I do not have preconceived opinions about the topic and will base my decision solely on the merits of the arguments made during the debate.

Argumentation:

I appreciate well-structured arguments that are supported by evidence. Debaters should focus on providing clear contentions and solid reasoning.

Rebuttals:

Effective refutation is crucial. Debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments, identify points of clash, and provide a clear summary of their case in the final rebuttals.

Cross-Examination:

I expect cross-examination to be conducted respectfully and to serve as a tool for clarifying positions and uncovering weaknesses in arguments.

Time Management:

Debaters should adhere to time limits. I will keep track of time, but I expect participants to be responsible for managing their own time effectively.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, strategy, and overall performance. High speaker points will be awarded to debaters who demonstrate strong argumentation skills and effective communication.

Respect:

Respect for opponents, partners, and the judge is essential. Any form of disrespectful behavior will be penalized in my assessment.

Decision Making:

My decision will be based on the quality of the arguments presented in the round. I will carefully evaluate each team's contentions, evidence, and refutation before reaching a decision.

Preferences:

I do not have strong preferences regarding specific debate styles or content areas. My primary concern is the quality of the arguments and the debating skills displayed by the participants.

Final Thoughts:

Debate is an excellent opportunity for personal growth and intellectual development. I encourage all debaters to approach the round with enthusiasm, integrity, and a commitment to constructive discourse.

Update for the TOC 2023: I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. The same can be said about theory, I mostly judge small town tournaments in Texas, so I am not at all familiar with advanced theory that you may run at your national circuit/bid tournaments. I am a tab judge, so I will still try to evaluate theory/k's as fairly as possible, but if your case relies on my knowledge of these things you are likely putting yourself at a disadvantage. Aside from that, read whatever DA's, CP's, K's, or Theory you want as fast as you want. Will not vote off of racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other ignorant arguments you make just to win the round. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics

Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him)

Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. For some more about me, I am an Astronomer studying low-mass galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope and received my B.S. in Astronomy at UT Austin.

K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them and if they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything

CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it.

DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX.

Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument).

FW: Util unless otherwise told

Speaker Points:

30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job.

28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example)

27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most

26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down

25-26:arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this).

20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements

All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

I HAVE COACHED, TAUGHT And judged debate for the last 27 years on both the UIL And TFA circuits

LD Debate: should be clearly presented and I discouragement spreading. Quality of evidence amd citations are more important than quantity of arguments. In the rebuttals it helps to Crystalize the round amd give impact calculus. Give voters and point out dropped arguments and why they are important. Why your value amd VC should be WEIGHED more than your opponent or how you achieve yours better.

IN EXTEMP: SHOULD HAVE A GREAT ATTENTION getter . 3 main points and thesis statement. Looking for transitions to be natural and supported by stage movements and hand gestures. Eye contact with the judge and conversational tone is appreciated. Speeches not depended on note cards earns extra points as well as citation of sources. Conclusions that tie back to attention getter always impress me.

Prose Poetry: should be read and intro should include the title a.d authors of the published piece. Always impressed when a presentation fits the competitors personality amd they become one with piece. Voice inflection and captivating the audience throughout the performance impresses this judged.