I like clear, articulate speaking and enjoy logical thinking. Please avoid spreading, if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to properly evaluate the strength of your speech.

I believe Speech & Debate, in all forms, is primarily a communication sport. The two greatest takeaways from your time here into your future life will be having learned how to reason out an issue, and how to present your arguments in a clear and organized way.

Because of this, the most important part of my paradigm is how much I HATE speed/spread debate. If I can't understand what you're saying, it's as if you never said it so far as my ballot is concerned. Just talk to me like a normal person!! Tell me what you're thinking! Give me an argument to follow along with, and try not to sound like the end of a medicine commercial.

I also value professionalism a great deal. You don't have to be stiff and formal at all times, but I dislike the use of casual language in speeches ("Dude," "man," etc), and I HATE the use of swearing, personal attacks, and interruptions. Part of the value of Speech & Debate is fostering productive conversations between people who disagree -- and in these divisive times, the more we can listen to and respect each other, the better.

As far as my paradigm in CX/Policy Debate, I am an old-fashioned stock issues judge. In the absence of that, I will generally default to a policy-maker standpoint. I very much appreciate a good wrap-up at the end, in either of those formats.

As far as specific arguments/lines in CX/Policy Debate, I only have a few particulars.

I categorically reject the argument that no new arguments should be allowed in the 2NC. That is the negative's right under the format and rules, and has been for 50 years.

I tend to have a very high threshold for Topicality. Generally speaking, unless a 1AC is clearly unreasonable and outside of the topic area, I probably won't give a Neg ballot on that basis. If you're making the argument for strategic reasons I get that, but I probably won't vote on that basis unless the 1AC is pretty egregious.

Likewise, I tend not to buy most arguments that lead to "the end of the world." In all of recorded history, literally nothing has ever led to humanity's extinction. The matter at hand in the round probably won't either, and overstating your argument so massively is rhetorically blustery.

Finally, as a stock issues/policy judge, I HATE kritikal theory arguments of any type. You’re not gonna win trying to tell me your opinions on Marx or Foucault or Derrida or Kendi. This is Policy Debate, not LD or philosophy club

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 cards or 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!

Analysis should be on topic, important, workable, & on-balance advantageous. Prefer conversational pace. Logic & reasoning are highly valued

For CX and LD:

I am primarily Stock and Policy. I.e. Framework, evidence, why this outweighs, clash, etc. I'm not a big fan of Kritics, but it's a case-by-case basis, and I'll still flow it. Give Voters!!

Seating isn't too important, but I prefer Aff on my Left, Neg on my Right. (Your Right and Left respectively as you're facing me.)

Speed-reading is okay as long as it isn't 1000wpm. If you do spread, at least slow down for taglines.

You can keep your own time if you'd like, but I will be timing as well, and my timer is final. My timer begins on your first word. For Prep Time, I will give 30 second intervals unless told otherwise. Be sure to tell me to "Cease prep time," otherwise it will continue to run.

Please ask "Judge/floor ready?" before you start, I may still be writing or getting my timer ready.

Framework/going down the flow is important, and sign-posting is much appreciated. If you jump back and forth from On/Off case, I may get lost and mistake your attacks for your defense and vice versa.

Off-time roadmaps are preferred, but not necessary.

I personally will not join your Speech Drops or take a copy, what I hear is what I write. This is so I'm not reading ahead of what you say, or adding in any cut portions. You can still share your speeches with your opponents if you'd like.

I'm not great at disclosures, but everything will be on the ballot and hopefully helpful to your learning experience.

For Extempt:

One person in the room at a time. Hand me your topic when you're ready.

The timer begins at your first word. Starting from 7m, I will start hand-signing at 5m-1m, give 30s (horizontal, extended index finger), 15s (half, horizontal, index finger), then hand-sign again from 5s-1s. For practice tournaments, a 10 second grace period past 7 minutes will be given, but you will not be in first place. I apologize ahead of time if I'm too engrossed in writing that I forget to hand-sign.

My scoring criteria is as follows, in order of importance:

Speech. Introduction (Attention grabber, topic, answer, preview of key points), Body (Key points with sources to back them), Conclusion (Restate topic, answer, closing statements.)

Body language and voice. Any or lack of: swaying, stepping into points, hand gestures, eye contact, stutters, changes in pitch, rate, pauses. Essentially, confidence. If a notecard is being used, are you reading it word for word, or are you just glancing at it?

Time. This isn't as important, because if the rest is done properly, a 2 minute speech could be better than a 7 minute jumble of words. Was each point given an adequate amount of time? Was it over the time limit?

Jimmy Smith has over 45 years of coaching and is a 5 Diamond Key along with a very proud member of the NSDA Hall of Fame. Over the 45 years he has been honored to 9 students on the Final Stage with one National Champion. After retiring in 2017 Jimmy re-entered the classroom because to quote him, "this isn't work, it's fun"

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.