Lampasas Full UIL Academic Speech and Debate
2023 — Lampasas, TX/US
Congress Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a very classic judge and I expect everyone to be respectful to each other ( No slurs, name-calling, or unnecessary gestures). I have experience in LD, Extemp, Poetry, and Congress.
LD and Congress: No spreading, follow the rules, I do not accept any form of CX I do not have experience in this field and to judge a CX argument in an LD round is unfair to all involved ( If it is a CX argument I will not flow it because I do not know how to properly implicate it but I also have a strong belief that CX and LD are different events for a reason and should not be intertwined with one another). I judge based on how well arguments were developed and if the resolution is fulfilled. I do believe that you can win based on one argument and that evidence is crucial in making those arguments. In Congress, I expect an active chamber and for people to be prepared. I also greatly appreciate giving the speech nobody wants to give. Know Robert's rules of order and parliamentary procedure so that the round moves efficiently.
Speech ( Extemp and Poetry): I expect the function and purpose to be met for both. Ensure the question is answered. I will always offer time signals and I judge based on performance and having the objectives met, along with clarity.
Note: I believe that Speech and Debate as a whole is meant for education and if you don't know everything that is completely fine as long as you are trying and you gain knowledge along with experience. With that being said don't impede others' education and make Speech and Debate an unenjoyable experience. Be kind to one another, you maybe competing but kindness grows any and everywhere.
General
Add me to the email chain -- colbymenefee@utexas.edu
I'm a tab judge but default to an offense-defense heuristic.
The best thing you can do to win my ballot is provide very explicit judge instruction. Tell me explicitly what to evaluate and how to evaluate it. My goal is for you to be able to debate in the way that you debate best.
K
I'm more comfortable evaluating policy v. policy and policy v. k rounds than k v. k rounds, but again, I want you to debate however you debate best. Assume that I am probably not familiar with your specific K literature; provide a clear explanation of the thesis of the criticism.
I expect a coherent explanation of how your alt resolves the link. Again, this explanation should not be contingent on me having background knowledge on the specific literature you're reading.
Topicality/theory
I default to competing interps but will evaluate the reasonability argument as it's given.
I have a very high threshold for RVIs -- unless the neg is reading a truly absurd number of frivolous t/theory shells, this is just an argument that I am not likely to find persuasive.
If you have a question you don't see the answer to, ask me.
CX: I will keep an open mind about any sensible argument. CP should be non-topical and competitive. Please provide roadmaps and follow them. Signposting and structure are appreciated. Follow the roadmap established by the 1NR. Please don't say, "Next off-case" and then move to your next argument. Say, "Next, a Spending DA" or "Next a T violation on the word _____." Arguments should be properly structured and supported. A claim without warrants is not an argument. I am listening to your citations and evidence. I will not intervene or link your arguments for you. I will evaluate the round based on the arguments and under the framework presented. The negative should present offensive arguments on why the affirmative should not win the debate. Conversely, the affirmative should provide offensive arguments for why the negative's arguments should be rejected. Weigh arguments and give me a well-developed impact calculus and clear decision path. If I cannot understand you, I will say, “Louder” or “Clear.”
Congress: I have been judging Congress for 4 years.
I value logical over emotional pleas. However, a speaker should demonstrate passion for his/her position. Please do not read a pre-prepared speech verbatim. A speech should be organized, and claims should be supported by credible sources. A speech should be purposeful--defending, refuting, or qualifying points already in the record, clarifying and/or adding to the information on the topic--so please do not merely repeat information already presented by previous speakers. I use the usual parameters for judging a speaker’s presence, vocal quality, delivery, and eye contact.
LD: I value logic over emotion. Convince me that your value is the most relevant and most important. You can do this by communicating your message clearly. For me, it’s all about persuasion and each debater's ability to demonstrate a superior approach to his or her side of the resolution. Clear, concise language that is direct, to the point, and void of jargon is much appreciated. Arguments: I will listen to whatever you want to run. However, whether I'll decide based on those arguments depends entirely on how well you explain how each argument functions in the round. Communication/Speed: Speaking quickly is only effective when you form coherent sentences. If I can't understand you, I cannot give you the win. If you have a soft voice, please speak up. I need to hear every word regardless of your speed. I will say, "Louder" or "Clear" or “Slower” twice before putting down my pen as a signal that I am no longer flowing. I'm judging the quality—-not the quantity—-of your arguments, so take the time to make your arguments understood. Please signpost clearly. Be respectful to your opponent.