PSJA Southwest TFA NIETOC
2023 — Pharr, TX/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
As long as the argument is well explained and the debater shows why it leads to a winning ballot, I will vote on anything.
I typically judge policy, so I might be somewhat biased to policy-esque arguments.
Make sure I'm on the email chain/speech drop and be clear on tags.
Do not make me make the arguments for you. Be clear on how and why a card or an analytic clashes with your opponent's arguments, or why it's a voter.
Make sure you have fun in the round. Do not take it too seriously. You are [probably] not actually a racist no matter what your opponent calls you.
I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you explain why it leads to a winning ballot. Make it easy for me to judge the round by explaining to me what to vote for and why I should vote on it. If arguments become incomprehensible, I will default policy.
I do not like new arguments in the 2nd Negative Constructive.
I am mostly fine with Ks. I am not super well read on all K literature, so make sure that everything is well explained, defined and be specifically clear on the link debate. Again if the K debate gets too messy or incoherent, I will default policy.
Any theoretical conflict is up for debate. I will vote on T but it has to be well-developed and reasonable in the round. Otherwise, I will typically vote Aff on T as long as the aff has a reasonable response to the argument.
I am not the biggest fan of CP but I will usually vote on it as long as its properly debated.
As long as I'm part of the email chain or speech doc, all you have to do is have clear tags. If for some reason I do not have access to your doc, make sure your reading is clear and comprehensible. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow anything I cannot understand. Do not make me make the arguments for you. Explain your arguments, provide analytics, and make sure you have a clear line by line. Make sure to go hard into voters in the last speech.
Don't be a jerk in-round. I will deduct speaks for unruly behavior.
My pet peeve is "in your own words" questions in cx.
Teams are at liberty to debate in the styles they have been coached to perform as long as they are capable of defending their positions. Speed is fine, as long as it’s clear. I will listen to and evaluate both traditional and progressive arguments in the framework the debaters define. I prefer arguments to be specific and warranted, and for each team to provide effective comparative analysis giving me reasons to vote in the final rebuttals. I typically am familiar with most arguments on the topic, but refrain from technical high speed responses and focus more on clearer more substantive explanations of your positions. Policy debates are easier for me to follow, but feel free to read kritkal strategies, just flesh it out a little more for me.
I’ve been involved with the debate community since 1997. Most of my time has been debating and coaching in the South Texas border region. My interests are politics disads, gender, identity, cap, bio power, critical race Ks. I’m cool with T and counter plans. Theory needs to be slow and explained I won’t pull the trigger just cause to have a block.
I’m a U.S. Government, Economics, and World Geography teacher. I'v been coaching debate since 2022 and have judged UIL and TFA events for CX and LD.
I'm a Tab Judge. I prefer to come to debates with a fresh perspective and without any preconceived notions. I rely on the debaters to make the necessary connections and persuade me why I should vote for them. I am open to all off-case arguments, but I am selective about Ks. I don't want them to be a time suck, so if you plan on running a K, make sure it's strategically planned.
I appreciate and welcome Framework arguments as they can be a great starting point for the round.
One thing that I dislike is when the neg runs "T"s of little importance only to stonewall the affs plan. Instead, I would rather listen to real disadvantages or counter plans. However, if it is indeed a good "T," I expect the aff to complete each step in replying back.
If you have any other specific questions just ask me!
I have been part of CX debate for 19 years. I debated for 2 years in high school and did 4 years of Parliamentary Debate in College. I have been a debate coach and judge in UIL and TFA for 13 years. I have seen debates in different regions of the US and have been exposed many forms and varieties of CX and have no preferences as to style or type.
My paradigm is open to any type of debate (tabula rasa), from stock issues to off-case arguments, theory and Kritiks. I like organization and easy to follow flows. All arguments should have both analytical and evidence based foundations as well as a measurable impact. The evidence should be balanced as far as quantity and date, quantity of evidence alone will not decide the ballot, but instead how the debaters use the information to prove their arguments or turn opposition points against them. There is not single issue to look for in a round, instead debaters point the issues that define the debate and argue for their importance or dismissal in rebuttals.
I enjoy quick paced rounds and don't mind spreading as long as the speakers are clear with pronunciation and enunciation. At the core, debate is not just for the experienced debaters instead a way to bring nuance and education to the masses through the exercise of argumentation, oratory and persuasive techniques. The average person should be able to walk into a debate with little information about the topic but leave the round much more informed and exposed to an organized and well elaborated evaluation about the resolution.