Seven Lakes Cy Park TFA IQT Swing
2024 — Katy, TX/US
LD and PF - In Person Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideContact Info
Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)
Pronouns: He/Him
Background (Updated For 2024-2025 Season)
I am a current Sophmore at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program.I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.
I have taught at camps such as TDC, NSD, & VBI
*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (pretty much any K literature) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.
Conflicts
Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS
Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI
TLDR: What I don't like
1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle
2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.
3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.
LD & CX Specific
DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)
This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:
[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward
[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address
[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.
[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.
Theory:
I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.
Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.
Kritiks & TFW/Topicality
K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean
K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L
Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.
*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place
**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.
Phil
I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.
Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).
Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.
Tricks (LD Specific)
I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.
[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low
[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue
[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is
[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.
[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).
Round Logistics
[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card
[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.
[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.
General Strategy:
I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.
Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.
If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament
If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking
If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed
If you are 29.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect
Personal Belief:
I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.
Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571
Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)
World Schools Specific
A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens
B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs
C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.
Public Forum Specific
Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.
If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.
If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.
Speaking Events (Specific)
Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.
Congress Specific
Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)
***UPDATED FOR STATE***
"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. If you're reading a million words per minplease send a doc or else I can't flow it. I'm very decent with speed but no judge can flow that fast (atleast not me)
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
"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."
That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.
In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.
I do have a few pet peeves.
1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.
2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.
3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.
4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.
I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.
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.
**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.
I've been judging and coaching various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.
Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever topic you're speaking on. That isn't to say that you should treat me as a lay person but rather you should not expect me to know the intricate literature on complicated topics that you have been doing massive research on.
Ask before round any further questions you might have. I prioritize fairness and transparency as much as possible.
If you're curious as to what kind of judge I am: the PF Discord says that I am tech, flay, fake tech, a worlds coach, and a hack. I'm not purposefully sandbagging my paradigm but I will say that I am human and I won't get it right every time.
If you're curious as to whether or not I'm a good judge: the people I voted for would say yes, and the people I voted against would say I'm a goober behind my back.
Predominately, I just try my best with the information given to me and try to keep any personal bias or prior information out of the round and I like to have things implicated within the speeches.
I have voted on everything you can think of - but they must be run well and correctly.
Most importantly, the reason why I don't try to preclude specific types of arguments is because I think everyone should be able to debate how they want - whatever you want to run in front of me, do it! The activity gets stagnant and exclusionary if everyone just did the same thing every time; there is no one way to debate and no one way to judge a round.
Feel free to challenge me and my perceptions, to educate and entertain me, and to have fun and enjoy the activity that we all have dedicated countless hours in doing.
Try to be kind to each other, stop calling each other lazy or adding quippy personal attacks to refutations; please don't speak loudly while another competitor is speaking and try to maintain decorum when you're not speaking [ie keep the over the top reactions, eye rolls, and laughter down while your opponent is giving a speech].
(she/they)
Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.
I am hard of hearing
I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.
How I evaluate debate.
Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.
### Speeches
If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.
### Cross
Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.
### Spreading
I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.
### Theory
If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.
I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)
Big Oofs
These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.
1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.
The Respect Amendment
This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.
I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…
1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.
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, etc.).
PF/LD Paradigm
- My students 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.
Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.
2024-2025 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last couple of years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)
Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.
Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds. I am not going to evaluate the round after a certain speech.
Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!
WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.
I prefer on-topic debate.
Not a fan of philosophical arguments, but will keep my opinions from influencing decisions. I'm ok if said arguments are well structured and not just used as a last minute argument due to lack of preparation.
Not a fan of spreading, however, I am for letting participants use their judgement to present their best case.
I'm ok with participants using jargon, but I prefer simple language.
I'm a huge fan of performance. Be loud, expressive, and show me that your topic is the most important thing in the world during round.
My decisions are made based on overall performance and content.
For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com
I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and am currently the PF coach.
General
In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I try to avoid being dogmatic.
When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments* in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be comparatively advantageous.
*Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.
Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.
Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.
Every word of flex prep must be timed, including the questions themselves. I am generally not a fan of clarifying questions.
Evidence
Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.
Cards should be cut and contain at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag" and "it was in the tag"), relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.
Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not necessary assuming clear or minimal verbal marking in-speech.
If you believe someone is violating the rules, conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I cannot evaluate theory arguments about rule violations. Producing evidence and/or a copy of the original source in a timely manner generally means 60 seconds, but this may change depending on the context. The punishment for not doing so when asked by me or your opponents is a loss.
If 3+ cards or >20% are missing an applicable author, author qualification(s), URL, or date in the written citation (to the extent provided by the original source), I believe that to be sufficient for a loss at tournaments that adhere to NSDA evidence rules. An oral citation that excludes the applicable publication year and/or author name will render that evidence inadmissible. These remedies will only go into effect if the debater(s) acknowledge them in the following speech and are themselves not guilty of the accusation. I will not evaluate these accusations technically; they are yes-no. This is not an auto-loss in rounds with panels (RRs, elims), though I would be very receptive to a theory argument. You may make theory arguments for narrower violations as well.
Avoid paraphrasing. The introduction of any paraphrased evidence will cap speaker points at 28.
PF
Expect me to have topic knowledge.
Sound analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.
Defense is not "sticky."
Second rebuttal must frontline.
Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am usually not nitpicky.
Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.
Because of time constraints, you may insert re-highlights.
1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.
Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.
Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. Judge instruction, however, is undervalued: telling me how to evaluate the debate will make my decision more predictable.
That said, I generally find "timeframe" more relevant than "try-or-die" and "link" more important than "uniqueness."
The Pro/Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.
I reward creativity and hard work. Laziness, not to be confused with simplicity, is disappointing.
LD/CX
I have enough exposure to both events to keep up but will be unfamiliar with the topic.
Best for policy debates; fine for most else.
Not a huge fan of abusing conditionality.
Text and function are probably good standards for competition.
Theory
I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and heavily semantical theory interpretations.
Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.
Ks
Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.
Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.
Any response strategy is fine. Better than most for Framework and Topicality.
Non-starters
Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.
Tricks.
Soliciting speaker points.
Misc
Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the start time.
Speaker points are relative and assigned according to adherence to my paradigm and incisiveness.
Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.
Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.
I value debate that is germane to the topic. Loosely connected theory shells or using "trick" debate strategies hold less value than those in which are directly relevant to the topic. I am looking for well researched and well delivered debate.
Spreading is frowned upon. In my opinion spreading ruins the spirit of debate. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth you are not debating, you are mumbling. Preference will be given to the debater that is speaking clearly, and making their points with fluidly.
Be respectful to me and your opponents at all times.
Hello, everyone and I can't wait to judge your round!!
To introduce myself, I am Idara Etuks. I am an undergraduate student at Washington University in St. Louis and a former competitor in congressional debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I competed at the local, state, and national level, semifinaling TOC in Congress and TFA State in Domestic Extemp, finaling at tournaments like Harvard and Emory, and placing 8th at TFA State in Congress, placing 2nd in UIL 6A Congressional Debate, and placing 3rd at the 2024 National Speech and Debate tournament in the Senate.
For Congress:
Congress is both speech and debate, meaning you need to speak well and convincingly while mastering the argumentative part of the event. I don't want to hear the same rehashed argument as we continue, but I will give brownie points to someone who provides a great late-round or crystal. Your objective as a senator or representative is to present the issue to me in a way that I would immediately vote for what side you are speaking on. The people who will rank on my ballot are the ones who embody their personality in their speeches, provide an argument that applies to the real world*, and are respectful.
If you want to make jokes in your speeches, make them funny and easy to understand. I don't want to be in the 3rd hour of the round laughing at a joke you said in the first 30 minutes because I just now got it. If you use rhetoric in your speech, I am a sucker for a good theme and story. I would always run rhetoric related to that, or I made it personal!! If you attempt personal rhetoric, I just pray it is real. The only type of rhetoric I dislike is abusive rhetoric like "blood on their hands", generalized negative rhetoric (for certain groups or nations), descriptive language of death or abhorrent conditions, or just blatantly restating another individual's words. You may think it sounds pretty cool, but I would be looking at you thinking it sounded pretty annoying. Make the round fun, not unbearable.
I have been in the event for a long time and watched too many rounds; if I hear a speech that copies a former competitor's speech, expect a 9 and an angry comment on your ballot. If you PO, you should expect a ranking between 4-6--if the round is terrible, you can expect a 1-3. For speaking, you can be a great speaker, but if absolute nonsense is coming out of your mouth, I won't listen. The same goes for content. You can have the round-winning argument or the best content in the world, but if your speaking prevents me from understanding the argument, then I will tune you out.
*Added this because I am so serious when I say your argument must understand the way the real world works. You should not be drafting an argument based on something someone ran in 2019 or 2020 because it benefited them at that time. The world is always changing, so your arguments should too!!!
For Extemp:
If you follow the structure of having the hook/ AGD, background source, your answer and question, a roadmap, and 3 points with the right amount of evidence and analysis, then you will be set! The point of extemp is to inform me about a topic, give me your opinion, and provide an engaging argument as to why your opinion is right. Projection and speaking is key for this event because that's mainly what I must go off of. The best speakers may not answer the questions the best, but they will keep me engaged. Don't lose me in the 7 minutes, and you will do great.
For Speech:
I don't typically judge speech, but I love it so much!!! All I have to say is for oratory, I go based on the most compelling topic with an adequate solution and clear problem. Same for info. I need to be able to relate in some way to the topic so that I can care for it in my ranking. This doesn't necessarily mean making the topic about black people or being a woman, but you should incorporate relatable content in your speech that is a universal experience for most judges. The solution should be a solution. If it is one that is hard to implement, then focus on making it feasible in a certain area. I just want to know if the issue can be addressed. Now, it is lovely to hear about everyone's families because the stories are truly inspiring, but if you have little relation to the story, don't put it in. There will always be real-life stories of other individuals that can fulfill that part of the speech. Also, when deciding what current events to include in your speech, include examples not just from 2024 but from 2019, 2012, 2005, and before. Your judges will most likely be familiar with those events as well and it prevents you from repeating the same current event as another speaker.
For Interp:
I love watching Interp so much. If I cry during your speech, congratulations!!! I was moved. (I cry really easily, though) Ensure your piece is polished and the story is clear. As a judge who spends more time in debate, I will be critical of content but understanding of the differences in the events. If I am placed as your judge for interp, do not fret!! I have reviewed the information necessary to be a trustworthy judge. Just be confident, have fun, and do well!
For Debate:
Say your prayers because I probably did not want to be in that round. Not because of you! Just because I don't love the event. If I am judging, I will know what I am doing, but probably do not spread.
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
hi, i'm ivy
i currently do PF for Bellaire
pf
- tech > truth
- signposting is a must and a roadmap would be helpful
- if u want me to vote off an argument you must extend it with warrants in summary and final
- open cross & flex prep is fine by me
This is my first time judging, please time yourselves and ensure you are keeping to your allotted times.
Please let me know your name and what school you are.
Good Luck with your Rounds!
Experience: 3 Years PF, 2 Years OO, 2 Years Coaching
IMPORTANT: Please stay respectful to your opponents at all times (especially in CX). I will dock speaker points for lack of respect.
Spreading: Don't do it. I'm okay with a little haste but don't spread.
Theory/K's: Leave them at the door. I won't flow it. Stick to the topic.
Extend throughout.
Focus on Voters in FF
I am Parent Judge with few months of experience in Judging. I am open to various styles and approaches.
Speech Specific:
· I value speeches that are easily understandable, Focused, Structured, Strong evidence with logical reasoning and Engaging.
· Supported with relevant examples, facts, etc.
Additional Notes:
§ I will maintain professionalism and impartiality throughout the round.
Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '25
contact: pkasibhatla4@gmail.com
He/Him
Debate experience:
I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments
PF:
- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.
- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.
- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.
- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.
- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that
- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.
- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.
- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.
- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.
- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.
- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary
Email me if you have any questions!
Personal Background/General Information:
My name is Murtaza Kazmi. I competed in Congressional Debate and International Extemp at Seven Lakes High School for four years.
I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of prejudice or discrimination in round. If you or your partner display any of those characteristics, I will down you immediatley. I enjoy humor in round, but make jokes at your own risk. Debate is not a space for over-agressiveness. I understand sometimes speaking over each other, but do not be mean to your competitors - this will also lose points on my ballot.
Debate is a space to communicate, not to hate!
Congress:
Congress is both a speaking and debate event in my view - successful representatives will show skills in both facets.
Rhetoric should be used effectively (not just to fill in time in a speech).
Each argument provided must have quantified/qualified evidence (with sufficient sourcing including date) along with a tangible impact.
AGD's should be unique (not canned) and have an effective tie-in to the topic.
Speeches should have succinct "action claims" (etc. this bill will fosters economic growth).
Mention the different sections/resolved clauses of the legislation in your speech.
Speeches without conclusions (or ending with pass/fail) are incomplete speeches and will be marked down.
Refutation is expected and speeches without ref (with the obvious exception of the author/sponsor) will be marked down
Any rehash will be marked down
Go for alternative speech structures at your own risk (unified analysis, defensive points, etc.), but speech without offense is not a good speech imo.
Authors/Sponsors can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:
1. Explaining the Problem (with quality evidence)
2. Discussing the solution that each part of the legislation provides (with quality evidence)
3. Elaborating on the human impact of both the problem and the solution.
Crystal Speeches can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:
1. Group arguments from both the Aff and Neg into logical and general claims
2. Show new evidence and explains logically why one side is correct
3. Explores the argumentative and human impacts of one side being correct
Presiding Officers can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:
1. attaining or nearly reaching the maximum number of both speeches and questions in a session
2. maintaining decorum and parliamentary procedure at all times (including accurately choosing questioners and speakers)
3. limiting fluency breaks or awkward phrasing
4. making humorous remarks from time to time (when appropriate)
Extemporaneous Speaking (IX/DX):
Similar to Congress, I weigh both speaking and content with a slight preference for better content over better speaking.
Each speech should have a MINIMUM of 7 sources (1 in the intro, 2 in each subsequent body point).
You can try alternative speech structures at your own risk (eg. two points), but it must make sense in the context of the topic.
Intro must include AGD, effective transition, background information and significance, state question and answer.
All body paragraphs must have succinct claims with dated and quality sources with significant analysis and IMPACT.
I will appreciate book sources and local newspapers sources (in IX) a lot!
If your point doesn't make logical sense without the quantified/qualified evidence, it is not a good point.
You have to restate the question and brief answer in your conclusion.
Speeches without conclusions are incomplete.
Speakers that use tonal and speed variation, effective hand gestures, eye contact will rank better than speakers who do not.
Public Forum/Lincoln Douglass:
I am flay, leaning towards content, but bad speaking will lose a lot of points on my ballot.
I'm not well versed in theory or other progressive arguments, but if violations (eg. racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.) are made that are grounds for a loss, then you can bring them up in round and if I agree then I will down the other debater.
I prefer substanatiative debate over progressive (theory, disads, K's, etc).
If you do run progressive arguments, there must be a clear and solid link to the resolution.
Teams that explain their link chains and show their impacts and impact calculus better than the other team will win my ballot.
Weighing impacts is necessary to win my ballot.
If you drop an argument, link, or card and try to bring it back up, I won't weigh it.
Weighing should begin no later than the Summary speeches.
I am tech over truth unless something is blatantly wrong (eg. we will be extinct from a squirrel takeover of Earth).
My average speaks will be a 28 (from 25-30) and can go up/down depending on your performance in round.
Hi I'm David I debated for 4 years at Strake and have been judging for 3r
-a good standard for extending an argument in the backhalf is if a spectator came into round during summary they should be able to understand how your argument works and why its true (by true I mean a reasonable explanation for why something happens)
-weighing is important but it needs to be comparative its not enough to say ours happens first you have to explain why thats more important than whatever issue you have with their timeframe
-Ill evaluate whatever you want to read dont let me curb your enthusiasm but im not as familiar with progressive arguments so youll have to make sure you explain things well
-speed is fine but I prefer when rounds are slower the more you clear and articulate you are the better the round is
-please keep cross fire civil people are too competititve trying to get in questions and answers and people get aggressive and I dont like that I like when teams go back and forth with one question each you can follow up on your question after your opponent has the opportunity to ask you something
I dont need to be part of the email chain if yall want to do an email chain please try to get it set up before round to avoid unecessary delays
I am a parent of a student at Anderson High School
I have judged speech events ocassionally for two years and PF during one tournament this season
Truth over tech
Please don't say "We have clearly proven" since that is subjective :-)
-Head Coach for Kempner. Competed in LD / Extemp when I was in school, but LD was very different then.
-Most important: you are here to DEBATE. Acknowledging a truly dropped argument is of course completely ok and correct if they actually did. But getting up and incorrectly stating "they dropped this, they dropped that" as the bulk of your argument and reason to win when I flowed them saying it will significantly lower your chances to win. Debate their arguments lack of merit and why yours should be prefered. .
-Be kind and have fun. While debates can get intense, they should never delve into rudeness or unprofessionalism. If your opponent is being rude to you, I've already documented it and will report it accordingly.
-Spreading is highly and actively discouraged. Debating should be about logic, argument, critical thinking, and genuine debate. Spreading removes the ability to have an effective and engaging back and forth. Jamming 100 cards into a speech does not provide anything to anyone, nor do rebuttals where the entire time is "opponent missed this card, and this card, and this card" when neither me nor your opponent know that you even said it. You're here to debate and argue for why I should vote for you. If I do not hear it, it will not count in your favor. If you see me not typing (with exception to cross), I'm not flowing it and it's not going in the flow at all.
-Explain the why. Claims made that don't fully warrant out or explain why something would happen will be weighed significantly less. Example: If you state that raising taxes will lead to nuclear war, then immediately move on to your next point without having a direct link or chain of events that will lead to this actually happening will not hold weight and will likely be disregarded in my flow and decision.
-I prefer topical cases and arguments. Run what you want, but if your argument is super non-topical or a K you need to fully explain and warrant why you are running this and should win with it.
-I disclose in out rounds, but not in prelims.
Add me to the email chain: m9305311@gmail.com
I have past judging experience. treat me like a parent judge(i.e. go slow, don't use jargon, no prog args)
Debate: (LD, PF, WSD)
I am an engineer so logical arguments appeal to me.
if it doesn't make sense to me I will not evaluate it.
please be polite in crossfire(i.e. no cursing or homophobic or racist or ableist comments). I enjoy seeing argumentative clash in cross but keep it controlled.
Overall: just have fun. i will vote for the team that persuades me to.
Progressive args and Ks:
I am a parent judge. Please do not read any theory shells, kritiks, or progressive arguments. I will not evaluate them as I don't understand them. I prefer substance debates.
Speaks:
I typically give 28-29 if I think you speak well.
anything 25-26 means you said something offensive
rhetoric is good: will add speaks.
Speech/Interp:
rhetoric is good.
Speak clearly and with some emotion. monotone isn't very appealing.
that's pretty much it.
i will give you a ranking based on how well you perform and how well you express the nuance of a prose or poetry piece or inform me in your extemp speech.
Have fun guys.
I am the speech coach for Kempner High School, which means that your delivery matters.
Don't stare me down. Eye contact is good, but staring me down becomes uncomfortable. You have an opponent, so give them the courtesy of making eye contact.
Don't spread. The human brain can only process so much information. To me, this is about your argument and logic. I appreciate a compelling argument. I do not appreciate competitors who speak so quickly and fill those few minutes shoving in so much information that it become difficult to follow your argument.
put the public back in public forum
ask me in round
Parent judge. Don't run any crazy arguments in debate unless you know how to back them up. For speech, I go mainly off of speaking ability, but I will be listening to your content too.
parent judge for st agnes MV (pf) and st agnes EM (ld)
speech + congress just do normal stuff lol
debate - ld + pf
- adapt your case how you would w/ a lay judge
- cross is flowed :)
- u can totally run unique args as long as u warrant everything! it's not the political stuff thats hard it's the debate-y words
- when u tell me u ow tell me why u ow - nobody gets what u mean when u say "i ow on magnitude" w.o saying WHY
- don't be evil + run theory or a K or spread or anything like that - ur setting urself up for failure
have fun!!!! ????
(written by debate daughter!!! if i've hit u tell my dad thats lowk so funny)
I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:
Congress
I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several mistakes, struggle with procedures and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.
Debate
Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.
Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points. I tend to flow arguments over card names. Be very clear with your signposting or I will get lost.
Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.
Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. Tricks are dumb. I will not vote for them except as a RVI against the trickster. See my assumptions below.
Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, in LD I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."
Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.
Policy Debate: I am a fairly traditional judge who naturally defaults towards a policymaker mindset. I do appreciate the stock issues and am willing to vote on Topicality. Spamming the affirmative with 18 off annoys me. Label your off case arguments. I am not well versed in a lot of policy theory or critical arguments. Explain what you are doing and tell me how arguments should work in the round.
Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).
Speech Events: I look for a clear preview of your main points of analysis, integration of multiple sources, effective use of gestures and a speech clear of fluency breaks. Nonverbal cues are important and help make your analysis more effective.
interp Events: Great performances will feature clean transitions between characters that have distinct voices for unique characters. I look for students/teams that are well prepared and jive well together. Your personal analysis in the teaser should be easily tied to your piece and a greater theme throughout.
Debate: In all forms of debate I look for a clear impact calculus that sets your impacts apart from your opponents. You are safe to speak at a brisk pace but if you spread I won't be able to keep up well. I'm not a great judge for theory debates, though I understand the basics of topicality. Try your best to persuade me and I will consider any argument.
PF
I have been in varsity PF for two years.
Please do not spread. Remember that you're appealing to me and not your opponents, so make sure I understand what you are saying and make eye contact with me. I won't vote on disclosure. Be respectful of your opponents. Weighing is important, but needs to be specific. Don't just use a bunch of weighing terms with no contextualization. I will be flowing and keeping track of what is dropped, but this will also need to be emphasized by your team for me to actually consider it dropped.
Congress, WSD, LD
I have experience in debate, but have not done any of these events. It is important that I understand what you are talking about. Put emphasis on the points you want me to focus on and make sure all of your points are backed by relevant evidence. Be respectful, don't interrupt, and be confident in what you are saying.
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.
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.
Competed at the local, state, and national level in congress for 4 years in high school.
Congress:
Warrent your arguments and have good impacts
weighing and clash is super important
For PF:
warrenting > evidence
DO NOT SPREAD
For LD:
traditional LD only
DO NOT SPREAD
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
Sandra Peek
CX Judging Paradigm
I have been teaching 32 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.
EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.
SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well-signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.
ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP, and T should always be started in the 1NC.
PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS
KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond rejection.
DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.
TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.
INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.
SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.
COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.
THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.
FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding-based DA’s).
GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree except at UIL tournaments where the rules forbid it. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. I will not vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.
LD Judging Paradigm
I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.
EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.
SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.
ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.
PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS
KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.
DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are sometimes out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.
TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.
PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a huge fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down. When there are policy-based resolutions, they often get my vote.
THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.
GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.
PF Judging Paradigm
I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have. In PF in particular, I think slower debate is better since the intent of the event is for everyone to be able to understand it.
EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the pro wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the con wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, you put yourself at risk of me simply judging on policy impacts.
EVIDENCE- I think paraphrasing is fine, but be sure those that paraphrasing can be defended with actual correctly cited evidence.
ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.
PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS
KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- In my opinion, there is very little time to flesh out arguments like this in a PF round, so unless they are extremely easy to understand and carefully linked to the resolution, I would prefer debaters not use them.
DISADS/ADVANTAGES- While the arguments do not have to be labeled as advantages or disadvantages, in most PF rounds I actually weigh impacts to make my decision so regardless of what you call the arguments, you should impact out this way.
TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.
PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- In my opinion, plans and CP's are rarely a good use of the limited time in PF. Occasionally, CP's work if they provide a counter-narrative to the resolution.
THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss-based theory arguments and will vote on them.
GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the con to sit on the right and the pro to side on the left.
1/8/24-edited to update years experience
Churchill 2025 update: Sorry I didn't update this before prefs, but the important information (how I judge/experience/etc) hasn't changed so it doesn't matter as much. Also this topic has energy transition/EV connections which is super cool because I work in EVs :) I can yap about being an EV nerd forever. I love this topic so much it's so cool.
Here is a bunch of old files - my hope is that there's some small schooler who has the motivation to sift through and farm whatever they need from here. I also turned on comments from the link so if you have a question about something you can just leave a comment or email me and I'll answer.
Lindale '21 U of Houston '25
Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible
he/him/his
Quick Prefs:
Phil - 1/2
Theory - 2
Policy - 1
Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(
K - 3
Paradigm Summary: I'm a senior at University of Houston - I've coached, cut and prepped really in-depth policy prep, drilled intense theory rounds, done my homework on phil since it's interesting to me/I liked to make frameworks for fun in HS, and almost all of my old debate friends were K hacks so I'm pretty tab but I think I have the least experience in K lit. I haven't judged for a while so I may be a bit rusty (last time I judged was TFA '24 and then I had a big gap before that).
I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.
Phil
- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read
- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer
- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable
- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans
- default epistemic confidence
- don't read truth testing if you're not reading tricks, it doesn't do anything for phil. Comparative worlds doesn't mean policy - it just means you're comparing worlds. You still need a FRAMEWORK to determine how you compare - and that's the framework. please don't read truth testing if it doesn't do anything.
Kritiks
- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse judges than me
- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links
- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)
- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.
- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.
Policy Debate/"LARP"
- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.
- Weighing, weighing and more weighing
- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns
- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.
- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies
T/Theory
- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)
- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)
- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)
- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis
T-Framework v K Affs
- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly
- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world
- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)
- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff
- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"
Tricks
- If you don't have too, please don't.
Speaks
Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.
Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously
I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks
Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.
You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.
My favorite debates that I've judged so far:
JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022
Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)
JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022
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.
This is a debate event, where you speak. Your speech and rhetoric must be at the forefront of your competition.
"There are no new waves, only the sea" - Claude Chabrol
Your arguments must be concise and CLEAR. These are not practice rounds. Every round is a test that you face against yourself before you even begin responding to your opponents claims. Do you understand your arguments?
I will flow the round, but I will not flow for you, as in I will not make extensions unless stated, and I will not place arguments on the flow, you must tell me where to apply them.
SPEED: I can generally follow along as long as things are clear, but on a 1/10 scale, I'm at like a 5.
I am a policy maker at heart, I like to evaluate the arguments you make and then from there, I will look at your metrics. So please define your metrics for winning the round and tell me why your arguments are more substantial.Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
On the speech side: I want to see speeches that give a thesis and tell me what's happening in the larger topic area. Idc about sources as much as I care about logical arguments.
On the IE side: technique, efficiency of physical movements and blocking are important. Tone, volume, and timber are important things that your voice has to use to make me feel your performance.
For debate rounds, I vote for whoever has the better argument in the round.
Hey everyone! I am a parent judge who has been judging for over a year now, I judge both speech and debate. You should treat me like an average lay judge.
Debate preferences-
- PLEASE NO SPREADING
- I like clash and calling out
- Please be respectful to each other
- Humor is good if purposefully used
- READ THIS EARLY ON- DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PARADIGM IN ROUND
Speech preferences-
- I care about both presentation and content
- I will be checking sources- do not lie
- Please make sure your voice can be heard
Debate is supposed to be a friendly and respectful place. No disrespect will be tolerated.
I. General Philosophy:
- I value clear, concise, and respectful communication.
- I judge based on the quality of arguments, not the quantity.
- I am open to various styles and approaches, but I expect strong evidence and logical reasoning.
II. Debate Specific:
- Burdens of proof: I expect the affirmative to establish their case and the negative to challenge it.
- Theory: I am open to traditional theory arguments, but I will not vote on frivolous or abusive ones.
- Weighing: I appreciate clear explanations of why your arguments are more important than your opponent's.
- Evidence: I value credible and well-sourced evidence, such as academic journals, expert opinions, and reliable statistics.
- Impact: Explain how your arguments make a real-world difference and why they should matter to the audience.
III. Speech Specific:
- Delivery: I evaluate vocal variety, clarity, eye contact, and overall stage presence.
- Content: I assess the depth of research, clarity of organization, and effectiveness of argumentation.
- Originality: I appreciate unique perspectives and engaging approaches to the topic.
- Engagement: I value the speaker's ability to connect with the audience and evoke emotional response (if applicable to the speech type).
IV. Additional Notes:
- Feel free to ask me questions during the round to clarify any expectations.
- I will maintain professionalism and impartiality throughout the round.
V. Preferences (Optional):
- Speed: I prefer a clear and understandable speaking pace, but I am flexible within limits.
- Visual aids: Feel free to use visual aids, but ensure they are clear, relevant, and not distracting.
Hi, I am a parent judge having an experience of judged in World Scholars Cup Global Rounds at Manila and Dubai. Do not spread, do not run theories, live action role plays and kritic as I may not be able to comprehend it. Speak in a conversational pace.
I am a speech and debate coach. I consider speech events to be an excellent way for student's to have real-world practice in conveying their thoughts and beliefs. I enjoy listening to speech events that show a speaker's range as it pertains to vocal tonality, personality and knowledge. I look for clear preparation and organization through details brought fourth in the introduction, body and conclusion. Sources should be clearly stated and expanded on. I want to hear content on social, political and educational topics that revolve around current events. Adding in personal touches when appropriate are also appreciated. I consider debate a communications event. Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. I prefer a traditional style of debate and am big on speaker clarity. I’m okay with a speaking pace a bit faster than ‘normal’ conversation but avoid monotone speaking and inhibited breathing! Do not spread. Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter! Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments. Be sure to extend your arguments, especially after they’ve been attacked. Take advantage of Cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round. Topics reflect concerns in our society, so take it seriously and do not waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers’ intent. My vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present. Please don’t be jerky or rude – it will cost you speaker points!
Contact Info (please add me to email chain):
Email: ntom18@mail.strakejesuit.org
Facebook: Neville Tom
Paradigm:
Hi! My name’s Neville. I haven't been judging as much lately so getting a bit back up to speed with how things are moving now in LD.
Main things:
1) Don't do any -isms
2) Make things very clear in the final rebuttal speeches
Bach Tran (he/him)
Seven Lakes '23
UT '27
Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 (at) gmail (dot) com
If I am judging you in PF please also add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com
-------------------------
tl;dr/read before round - scroll down for PF-specifics
If you think you can win without flowing, strike me.
Tech > Truth, but I won't vote for incomplete/unwarranted arguments, and arguments that the tabroom/higher authorities forbids me to. What you choose to read and my own biases are largely irrelevant to the RFD if you explain your stuff and tell me what to do. Weighing, judge instruction, and evidence/warrant comparisons are key to getting my ballot.
Very few issues are ever matters of yes/no by default - as such, I think you should debate everything in terms of relative risks and probabilities unless you are willing to invest time in asserting otherwise. The only thing where this does not apply is whether a team violates a theory interpretation.
Ad homs/character attacks are not arguments - out of round concerns about behaviour are for the tabroom and coaches to deal with, not me. Egregious -isms in round however will result in an L and the lowest speaker points I can give (read: be kind and a decent person).
I like and will reward creative and bold strategies (e.g., heg good against the K) and/or excellent research & knowledge generously with points. You are playing a dangerous game asking for 30s.
Please be on time and minimize dead time. The 1AC should be read at the start time and shared before that.
Feel free to ask questions in person or via email.
Evidence
- Speech docs/ev sharing are almost non-negotiable - please refrain from sending stuff that aren't verbatim documents.
*2025 update: google docs = auto 25s. Don't try me.*
- Speed is fine, unclearness is not. If you think I can flow round-decisive analytics in the rebuttals with no docs at top card speed, you should strike me.
- I flow on paper, straight down, without author names - pen time, numbering, signposting and referencing arguments/warrants are all musts
- You can insert rehighlights if they are short and you explain the implications. Obviously if you are recutting cards you need to read them out loud.
- Ethics issues will stop the round - W30s if I think you are correct, L0 otherwise. Instructions from the tabroom will of course override this.
- Please tell me to read cards - no "read X card," yes "read X card it doesn't assume [thing]"
-------------------------
Policy: anything goes absent theory but no judgekick if not instructed to. 0% risk is possible.
The K: you should explain & weigh what is offense/uniqueness/solvency under your framework. Framework/ROTB can be anything if you out-debate the other team. These things are done better via the line-by-line and not massive overviews. You should also strive to minimize the amount of buzzwords, for they will not substitute proper debating (or lack thereof).
Theory/T: no defaults on paradigm issues (read them!) + slow down on the analytic walls. Weighing between shells is really important.
It takes more than 5 seconds to explain why an IVI is "independent" and a "voting issue." Will not vote on these otherwise.
K Affs: the 1ac should defend a change from the squo. Debate is probably a game (it can be more). Framework is fine, impact turns are fine, CIs also fine. Please hold my hands through a KvK debate (especially your vision of competition/perms)
Phil: bad for the tricky variety but otherwise explain and we're all good.
Tricks: please don't - I won't hack but I just really don't like judging them. At the very least read complete arguments not the dumb stuff.
-------------------------
PF Stuff
Most of the stuff above applies where applicable. My views are really similar to that of Bryce Piotrowski.
Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing is bad and the chance I vote to the contrary is vanishingly small.
Please stop having prepositions as taglines
Defense is not sticky - frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend whatever you want to go for in the back-half. The back-half should also collapse.
Link weighing is underrated and usually round winners
Weighing requires explaining scenarios and how the world works, not yeeting buzzwords at each other (e.g., "MAD checks" is not a complete argument).The fact that you can win by reading nonsense and then screaming "try or die" for half an hour is ridiculous.
I think K teams get more mileage if they go for (real) impact framing arguments instead of yapping about such things as "pre-fiat" or "discourse." I will, of course, vote on them if you win them but that does not mean that they are, in fact, serious arguments.
-------------------------
Random Pet Peeves
- "Speech begins in 3,2,1..."
- "Speech begins on my first word"
- "Can I take prep"
- "The moment you affirm"/"try or die" (do real weighing pls)
- Card text in email body
- Sending "rhetoric"
I am a parent judge that has slight experience with judging debate.
Please avoid Hurtful comments or rude behavior (ex: sexism, racism, etc.) ,will not be tolerated.
Please do not speak too fast or spread as I may not be able to understand what you are saying so it will not be on my flow. Keep in mind that I am a lay judge!
Time yourself, and if it is an event where you cannot then explain how you would like time signals.
Most importantly, be respectful, have fun, and good luck!
Most of my feedback will be on the written RFD.
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 debated (mainly policy, after a very brief foray into LD) throughout high school, back in the debate dark ages. After a decades-long time away from the activity, I have more recently begun attending tournaments again, assisting my wife with coaching responsibilities and judging for her Houston-area school team. I've had many years to appreciate the skills that speech and debate helped me begin developing in high school, and the importance of seeing those skills develop drives my judging paradigm more than anything.
In short, I'm a traditional judge that considers debate to be a communication event above all else, with logical argumentation and researched evidence being a close second and third. I value clash, and I will always go back to my flow of the round to determine a winner in a close round. I don't mind hearing obscure contentions if they are well prepared and presented, but I don't appreciate outright tricks, excessive speed, or anything else that comes across as abusive or generic.
In LD debate, I expect a value debate and not a discussion of plans and counterplans or other concepts borrowed from other formats. In PF, I want to see that you've done the research and that you understand the tradeoffs between pro and con, so weighing is important to me. I grew up with stock issues as voters in policy, so those arguments are most comfortable to me. In any of these formats, if you’re taking a different approach than what I’m describing, know that you’re taking a risk, and be sure to take me with you.
Speaker points are based on professionalism, persuasion, and polish. Most importantly, rudeness and disrespect don't belong in debate... or anywhere.
I appreciate signposting during your speech, and if you're doing that well, there's no need for an "off-the-clock roadmap" particularly in LD or PF.
If you came to my paradigm primarily to see if I can handle spreading, I suggest you don't test that in round. Even if I can keep up with you, I don't want to have to work at it, and it's tough to persuade me to vote for you if I can't follow your logic or if I'm annoyed that you've ignored my paradigm. I appreciate the need to hurry things along, particularly in the compressed rebuttal time, but quality of argumentation will beat out quantity every single time.
she/her
former pfer (bellaire LW) but i haven't debated all year so keep that in mind
- i have, however, researched (just reading; no card cutting or case writing) the icc topic pretty briefly
add me to your email chain:audreyw8ng@gmail.com <-- also use this for questions before round if u have any
- title the email Round # and your school code (ex: R3 Bellaire LW or Semis Bellaire LW)
if ur not a pfer im lay
i have experience judging extemp but idk how great of an extemp judge i am tbh
for pf (but u can also probably cross apply most of these things to ld too):
tech > truth unless it's super dumb
i don't flow cross so if you want it to end up on my flow, bring it up in the next speech
there's no such thing as sticky defense. if it's dropped at any point i dont care anymore
extend well
if it's not mentioned before or during first summary i will not evaluate it. anything new after second summary will NOT be evaluated (pf)
do not try to run 10 contentions and extend the ONE that ur opponent drops ... i will be very very sad
probably don't read theory, especially disclo, or k's i'll probably not evaluate it the way you'd like me to
im pretty good with speed but please send speech doc if ur gonna spread
signpost (+ roadmap b4 speech)
warrant everything
weigh (+ warrant) + metaweighing is cool too
no isms (racism, sexism, etc). no homophobia. no offensive things period. i will drop ur speaks and potentially down u for anything offensive.
don't run counterplans in pf........ i cannot evaluate it
make the round fun for me to judge. i want to be interested
love love love collapsing - i think it's super strategic and makes judging so so so much easier
have good evidence ethics. if ur opponent has bad evidence ethics call em out so i can check the card. i'll drop a card if u can tell me why the article/author is unreliable properly
ask any questions before round if u have any
- i am extremely hesitant to allow open cross, because it usually ends up with only 2/4 people actually participating
- flex prep is alright, but if ur opponent stalls up all your prep time by answering ur question slowly.. that's lowk on you
no offense in round = i presume neg unless told otherwise with warrants
don't post round me all night if i have another round/its late, i'll explain my decision but its final. if i messed up its lowkey on you for putting me in a position where i can mess it up
glhf! & be nice!
Parent judge
My name is Cathryn Watkins, and I'm currently the Assistant Debate Coach for Clear Brook High School.
For extemp, I don't have any stylistic preferences. I enjoy individuality, and would like to see each student's unique speech style rather than ascribing to a specific speech pattern. Regardless of delivery choice, students should enunciate clearly and project their voice to ensure they are heard and understood. Speeches should be balanced between evidence and commentary. Evidence provides the backbone of an argument, but commentary makes the evidence concrete and meaningful. You need both in your speech to be effective.
Oratory and Info are heavily reliant on aggregating data, and I expect the evidence presented to be thorough. I want the topic presented to be unique. If a subject has been presented multiple times already, students must find a way to make their information impactful and stand apart from other performances. Overall, I look for passion in speech delivery. If the student does not seem to care about their topic, how am I supposed to care about it? Again, I enjoy experiencing each student's unique style of delivery, so I have no delivery preferences.
Interpretation events are centered around how well the student marries author's intent with their own experiences to create something new from a piece. Teasers and introductions should be created to maximize audience interest and familiarize the audience with the subject matter. Without an effective beginning the audience doesn't know where the interpretation is going, which could cause confusion. Blocking and movement should always be intentional and used to create meaning. Random movement without a connection to the interpretation will only distract and confuse. To the same extent, curse words can be powerful but if used too often become a distraction as well.
Debate rounds are, at their core, about respectful discourse. The ultimate goal for me is to persuade me to agree with you over your opponent. I do not have any preferences about the structure of debate, but I do not appreciate spreading, especially when students speak so quickly I cannot understand what is being said. If I can't understand you, you lose my vote.
Disrespect, in any form, is not received well from my perspective, particularly when one side is behaving with integrity and respect and the other side is not.
Speech - Strong analysis and organization is key. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION! I evaluate heavily on the use of evidence to back up clear, logical analysis. Communication is key - it is your job to communicate with me, not my job to work to understand you - keep this in mind and consider what structure to provide in your speech to make sure your concept and analysis can be easily followed.
Interp - I judge interp based on storytelling, characterization, and performance technique. In dramatic selections - I am looking for depth of character, honesty, realism, and believable character relationships. Make sure you have moments and aren't just presenting dialogue. Character arcs are also important and should be part of your storytelling. In humorous selections - I am looking for strong, committed acting choices with strong polish and technique. Storytelling is still hugely important - the story should be easy to understand and clearly focused. Characters are the most important. I am looking for strong characters that feel realistic and react in the moment. The comedy should drive largely from character reactions. Popping technique is also very important - should be polished and clean with distinct physical and vocal choices.
Congress - I have over a decade of experience judging Student Congress. I look at several key factors when determining rankings - number of speeches, quality of speeches, amount of questions, and general activity in the chamber. In terms of P.O. performance I look for the following - effective management of the chamber, accurate precedence and recency tracking, procedural knowledge, and the ability to keep the session running smoothly and expeditiously.
Debate - I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to debate. I am focused on communication of arguments, sound logical explanations, conciseness, use of strong supporting evidence, effective questioning, and respectful decorum in round. I can handle some speed, but find that 9/10 times either speed or diction become an obstacle in communication. I do not look at cases, so any arguments that are not well communicated will not make my flow. I generally vote on framework, impacts, and effective substantiation of claims, however I typically do not vote for extinction arguments. Even though they are a clearly large impact, a logic chain of 12 steps leading to a hypothetical annihilation scenario rarely leads to a probable outcome.
My paradigm
Debate is the test of the truthfulness of a claim, thus truth is important. I don't understand the tech over truth argument, nor do I want to.
Debaters should:
Speak slowly.
State the resolution, as that is what is being debated
Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.
Speak very slowly.
Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.
Be nice to each other.
Give me a reason to vote for your side. Or more than one.
Speak slowly.
To summarize, in debate judging, I adopt most of the nuance but very little of the substance in this abstract on the qualitative vs. quantitative debate that Kenneth R. Howe espouses in the American Journal of Education Vol. 100, No. 2 (Feb., 1992), pp. 236-256 (21 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press. FYI, '92 was a good year for debate about debate in educational philosophy.
Speakers should:
Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.
Present evidence/sources (not so much in IMP maybe, but definitely in OO, INF, EX,
Don't go too fast, but instead go at the exact right speed.
Be entertaining. Try not to steal minutes from your audience's life (especially mine) by being boring. Try and pretend this stuff is fun.
Interpers should:
Be real, or sometimes in HI or humorous DUO, be so polished and perfect in your blocking, gesturing, and facial expression, that the hyperbole does not need realism.
Real acting is seen in the eyes. Are you believable? Is there anything about your performance that distracts?
I do my best to judge the performer/performance and not the script.
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.
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.
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:
- Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
- Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
- Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
- 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:
- Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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:
- Follow precedence with few mistakes
- Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
- 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
For LD:
Signposting: Please use clear signposts to guide the judge through the debate. For example, clearly indicate when you are introducing a new argument or transitioning to your opponent's points.
Delivery: Maintain a clear and confident speaking style. Make eye contact with the judge and your opponent, and speak at a moderate pace to ensure effective communication.
Wording: Avoid using debate jargon, as I may not be familiar with it..
Clear Voters: When presenting your final arguments, explain the key issues in the debate, why you believe you are winning, and why the opposing side is not.
Remember to maintain respect and sportsmanship throughout the debate.