I view debate ulitmately as a communication event. I am fine with speed in delivery as long as it does not hinder understanding and communication.

For policy: I probably default to Stock Issuesbecause I think it is a valuable lens through which to view a policy round. That said, I would never let my preferences prevent a team from running what they feel are competitive and important arguments. If you are going to run progressive items, be sure they are properly executed and fully explained. I will ultimately vote on what is presented to me.

LD: I love value clash, and prefer a traditional framework of Value, Criterion, and contentions. Again though, I will judge the round as it plays out and welcome any well presented/understandable argument.

I competed in speech and debate during all four years of high school (mainly LD, Congress, and Extemp). I judge tournaments relatively frequently and plan on coaching once I have my degree.

Overall, I'm okay with any argument you want to run as long as it is respectful. No classist, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise awful arguments because I will drop you (feel like I shouldn't have to say this but apparently I do)

If you decide to run a complex/niche argument (whether it be anything from certain philosophies to a kritik), please please please know what you are talking about. Read the stuff you are going to talk about in round and learn how to present/explain it in a concise accurate way. Also, I default to basic impact calculus if no alternative framing for the round is presented.

Speed is completely fine but I do have hearing issues, so if you decide to spread just make sure to have a way to share your case with me. If I can not understand you, whether it be due to speed or lack of clarity, I will say clear three times before just putting down my pen. If there is a speech drop or email chain, please include me in it. (ecopeland2023@gmail.com)

thanks :)

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

I am the Speech/Debate teacher and coach at The Colony High School in Texas and although I've judged quite a few tournaments over the past four years, I consider myself always learning about coaching and judging debate and speech events. I pledge to do my best to judge events fairly and accurately. I appreciate articulate and easy to understand speakers and do not like spreading. I may ask you to slow down if you are speaking too fast so that I may adequately judge your speech/performance. I will not vote on disclosure. I may disclose results to you after your performance or may choose for you to review my comments on Tabroom. I consider myself a coach first and judge second - so if you ask how you did after a round/performance, you will hear words of encouragement or gentle critique. I want a judge to do the same for my students.

Know that I am listening intently to your performance or for the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!

“As a coach member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence.”

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

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 am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Also, I do not like disclosure theory. Study the meta or learn to improvise.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

CX

I consider myself a gamer judge, but when evaluating rounds, I definitely lean more towards the policymaker side of things. You should be telling me the role of the ballot and which way to vote and why I should. Impact calculus is almost always necessary for me to be able to correctly evaluate the round. If not, it will just be my choice. When arguing, make sure that A. you know your argument well, and B. establish the prioritization of the argument in the debate.

I absolutely love clash! Give me clash because that shows me that you are actively engaging in the debate and not just reading cards. I want to hear clear explanations of arguments. I also need in-depth analysis of arguments, evidence, etc. in order for me to vote correctly. If neither of these things are correctly conveyed to me, the debate evolves into a he-said, she-said debate.

If you are the Negative, I love specific link DA's. Generic non-specific Disads are not my favorite to hear because they typically will not create enough clash for me to flow them for you. Generic links also sometimes do not apply to all AFFs, so make sure it will apply if you plan on running a generic link DA.

Another thing for the Negative, please don't run a bunch of arguments in your 1NC if all you're going to do is kick them in the rebuttals. When that happens, I feel like most of the arguments were just distractions to confuse your opponents. Commit to your arguments. If they aren't the strongest and you feel like you can't gain a bunch of ground on them, either kick them early or don't plan on running them.

If you are running a CP, please make sure that you CP plan text is clearly stated. Please give me reasons to weigh your CP over the AFF plantext and create a reason that we couldn't just do both. Show me the application of yours and why I should prefer your CP. Do this by using specific link DAs that apply to the Affirmative's case.

If you are going to run a Kritik, please please please know what you're talking about. If you don't know what you are putting out into the flow and can't efficiently argue the K, then cut it out. I will most likely not listen if it is obvious that you do not know what you are saying. I can smell the bs a mile away!

Please be prepared for the debate, and do not be excessively rude to each other during the debate. If you are rude during the debate, your speaks will most likely suffer. During the debate, try not to get overly upset or frustrated. This is a competition and I understand that, but losing your cool and blowing your top in the middle of a round is extremely unprofessional. Maintain your composure. When speaking, please face me! You are trying to win me over, not your opponent.

Please for the love of the world DO NOT leave time on the clock. As a CXer, you should always want to fill up that time in your speeches because that can be used to either strengthen your arguments or press harder on your opponent's case. There is absolutely no reason that you should leave time on the clock in your speeches. Fill them with content. Also, speech time is just extra prep time for your partner! :)

If you have any more questions for me about my paradigm or the round, please feel free to ask me in-round or via email!

paulmorris214@yahoo.com

LD

I like to think of myself as more of a "gamer" judge when it comes to LD. I'm open to any arguments, but make sure that they are well thought out and that you for sure know what you are talking about. Make sure you're not just throwing things up and seeing what sticks. If you are just going to spit out a bunch of poorly thought out arguments, it tells me that you are either not paying attention or you are grasping at straws and attempting to try to throw your opponent off guard. Quality of arguments>Quantity of arguments

When presenting your case, I find it important to clearly and appropriately tie your values and criteon to your advantages. If you can't clearly do that, it tells me that they may not be the most compatible. If your framework cannot achieve your advantages/contentions, then I find it hard for you to have any sort of ground.

I do like to see lots of clash. I love clash on every level of debate. Give me in-depth fleshed out argumentation. This shows me that you are actively involved in the debate. Whether that's on the contention/advantage debate or the framework debate, that is up to you as the debater. Another way that I like to judge/evaluate debates is how well and how efficiently you answer arguments brought up by your opponent. If you just kind of skim over certain arguments brought up by the opposition and don't give them much attention, I will most likely flow them for your opponent if their argumentation is better.

When I determine the outcome of a round, I like for the debaters to tell me the most important voters and where I should rank certain arguments. If I do not have voters, I will most likely default to framework.

I find it important to use all of the available speech time. It frustrates me to no end when debaters leave time on the clock, especially in your rebuttals. These are the most important speeches of the debate. There is no reason or excuse to leave time on the clock during your speeches. Utilise all of the time you have available to you!!

Throughout the course of the debate, do not be rude to your fellow debater. It is a competition, but try not to get overwhelmed with emotion or frustration. Maintain your composure. There is nothing more unprofessional than a debater losing their cool and blowing their top in the middle of a round. If you are rude during cross or during the round, your speaks will probably suffer! When speaking, please face me! You are trying to win me over, not your opponent.

If you have any more questions for me about my paradigm or the round, please ask me in-round or via email!

paulmorris214@yahoo.com

Congress

For Congress, I like to be as laid back as possible. Congress is a marathon, not a sprint.

With that being said, I do like a certain level of decorum in the chamber. When you are speaking, face your peers. Asking for things like "intergalactic congress" or making unneeded jokes or remarks do not have a place in Congress, and your placement will definitely suffer.

For POs:

I am also keeping track of recency and order of the room. However, it is YOUR job to maintain control and decorum of the room. After all, you are "presiding". I will notice whenever you do not recognize things such as recency, clash, etc. You should be able to control the chamber, and make sure the round runs as efficiently as possible with the least amount of interruptions possible.

For Congresspeople:

Create original arguments. One of the things I cannot stand is when someone goes up to give a speech in a Congress round and basically says , "Yeah, I agree with so and so" and they proceed to repeat points made by other participants. Be professional in how you interact with others in the chamber, whether its being polite during cross, not being goofy during the round, etc. I know that Congress can be boring, but we don't need a bunch of "class clowns" just trying to make jokes all day.

Ask good questions. If you are raising your placard to ask a question, make sure that you already have your question readily prepared. There is not a lot of time for cross in Congress so make sure you are ready to speak when called upon.

If you have any more questions for me about my paradigm or the round, please ask me in-round or via email!

paulmorris214@yahoo.com

Arguments

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.

Evidence

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.

Behavior

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.

Speaker Points

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.

TLDR:

*any argument is fine with me, just don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, or have any kind of unacceptable language in a round

*Tech v Truth

*pls send documents via email (philltyler25@cps.k12.ar.us)

*Speed is fine as long as you send speech

*RDF is based on flow

Things I want to see in a round

-lots of clash between arguments

-offense offense offense

-impact weighing

-evidence for claims

-cross ex

-try not to steal prep, but I understand with online it can be hard to get ready quickly

-pls signpost/roadmap so ik what your going to say

-I will evaluate arguments based on how they link and how well you defend them

-please time yourself, I will time you, but timing yourself will help you in the round

I will always vote my round based on my flow in front of me. If you drop an argument, it will greatly cost your round and chances of winning. Being a good speaker is important, but won't decide a round.

Specifics

LD/IPDA-

I really want to see a framework debate. I find definition debates boring, but if they will help your chance of winning, then use them. Don't use specific topics for a value, if you wanna use a good value, use justice or morality. In IPDA, have contentions and something to weigh the round on. PLEASE WEIGH IMPACTS! Many times you will just repeat arguments and not add to anything, so use impact weighing to have some variety. You must link your claims to warrants to impacts. In order for me to consider an argument dropped, you must mention that your opponent dropped it. If you want to run progressive, make sure your opponent is ok with it, debate is a learning space, not a place to completely decimate someone and not have them learn how to better themselves. Please use all the time you can in your speech, time management is important, especially for the aff.

Congress-

Having a good speaking voice is very important to me in Congress, more than any other debate in my opinion. You must have good links and reliable warrants to make any claim true. Please please please use questioning to your advantage, it will be beneficial to you if you can defend your points well.

PO- please don't run for PO if you don't know how to. If it is your first time, I will be lenient to you. If no one else will run for PO and you decide to stand up, that will benefit you. Please make sure to keep track of precedence and recency, and if at any time I see it to be false or inaccurate, points will be docked and your rank will suffer.

I am a Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate) judge. What I hear in the round is what I judge. I am open to Ts, DAs, CPs, and Ks, but make sure they are clearly explained and relevant to the debate. Speak clearly and articulately; if I cannot understand what you are saying I cannot evaluate the strength of your argument. I.e., if you spread, you lose.