BACKGROUND:

Have been involved in debate as a student, high school debater, college debater, high school coach or a college coach since the Nixon administration. Yes I actually cut Watergate cards. So pardon my smile when asked how I feel about speed etc.

PHILOSOPHY

Try to be Tab as much as possible. But like all judges I have some personal preferences listed below:

TOPICALITY

Is a voter, don't usually vote on it unless it is mishandled or extremely squirely. Make sure to have a violation, standard and voter in shell. Haven't previously voted on a RVI on T.

THEORY

Tend to look at in round abuse.

KRITIKS

They are fine, but make sure you understand the literature, spend a lot of quality time on the link and have a clear alternative.

PRESENTATION

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". Make a clear distinction between your taglines and and your cards.

OTHER ISSUES:

Will vote you down for being rude or sarcastic. Proper decorum is a must. I will vote against sexist, racist et al. arguments.

CONCLUSION

I was fairly succinct on this paradigm, so feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Also debate should be fun. A sense of humor is always appreciated.

Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.

About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW.

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

I am primarily a policy coach/judge, but do have experience with LD and PF. I have been judging for more than 15 years and have judged on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits.

In CX, I consider myself to be a policymaker judge, but what it comes down to is that the debater that convinces me is the debater that is going to get my vote. This means that I am looking for strong evidence as well as good analysis. I am looking for arguments that make sense. I am looking for cases that not only prove their own points but counter the opponent's points, as well. I strive to start the round with no preconceived notions. I want to see strong framework and strong impact calcs.

Do not make the mistake of presenting your case without arguing your opponent's. Yes, I am repeating that statement. It bears repeating.

Speed is ok, but at the end of the day, I still like to hear good speaking. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then your speaking habits are not showcasing what you should be doing. I would rather hear fewer quality arguments than to have so much crammed into your time that I am unable to see clearly how it all works together.

While I do not judge as much LD as I do CX, my paradigm remains much the same. I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, and delineation between arguments. I want to see evidence early in the round but more analysis as the round progresses. Make sure that your Value and Criterion are strong and show me why I should vote on those - and back that up with what you are presenting with your evidence and analysis.

In Congress, it is important that you are active in the session. I know it becomes a game to see who can get the most speeches in, but unless they are quality speeches, it's going to backfire. Speeches should be quality speeches. And on that note, while I know it is super easy to read straight from notes while competing virtually, I don't like it and will not score a speech high if you are reading straight from your paper. Evidence is important and I want to hear sources. You should have at least one, and preferably two, sources per point. Once the initial speeches are made, it is vital that new arguments to keep things fresh and to promote clash are essential. The PO should have control of the chamber and be confident in his or her style and movements. A good PO will keep things flowing without stifling competitors and will manage to get an optimal number of speakers in. '

In IEs, I look for poise and confidence, good speaking style, strong movements and posture. In INF and OO, as well as extemp, quality evidence is essential but should flow seamlessly with the information. In all events, including interp, I would like to see you far enough away from the camera that movement is natural and not distracting. In OO and INF, as well as in interp, I would like to see a connection to society and/or to your own experiences. For me, the best pieces do both.

In interp, intros should be casual and conversational. Tell me why your topic is important, even in HI. What is the connection to society? To yourself? Blocking, movement, and bookwork (POI) should be natural and not distracting. Characters should be distinct and recognizable, vocally and physically. I don't mind the use of curse words, but do want to see pieces that are true to the author's intent.

add me to the email chain: jennm.ochoa@gmail.com (please send as a word doc, thanks)

hi y’all! i’m jennifer | she/her

i did LD in the UIL/TFA circuit (qual) along with congress and extemp, now i consult for high schools.

paradigm is gonna be divided into sections, feel free to ask questions before round. take the time to read it.

SPEAKS

i have zero threshold for homophobic, racist, transphobic, xenophobic, and classist etc. comments, remarks, or evidence and I will tank speaks. i am NOT afraid to auto loss and have done in the past. do not make the debate space unsafe.

i give speaker points based on coherent speaking, organized speeches and effective signposting down the line by line. i do not tolerate excessive rudeness, demeaning others in round or offensive commentary. to me, speaks are also educational so there are also given based off of if i believe you belong in elims. i'll start at 28 and go up and down from there. (also don't ask for a 30 i'm not giving it to you)

speed is fine and spreading is fine just PLEASE send the doc. DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS and please please signpost. upload analytics if you feel like you’re going to spread through them. if I can’t understand you I’m going to miss things when flowing and I’m not gonna vote off of something that isn’t on my flow. also please just ask if your opponent is okay with it (don't spread out novices or be mean to them, i'll probably up your speaks if you're nicer in obvious power imbalance situations)

LD/CX

bold=tldr

1. construct the narrative for my ballot. don’t make me have to fill in internal links or assume what you’re trying to get at

2. i prefer evidence analysis as opposed to card dumps, i just don’t find them compelling and hate when it’s used in an abusive way. analytics can work just as good as cards. collapsing is okay.

3. j ust because you use a lot of policy lingo does not make you a better debater. dumping debate language on me is not an argument.

4. winning framework doesn’t win you the round. especially if you aren’t accessing your frame through offense, it isn't my job to weigh offense for you, so please show me how offense connects to frame.

5. please signpost. please. especially if you’re spreading. if you’re jumping from flow to flow I need indication of it, even if it’s just “next off”, i’ll get so lost if you don’t signpost. i’ll flow off the doc for constructive but i’m not gonna flow anything that i don’t understand as you speak.

6. i’m a stickler for warrants. i won’t do the work for you in extending your warrants across the flow, also no warrant arguments are VERY persuasive to me- i'll reread the card.

UIL LD

this little section is more niche to uil ld. all of the above STILL applies though.

i'm HUGE on framework debate. show me how you're winning framework because it'll determine what lens i should look at the round through. weighing should be the most important mechanism you're using when it comes to contention level debate- dispelling and defending doesn't usually cut it, talk to me about implications and weighing. i love a good impact debate. i'll admit i'm a more progressive judge, but i adapt to you!!!

FRAMEWORK:

i honestly like framework debate if there is one, but i also don’t care if y’all collapse. please make sure you’re accessing at least some level of the framework debate tho.

DA/CP

love DA’s. just please make sure you can win all parts of the disad and please weigh impacts vs. aff. i personally prefer case-specific and UQ DA’s above the generics just explain to me why you’re running it. don’t just dump generic DA’s to waste opp’s time, it’s annoying and i buy aff time skew args.

cp’s are cool. please have a net benefit to the CP, if you don’t and i can’t figure it out you probablyy aren’t going to win the cp. i won’t judge kick, do it for me. condo as default works.

KRITIKS:

love!! i personally love love identity K’s, i think they provide really great discourse into the world of debate. PLEASE do NOT read an identity-based argument if you are NOT that identify, i’m gonna feel really skeptical and i’ll probably feel a little icky. when responding to identity K’s please be careful of how it comes out, if it isn’t a logical warranted argument it’ll probably sound racist, misogynistic, homophobic, ableist etc, if it makes me uncomfortable i will not evaluate it. edit: just because I'm a fan of identity k's doesn't mean you can just weigh the k and not engage with offense/shells, you have to actually win it.

K debate tends to have really high academic literature, please use it in an educational manner instead of an abusive one, especially as a tool to confuse your opponent. if you’re running a less familiar k or a new k, you should make sure you understand it, and also please make sure i understand it. i'm not the biggest fan of completely non-topical k's but go ahead

i’m pretty good with understanding most k lit!! if it’s something really niche just have great explanations pls. if I look lost, i promise it’ll show on my face lol

T

i'm pretty lenient when it comes to t. tbh, as long as aff has a decent enough link to the resolution, it isn’t that important of a voter for me unless you prove the link is just like non-existent. if aff is entirely non-topical it's a different story. usually i default to weighing in these debates. this doesn't mean i won't ever vote off t though lol

reasonability ---x------ competing interps

PHIL:

i like phil!! but i’d appreciate good explanations. i’m comfortable in pre-flat worlds. most familiar with authors/theory butler, ahmed, rawls, locke, maslow, kant, etc. spikes are fine.

THEORY:

shells are okay when warranted. i am the WRONG judge if you run frivolous theory. i’m probably not the best judge for hardcore shell debates. also please have clash if its shell v shell, just reading pre-scripted overview a2’s doesn’t really have specific and true clash. disclosure/contact theory, i don’t feel comfortable voting a particular way inside of a round based on something that happened outside of it, i never vote off of it, and it hurts small schools/programs. i'm not a fan of "new affs bad" or "must include round reports" and (friv) stuff like that either, especially if it's your idea of a round-winning strategy.

i try to give leeway for the 4 min 1ar, but i expect the 2ar to layer voters for me. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.

CONGRESS

please have sources and actual evidence. please just clash. please. i don’t find it aggressive to directly attack another representative in the chamber with clash regarding their speech, i actually find it extremely entertaining and it will get you good comments. aggressive cross is fine until your behavior gets annoying.

your presentation is a key part in your ranking.

ok. personally calling a recess to ask for splits will make me eye roll. just give your speeches, if you aren’t prepped, it’ll probably reflect on your ranking anyways. i would rather you call for previous question than hear rehash on a bill or three neg speeches in a row. yes i do agree people should get to give as many speeches as they can, but precedence is still a thing and at the end of the day it’s a competition. take the opportunity to give your speech. yes i rank you based off of your individual speeches but i also rank you off of how you interact in the chamber. i do not rank you based off of how nice you are in round (unless you’re being disrespectful).

i judge every event!! so if you have questions that aren't addressed on here, just ask :)

LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.

CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

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). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. 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 a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

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. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning 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") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. 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 (especially in LD).

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.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


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.