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].

Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true. For practical arguments, this means establishing characterizations, giving me multiple (preferably independent) mechanisms/links, and giving me clear impacts. For principle arguments, that means establishing that the principle is true and explaining to me why/how you fulfill the principle and why your opponents violate it. All arguments should be comparative (!), don't just critique your opponents world, actively/offensively tell me why your world is better. And of course, weigh your arguments (!) whether that be impact weighing, mechanism weighing, or metaweighing. Metaweighing is an easy way to get multiple paths to the ballot and score some strategy points.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech. Can def score some extra points for good rhetoric/structure tho

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount 2 years, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

Speech:

Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.

Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life.  Draw me into your world. 

Debate (PF/LD/WSD):

Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me.  I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence. 

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.  Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.  

Congress:  Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in.  Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons. 

Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points.  I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro.  If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.   

University of Houston B.A., Northwestern Pritzker School of Law J.D.

I defer wholly to the Tabula Rasa paradigm. I have no qualms about voting on any form of argument (including T's, theory, K's, or even inherency), so long as...
1-You win the argument and,
2-You give me a proper contextualization of how winning this argument wins you the round.
E.g., "Inherency is a voter b/c of stock issues" won't get you my ballot.
On a personal note, I think that many of the major issues with debate is that many teams try to conform to well-worn blocks and articulations of different voters, particularly with stock issues or T/theory. I'd much prefer an interesting voter or standard than a very discursive and unexplained "education or fairness claim." Be creative with your standards and answers.

I don't evaluate whether or not an action made by aff or neg is abusive or not unless the other team brings it up. I don't believe it's my job as a judge to pre-decide what should or should not occur in a debate, I see each debate as an independent construction unto itself. Therefore, if you make an abuse claim, structure it and impact it. The only exception is if the 2AR reads new arguments, (because the neg can't stand up and call aff out). If this happens, I won't evaluate any of the new arguments, I will dock speaks, but it won't be an automatic loss on it's own. If this team wins on the substance of the non-new arguments then they win the debate round.

Don't extend arguments as a singular entity ("extend the D/A"). On Adv's I expect analysis on the impact claim even if it is unaddressed.

Specific Arguments:
First, I've always been more comfortable evaluating straight policy arguments because a good half of my debate experience excluded kritiks. This said, I am familiar with the most common K's (cap, neo-lib, security, colonialism, nietzsche, biopower, gendered/discourse, ableism etc.). The more obscure the K, the more work that you should do explaining it because I am certainly not as familiar as you will be with the literature. (Give me a good overview in the 2NC).

Second, I was a T/theory hack in high school so I will pull the trigger on T/theory. My expectations are listed below,
1-If you go for fairness you either have to have an AMAZING potential abuse shell, or a good source of in-round abuse. A major issue for teams going for T is that they don't set up the abuse story in the 1NC. If you're going for ASPEC, read politics/agent solvency takeouts. T and theory are arguments that should be part of the strategic whole of the negative argumentation, not another floating source of offense.
2-Slow down on T-standards, full speed on T and I'll miss a few.
3-If you go for T I want it to be 1 off in the 2NR, same goes for theory. You should only reference your other arguments in order to generate abuse stories for a fairness voter or to contextualize the lost education. Going for T and another argument undercuts the legitimacy of your T argument and usually results in under-coverage of standards/voters. Irregardless, I will evaluate all arguments you extend (if you do T + other voters in the 2NR), I don't believe it's a good strategic decision though.

I always evaluate the round in terms of offense/defense (unless a conceded framing issue says otherwise), so extending impacts into the final rebuttals is crucial to winning my ballot. If you're going fully on a stock issue, please frame this within this paradigm.

On a final note, I have never judged a performance debate or even seen one. Again, this does not make me unwilling to vote on it, but explaining it in terms of voters may be an uphill battle. So if you are going to perform, please contextualize it.


Speaks, usually between 26.5-30.

25 if you're offensive.

If anything here is unclear, please ask me about it before the round. I don't want there to be any ambiguity in my paradigm and if you don't understand some part of this paradigm, I'll do a rewrite here on the wiki as well.

My name is Camille, I was a debater for 4 years, I got 2nd at TFA State in Worlds, 10th at TFA State in Foreign Extemp, I was a Nationals qualifier 3 years in a row, TFA state participant 4 years in a row in 4 different events: Worlds, FX, DX, OO, and then Impromptu as well once at state.

These are my paradigms for different events!

World Schools:

Style wise: I prefer clear speakers, quick and well formatted pois, I can handle the sass and passion but do it without coming off as mean, be kind and respectful to all opponents. little note- take at least 1-2 points please.

What I'm looking for: Weighing, clear warranting, characterizations of what your world realistically looks like early in the debate, consistency down the bench, and I also want to see charitable higher ground engagement.

What I don't like: Framing debates and definition debates (Figure it out early and move on), bringing up new information in the later speeches, switching stances midway through round, pois that are over 15 seconds, speeches that end 30 seconds over grace period, waving down a poi midway through if its not too long.

Basically, I want to see all cases be prepared with characterizations, and little case issues being figured out early in the round!

Extemp:

Style: Clear speaker, conversational, have good hand gestures, and good pacing.

Speech: I love sources, so I would love to hear lots of them! Make sure you state a clear answer if that's what the topic asks you to do, and have good points that don't bleed into one another.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

VBI San Diego 24'-PF lab leader

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

General debate thoughts (PF/LD/Policy/WSD)As cringe as it is to write, I view myself as a critic of argumentation. This means that any argument you make must be warranted. Absent a warrant your argument is not an argument and I will not flow it.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the rebuttals/Final focus, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 5 seconds of the final speech. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal/final focus, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last speech.

Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

Policy:I have not judged much on the patents topic, I do not know the lingo, I do not know what is considered "topical" by the community. Start slower and work up to full speed.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Any other questions let me know!

Public Forum:

TLDR: Tech>truth, I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): At this point it's either Util or Structural violence which is fine. If you are going to read a framing argument use it. If both sides are reading the same frameworkbe comparative. I find link ins to framing to be persuasive when well explained. If both sides have a different framework tell me why to prefer yours, or link in, or both. Going for magnitude meta-weighing and structural violence is kind of strange absent good warranting.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: Tread carefully all ye who enter here.Disclosure and round reports theory are going to be an auto L-25 unless your opponent is reading some way off the wall argument that is not germane to the topic. In general the more "progressive" the argument the more willing I am to evaluate theory. Any attempts to read theory as a cheap shot victory will mean you get dropped. Reading theory args to "keep PF public" are persuasive to me. So spreading theory is not the worst if your opponents are going too fast. All of that being said theory debate is the debate I LEAST want to see. If a team reads theory against you, you should make it an RVI. It doesn't make sense in an event that is so short speech time wise that a team can read theory and not go for it, but as the team getting theory read on you, you need to make that argument.

Non-traditional stuff/Kritiks: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. Kritiks with a strong link to the topic are really underutilized in my opinion in PF. Performative kritiks/kritiks that do not have a strong link to the topic have less pedagogical value in this event (I can expand on this thought if you ask me about it), however if that's your strat go for it. That being said, especially with non topical kritiks, I am more than willing to evaluate theory arguments about why kritiks are bad in PF/why topical education/fairness is preferable.

Argument rankings:

Substance-1

Topical Kritiks-1

Non-topical kritks-3

Theory-4

Tricks- -10000000000000000000

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

I like flushed out frameworks but don't be abusive with fiat. If you run any interesting models then warrant why they are reasonable.

Warranting is important, especially in rebuttal speeches

Weigh as much as possible

don't make the debate boring, I know its harder with certain topics but please try to be entertaining and have fun

follow wsd norms, if you're confused please ask

BIO:

Education:

• Pursuing a B.B.A in Management and a B.A in International Relations & Global Studies at UT Austin
• Pursuing a minor in Sociology and a Certificate in Core Texts & Ideas

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

• Space City Camp Instructor (Summer '23)
• Middle School Debate Coach at Coppell Debate Academy (22-23)
• Coaching Intern at Coppell High School (22-23)
• World of Words Institute Instructor (Summer '23 & '24)
• Victory Briefs Institute Instructor (Summer '24)

Hey y'all! I'm a sophomore at UT Austin who debated at Coppell High School (in Texas) for about 4 years; 3 years in World Schools Debate and a dabbling in Extemp, Congress, & Policy. I also debated for Team Texas my senior year and the NSDA Longhorns my junior year.

The tl;dr of winning my ballot: Win your asserted arguments, have a clearly delineated claim, warrant, impact structure with a strong (and mechanized) link-chain, and make sure you weigh your impacts vs the other side. BE COMPARATIVE and CHARITABLE! make sure to have fun :)

I don't have an issue with speed – unless you're unintelligible – but if I ask you to slow down please do so.

I'll automatically vote someone down if they're being discriminatory or harmful in any way shape or form, those rhetorics have no place in debate so be careful about what you say.

Longer Ballot:

• Make sure you engage on the most important parts of the motion; be clear in your weighing and have logical extensions (throughout the whole debate!)
• Weighing at the end of the round should be comparative and charitable of both sides best/worst grounds
• I'm going to buy most arguments at face value – unless they're ridiculous – so whoever bestproves their argument and weighing is going to win --> if someone makes a dumb argument but you don't refute it, I'm taking it at face value – no judge intervention!
• Prop Teams: You have to establish a compelling framing at the top; given the skew in the Opp Block you need to set up your Prop 3 to get as far ahead as possible --> I'm not taking new arguments in the P4 (but equally if the O3-4 is new content I'll dock it)
• Opp Teams: Use the block strategically – don't repeat content and make sure you sound different (but cohesive)
• Weighing – in my opinion – functions on two levels: factual/tangible content & in round (meta) weighing
• Principled arguments: I'll buy them and they can win rounds but only if they're weighed effectively; I need to hear from the top why I should prefer this argument over any possible/potential practical from the opposing side – don't hang your principle and then tell me to vote independent of practical
• Regrets: don't be daft, they're inherently retroactive in nature so if you make a mechanizing argument I'm going to look at you funny. the biggest thing is to make sure your counterfactual is believable and likely
• Stylistically have fun! I loved the style aspect of WSD when I debated and I think its about being your own speaker, the more fun I have the better the speaks for the round lol

Have fun and good luck :)

If you have any questions reach out at sahith.mocharla@gmail.com, always happy to help!

hey there!

I am a former WSD debater who also competes in speech events, though I specialize in world schools. I also do DX and POI. here are my expectations for speeches

worlds: don’t talk too fast I like to flow, if I can’t keep up with you on my flow than you’re speaking too fast, I love world comparisons, and who to vote based off of weighing, if you have really good arguments, but can’t show me how they way heavier than the other side that I can’t vote for you I’m fine with pretty much any speaking style conversation based or pointed anything is really fine by me just make it yourself. :)

this goes for a majority of speech events but just having eye contact being present and relaying your message/ piece clearly

if you have any further questions please ask me before round starts :) otherwise i’m so exited to be judging you guys!!!!

howdy,

former HS and college competitor

I judge quite a bit

• treat others the way you want to be treated
• I don't do email chains... NSDA docs, speech drop or google docs are the way to go
• if using historical evidence (for debate events or public speaking events) you must address the 5 C's of historical analysis.. if not theres an L waiting for you

IE's -

MS/HS - you do youu!!

Collegiate - you know what to do

^ very big on binder etiquette

Congress -

no rehash

its ok to agree but have your own contentions/speech

stay active thru round for high ranks

clash - def gotta engage with competitors for maximum affect

PO - if you don't state your gaveling procedures almost immediately I'm gonna rank you last

^ don't make any mistakes or imma tank you

direct questioning is meant for answers/clarification not being rude !!!

don't lie about evidence

PF - will auto down if you say exclusionary things and or things def not true (holocaust never happened) etc ...

talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO

if your file or doc is a mess I am NOT going near it

tech or truth? Somewhere in between the two

Don't waste my time, flips and pre flows better be done before start caz if not imma start tanking speaks

Condo/Fiat - IMO should be left to LD/CX but if you bring it up I'll evaluate it I guess

resolutions/topics sometimes have loose wording... take advantage of that

impact cal is an easy voter and is well appreciated

good luck going for a technical knock out

I like Disclosure Theory.... but if your wiki is BS and or not fully filled I will tear you apart

^ As a judge I know the rules better than you , don't preach them to me for this T

what's the deal with a lack of front lining and signposting? If you don't then you're getting an L

when citing evidence , be sure to say title , publisher , date

stop going over time !!

MY GO TO RULE FOR PF.... the Michael Scott rule - K.I.S - "Keep It Simple'

LD - if its a state or bid or RR tournament send a doc , if not then don't bother

if spreading you better be clear or imma down, too bad

^ not gonna say clear

tech or truth?? somewhere in between

P/CP - better be specific , if so I am the judge for you

Trad - I'm an ok judge

K - HECK YEA!!!!!

LARP - I like it... but can go either way

Tricks/Friv T/Performance/Phil/other T

^ auto strike!!

^^ unless you're running nihilism Phil don't strike, but if not then strike

NGL - if your case is blippy I am probably gonna look for everyway to vote against you

CX - LOL

unless it's TRAD I won't judge

Worlds - I expect to see clash

don't paraphrase evidence

no speed, this needs to be conversational

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them

not taking any POI's makes you look silly, at least take 1 , but not too many

I really value creative, introspective and real rhetoric - trust me this is how you win me

style - a simple claim, warrant and impact will do just fine

don't try a PF take on this event

the framework and definitions debate can be fair and or abusive ... if abusive then you're gonna loose

Should any questions need to be asked ... ask before round!

Best of LUCK 2024-2025 competitors !

I competed in World Schools Debate in Mexico City for 3 years, currently I coach BP for my university Instituto Autónomo de México (ITAM) and I am co-coach of Team Mexico for WSDC 2021, alongside Ilhui Bravo Rosas.

School affiliation/s:

I am currently not affiliated with any schools or institutions outside of Mexico.

I am a hired judge for this tournament. I graduated in 2017 from The Churchill College in Mexico City. Currently I am enrolled at the Instituto Autónomo de México in Mexico City, I study economics :)

College debate experience:

I participate mostly in the spanish language BP circuit, events competed in include:

• TMD 2018 Open Broke 9th (Quarterfinals)

• Libre Open 208 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)

• 5th Best Speaker

• Copa UNAM 2019 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)

• 7th Best Speaker

• Relámpago 2019 Open Broke to Final

• Panam UDC 2019 Open Broke 9th (Semifinalist)

• 7th Best Speaker

• CLD 2019 Open Broke 7th (Finalist)

• 9th Best Speaker

• CND 2019 Open Broke 17th (Semifinalist)

• 9th Best Speaker

• CMUDE 2019 Open Broke 7th (Octos)

• 5th best Speaker

• Libre Open 2019 Open Broke 2nd (Finalist)

• Best Speaker

• TIID 2019 Open Broke as a judge (Quarters)

• ADMM 2020 Open Broke 8th (Semifinalist)

• 4th Best Speaker

• Round Robin 2020 -

• Torneo INE 2020 Open Broke 1st (Finalist)

• 2nd Best Speaker

• UNED 2020 Open Broke 16th

• Torre 2020 Open Broke 4th (Finalist)

• TMD 2020 Open Broke 3rd (Quarterfinals)

• Best Speaker

• E-CND Open Broke 1st (Finalist)

• Best Speaker

Tournaments as Adj Team in BP tournaments:

• Torneo INE Categoría menor 2020

• CMUDE trailer 2020

• CNDI Perú 2021

World Schools debate coaching experience:

- Team Mexico WSDC 2021 co-coach.

- Team Mexico’s Development Team Coach 2020

- Mexican Debate Summer Camp from 2017-2019

I have judged World Schools debate for 4 years now. TFA state will be the first World Schools tournament of 2021 that I judge. I judge regularly for the Mexican World Schools circuit, since 2020 I have judged on two occasions on USA tournaments and at the Winter Holiday Open tournament as a hired judge.

I have NO experience in the following formats:

__x__ Congress

__x__ PF

__x__ LD

__x__ Policy

__x__ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

- I have chaired a WS round before. Chairing a WS round involves calling on speakers to present their speeches, considering each and every speaker's remark, judging based on what happened during the round , not what could've happened, or what I personally would have liked to hear, pondering each argument made by each speaker, and making sure the panelists fill their ballot and send them on time.

A WS debate is made up of two teams, proposition and opposition, proposition is for the motion of the debate, opposition is against. Both teams are made up of three speakers that participate in a particular role, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the reply speeches. The first three speeches are sustantive speeches, the last speech is the reply speech, which will be delivered by the first speaker or the second speaker of the round. This means a single speaker from both teams will do two speeches. Sustantive speeches are 8 minutes long, reply speeches are 4 minutes long. Points of information are allowed between the first and the seventh minute of the sustantive speeches, POI's may not be given during the reply speech.

I take thorough notes with many colour pens and markers :) every speaker's speech is noted, along with POI's and each speaker's response,

I believe practical and principled are equally valuable in a round, I don't prefer one over another. I evaluate the analysis delivered in order for the argument to be proven true, I evaluate the impact of each argument and the construction and justification for the given impact. I also refer back to the metrics or burden of proof presented at the beginning of the debate to evaluate the arguments.

I evaluate strategy through the POI's given in a round, through the congruency of a team (for example if there is a clear contradiction between speakers, that tells me there's a lack of strategy), and sometimes time management of a speaker in their speech (if the second argument in a 1st speech is given past 7 minutes, for example, that's a lack of strategy).

if a speaker is going too fast I would deduct points from the style section of their speech. I do want to clarify, I speak English fluently and there is no need to speak extra slowly for me, please speak as you would normally.

Evidence isn't necessary in order for an argument to be true, an argument without evidence should be sustained through analysis and mechanization of that argument. Models can be criticized, however, proposition can claim fiat in carrying out what the motion is asking them to do. Models and countermodels should respond to; who is going to carry out the model (what institution for example), how are they going to carry it out? When... etc.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Updated: 09/10/23

Debate:

Please preflow before the round starts to expedite the round especially when it's flighted

I won't disclose unless I specifically say at the beginning of the round

LD Debate:

Argumentation:

I value your ability to communicate your arguments the most out of anything else in round. Students often have interesting arguments whether progressive or traditional but if you struggle to communicate those arguments effectively, you'll lose me. It isn't my job to fill in the gaps of arguments and make links for you, if the arguments themselves aren't fleshed out and conveyed in a manner that makes sense it isn't my job to do it for you.

!!No Frivolous Theory!! - I think this makes for a bad round, if there's legitimate abuse within round that's the only time I believe theory should be run.

Speed:

If you intend on spreading, I request a speechdrop, otherwise I won't be able to keep up.

Line-by-line vs Big Picture:

I'd prefer a balance of both, I want you to go line-by-line on the most important arguments but overall crystallize and provide the big picture for me.

Speech:

What I look for:

-Speeches that flow well from point A to B, which means ensuring you transition well and organize your ideas well

-I prefer an abundance and variety of sources to be used which I want your own analysis of as well (especially in extemp)

-I value your ability to create a speech that's informative, flows well/is organized well, and has an abundance and variety of sources over your ability to speak well - but good speech should be written well and performed well, but if I have a preference then it's: well-written speech > well-performed speech, because the first shows me depth and substance that the latter doesn't

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

A quick note about myself:

Hi. My name is Jackson. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston for four years. I have an extensive background in congress. It was my primary event. I competed in nat circuit tournaments like Berkeley, Emory, TOC, Sunvite, and others.

Congress:

-Before reading into this: don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I understand people have different styles and techniques. I will equitably evaluate all of these.

- Facts first. You aren't making this activity educational by making things up.

- Relevant and captivating introductions will get even the most experienced judge's attention.

- I like hearing direct lines and quotations from your evidence. Sometimes paraphrasing is necessary. Use good judgment here.

- Cite your evidence to the full extent that you can (don't leave out author, date, etc. when that info is made available in the book or article). Make it easy for me to find your evidence!

- Think about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? Remember that this is a debate event. Just as LD or PF starts the round with constructive speeches to set that debater's position, the first few aff/negs in congress do the same. As you get further along in an item, the speeches should be getting more conclusive/overviewing.

- Be careful about tautological arguments.

- As the PO, you will start at 1 and can move down with errors. Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners. This could make the difference between a few more speeches happening or not. If you run against someone to get to the seat, I will expect more from you.

LD, PF, & Policy:

If you get me for these, don't spread. It would be best for you to stay topical, but if you decide to take the theory route, I will listen.

Everyone:

- Have fun :)

- Be respectful, civil, and kind

- Think of what you are about to say. Is it problematic and potentially harmful to someone? If you don't know, think of something else to say!