*** IF YOU ARE AT STATE PLS SEND A DOC ***

"Win a no win situation by rewriting the rules” - Harvey Specter

For questions and email chains --asad.ahmed0987@gmail.com

About me: I did LD and graduated in 2019, TFA qualled, and coached a few people as well

Debate

First and foremost, debate on the circuit is a game - don't take anything personal

How to win a round

I'm tech over truth however, you still need to warrant out your arguments, this means explain it tell me why your argument is true.

Do not read a card that with a tagline that says "No nuclear war" then don't explain. I won't vote off it. Always explain the why to your card.

IE. AFF says econ collapse causes nuclear war. The neg should say "there won't be a nuclear war, mutually assured destruction protects war from happening."

After this weighing is your best bet to win that argument. "O/W on probability it won't happen." Guarantee you're winning if you do this

Speaks

Sit or stand, I could care less. This isn't a speech event. I believe speaks are based on strats, the arguments made, order of the R's, etc...

Post round

Feel free to do it but do not be rude. Take everything I say and use it as advice

Speed

I think debate has changed throughout the years where people don't use their critical thinking skills anymore and just docbot. I'm very decent with speed but no judge can flow your top speed without sending the doc.

Argumentation

First and foremost I can and have judged everything

I prefer a very good KvT or KvK debate however that's just my preference

(1)Identity K's

-I'm familiar with most common lit (fem, ableism, afropess, queer, etc...) however you still have to do the work!

- My specialization was in Islamo so running non T was my go-to strat

(1)T/Theory

- I don't default to anything, it's your job to tell me what to do in the round

- The best shell debates I've seen are the ones where you go LBL

- 1AR restarts? do it. It's the best strat for negs with 3+ offs.

(2/3)POMO

- Not a fan of judging it but judged a lot of it recently

- Specialized in haunto but must do a lot of work for me depending on the author (familiar with common lit like Foucault, Baudrillard, etc...)

(1)LARP

- Every judge should be able to judge larp it's just.... boring

(5/strike)Phil/Trix

- I can judge trix however I don't believe that's debate at all. It just means you're looking for an easy win. I'll still flow it and put it in consideration but my threshold for trix is super low and it'll tank your speaks

Background/other notes:

University of Houston (2023-current)

Jordan High School (2020-2023)

I am a former Policy debater at the University of Houston.

I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.

Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.

Don't call me "judge" -- call me Olive

Pronouns are she/her

Brief Overview:

Truth > Tech

I've read both Policy and K arguments on both the aff and the neg. Storytelling is at the core of debate and debate is just conversations about how we should interpret and act on the stories presented in rounds. I love fun new arguments and will vote on anything so long as your winning the debate and the story adds up. I did congress for 4 years, so subconsciously presentation matters to me a little more than it does maybe for other policy judges but in policy that just means I value respect in round that is balanced with passion. I also take IVI's very seriously.

General stuff: whether you are running a K, a plan, a DA, whatever you should be telling a coherent story throughout the round. Impacts need to be both warranted and visualized. I love evidence comparison/analysis when it comes to authorship and highlighting to illustrate what a card says vs what the team says it said.

Policy vs K: Responses to the kritik need to be thorough and happen at multiple levels (f/w, perms, link defense, the alt, impacts, etc.). I'm pretty lenient with letting the K win links because its rare that they don’t so the job of a policy aff then is to explain to me why the (typically) incrementalist, policy oriented approach outweighs the impacts of the K in the context of what the kritik is talking about. It comes down to telling me why the aff is either key for alt solvency or why the aff is a fundamentally better approach to change than the alternative.

K debates: I doubt I’ll ever be able to judge these that much but I love these debates. I’ll vote for any K aff if its debated well. explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.

General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.

T: Im gonna be so real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.

Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like "power-tagging" violations. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Congress:

good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.

A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.

The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.

That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.

If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.

I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.

Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.

Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.

Have fun, its congress :D

Background/other notes:

University of Houston (2023-current)

Jordan High School (2020-2023)

I am a former Policy debater at the University of Houston.

I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.

Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.

Don't call me "judge" -- call me Olive

Pronouns are she/her

Brief Overview:

Truth > Tech

I've read both Policy and K arguments on both the aff and the neg. Storytelling is at the core of debate and debate is just conversations about how we should interpret and act on the stories presented in rounds. I love fun new arguments and will vote on anything so long as your winning the debate and the story adds up. I did congress for 4 years, so subconsciously presentation matters to me a little more than it does maybe for other policy judges but in policy that just means I value respect in round that is balanced with passion. I also take IVI's very seriously.

General stuff: whether you are running a K, a plan, a DA, whatever you should be telling a coherent story throughout the round. Impacts need to be both warranted and visualized. I love evidence comparison/analysis when it comes to authorship and highlighting to illustrate what a card says vs what the team says it said.

Policy vs K: Responses to the kritik need to be thorough and happen at multiple levels (f/w, perms, link defense, the alt, impacts, etc.). I'm pretty lenient with letting the K win links because its rare that they don’t so the job of a policy aff then is to explain to me why the (typically) incrementalist, policy oriented approach outweighs the impacts of the K in the context of what the kritik is talking about. It comes down to telling me why the aff is either key for alt solvency or why the aff is a fundamentally better approach to change than the alternative.

K debates: I doubt I’ll ever be able to judge these that much but I love these debates. I’ll vote for any K aff if its debated well. explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.

General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.

T: Im gonna be so real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.

Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like "power-tagging" violations. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Congress:

good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.

A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.

The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.

That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.

If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.

I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.

Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.

Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.

Have fun, its congress :D

Email:bakerzachary0@gmail.com

INTERP Specific: DO NOT SCREAM in your performance. I understand being loud for emotional reasons, but you do not need to scream at the top of your lungs. I hear a fair bit of screaming my day to day and it genuinely bothers me more than any uncomfortable social issue/topic. I will rank you lower for screaming.

Truth over tech: I don't think abusing link chains makes you a good debater. I'm willing to buy more abstract arguments to an extent I have solid general knowledge of most things political. The more complicated your argument the more clear your link chain should be. That being said as long as your argument isn't based around a lie or fatal mistake on your part I still require the other team to do the work and refute it.

Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.

Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've only vote on two theory arguments. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win.I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)

In LD: Value criterion is extremely important to me. I need to understand how different contentions/cards tie into your value criterion and why your VC outweighs. Policy makers have values too.

In PF: I value more of a big picture voters speech than a line by line, the speech is 2 minutes so if you drop unimportant parts of the debate here you can win. With that said in PF I really prefer slower speaking even more than LD

Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't. I really like it when you understand why an extemp question is an extemp question. A good extemp question is about a bigger picture and if your analysis reflects great topic knowledge and I am typically going to be more interested/engaged and rank you higher.

Platform/Interp: Delivery is critical especially for jokes, practice practice practice. If your unsure of how you are saying a joke ask someone before giving it to me as a judge. Moreover in Interp please don't scream/yell super loud especially if you are standing right next to me.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

I’m open to questions before and after the round via my email.

”I refuse to answer that on the grounds that I don’t want to.”

~ H. Specter

I’m mostly pref’d on K, Th, Phil, Tricks. Probably expect that if you got me in the back, I guess.

MarkABishopjr@gmail.com

**Conflicted to Clear Lake High School and Woodlands AH

The easiest path to my ballot (DEBATE)

Clear final speeches. Voters that link back into the way I should frame the round, be that through theory, a ROB, criterion, etc.

Not extending case fully can lead to a presumption ballot if content isn’t extended or permissibility if a way to frame the round isn’t extended. This means If you don’t extend your framework, you could lose even if you’re winning!!!

Judge adaptations and predispositions

I am a computer and will vote off anything. I do not need to fully understand something to vote on it, I just need to have a reason why.

Due to resolvability concerns, I have a few ‘default settings'. If these even get brought up in round, I become a blank slate and give no favor based on these defaults.

a. Presumption negates, permissibility affirms.

b. If an argument is conceded in the following speech, it will be treated as objectively true.

c. CX is binding.

d. Every argument is permitted.

e. If an argument is not extended, it is no longer on the flow. I do not shadow-extend.

Accommodations

If there’s a specific request given to me for anything pertaining to disability or comfort, I will do my best to comply.

If both debaters agree in wanting me to change my paradigm to fit their debate preferences, I will. My paradigm is not a set of my beliefs, but just my best attempt at being a blank slate that gives every argument a fair trial. Sometimes, even I do not like my paradigm, which is why I include this bit.

Speaks

Starting at a 29. I give a lot of 30s. I judge speaks off strategy. I am prone to boosting speaks to debaters that can make me laugh(I have a pretty crude sense of humor; my mind is a deep dark and cryptic place). If you send analytics for all speeches, I’ll give you a 29.5 minimum no matter what, no matter where.

Post-rounding

Do it, but please keep it to under 5 minutes per person. Everything else can be handled via email. I will ‘match your energy’. Private coaches count as part of the “person” of their debater, lol.

I think it’s good to have these conversations to make sure debaters can truly learn and get better after a round with me. I’m also more than happy to give a brief analysis of how I would have done things (differently), and why.

Comfortability/Experience

1 - K (All, from non-t k aff to idpol to cap or psycho. I used to debate non-t k affs and k negs a lot. Good for all your pess and performance K needs.)

1 - Trad (Every judge can judge trad, it's just a little boring. I do not like "subpoints".)

1 - T/Th (Comfortable, did it a bit, fan of judging it.)

1 - LARP (I LARP'd mostly for the first half of my debate career... then debated Ks... most ‘LARPers’ give me a 2 or 3 which only makes me a little sad, but I get it.)

1 - Kant/Korsgaard/Rawls/Butler (been judging it a lot, kind of a fan.)

2 - POMO (judged it a lot in late 2023 and early 2024.)

3 - Tricks (I have a good amount of experience with 'em. They're objectively dumb, but I don't really care. I have recently made this go from 2 —> 3 due to judging some traumatic tricks debates that got way too messy, blippy, and unintelligible. If I do not hear it, and there isn’t a doc, it DOES NOT EXIST. I’m a 1 if there’s less than 5 tricks, and 2 if less than 10. Else, 3. Some of y’all are ruining the fun of these for me.

2 - Other Phil (Deleuze, Derrida, Locke, whomever. I’ve started writing Phil prep for people. I mostly get it now, they’re just a bit annoying.)

For traditional/lay rounds

For LD, any arguments made after the 1AR, if new, will not be evaluated.

For PF, any completely new arguments made after both sides give their rebuttal will not be evaluated.

For CX, any new arguments made after the 1AR will not be evaluated.

Speech

Make me laugh, make me cry. I would much rather laugh, but those are the reactions I most value in a speech round of any kind. I care a lot less about proper form or movements or the little triangle dance thingy.

World Schools “Debate”

I end up evaluating it like traditional debate. I value the things in my speech paradigm for "speaker points". Just be clear and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. Heck, give me a "first, vote on x. Second, vote on y".

Congress

I should not be here. If I am here, refer to my speech paradigm. I'm sorry for myself and you, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability. I value engagement and should be treated like a parent judge.

Games player judge - I view debate as a game. I look at the debate as a game board and the flow as an offensive and defensive structure. Strategy is something I value and tend to look for its usage throughout the debate.

I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I would prefer that if you want to visit spreading, to provide a copy of your case. I also evaluate on speaking ability. I listen for fluid speech and professional mannerisms. Vocabulary plays a part here.

I like hearing cited sources when making claims.

Speech:

• In info, I like to see creative visuals!!

• In extemp, please answer your question and stick to your topic.

• Overall, I expect to hear good organization and structure of your speech.

• I also expect good flow in your speech.

• Make sure I know what your points are by making them stand out.

• I like it when speeches are funny!!

• I like to see creative or different topics!

• Avoid fidgeting, moving around too much, and having too many hand gestures since it can be distracting.

• Maintain eye contact, but please don’t look at me for too long.

• Having a good tone, and enunciation, are important when speaking!

• Be sure to cite your sources in your speech.

• Be sure to pace yourself when speaking, don’t speak too slow or too fast.

• Let your personality shine, it’s what makes the speech yours and makes you stand out from the others!!

Interp:

• I should be able to follow the piece without getting lost or confused.

• Good blocking is essential, especially when used to distinguish different characters.

• Also having each character have a different voice or accent is important too.

• Be sure I can tell when you go from the teaser to the introduction. In general, transitions are significant throughout the performance.

• I expect to hear a good introduction.

• Have good emotions, facial expressions, and buildup!!

• Be sure to pace yourself when performing to avoid going overtime!

• Maintain eye contact, but please don’t look at me for too long.

• Overall, have fun with your performance, and hopefully, I’ll be laughing or crying or both throughout the performance!

Debate:

• Please don’t spread, I would like to understand and follow your speeches and arguments.

• Also, try to avoid using big SAT-like words.

• Cite your sources.

• Have good and clear arguments.

• Be respectful and civil with each other! No fights or insults, please.

Background: Coach of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 3rd year as Coach, 10th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. Honors/AP level English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.

IE Paradigm

Your event should dictate how you're approaching it: be funny for Humorous, weepy for Dramatic, emotive for Poetry/Prose, factual for Extemp, informative for... Informative. Just make sure you stay within the rules of your event (eye/physical contact, movement, boards, interactables, etc.).

PF/LD Paradigm

- My students would say that I am more of a Trad judge than Prog. Take that for what you will.

- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.

- I do not know or particularly care about theories/kritiks, nor do I wish to. Personally I find that their usage takes away from the actual debating itself. Please save these tactics for a Tech judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head. If you want to ask beforehand if you can read this theory or that, assume that I will say no and just leave it at that.

- I do not need to be included on any email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.

- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.

- Don't get too lost in arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole. Remember that you should have prepped cases on a topic, not on the wording of it.

- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will be flowing your case as you talk.

- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.

- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later. Your coaches would do the same for you (I hope).

- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side... and then telling me to vote for your opponent.

- Novices, feel free to ask me what you can do to improve as a competitor after the round is over. I'll do my best to teach you something.

interp events

just don't be boring! i like humor, i like energy, i like being able to tell you want to be here!!

IE:

Extemp- The biggest thing I’m looking for is whether or not you’re answering the question and how you break down your response. Formatting in a way where it’s clear for me to understand the roadmap of your points is important. Points should flow together but be distinct enough to stand on their own. Content is more important for me because this is an event where presentation is usually the least difficult part and is something most people in the room have down. Lastly, being about to connect with your “audience” is something I rank higher for, for example, if it’s a question on economics and you’re able to break down terms, I value that more. If you can explain something, you’re clearly well-versed on it and a more reputable speaker, as opposed to just quoting an article.

Interp/Public-Speaking- presentation is so important, having energy in your voice and sounding like you want to be here/have passion for what you're performing goes a long way. The more likely I am to be entranced by your performance, the higher I am ranking you.

Debate:

WSD- I follow my flow so unless you directly say in argument, I’m not going to make the connection that PROP’s point A is a rebuttal to OPP point B. So if you decide to talk fast, do that at your own risk. Content and structure is important for flow for not just me but your team. How your team argues, whether as individuals or as a team, is something else I consider. Speaking is important but also that’s a default skill so with expectation that both sides are good speakers, content is most important. Bonus points for summary speeches that tie everything together and that are able to condense the round into three clashes but even more points if you weigh, (which should be given but just in case).

Congress- I vote for speakers that show they're flexible. I don't want speakers who give all the last crystals of the round or give all the sponsorships of the round. Being able to show you're prepared to give a speech for any side at any point of the round effectively go a long way. Repeating points counts against you. If you're repeating something already stated in round, be able to tell me why it's still relevant to bring up again and introduce something new with it, otherwise, I'm ranking you lower on my ballot. Debate is only fun if it's productive and bouncing off ideas, not repeating them.

On that note, any passive-aggression or disrespect is frowned upon. Speaking when others are, humiliating a representative with demeaning language, etc. will make me vote you down.

For PO's-- I shouldn't be able to tell you're there. If you make a mistake that's fine, the ability to have a smooth-running round in any situation is what makes me consider ranking you higher. BUT I also notice when someone is forced to be PO as a novice while more experienced debaters sit back and refuse to join yet will use that round to prove their knowledge at the expense of making the PO look bad. This doesn't make me rank the PO down lower, but you as a speaker. If you're an experienced debater refusing to PO yet urging a novice too in a way that is not to help them learn but make you look better, I will rank you lower b/c that's not productive debate and arguably shows you're not a flexible speaker.

Other events- Don't spread. These are local tournaments, if you notice your judges aren't experienced in your event (i.e. me), you're doing so at your own peril of losing ground of an argument if I don't understand what you're saying. Warrants are important. If you can't explain why something will happen, you're hurting your argument.

IE:

Extemp- The biggest thing I’m looking for is whether or not you’re answering the question and how you break down your response. Formatting in a way where it’s clear for me to understand the roadmap of your points is important. Points should flow together but be distinct enough to stand on their own. Content is more important for me because this is an event where presentation is usually the least difficult part and is something most people in the room have down. Lastly, being about to connect with your “audience” is something I rank higher for, for example, if it’s a question on economics and you’re able to break down terms, I value that more. If you can explain something, you’re clearly well-versed on it and a more reputable speaker, as opposed to just quoting an article.

Interp/Public-Speaking- presentation is so important, having energy in your voice and sounding like you want to be here/have passion for what you're performing goes a long way. The more likely I am to be entranced by your performance, the higher I am ranking you.

Debate:

WSD- I follow my flow so unless you directly say in argument, I’m not going to make the connection that PROP’s point A is a rebuttal to OPP point B. So if you decide to talk fast, do that at your own risk. Content and structure is important for flow for not just me but your team. How your team argues, whether as individuals or as a team, is something else I consider. Speaking is important but also that’s a default skill so with expectation that both sides are good speakers, content is most important. Bonus points for summary speeches that tie everything together and that are able to condense the round into three clashes but even more points if you weigh, (which should be given but just in case).

Congress- I vote for speakers that show they're flexible. I don't want speakers who give all the last crystals of the round or give all the sponsorships of the round. Being able to show you're prepared to give a speech for any side at any point of the round effectively go a long way. Repeating points counts against you. If you're repeating something already stated in round, be able to tell me why it's still relevant to bring up again and introduce something new with it, otherwise, I'm ranking you lower on my ballot. Debate is only fun if it's productive and bouncing off ideas, not repeating them.

On that note, any passive-aggression or disrespect is frowned upon. Speaking when others are, humiliating a representative with demeaning language, etc. will make me vote you down.

For PO's-- I shouldn't be able to tell you're there. If you make a mistake that's fine, the ability to have a smooth-running round in any situation is what makes me consider ranking you higher. BUT I also notice when someone is forced to be PO as a novice while more experienced debaters sit back and refuse to join yet will use that round to prove their knowledge at the expense of making the PO look bad. This doesn't make me rank the PO down lower, but you as a speaker. If you're an experienced debater refusing to PO yet urging a novice too in a way that is not to help them learn but make you look better, I will rank you lower b/c that's not productive debate and arguably shows you're not a flexible speaker.

Other events- Don't spread. These are local tournaments, if you notice your judges aren't experienced in your event (i.e. me), you're doing so at your own peril of losing ground of an argument if I don't understand what you're saying. Warrants are important. If you can't explain why something will happen, you're hurting your argument.

Ultimately, the most important thing to know about my judging is that debate is a communication event. If you are not communicating effectively, you cannot win the round. If you are going to speak fast, you have to speak clearly. Do not spread. I do not want to be included on a doc chain. If I cannot follow your case/what you are saying without reading along with you, you are not communicating.

Congress Paradigms:

Your speech should be thoughtful and touch on one to three key issues related to the legislation. Your time should be well balanced between all points. If you are spending significantly less time on one point than on your others, cut it. You aren't spending enough time developing it if your other points are significantly longer.

Your delivery should be slow and deliberate. It should be a conversational, extemporaneous style. If you bring a laptop up to speak from, you will be docked points. You should be communicating and speaking to the chamber and judges, not speaking at them. You cannot accomplish this if you are reading from a laptop.

You should have one to three reliable pieces of evidence per point. I don't believe you need to cite everything in your speech, but you should be able to name the source if asked/challenged.

If you are not the sponsor/author for a piece of legislation, you need to incorporate some element of clash or engagement with earlier speakers. Do not come up and give a completely pre-written speech that doesn't engage with the debate that has already been established. This isn't mini-extemp. You need to be engaged with the debate. If there have been more than 3-5 cycles of debate on a piece of legislation or the debate is heavily one-sided, someone in the chamber needs to motion for previous question or motion to table to allow competitors to write speeches to allow for a more even debate I shouldn't hear the same speech over and over with nothing new being presented.

What can/should PO's do to earn high ranks? A PO can earn high ranks by running an efficient and error-free chamber. One of the biggest issues I find with POs is their lack of active engagement with the chamber. It is the PO's job to keep the chamber running as quickly and efficiently as possible. If debate is getting repetitive, suggest motions. If there seems to be a confusion about procedure, don't wait for the chamber to figure it out. Suggest motions and keep the chamber moving. Have a strong knowledge/practice with your gaveling or time-signal procedures and precedence tracking. Explain them clearly and then stick to them.

Hi y'all! My name is Carlos Diaz and I competed for Spring Woods High School for four years and The University of Texas at Austin Speech Team for four years as well. I am currently the speech and debate director at Stratford High School.

My senior year of high school I was the 2016 TFA state champion in DUO as well as the 2016 TOC duo champion. My sophomore year of college I was a finalist in dramatic interpretation at the National Forensics Association tournament (top 6 out of 250 competitors). The following year I was a semi-finalist in persuasive speaking at the same tournament, (top 12 out of 250 competitors). Although I never competed in congress or extemp, my high school was state and nationally ranked in congressional debate, and I had the great fortune of having some of the best extempers in the nation as my teammates during my time in the UT speech team.

Extemp:

First- answer the question. Read the question carefully or you might give an entire speech that ultimately misses the mark.

Credible and great sources.

Strong format and structure. The speech should be able to flow easily and be coherent enough for non-speech judges.

Oratory/Info:

I want a solid structure of the speech. The audience (and I as a judge) must be able to follow along with ease. This means previewing in your intro.

Be sure to use your space, especially between transitions and with hand gestures. This adds another layer to the delivery of the speech and it makes an enormous difference.

For OO- solutions need to be tangible, meaning things that I as an audience member can take up and do. If the solutions are abstract, you are not fulfilling your role as an orator.

For Info- implications are the man thing that make the speech. They need to be out of the box, and make the audience think of something we would not have otherwise.

Congress:

Preview in your introduction.

You MUST have excellent sources and I will not look favorably upon a point that has no sources at all. How am I supposed to evaluate something that is purely opinion?

To PO's: I pay heavy attention to how you are conducting the round.

Be kind in questioning. Do not be abusive in any aspect of the speech.

Interp:

I will be the most picky in this event just because it's my favorite and I usually have a lot of feedback to provide.

The intro in interp should always have a strong argument, preferably backed up by sources or studies that support the theme of the performance (and yes, even in HI).

Dramatic/Prose: I am looking for a well developed character. Additionally, it's nice to have a set environment that the audience is able to observe.

Although this event tends to be more dramatic (haha), I also want to see levels throughout. A piece that only has one tone and mood is boring, give me more! Add the humor, the doubt, the regret, the hesitance, the anger, and so much more that makes your character a real person.

Programs: Having a clear argument is imperative. Your literature can be anything as long as it connects with your main theme.

Characters need to be unique. I should not be able to confuse characters, so make them stand out. Things like changes in tone, accents (if appropriate), mannerisms, etc.

Humorous: Although the main point of this event is to be funny, i'd rather see it be clean and easy to follow. HI can tend to focus too much on the humor and ignore the plot of the script. Make sure you don't.

Characters need to be unique but also BIG. The entire point of HI is to be exaggerated and to have no boundaries or limitations (as long as it makes sense and adds to the story rather than distracts from it).

Overall, I am looking for people that are having fun! The amazing thing about interp is that you are given a platform to completely personify a character, an argument, and a story.

Last but not least- CONFIDENCE. If there's something that I've learned from competing in speech for eight years is that confidence is key. As long as you think of yourself as a winner, you will perform as a winner, and the audience will see you as a winner.

Thanks y'all!

Debate:

LD:

Moderate speed is fine. If I can't flow you, I'll just stare at you. I don't know why debaters assume I understand spreading. I don’t flow from the doc or really want to look at it (unless you tell me to –> ev ethics/ev comparison) but if your opponent does, then set up the email chain/speechdrop. Do this pre-start time.

I was a trad debater, so trad and larp are my pref (be mindful of the policy jargon which I guarantee I won't get). Trad: FW debate is cool. I want to see it more often. Anything else, proceed at your own risk or ask before the round.

Please line by line, signpost, and tell me the big picture. I prefer you go top down the flow, but if you don't then PLEASE tell me where you are. Saying "on the econ disad" and then reading a big block isn't doing the lbl. Extensions have claims, warrants, and impacts. I really hate hearing "extend card x" but not hearing the argument.

I dislike rebuttals that solely rely on card dumps and don't contextualize the evidence. Of course, read cards when you need to, but not every argument needs one. I highly value your ability to pick apart a link chain logically rather than read a 5-point block that partially relates to the adv/da. If you're neg, debate the case and engage with the actual warrants. Reading multiple offs to overwhelm your opp or as a time suck will cap speaks at 28 (especially when you barely touch case)

Last speeches should tell me exactly what I'm voting for. I don't want to look at my flow at the end of the round and see that you went for everything. BIG FAN OF OVERVIEWS AND VOTERS. Please weigh, do impact calc, and give judge instruction.The simpler you make the debate, the more likely I am to vote for you.

I'm a sucker for good CX, so good/strategic CX = high speaks.

Be nice to novices and to your opponents, your speaks will reflect your actions

WSD:

Content over style, but style is still important. Being overly stylistic is not going to get you very far if the other team is on the offensive

Please signpost during your speeches, even in the 3's

Weigh/Be comparative. Tell me why your world is good AND why it is better than your opponent's

Principle vs. Practical Debates: clearly establish the principle in the first speeches and make sure to extend offense under the framing. Weigh the principle against the practical

Models/Counterfactuals/Countermodels:theseare not always needed, but they make sense for some motions. I do think on some topics it's valid for the opp to argue that the prop needs one. If you have them, fully explain them in your first speeches. I don't want to hear at the end of the opp 2 that there suddenly is a countermodel.

This is debate, so clash.

IEs:

Extemp: The biggest thing for me is whether or not you answered the question. Your points should be distinct enough from each other and have in-depth reasoning. I value your ability to take a complex topic and articulate it in a way that is relatable or easy for the audience to understand.

OO/Info: Your speech should have energy and personality. Sounding passionate about your topic makes my experience more enjoyable and = higher ranks

Debate, Public Speaking and Interp Coach

Debate: I like organized speeches, direct clash, weighing of arguments, strong practical and principle arguments. Style is important, so don’t spread…if I can’t flow, it makes it difficult to judge those arguments. Be respectful of your opponents and enjoy the opportunity to compete!

Public Speaking: Make sure to grab the audience's attention and have a well structured and organized speech.

Interp: Keep the audience's attention by hooking us from the start. Be the character, feel what the character feels. Make sure to tell us the story.

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers reckon with their history (if its germane to the topic). When it comes down to relevancy and impacts/harms, I prefer debates that show how their resolution (whether we're going for opp or prop) will benefit or improve black and brown communities, or the global south.

Interp overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices)

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I'm not a good HI judge, please do not let me judge you in HI. I don't like the event and I do my best to avoid judging it. If that fails, I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. Please don't be racist/homophobic in your humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well research speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking, with obvious exceptions being that we might literally not know something, because its still being researched (but that is a different we don't know than say, "and we don't know why people act this way :( ")

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote up in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

Debate Judging Paradigm

1. Speed (Spread):

• I prefer a moderate pace. Excessive speed detracts from the clarity and depth of the arguments, making it difficult to capture the nuances. If you choose to go fast, ensure your arguments are still clear and easy to follow.

2. Critical Arguments:

• I value critical arguments, but they need to be explained thoroughly. I am less persuaded by dense jargon without clear explanations. Focus on the depth and clarity of your analysis.

3. Topicality:

• Topicality is a prima facie issue for me only if there is demonstrated in-round abuse. Merely claiming non-topicality is insufficient; you must show how the case is unfair or disruptive to the round.

4. Argument Strategy:

• Avoid making time-suck arguments that you plan to drop later. This wastes time and detracts from the quality of the debate. If you bring up an argument, be prepared to defend it.

5. Organization:

• I pay close attention to my flow. Please clearly signpost your arguments and keep your refutation organized. This helps me track the debate and evaluate your arguments effectively.

6. LD Debate Specifics (Value and Criterion):

• In Lincoln-Douglas debate, emphasize your value and criterion. These are central to your case, and I expect you to tie your arguments back to them consistently. Make it clear how your arguments uphold your value and criterion better than your opponent’s.

7. Congressional Debate:

• Speeches in Congressional debate should be extemporaneous in nature, showing clear evidence of preparation while allowing flexibility and responsiveness to the debate as it unfolds.
• Make sure to include clash; engage directly with the arguments made by other speakers.
• Strong research is essential, but avoid excessive rehash of points that have already been made. Originality and depth of analysis are key to standing out.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

I have a very long history in speech and debate activities as both a coach and competitor. I have coached all formats of debate along with public speaking and interp events over the last 35 years. I attended high school in a small town Texas school back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, where I competed in policy debate, extemp, oratory, dramatic, prose and poetry. I also competed in college at Southwest Texas State University (which is now Texas State University) in NDT and CEDA along with individual events.

I have been the coach at James E. Taylor High School (Katy Taylor) in Katy, Texas for the last 25 years, where I have coached all events.

In debate, I tend to take a very traditional approach to evaluating rounds. As such, I don’t care much for conditional arguments or the theory spawned by them. I also expect the debaters to weigh arguments in the round and establish a decision calculus. I.E., if both teams present me with extinction impacts and the end of the world as we know it, each should give analysis on how I should weigh those arguments. Likewise, a framework should be established to weigh policy and non-policy arguments against each other. I much prefer to vote on the framework established by the teams in the round than be forced to intervene with my own.

I expect arguments to be clearly articulated and supported with evidence. To clarify: I believe that both the argument and the evidence are of equal value. I will not read evidence after the round unless the content has been questioned. It is the responsibility of the team to frame and support the argument and I will not read a card after the round and interpret it for the team. Also, while I understand that speed is relative and that what is considered fast in some areas is considered slow in others, intelligibility is of critical importance. I will not give any weight to evidence that is incomprehensible (see above). I will, however, try to indicate that speech is unintelligible.

Additionally, I have a very traditional view of the purpose of debate. I believe that we are supposed to be analyzing a specific resolution. I am very unlikely to vote for arguments based on the notion that the “debate space” is a forum to discuss issues of personal, rather than resolutional, relevance. If you want to posit issues (such as those of identity) which are not directly related to the resolution, you do not want me in the back of the room.

Generally, if you aren’t sure, ask and I will try to clarify.

In public speaking events, I generally weigh 3 things: analysis, organization, and delivery (in that order). In any public speaking event, I expect to hear citations of credible sources. In extemp I normally expect a minimum of 2-3 source per area of analysis (more is fine). In oratory or info, I expect the student to explain a source's qualifications. A clear organizational structure is required. In terms of delivery, there should be an appropriate level of gesture and movement. But all movement should serve to reinforce the content of the speech. Clear diction and intonation are also important.

Extempers--The analysis in the speech should stem directly from the topic question. If the speech doesn't directly respond to the question asked, you will end up with a low rank from me, no matter the quality of the speech itself. My number 1 rule in extemp--answer the question.

When evaluating interpretation events, I tend to look first to characterization. Blocking and use of space are also an important considerations, but I expect all movement to be motivated. Random movement, or movement just for movement's sake, is distracting and confusing. I have no particular preference on the use of a teaser, but I do want to hear YOU in the intro (as a contrast to the character(s) you are creating). In prose/poetry, the rules of the event require the use of a binder, so I expect you to at least pretend to occasionally look at the pages.

I am not offended by the use of profanity as long as it is integral to the selection performed. I am not a fan of using it just for shock value. Along the same lines, I am not easily offended, and willing to give some latitude on content of the performance. However, I am uncomfortable with selections that are extremely graphic and/or vulgar, or bordering on, or completely pornographic. I realize that it is difficult to explain where that line falls, and I do take that into account. Shocking just to be shocking doesn't score lots of points with me. Basically, if the piece would get an X-rating in a movie theater, I don't want to watch it in an interp round.

Online competitors: I will always take into account limited space, technical issues, etc., when evaluating competitors online. I understand that some things are just out of the student's control when competing online and I do not count that against the student.

Mostly a speech judge so be sure to speak confidently because I will be taking note of that, even though it won't be a huge factor in my decision it will be a factor. I am somewhat familiar with debate but not an expert. I have competed a few times in college Parliamentary tournaments, and this is my only debate experience. No spreading and no running disclosure theory, we’re trying to make this as fair and accessible as possible. I would consider myself a truth judge, please refrain from making wild claims. Stand up while speaking, unless obviously you have a disability that prevents that. Overall, be nice because if you're especially rude to your opponents I will down you just on that.

Individual Events:

Judging will be based on the overall performance of your piece, not the topic of your piece. Concerning performance, a clear speaking voice and distinct characterizations through body language and/or voice changes are essential. Concerning original works, a well-written piece is essential in addition to performance techniques. At a minimum I look for an introduction with a good, relevant hook, a clearly formed body with distinct points of discussion that uniquely support your introduction, and a conclusion that loops back to your introduction. I also llok for limited repetition and audience engagement.

Hello, my name is Andy! I just recently graduated from UT Austin with a BS in Political Communications and Government. I will be pursuing my JD very soon and which law school is TBD. >_<

I typically judge World's School Debate and my history can be seen below. I competed on the Alief Elsik Speech & Debate Team all four years having done WSD and Extemp for most of it. I also have competed in PF and Congress. I have competed at local, state, national, and international tournaments: made it to semi-finals at TFA State tournament and double-octos at Nationals in 2020 for WSD. So, I am pretty familiar with the norms and have a good amount of experience in World's!

General notes about how I evaluate a WSD round:

• Just like every form of debate, they have their own unique styles and prefer if competitors stick to the norms of WSD. (e.g. 1st - presenting the case and providing the framework from which the debate round should be viewed from, 2nd - extending/adding a new substantive, 3rd - crystalizing the main key clashes of the round). 3rd speech is really important for me so make sure you really address the key issues in the round and how your world better satisfies whatever practical gain/loss or principle. Why should I prioritize your benefits/harms over the other team's even when taking them at their highest ground? Do not automatically assume I will know everything regarding the motion so please provide the necessary characterizations for me to understand what you're advocating for in the 1st speech.

• Spreading, using other debate jargon, or making small technical arguments that are not relevant to your case do not appeal to me. Unless you think the small detail in the other team's case is important or could be a determining factor in me buying their arguments, please focus more on the main ideas. WSD is about the bigger picture debate and providing a comparative on why your world is better and should be prioritized over the opposing team's world.

• Don't have a preference for practical v. principle arguments. What it comes down to is the warranting you provide and how you weigh your impacts against the other team going toward the end of the round. Really just depends on the motion and what it is asking you to debate so please pay close attention to the motion. "This House would, regrets, believes, or supports" all have different implications.

• I know that the nature and style of debate of WSD make it more plausible for teams to rely less heavily on empirical information in contrast to other forms of debates, especially during impromptu rounds, but please don't abuse this and I will ignore any arguments that are being supplemented with any questionable examples or abusive interpretations that aren't being explained why I should intepret it the way you are telling me too.

• Please be organized with your speech. I value content over style but don’t lose me in a dense fog of information. If I can’t flow your speech or you see me stop, then it is a sign you are possibly losing me. Whether you think it is obvious or not through the links you make, don’t assume I will connect the dots so please provide a very clear linkage! But of course, it helps with the speaker's points if you have strong speaking skills and does keep me more engaged as a judge. :)

• POIs are a unique aspect of WSD so please do engage with them whenever they’re presented and not do things such as waiting till the 6-minute mark to take them on your own terms. On the inverse, please don’t bombard the opposing team with POIs or be overly obnoxious when trying to get the other team’s attention.

• If your side of the house is reliant on just one example as to why it is practically realistic or true, I will most likely not give you the ballot unless you are able to effectively demonstrate how it's something that is applicable to all of your stakeholders.

• (My two cents on models/countermodels: I typically find that a lot of motions can do w/o one. I find that the debate on the effectiveness/feasibility of one often distracts from what the motion is asking you to debate.)

General notes on how I evaluate other debate rounds (LD and PF):

• Spreading doesn't bother me even though I am against it in WSD. I can typically keep up but I will say something if I can’t. No shade but some of y’all “spread” and I genuinely cannot understand most of what you’re saying because most of the words begin to get slurred. That’s fine if you want to squeeze in a lot of info but it is also important that I can intake and flow it! Signposting and slowing down on taglines will help a lot.

• For LD, I was a traditional debater when I did it for a bit so the main focus was resolution/value/criterion for me but I am cool with progressive debates or a combination of both. (But honestly…what is K?) So that’s a heads-up that you run the risk of me just being completely clueless if you get too dense with the verbiage. Sure, I am down to hear out things such as a possible plan or counter-plan but please remember it is not a CX round and get too crazy with it.

• For PF, I think my comments such as weighing and providing clear linkage on how I weigh WSD rounds apply here. I think teams are often good at explaining the impacts and how their contentions lead to this and that, but I struggle to comprehend that linkage/warranting as to why what you claim will happen on your side will actually happen if we affirm/negate the resolve. But some additional stuff…not a fan of definition debates. Think it is a big waste of time. Please make sure to actually clash and respond to the other team’s arguments, rebuttals, or even questions. The lack of engagement with the opposing team’s arguments or rebuttals just makes for a very repetitive round. I try my best to flow everything but I may miss things here and there. So, having very clear voters (such as how you may win on aspects such as scope, magnitude, and etc.) at the end as to why I should give you the ballot makes my job easier when writing the ballot. If your opponent drops an argument, I may or may not catch it so feel free to make it known.

• If a card is left uncontested or unrefuted, I will take it as a truth. So if you suspect there is a mischaracterization or abusive interpretation, please make sure to make it apparent in your speech.

• Timing: Please, please be mindful of your time. If you're in the middle of finishing a sentence and it's time, then feel free to finish but don't try to squeeze in a few extra sentences. I won't penalize you if it happens once, but I will dock speaker points if it is a frequent occurrence. If you want to examine another team's case for whatever reason, it will count as prep time. Don't mean to be uptight but it's more about being respectful of your opponent's time, my own, and even the tournament itself.

Most judges say this but I do not usually make the decision until the last speech is made, even if I feel as if there seems to be an "obvious winner". Thus, I highly recommend using every second you have! Have a good round and please be respectful! Making personal attacks are unnecessary and defeats the educational value that you are supposed to take away from engaging in these events.

Extemp:

• I usually rank based on content but presentation does matter and can be the difference between getting a higher or lower rank if speeches are on par in terms of content so please don’t overlook this aspect.

• Small little things like a good introduction and strong speaking skills do help but I think something that is really important is to stay organized and structured in the speech and in the individual points. Too often competitors are very good at providing the road maps of the whole speech but begin to just ramble in the individual points.

• My main focus when I am judging FX/DX is the analysis you provide. How well are your arguments built and how effective are you at integrating sources for purposes such as warranting and taglines. At a minimum, I prefer at least four sources.

• I think another thing to avoid is having points that are identical. If you are struggling to find a third point, I would much rather you make two main points with multiple layers of analysis under each instead of three underdeveloped points.

• If you pause or forget something, trust me…I will not hold it against you. Been there, done that. Don’t panic and let it consume you.

I’m from the “old school” debate world where I believe the focus should be on the presentation and delivery of a rational and well thought out argument with good substance and topicality, not a contest to see who can spread the fastest. Spreading is fine with regards to reading evidence; however, slow down for the tags before each piece and when going through analytics, comparisons, impacts, and contextualizing. If you are going so fast that it takes away from your delivery, your speaks will be negatively affected. I award speaks based on quality of delivery, argumentation, and strategic decision-making. I won't disclose speaks so don't bother asking.

I try to be a good judge for research driven, content heavy strategies and find the best debates to be focused on central controversies rather than edge cases. I will privilege technical execution in most instances; nonetheless, in close debates, truth is usually the deciding factor. My threshold for answering nonsense is low. Judge instruction on central questions you want considered is important. I want you to explicitly tell me what is important and why it is more important than other issues, but you should also show me that it’s important via choice, sequencing, and time allocation.

Debaters should time every speech and should always count down on their timer for their own speeches. That way, it'll go off when your time runs out, which will keep you honest and ensure that you don't accidentally go over.

Know what you are talking about and explain your arguments simply.

Have a strategy and execute it well. Creative and innovative approaches are great, so don't be afraid to experiment; but, if your strategy is to confuse your opponent, you run the risk of confusing me too.

Make complete arguments, meaning claim + warrant + implication. I would also suggest labeling or numbering your arguments. Blippy and/or disorganized arguments are bad and I will not waste time or mental energy trying to analyze them for you.

You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your topic literature; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under. Especially if your framework is complex or obscure, a brief summary of how it functions would be helpful.

I’m not much of a fan of Kritiks, but if you’re going to use a Kritik have case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative. Know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. Show me that you understand what you are talking about.

If you're reading tricks one of three things is likely to happen: I'll miss it, I won't understand it, or I'll think it's stupid. Additionally, I won't hold your opponent to a higher standard than I hold myself to, so if I didn't understand the implication of an argument (especially a blippy/shady one) in a prior speech, I'll give them flexibility on answering it in a later one.

I am a traditional judge. I would like to see the consistency in your arguments throughout the debate.

Please speak clearly, and do not go too fast! You'd rather get your point through me, not just incomprehensibly throw out your points at me and your opponent(s).

Be polite during cross. Personally I read news everyday and I do a bit of research on the debate topic before I judge. I respect your opinions on each topic, your job is to explain your arguments logically and convince me!

Make sure your evidences are correct and up to date.

Please track your prep time accurately. I will not track prep time for you during debate rounds, but I do pay attention to the time you spend. Do not steal prep.

You are not required to send me the case doc. But if you prefer to do so,you can send it to my email: liugr@hotmail.com.

I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next. In Informative, I also look for an overall theme that is informational (thus the name) rather than persuasive.

In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD, & LD at NSDA Nationals, but not recently.

In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery. In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon. Contentions/substantives must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to link back to the main argument / claim. I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present. Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic. I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible. I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important. Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.

Any other questions may be asked, and are encouraged, before the round.

In L-D:

I am a traditional judge. Value & Criteria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.

L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.

I am an opponent of speed.

In Congressional Debate:

As a traditional judge, I am a huge proponent of effective persuasive speaking; no speed. I look for the fundamentals of speech structure. A speech must include, but not be limited too: An attention getter, signposting of main points, a logical and organized sequence, a summary and effective closing. Within the content of a speech, clash on previous speeches is necessary, while extending arguments. Participation in the chamber is essential. I frown on unprofessional behavior in the chamber during cross. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other.

In PF:

I am a traditional judge. My main focus centers on the word "Should," if present in the resolution. Should focuses on the desirability and undesirability of the topic. I really am not interested in Plans or Counter Plans, but I normally do not vote for them unless it is significant. Impact Calculus is beneficial. I do not weigh Kritiks. I do not like speed. Effective communication is essential, along with clash. I frown on unprofessional behavior during cross fire & Grand Crossfire. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other. Case should have the essential elements of a standard speech...No jargon. It is necessary to signpost, and beneficial to break down the main contentions into sub-pts to link sub-arguments back to the main contentions. Impacts should be stated at the end of each contention(s). It helps if debaters go line by line in the rebuttals and the final focus. Voters are necessary. PF is not CX debate. Other questions for clarification may be asked, and encouraged, before the round.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question. A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me. Be sure you have several cited sources and have at least 5 quoted pieces of evidence to support your claims.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content. Again, use several cited sources and have quoted evidence for claims you are making in your speech.

Education
Niceville High School - Class of 2001
University of West Florida - BA - Organizational Communication - Class of 2005
Lamar University - M. Ed. - Teacher Leadership - Class of 2025

Coaching Experience
Head Coach at Channelview High School 2009-Present

Competitive Experience
3 years of middle school (Prose, Poetry, Duo)
4 years of high school (Policy Debate, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Duet, Group Interp Florida State Champion 1999, Original Oratory Florida Blue Key Grand Champion 1998), Declamation)
4 year of college (Prose 6th Place NFA Nationals, Poetry, Duo 2nd Place NFA Nationals, After Dinner Speaking Nationals Semi-finalist, Oratory Speaking)

I coach all NSDA events - all debates and individual events.
My team competes on all circuits including TFA, NSDA, UIL, and NCFL.

10X UIL CX State qualifier
9X TFA State Qualifier
1 NSDA Nationals Appearance

Paradigms - Debate
I am mostly fine with everything a team can throw at me. Speed is fine if I can understand you, but it doesn't make you "look like a better debater." If anything, I prefer speed AFTER the 1AC and show me you know how to argue a lot of points and can give a solid line by line. If I have to depend on your SpeechDrop docs to flow then you will not get top speaks and could, ultimately, lose the round. I don't like T and I won't vote on it (ok, I'm lying, I will. BUT it'll be tough hill to climb). I love a good K but it needs to be connected really well to the aff. I'm a numbers person and impact calc is one of my main voters. Don't be cocky during CX unless your opponent deserves it. During the last 2 rebuttals I need both teams to clearly display to me that they know why "they won." Do not make me figure it out - you tell me. I prefer a world view analysis but a line-by-line is fine if you know you can win based off arguments.

Paradigms - Speech
I look for mechanics. I typically don't pay much attention to the actual story line of your selection so be prepared to have poise, quality hand gestures, eye contact, focal points, facial expressions, vocal inflection, and body position to the audience. Please enunciate well. If you are in a book required category I will pay special attention to your book technique, page turns, and usage of it as a prop and/or extension of your piece. Show me you know how to compete from the time you walk in to the time you leave. If you are on your phone during a round I will NOT place you first no matter how well you do.

Highlighted Qualifications:

I graduated high school in the spring of 2020. Throughout my 4 years, I was heavily involved in my school’s speech and debate organization. My competitive experience is in interpretation events, though I made sure to become as well-rounded as possible in order to try to keep my school’s team alive while I was a student there. I was also very involved in the school’s theatre program as an actor, participating in 10 school productions.

Moving into college, I participated in the Lone Star College Honors Research program and a Chancellor’s fellow, taking honors level speech & English courses, taking part in LSC-UP Honors National Model UN, alongside taking acting courses and acting in UP Drama Department productions.

I have been judging local high school debate tournaments since 2022.

General Paradigms:

Presentation is generally very important to me across the board, I think catering your presentation of pieces and information to be as affective as possible in your given setting is a very important skill. I also value the creation and maintenance of interest in any given presentation. Regarding content, I want it to be recent, relevant, consistent, and well summarized when needed.

Regarding debate events:

I’m not a fan of spreading or excessive speed in debate rounds because it does not show mastery of many communication skills that are applicable outside of a competitive debate context. I think part of the challenge of these debate events is being able to curate your research to the point where what you are bringing to the round is the most relevant and effective subjects on the given topic. The superior debate student is articulate enough to need only the given time in order to sway judges to their side and present detrimental information in a clear and concise manner, while maintaining good presentation practices, without the need to speak too fast to be understood.

I am also always on the look out of solid logic, lines of reasoning, and contradictions within a case.

Progressive debate strategy is fine by me, as long as it is not presented in an overly- abusive manner.

Regarding speech/ interp events:

In performance events I look for intentional choices and character building that contributes to an overarching meaning or theme of a piece. I strongly value variation of voice, emotion, and other performative elements in order to show progression throughout a piece and to keep the audiences attention.

Assistant Coach at Spring Woods High School Speech & Debate for Victoria Beard.

Interp: Source of the majority of my experience in Speech & Debate. I look for multiple levels to a performance; character portrayals by students with an understanding of the emotions and stakes of their piece; a concise plot to the cut, coherent from beginning to end; the greater the attention to minor details (mannerisms, gestures, inflection, etc.), the better.

Public Speaking: I enjoy interp-flair, but it cannot supersede the content, argument, or sources of your speaking. I will call you out on inaccuracies.

Debate: Rank your Spread from 1 (slowest) to 10 (fastest), then keep at 5 maximum -- quantity will never match quality. I appreciate excellent enunciation and clarity, and support debaters providing roadmaps for judges. Dropped contentions are watched for. No disclosures after round end.

I mainly judge Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I've coached a small team for about 5 years. I have strong beliefs: 1) Debate should be resolutional. Making up ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with the resolution will count against you. 2) Your case should have good organization. It should be easy for me as a judge that flows to follow your logic and argumentation. 3) Any good argumentation will have not only logic, but 2 or 3 solid pieces of evidence to back up your position. 4) You should be able to have solvency under both your framework and your opponents. Finally, and most importantly, 5) You should show your opponent respect. At no time should you use language intended to intimidate, insult or disrespect your opponent. I have no issue with speed. However, there is a difference between spreading and speaking quickly.

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

I am the head Speech and Debate coach at Awty International, and have been in the debate scene for over 8 years now, mostly doing CX or parli.

For Congress, IEs, and PF:

I did extemp all four years of high school, and congress occasionally. I judge primarily based on speaking style, but I give bonus points for well-articulated analysis that challenges my baseline knowledge of the topic. I don't like the over-enthusiastic style they're teaching at camps, and look down upon walking across the room to get to your other point. Take two or three steps, don't make me turn my head. Other than that, go wild.

If you scream at any point, and the building isn't on fire or there isn't a legitimate medical emergency happening, I'm giving you last in the room. I don't care how critical it is for your piece, if you scream, I'm putting in earbuds and not listening to the rest of the performance. I don't need you triggering my sensitivities.

Special Note for debates: I have ADHD. If you're spreading analytics that isn't off a flow or your noggin, I need a word for word doc. If I can't see what you're reading at 250+ wpm, I'm not going to catch it, and you're going to whine when you get the L because I dropped a double bind or something. If it's off the flow or extemped, you need to go 70% of your regular speed.

For debate at local non-bid prelims:

I want an educational round over a competitive round. If you spread the other team out of the room, are intentionally vague and unwilling to explain your vocab, or are generally rude and dismissive, especially against a novice team, I'm giving you an L and giving you the minimum number of speaks. My view of debate is as an educational activity first and competitive second. Local tournaments are to foster critical thinking skills and create more nuanced, educated high schoolers. Want to be uber-competitive? Cool. That's fine. Go to bid tournaments or show me that you are capable of adapting to those who either dont have the experience or opportunities you do.

For TOC bid tournaments and local non-bid outrounds:

I'm truth over tech. Run whatever you want, but be forewarned. I consider myself a policy maker first. I have a degree in PoliSci with a minor in International Studies. If you're doing analysis that draws upon faulty IR theory, I'm probably not going to vote for it. However! If you can show me you know some semblance of IR theory or can articulate to me why your scenario is real-world and/or more real-world than the opp, I tend to be far more receptive.

Reasonability is a sufficient answer on T for me given the arg makes sense. If it's late into a topic and someone reads T on a camp aff or something obvious, I'm much more receptive to reasonability. I'm also a strong believer in RVIs. Topicality/Theory is you telling me the other team broke the norms of debate. You better make sure that violation is real and isn't just a throw away strat.

Don't run disclosure on small schools. I come from a debate team that had, at most throughout all 4 years, 15 members. 4 of us did debate. It's not fun going against armies of card cutters who try and force you to divulge your only advantage. I'm still iffy on disclosure in general, and find theory debates often boil down to my own personal biases. Do with that what you will.

Here are args that I get lost on, find difficult to flow, or feel unsure about how to vote on:

theory

one-off framework (I need a doc with all your impacts and analyt. If I dont have it, I can guarantee you I won't be writing them down.)

Any kind of phil

K-Affs whose only real spill-up is a singular card that says your unique identity k-aff is key to policy making.

High-level afro-____ kritiks

Kritiks I read in HS:

Queer illegibility

Security

Cap

Fem Materialism

Disability

I have yet to vote on a K-aff this year in LD or CX. I'm simply unconvinced that running non-topical k-affs is generally good for debate.

I prefer probability over timeframe and magnitude. I prefer structural violence over extinction, but will vote for extinction if warranted and weighed properly.

For extemp, I am looking for familiarity with the topic, confidence while speaking. I appreciate when students tie in what they’re talking about to big picture issues etc.

I enjoy well-sourced, traditional argumentation. Avoid spreading unless you provide sheets for others to follow--even then, if I still cannot follow you verbally, I will stop flowing.

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain, President [2009-2010]
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
2017 Team USA: Collegiate - C squad lead Deputy/Member
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Head Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Head Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) February to August 2024 - Interim Head Director
Sugar Land SpiderSmart (Missouri City, TX) September 2024 to Present - Assistant Head Director
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Email chains: fbcdebatecollective@gmail.com
Iff you reside in Fort Bend County, you may also email with your school-assigned account for consultation inquiries. This is a business email, don't abuse it.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear. I use .1s often when available, so if your speaks look unusual, I probably told you why on the ballot.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what types of arguments qualify in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks (no substance arguments). You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate which is done on a theory level. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow; you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without topic-specific link(s) to any ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but there should be a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate; easiest way to explain this, in the words of other coaches, I "like weighing". That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or my threshold for what's inconsistent to your on-case gets a lot higher. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms nor will I care how many non-interactive voters you put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional, progressive debaters often make the mistake of thinking they automatically win my ballot when their opponent debates traditionally. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill what's inherent (burdens, stock issues); it's fine if it's not explicit, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive. Have a cogent storyline on-case with a consistent stance, doing otherwise will make my voting murky, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's usually not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep, it helps tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring when you just go through the motions and aren't making strategic decisions in how you play the game of the flow.

PF
This was the first format that started my debate journey in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate, look on how to make an analytical framers' intent argument. If your opponent(s) are abusing framer's intent, call and substantiate it devoid of jargon so it weighs how it's supposed to as a ballot issue; theory runs differently in PF because complaining isn't enough to win on norms. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. In order of frequency, crossfire activity/decorum/momentum are my most common ballot tiebreakers. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third; these do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers even though I way errors heavily, but have a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I have coached state finalists and a national finalist, I don't split hairs on arbitrary persuasive gimmicks like other judges might. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but parliamentary formats were by far what I was best at on the college level since it didn't exist when I was in high school. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win multinationally. This format is THE definitive way to debate in the world, so your rhetorical representation of the American perspective should be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate globally (however, that doesn't mean you must devoid all Americentricism in content). As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards big picture, I'm a tab judge through-and-through. Your strategy score is determined by the skill you apply content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and consistent storyline down the bench. Generally, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is crucial because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolution more than voting issues.

***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***

There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate even when American teams are winning, largely because we have Americentrist adjudicators in the back of rounds is what the success is indicative of. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want to frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. Subjectivity in this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally posits non-novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.

***rambling over***

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 01/15/2025

Hello. I'm Valeria, and I'm a Junior at Cy-Fair High School. I currently compete in Varsity Congress, Extemp, Original Oratory, World Schools Debate, and used to do LD. I have a general knowledge of most events too.

This paradigm is just general stuff for all events and I'll specify the do's and don'ts for specific events too. If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to ask before or after the round.

Just for some general context, please avoid being rude. Yelling at each other is unprofessional, and nobody wants to watch that. Some obvious "don'ts" include being racist, homophobic, or just overall prejudiced. Also, please refrain from bringing religion into the room (unless it's a Big Questions Debate or maybe in an Original Oratory speech, depending on the context ). If you do, I will immediately report the incident to your coach. Let's maintain a respectful environment.

In Novice Extemp, make sure to watch your tone of voice because if you come off as agitated, it doesn't look nice. Please be as engaged as possible. I understand that we all have our off days, but try to put your best foot forward when in the room. Make sure to answer the question and provide a roadmap to keep things organized. If you have all the basics, you should be golden!

For Novice LD, I'd prefer it if you didn't spread it because it can be confusing for everyone and a bit pointless. This isn't an action show, so please debate normally. With that in mind, make sure you are managing your time wisely. When time runs out, I WILL allow you to finish your SENTENCE. Don't try to finish your entire card after time. In CX, ensure you are respectful and get to your point. Given time, I don't mind if the questioner cuts off their opponent and moves on to another question. Be mindful of your opponent's experience. I've seen that in some cases there are middle school debaters and first-time debaters, and if you abuse the fact that you know more (experience-wise) and come off as overconfident, it could jeopardize your ballot. I will most likely disclose after the round and give verbal feedback if both debaters are okay with it.

Okay, Original Oritory time. Please follow a structure in your speech, give me an intro, ROAD MAP (very important), body 1, body 2, heart story, solutions, and finally a conclusion. I want to focus on the heart story part for a second because that is what creates the difference between an info speech and an OO (it also shows the connection you have towards your speech:D). Also, make sure that your solutions are impactful, I know that it can be hard to come up with a solution on your one (I have had my share of hardships with this section of the speech) but establish SOMETHING that AUDIENCE and I need to change with your problem. Make me feel guilty!!!

Other than that there is not much else to say. May the best person win and good luck!

If you have more questions feel free to email patinovaleria86@gmail.com

I am a more traditional LD judge. I listen for solid framework, outweighed value/criterion packages, strongly linked contentions, and sound line-by-line rebuttals. Speed that does not interfere with my understanding of your case and why it better upholds your side won't bother me, but if it does, and I'm lost, you've lost.

I also prize good sportsmanship in a round. Don't simply dominate your opponent; add value to the round with sound reasoning and crystallization in the final speech in a way that we all know who won the round at the end of it.

Regarding speech events, I prioritize a powerful, varied delivery; effective organization; and compelling ideas presented with relevant and persuasive evidence.

Interp events should be able to impactfully execute the same characteristics but through believably authentic characterization and blocking.

For any debate:

• Don't spread (If needed, at least make sure everything you say gets out without sounding jumbled)
• Focus on points of clash
• Make easily identifiable arguments

Speech:

• Have a distinguished structure and impacts from your points
• Let your personality shine through, do not make a cookie cutter speech! PERSONALIZE
• Sell the importance of your topic!

Interp:

• Make sure your characters or speakers are distinct
• Develop your characters and display their emotions
• Emphasize facial expressions and body language!

Experience: I have competed in Public Forum for 2 years prior to graduating High School and then I have also judged PF for the past 2 years.

Speaking: Speak as fast as you want but it might be better to speak coherently and clearly so both I and the opponents can understand the arguments.

MISC:

1)If evidence/arguments clash, you need to explain why I should value your evidence over the opponents. Properly weigh/impact evidence out.

2) Remember to extend in final focus and not just summary. If arguments are not stated in final focus, I will not count them.

3)Be respectful!

What must you do to win? :

In order for your arguments/side to win, you must properly extend and impact evidence. Follow these two rules and you will win my ballot. Good luck and remember to have fun!

As a IE judge I look for a clean and polished performance. Good Analysis and Interpretation of characters and a powerful performance.

For Speaking events - Structure and Sources are important as well as a polished performance.

For Debate - LD I prefer a traditional format and value debate. PF I want to see clash, evidence and a clear job going down the flow to show rebuttals of arguments.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park High School

Experience Level: I am Dr. Chethan P Venkatasubba Rao, a Professor at Baylor College of Medicine. I have been actively involved in education and judging scienfic material for over a decade, and judge in debate for about two years.

Preferences on Rate of Delivery and Use of Jargon: I prefer debaters to maintain a clear and moderate rate of delivery. While I am comfortable with technical language and jargon, it is crucial that arguments are articulated clearly and are accessible to all participants. Overly rapid delivery that sacrifices clarity is less effective.

Note-Taking and Flowing: I keep a rigorous flow during the round, noting down key arguments and responses. This helps me track the progression of the debate and ensures that I accurately assess the clash between teams.

Value of Argument vs. Style: I value both argument and style equally. A well-structured argument presented with clarity and confidence is highly persuasive. However, I prioritize the strength and logic of the arguments over stylistic elements.

Persuasive Delivery Styles: I find delivery styles that are confident, clear, and engaging to be the most persuasive. Debaters who can effectively communicate their arguments while maintaining a respectful and professional demeanor tend to score higher.

Criteria for Assessing Debates:

• Clarity and Coherence: How clearly and logically are the arguments presented?
• Evidence and Support: Are the arguments well-supported with credible evidence?
• Responsiveness: How effectively do debaters respond to their opponents' arguments?
• Impact Calculus: Do debaters effectively weigh the impacts of their arguments?
• Overall Strategy: How well do debaters execute their overall strategy and adapt to the flow of the round?

Persuasive Arguments in Previous Rounds: In previous rounds, I have found arguments that are well-reasoned, supported by strong evidence, and clearly articulated to be the most persuasive. Debaters who can effectively refute their opponents' points while advancing their own case tend to stand out.

Expectations for In-Round Conduct: I expect debaters to maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round. This includes being courteous to their opponents, adhering to time limits, and avoiding any disruptive behavior. Constructive engagement and a focus on the quality of arguments are key.

Most importantly, I want to make sure that all participants enjoy and build on their performance during the debates.

Hey! My Name is Conor Rice

I am one of your traditional style judges! I am an NSDA Alumni and I used to compete in the various speaking events.

What I Look for as a Judge:

Speaking Events (OO, INFO, NX, DX, FX)

I look heavy on the content side of these speeches because good content is what makes a speech truly effective. I also do expect a performance of a good content speech is pointless if it is not well presented. I want to feel that personal reason why I should care about the topic. Bring me into the topic and hit me with the facts through an engaging speech. For INFO I want to see the true connection with the audience do not let your props become an obstacle.

Acting Events (Prose, Poetry, HI, DI, POI, DUO, DUET)

I want to see the story (beginning, middle, and end) of your piece and you truly feel it. The pieces that make it the furthest are the ones where you can see the person having fun and loving it. I want to be able to tell this piece is well-rehearsed and not thrown together minutes before the round. I love good blocking and choreography and will always highlight it in the feedback I write. I also look for the small details the attention to detail in the blocking. Ex: How you hold and pick up things.

Debate Events:

LD/PF:

I am looking for a clear framework and articulated argument with a clear structure. Tell me your value and crit and side post so I know exactly where you are in the argument.

WSD:

I need to see a clear framework and structure for the speeches and arguments. In the reply speech, I really want to see you clarify your team's argument and crystalize it, don't use this time to attack the other case.

Sincerely, Conor Rice

If you have any questions for me, particularly in Congress I can be reached at nevras@yahoo.com

Individual events: in extemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.

I will say that the key to winning in International Extemp is to immerse yourself in magazines, books and newspapers involving all things not United States. You'll get questions from areas not familiar to to normal lay person or someone that only follows domestic news. You then have to put the speeches together on non tournament days so that you are not scrambling to find the research within a half hour. Know what you want to say in advance, pick the question you have a good speech lined out and deliver. Friday night and Saturday mornings are not the time to piece together an international extemp speech. And keep in mind, more than 50% of the judges you face may not know a thing about a Morocco, a Republic of Congo or a Myanmar and somehow you have to bring that judge in to explain yourself these situations in a way that you are explaining it like a college professor while explaining it to a five year old. Only then will you see true success in International Extemp.

In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.

In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.

LD & CX: I will honestly say that I don't judge those debates in the traditional sense and as such I draw my decisions based on my IE and PF experiences. Like PF your cross and rebuttal speeches usually wins the day in my eyes so if you can extract good counter information in cross and use it in rebuttal, then you'll likely get the win.

PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.

I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. Research means sources like Washington think tanks and other sources. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bog down the debate with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary, you are going to go far.

Also, rely on Washington think tanks to use as sources to support your point. They put time into the research so you don't have to. Search top 10 think tanks to get the idea who to use.

During the question period, it's about getting answers, not taking 20 seconds giving your opinion about anything. You need to ask three questions tops and that should take up about 10 seconds of valuable time. Remember, you are asking questions to take down their arguments they put time and effort into.

If you are the presiding officer, it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll do well. Being the presiding officer means that you have to dedicate your life and your time to the speakers and make sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.

I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," for ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows me to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, and time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level.

With Congress, I look for proper parliamentary procedures and clarity of delivery through rigor, focused on democracy and clarity of ideas, seriousness in demeanor, and effective empowerment in speaking extemporaneously about the topic. Authenticity with clear speaking points such as sentence structure, eye contact, transitions, and word choice. The standard of decorum must be met.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

last updated 12/08/2024

cfhs '26

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: asundrani0317@gmail.com

Hi my name is Alissa and this is my third year debating for Cy-Fair High School. I mainly do LD and Worlds, but I've done + studied PF a good amnt and have knowledge on other events (how much knowledge is kinda questionable tho...) . If I'm judging you in anything other than debate js please dont be boring

if you have anymore questions apart from what I have here, js ask before round or look to Maria Fais paradigm for further explanation in debate

debate - (ld, pf, worlds, policy)

general

• i'll vote on literally anything that has a warrant js extend it properly - a lot of novices don’t do this and it makes resolving the debate so much more difficult (a proper extension looks like telling me the argument, explaining that argument within the context of the round, and preferably weighing it)
• clash and weighing are so so good!!!
• I personally like framing + phil debates for ld : comparing framings and weighing under them is a skill that takes practice and I think it’s a lot more convincing than card dumping - the same kinda goes for worlds - i love a good principle debate
• I stop flowing once your time goes off so you’re wasting everyone’s time by going over
• most of my rfds are verbal so the comments on tab won’t be super duper extensive but I’ll try to put mostly everything in !!

case + offs

• read wtv js do it well
• that being said Im a sucker for creative soft left impacts compared to like the constant extinction impact - I’ll vote on the latter but it’s js like ugh it’s so boring where’s the pizzaz ??
• i eval up to args like "genocide good" - tech over truth until truth overwhelms tech
• please please please actually understand what you’re reading - genuinely can’t believe I have to say this tbh but I would rather you read generics than read a K you can’t explain
• ive judged elims where novices run shells and K affs - im not sure if that’s like the new meta in novice but I wouldn’t have known how to refute that when I was first starting and I think it’s pretty abusive so my threshold for responses is a LOT lower… like at the end of the day I’ll vote for the person who wins on the flow but if it’s for smth like this I’m really not going to like it

speaks

• good extensions, cross applications, and a strategic cx are so underrated omg
• im not reading off a doc in novice. That being said i can flow w speed but at the end of the day if it’s not on my flow it’s not getting evaled so proceed at your own risk
• if you say anything that actively excludes others from the debate space i will give you the L + 25 speaks
• i get debates get heated but js please try to be respectful to one another - I’m def guilty of losing my cool so ik how you feel, but i think we as a community need to be better about being kinder to one another
• js be nice and have good explanations for high speaks ❤️

speech -

extemp -

• js like don’t be bad idk
• ik the structure a speech is meant to have so I’ll probably reference that when judging but also I def value speaking skills over rigid structure
• The best ones I’ve seen have had a witty agd and they used that momentum to propel them all the way through the speech
• yeah js like answer the question and be fun and you should be good

Pronouns: He/Him/His

email: asimsundrani@yahoo.com

Hello. My name is Asim and I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, be respectful to your competitors, and have fun!

Pronouns: He/Him/His

email: faizansundrani@gmail.com

hello. My name is faizan sundrani and I’m a college student at UH studying finance. I’ve never done speech/interp/debate, so please just speak slow and be good.

if you bring me food I’ll up your speaks or wtv

have fun!!

Debaters,

• DON’T BE RUDE

• Please don't spread
• I do not like progressive arguments, I'm more traditional
  

• Keep your own time

• Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.

• If you're able to include "bazinga" in your speech, I'll give u extra speaker points

• Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

IE's/Speech

I'm fine with anything

First and foremost, I am NOT a technical judge. You will not win based on your impressive spreading speeds or an arcane determination by you that your opponent's case is null and void on some technicality. You also will not lose because I do not actually agree with your argument. My opinion on the topic is irrelevant. My focus is always on the strength of your overall presentation and debate skills, your overall case, your ability to discuss the weaknesses in your opponent's case, and your level of debate polish. Make me understand your point, and you will win.

I will always give extra points to teams invoking Nuclear Armageddon in a context that does not appear to have a nexus toward nuclear war. No, not really.

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy. Exchanging cases and arguments should not slow down the round. I think you look more impressive if you stand during CX and when you speak.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense and should be motivated by the script. . Dramatic characters are more impressive when they are real and vulnerable rather than melodramatic. Material should challenge the performer, but not be offensive. Intro needs to give context to the story and explain the importance of the literature. Take risks that are grounded in reality.

All students should be respectful of the other performers or debaters. You should not be on your phone during rounds except to keep time.

I love this activity. I appreciate your work and efforts. I will try to include a variety of comments to let you know how I viewed and evaluated the round.

I prefer mostly on case debate. Speed is fine as long and I can follow the spread but I would prefer it if you did not. I will not flow anything that I cannot understand. Make sure you do extensions by yourself and signpost clearly.

My email is yangsam002@gmail.com

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

1. Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
2. Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
3. Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
4. Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

1. Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
2. Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
3. Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
4. Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

1. Follow precedence with few mistakes
2. Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
3. Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

I debated PF for 3 years in high school.

I'm familiar with pretty much every form of argumentation so understanding won't be an issue.

Speed is fine. Spreading is a no for me.

Signposting is a must.

Be nice in cross. There is no need to scream at your opponent. A bad cross can tank your speaker points.

I won't drop you if you don't weigh, but you still should. You must weigh in second summary if you want to weigh in second final focus.

Don't run theory unless it is an evidence ethics violation. If you want to run it you must tell me what rule is being broken.

EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND. I cannot stress how important it is to extend. Remember to extend in all your speeches starting 2nd rebuttal

Your FF should essentially be writing my ballot. Tell me why you won.

Howdy Everyone!

I'm currently a student studying Political Science ans History at Texas A&M University. I competed in speech and debate for four years, primarily in Extemp and Congress, but I also have experience competing in World Schools, Info, Oratory, Prose, and Duo. I'm now a competitor on the Texas A&M Mock Trial team. Basically, I've been around the block. I prioritize making competitors feel comfortable in every round and seek to help y'all grow through every ballot. I'm always excited to judge and do this because I believe in the value of this activity. I aim to make my paradigms an explanation for why I vote the way I do and do not expect competitors to change the way they compete just because I am their judge. Good Luck!

Congress

I prioritize unique and complex arguments delivered in a persuasive and passionate style. While I subscribe to the sentiment that "it's Congressional Debate, not Congressional Speech-Making," the delivery of arguments does play a role in my ballot. An ideal speaker should embrace the roleplay of congress and act as if the issue they are speaking on has real-world implications. Dramatic and humorous styles are fine with me as long as each style is used appropriately. Speeches should be delivered extemporaneously, and avoid reading off your computer or flow. That said, your arguments are the first and foremost factor in my decision (consider performance a "soft factor"). I like to see arguments that you couldn't make sitting in a round but rather are well-researched and take a more nuanced approach to the legislation. Source quality is a BIG factor for me. Avoid cable news wires and prioritize think tank and journal articles. If you do not have a single well-researched argument in your speech, your speech is a "round clarification" speech, or it only builds off the same thing other speakers have said, I will not look favorable on that speech. Being a yappologist will only get you so far. Additionally, BE CLEAR. SIGNPOST. PLEASE SIGNPOST. Also, and this goes without saying, CLASH. CLASH OFTEN. CLASH STRATEGICALLY. CLASH WELL.

I understand the impact of precedence and recency and I am sensitive to understanding how that can impact the round. However, I will also stress that competitors are responsible for strategizing their precedence and recency.

Presiding officers should be accurate and efficient. A PO's best measure is how much debate time their chamber has. They should not detract from the debate or make mistakes in precedence and recency. They should correct any mistake they make. Basically, if you blend into the background, you are succeeding. I understand how hard being a PO is, so don't be discouraged to PO. I will take you into consideration in my ballot.

World Schools

I love Worlds and think that the event is at the intersection of the most important skills this activity offers. As such, I like a well-rounded team. First and foremost, follow the norms of WSD. I enjoy logical arguments that are straightforward and understandable. Make sure your argument has direct links that make sense. Speeches ought to be delivered in an extemporaneous manner. Avoid reading off your case word-for-word. Speak slowly and clearly but also passionately. Please act like you care about the topic being debated. POIs should be frequent but not frivolous- make them mean something. Communicate on the bench to ensure you are not asking POIs repeatedly or simultaneously. I do not have any ideological preferences between principled and practical arguments. If there is a principled argument, I'd like it extended and addressed as an issue in its own right, separate from practical impacts. Other notes:

• Focus on realistic impacts and explain why your impacts matter. Weigh impacts, please
• There is a difference between repeating your arguments and extending them. If you are parroting the first speech and aren't analyzing or comparing impacts, you are doing something wrong
• The reply should narrow the debate into a few key issues and extend the most important clash points. If something is not extended through the reply, I likely will not consider it. Explain to me why you won the round
• I reward teams that are well-researched and keep up with current events. If there is big global news or information pertinent to the rounds' topic, please bring it up. Especially in impromptu motions.