Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2027 J.D. Candidate

2021-June 2023: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.

Framework:

I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.

T:

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.

Theory:

I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.

Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes-on-end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Questions, comments, concerns, thoughts, musings, opinions...?

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

LD Philosophy

I consider myself traditional.

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.

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. 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.

If you run theory in front of me, you are wasting your time. I will not vote on theory.

I do not disclose at the end of a round so no need to ask.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

I am basically a TAB judge, but I lean toward traditional UIL. I like to see philosophy. I am always looking for the clash. Find the area where you feel you are strong in your case and hammer those points with strong emphasis on impacts. I also love to see voters. I can't tell you how many times I have been torn on my decision until one side delivered strong voters and turned the decision in their favor. Overall, show me a strong clash with a well formed framework, and you will do well...unless, you know...the other side did it better.