Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

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.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win. Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

hey my name is lauren!

i mainly judge debate. i did extemp for a while in hs but my speech judging beyond that is pretty basic i guess because i am really uninformed on the techniques that should be displayed.

cd: this is my main event. i competed mostly on nats and state circuit. that doesn't make me better, but it makes me more clash-loving. you can speak wonderfully but if you aren't attacking people in the room, i will probably be uninterested in what you are saying. i like good questions. don't just ask a bad question and then when someone can't answer it give them a bad look hahhaha. i don't like cheesy intros. make it smart and funny.

pf: i love judging pf. its so much more fun when the debater is speaking with a speed and volume that i can hear. I like attacking top down, im flowing the round too so i can tell when you're dropping points and impacts.

ld: i'm probably not the strongest ld judge. not great at buying theory. i like good links and evidence. i love clash. get passionate in the round and give me good real world links.

overall be engaged and prepared. debate can take you so far and can teach you so much. buy in as much as you can.

cheers!

Email:bakerzachary0@gmail.com

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

Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.

If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.

Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've yet to vote on a theory argument. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win.I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.

Also finally I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)

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

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

Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't.

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

I am looking for insightful and new analyses of a topic in OO

I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised in INFO

I want honest and truthful storytelling in INTERP

***FORMERLY THE ARTIST KNOWN AS ANGELA HO ***

Experience: 4 years policy in HS, former policy debater for UH, former PKD President of UH

FIRST, keep in mind that my husband and I do not talk excessively about theory, k’s, etc. in our daily lives. If you are preffing me because you hope I adjudicate with the knowledge depth of literature, you are in for a surprise.

Secondly, I'll tell you that being polite is the key because I don't think rudeness is necessary for debate and takes away from the actual education, being sassy is fine.

Third is that I judge based on logos. Make sure all arguments are logically thought out instead of just running them for the sake of running an argument and not being able to explain the argument. Make me want to vote for you. DO NOT scream over your opponent. I will also NOT vote for something I do not understand, you have failed to persuade my ballot.

*I CANNOT STAND excessive waste of time. As soon as the constructive is over, CX starts. As soon as there is silence, prep time needs to be used. Failure to be efficient will result in flashing counting as prep. No need to ask me if I am ready, I am ALWAYS ready once the debate begins.

Overall: There are no arguments that I won't vote on. I look at whatever you present to me. I am looking for a clear explanation of the function of the argument in the round, evidence comparison, and a clear impact calculus. I enjoy both K and traditional debates. I would like that both teams are clear on which side of the argument they are for. I have voted on plenty of arguments that I don't like so feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with but I will list what I tend to look at in my decision.

Do not get WILD if I cannot fully explain a theory/k background to you. I do not claim to be an expert in literature for different theories/k but if you fail to explain it to me or debate it, that will be how my decision is based. If I do not understand your theory/k then you have failed to explain it to me.

Flowing: I don't have a problem with spreading; however, I draw the line when you have to gasp and have become even incomprehensible to yourself. I personally think it's worthless to spread if you don't use up all of your speech time or not be able to explain your cards. Emphasize taglines. Make sure you pronounce words that will be repeated throughout the round correctly because it does get annoying hearing words incorrectly said over and over and over again. Do not "spread" if you are not able to cover more than regular reading, points deducted.

CX: I don't flow CX, but listen so you can bring it up in your speech for it to be included in my flow. I also don’t count flashing as prep as long as you aren’t abusing it. Include me if you are doing an email chain.

Things I like: Clash of evidence. Impact calc with proper weighing. I love a good statistic.

Topicality: Make sure you uphold standards and voters and give me a reason to prefer your definition.

Disadvantages: The uniqueness and link to the case are important to me. Push your impacts and weigh your impacts.

CP: Make sure you explain why it solves better than the Aff and why it is mutually exclusive.

Things I don’t like: Ks, Theory and Framework. It also doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for them. I just prefer concrete evidence as opposed to analytical.

K: I am okay if you run a K (In fact, I enjoy seeing which K is used for the round and how it is executed). I will only evaluate Kritiks if they are run properly otherwise I'm not the biggest fan of them. I will vote for them even if I personally do not agree with them. I do want a quick overview of the K being run, just because I am not fully read on all the different philosophies (but I have dabbled into them so I am not completely in the dark). If you run a K just make sure to explain the ideology of the author. Make sure the ALT is explained, carried throughout the round, and that it is a better outcome for the scenario. Once again, I do not claim this area to be my expertise so do not get wild if I cannot give you a long winded rfd because I do not know the literature.

Theory/Framework:It probably will bore me, not going to lie. I’ll listen but it’s not my number 1 voter. I will make an exception if you are able to prove to me that it should be weighed first. I will vote for it if one side drops the debate of theory being a prerequisite.

LD:

I think it's important to uphold your arg and carry them through the entire round. If you have a more modern approach then I still expect you to attack the value/crit if your opponent is more of a traditional debater. I will not vote for RVI, so do not waste time with that. I tend to enjoy the modern single policy debate style more. Please do not delay the debate round with preflow, if would like to do that then do it in advance.

PF:

My main voter is the outcome of the round and the weighing of points. I like to be explain what does the pro/con world look like. Read at whatever pace you would like. In order to win my ballot you will need to be big picture and line-by-line as well as explain why your side outweighs the opponent.

Speaks: For speaker points I don't pay attention to the quantity of the argumentation: I look for fluidity, demeanor, tone and courtesy. I will give a low point win if the winning team is being disrespectful, racist, and/or offensive with profanity or anything I deem as inappropriate. I do enjoy humor, sass, Disney and pop culture references so if you can incorporate that appropriately into your speech, then your points will reflect (+.1).

Speech:

Extemp/Info/OO: I am previously a national finalist for extemp. Again, I love a good statistic. Looking for proper analysis of sources and evidence. Usually the one in the room has told me a fact that I did not know.

HI/DI/DUO/DUET/POI/POETRY: Synchronization into character with fluid delivery is key. I am looking for the emotion(s) of the piece to be conveyed effectively. I often do not react visibly so please do not be discouraged. I do have a hard time ethically evaluating a physically abled bodied contestant that chooses to portray a physical disability or interprets a physical disability onto a character, strike me.

**I will provide a quick key recap of my paradigm before the round starts, please listen because I will be VERY annoyed if you continually ask me if I am ready or anything I make a point to readdress from this paradigm. If you have any specific questions, ask me before/after the round starts. If not then have fun and run whatever you feel that is best for the round. Good Luck!!

Name: Eric Beane

Affiliation: Langham Creek HS (2018-Present) | University of Houston (2012-2016) | Katy Taylor HS (2009-16)

GO COOOOOOGS!!! (♫Womp Womp♫) C-O-U-G-A-R-S (who we talkin' bout?) Talkin' bout them Cougars!!

*Current for the 2023-24 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it should generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.

Disadvantages – Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I am a believer in quality over quantity, especially when thinking about arguments like the politics and related disadvantages.

Counterplans – PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though. If your counterplan has several planks, ensure that you include each in your 2NC/1NR overview so that I have enough pen time to get it all down.

Kritik Section Overview - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career. I would greatly appreciate a 2NC/1NR Overview for your K positions. Do not assume that I am familiar with your favorite flavor of critical theory and take time to explain your thesis (before the 2NR).

Kritik: "Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Kritik: Alternative - We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how it resolves the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.This by far is the weakest point of any K debate and I am very skeptical of alternatives that are very vague (unless it is done that way on purpose). I would prefer over-explanation than under-explanation on this portion of the debate.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.

Other Information

Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "wowzas" in the debate I will reward you with +0.1 speaker points.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com

"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.

My name is Mark Bishop. Formerly Clear Lake MB / CleLak MB

MarkABishopjr@gmail.com

^ email for questions and the doc. I will reply to emails pre-round.

Clear Lake HS '23. I did LD for two years and I do not do debate in college.

TAMU '27. Gig 'em!

Side note: I am overly expressive and sometimes look like I'm having mood swings in round... sorry. Please try not to read into my body language.

DEBATE

Debate on the circuit is a game.

I'm not the best or the worst at flowing. Solid 8/10 when it's not late at night or super early in the morning...

Sending a doc (when you have one) for analytics/rebuttalsis strongly preferred. Hell, I'll bump your speaks a bit if you do!

Short:

1 - K (All, from non-t k aff to idpol to cap or psycho)

1 - Trad (Every judge can judge trad, it's just a little boring.)

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

2 - LARP (I LARP'd mostly for the first half of my debate career... then debated Ks...)

2 - Kant/Korsgaard/etc. and Butler (been judging it a lot, kind of a fan)

2 - POMO (I just... get it.)

2/3 - Tricks (I have a good amount of experience with 'em. They're objectively dumb, but I don't really care.)

4/5 - Other Phil (Deleuze, Derrida, Locke, whomever. I have little experience with these).

Background:

For all intents and purposes, as a competitor I ran almost explicitly the Kritik my Senior year, with a sprinkle of tricks, Th, and LARP. I'm well versed in all queer literature, and familiar with most authors for all pessimism K's (ask me).

I learned how to but barely used phil, and when I did, it was Kant. I always thought phil was... weird.

For my non-senior year, I just LARPed and ran some tricks and theory.

I also used to think the coolest thing ever was walking into a round with background music. Walking in all dressed up playing some song w/ a hard bassline or Star Wars would be cringe asf but also dope.

For the trad debaters in the house...

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.

Speaks:

I would say I start at 28.5 but I don't. I probably start at 29.0 and add or doc. I will not doc points for speaking impediments, lisps, etc. The only reason I will doc speaks is making bad decisions in round. I believe no judge has any authority to say what the "right path to the ballot" is, however, I do believe it's pretty obvious when you make the total wrong decision. 30s basically go out to anyone who humors me and/or debates skillfully. I am more generous with speaks at locals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPEECH

I'm pretty familiar with all events, but I mostly did DX when I competed in speech events.

The best way to win in front of me is to either move me or make me laugh.

To elaborate, I once judged a prose about a dog having to be put down and I cried a little (I love doggos). Anyways, that student got the 1 w/full speaks.

My paradigm is simple- be good.

When it comes to debate, I won't reward "debate tricks"... you need to do a better job with your case than the opponent, not Reductio Ad Absurdum.

I have a background as a History and Government & Economics instructor; getting simple statistics, historical precedent, and overall facts incorrect will hurt you. I don't judge that way to "gotcha"- I judge that way because winning debate requires you to be "the expert in the room."

I can adjust to different styles of debate but spreading is likely to hurt you more than help you.

With speech, I want to believe the character(s) you create. With humorous pieces, I want to be entertained (and maybe even smile). With dramatic pieces, create the scene for me... you do not advance/place because you have the "saddest" piece.

HELLO :D

My name is Sherrice and I am a graduate of Jersey Village High School.

I did competitive theater for 3 years and Speech and Debate for 4 years. I mostly stuck to speech events such as Oratory, DX, and Improv. until my senior year when I did World School for "fun".

Do not be discouraged if I don't show any emotion throughout your speech/performance. I'm not bored or unimpressed, that's just my face :). I do like to add smiley faces to my feedback cause that's just my style. I try my best to add valuable advice and suggestions to the feedback so that you guys can keep progressing as great debaters.

Have fun !!!!

I am conflicted with Cypress Park Hs.

Individual events: I look for strong characterization, rhetorical appeals, vocal variety and inflection, expressive facial/ body movements, clear enunciation, confidence, and creative delivery.

Debate events: I look for conversational tone of voice, clear and average paced speaking (No spreading), Rhetorical appeals, strong reasoning and logic, current and credible evidence, and impactful connections.

My name is Robert Bunn. As a former TFA state qualified Humerous Interpretation competitor, I am looking for performers/competitors who display a professional demeanor when they enter a room. Regarding the material; There must be a clear beginning, middle, and end in the material, as well as a display of conviction in the competitors performance. I am looking for the fundamentals of the event to be shown and exceeded through the competitor's execution of the material. Humor, professionalism, and a healthy competitive nature are always welcome, as well as necessary to ensure a successful learning experience for all participants involved.

I am the Director of Interp and Oratory/Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director prior to specializing in Speech and Debate.

Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Wimberley (TX)

First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.

Congress

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Interp:

I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to really connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, environment should be clear and blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this with in the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you really connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to character, and share that with the audience.

Public Speaking:

Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, it is important that your content is accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.

PF:

• I try to flow, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.

• Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.

• Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.

• I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.

• Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.

• If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.

• Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.

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.   

Policy Debate: I expect a plan text for the affirmative plan and if neg runs a counter plan. I do not want spreading, lack of clarity due to spreading will result in lower speaking points. I see the “big picture” and am a policy maker judge. I prefer a clean and civil debate. Use CX to ask and answer questions and not to make speeches. If you don’t extend your case it’s a drop. I don’t like K, I am fine with T, DA’s, CP. Evidence is necessary and I also like analysis of the evidence. Tell me why an argument matters instead of just saying it’s good. I don’t read evidence after the round, if it’s important enough to be in your case then make it clear when presented. Give voters.

Lincoln Douglas: I view this as a value debate and so require a value and criterion. Organize your case so it’s easier to flow. Make sure to extend your case and refute your opponents. I do not want spreading and do not make the round a one person policy round. If you don’t extend your arguments they are a drop by you. Give me voters and crystallize the round for me.

Congress: Read each bill or piece of legislation so you know what you are to be debating. I expect clash with the other speakers. I want you to be actively engaged in the chamber - this means asking questions as well as giving speeches. I like evidence, examples and analysis. Present your speech by providing the bill/legislation and your position along with a preview. Then develop your speech, provide clash, evidence, analysis and examples and end with a quick review.

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.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two 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.

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.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

Congress Paradigms:

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

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

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

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

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

PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.

LD/CX: Tabula Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.

WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to "force the hand" of the other team.

While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created (clash). Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give the reason(s) why.

Debate- I look for good clash. I don't mind spreading but I am getting older and if I miss something I feel that's on you. You should know what your cards are saying beyond just reading them. Yes, reference and use them, but also know them. Extensions are good. For Policy- K's, Topicality, Theory should be well framed and explained, when used well I will hold value to them.

IE's-

Speech Events- Organization and use of evidence is key. I look at movements and hand gestures matching the piece and being purposeful. You pacing should be understandable

Interp Events- Emotions should match the piece as well as movements. I also enjoy when they sound natural. It should flow smoothly and make sense. Time is important but not a deal breaker if the piece is more solid than the rest, but being too short in time could make it harder to advance you in later rounds when everyone is so solid. Your vocal variety and pacing should make sense with the piece.

For Lincoln Douglas and similar events:

• I don’t mind spreading, as but as long as the contestant is articulan in their words then its okay
• Please be respectful to each other. I don't mind clashing, as long as its paramount to your point
• I like to hear where you got certain information to sound reputable. I don’t like ad hominid

For Single acting events:

• I look for a smooth flow of words and expression in bodily language
• Being able to transition from your skit to the title, along with different characters a voices is what I look for
• voice and dictation is important as well

For Duo and similar events:

• I pay attention to good chemistry and flow with partners to the skit
• Movements and acting should compliment one another and help the flow of the story
• I love to see uniqueness and individuality

For Exempt:

• Looking forward to interesting attention getters
• Smooth and thought out expositions along with fluid transitions
• citation of sources

For Oratory:

• Would like good attention getters
• unique topics along with creative ways of execution
• fluid transitions

I am a retired coach and teacher, I coached for 31 years, I coached all events successfully, my philosophy for speech events rewards students who are knowledgeable, informed, and prepared, I focus on speaking style, organization, and creativity, For Interp events, I look for creativity and style, I do not like extreme profanity or sexual material, in all debate, no speed, any arguments are acceptable, I lean towards organized, factual arguments, I do not like debates that “kick” arguments

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine. "act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (spin, highlighting/cutting). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through to make that happen.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

Debate Events: When judging debate events, I look for the following criteria. Did the contenders:

• Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, and fluency?• Display solid logic, reasoning, and analysis? • Stay away from overcomplicated/hard to follow argumentation? • Present a clash of ideas? • Counter the arguments of the opponents? • Create content that was organized and focused on the topic? • Deliver in a professional manner and implement an appropriate professional tone? • Stay within time limits?

The winning contenders are those who, though they may be passionate about a topic, are driven by logic-based arguments and stay away from being emotionally fueled while speaking/interacting with their competitors. Respect is important. The winning contenders are those who present the best key arguments and most effectively persuade me in the end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech Events: When judging speech events, I look for the following criteria. Did the contenders:

• Communicate with clarity, organization, and fluency? • Avoid rushing and provide for clear diction? • Create a unique, engaging, and creative speech? • Utilize appropriate vocabulary? • Present ideas in an organized and cohesive manner? • Create a cohesive, flowing performance? • Maintain appropriate volume, presence, and energy throughout the entire performance? • Seem believable as their character(s) and/or in telling their stories? • Develop an entertaining and enjoyable presentation? • Fall within the allotted timing per event?

The winning contenders are those who are aware of all that goes into creating a character and/or passionate speech. In the context of "performance", specific choices are made as to how and when to move based on the character's needs and style of the piece/speech. They utilize tempo and rhythm that are appropriate for the piece (there is a logical build present). The winning contenders are those who create a display of emotion that is believable and appropriate for the piece, whether it be informative, humorous, or dramatic.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

For Lincoln Douglas and similar events:

Be respectful to each other and DO NOT FALL TO LOGICAL FALLACIES. I can keep up with spreading however I am not a fan do it at your own risk. Clashing during cross-examination is not optional however remain respectful and cordial to one another.

For single-acting events:

I am looking for fluidity between changing of characters, great acting, and a main message in your story.

For Duo and similar events:

I am looking for great chemistry between one another, movements that make sense and complement each other, great acting, and a main message within your story.

For extempt:

I am looking for a great attention-getter, a simple anddigestible exposition of the topic, cite your sources, and fluid transitions.

For oratory and similar events:

Looking for a great attention-getter, an interesting topic, creative ways to demonstrate your topic, cite sources if needed, and fluid transitions.

Info/Oratory

• Oratory should be engaging. I enjoy characters throughout the speech as long as they are purposeful.

• Movements should always be purposeful, pacing or shuffling feet is a huge distraction.

• I would like to see numerous pieces of evidence in each body paragraph. Each piece of evidence should bring something new to the table.

Oral Interpretation

• The introduction should be around 30 seconds and should be spoken by the performer's true character.

• Teasers are great. Make sure they give us some sort of insight into your piece. Don't just choose a random teaser, it should have symbolic meaning/personality.

• All movement should be purposeful only. Do not pace around. I do not like movement just for movements sake. Your movements should tell a story. Bring the characters to life through tone, vocal variation, infliction, body language, and movement.

• I enjoy character work. Although, characters should also be purposeful and distinct and accents fall under this. If you do decide to implement an accent, make sure it is consistent throughout your performance. Make sure you implement different levels to your characters. You do not need to constantly be intense to get the point of your character across. Subtle characters and small movements are a huge plus for me.

• If you have multiple pieces, I am paying very close attention to how they blend. Pieces that blend well together make for a fluid and enjoyable performance.

• If you have a binder in your event, I understand that your piece may be fully memorized later on in the year, but please continue to occasionally glance at your binder.

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

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

LD should remain value based. Although some recent LD resolutions cry out for the debaters to present a plan, please don't neglect the value framework tradition.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score. I strongly dislike rehashed arguments. Clash is important, but it needs to have actual refutation and not just mentioning the names of previous speakers. I object to the recent trend toward doing all prep work in-round and the abuse of in-house recesses to allow this.

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

I am a former LD debater with lots of experience under my belt on the state and national level. I am open to almost all arguments, it is really about how well you convey them, persuasion is key. I wont vote anyone down for my own bias, but if you are going for technical arguments, eloquence is essential to persuading my ballot. When it comes to spreading, speed is ok, but if you are unintelligible, it will be reflected on your ballot.

Have fun and do your thing!

Mitchellheartfield@gmail.com

LD -

• Traditional judge - do not mix LD with Policy debate
• Framework - make sure that your v and vc are upheld throughout the entire case
• Moderate speed is fine; remember that if I cannot flow your case then you will more than likely won't do well in the round
• I want to hear impact not an overwhelming amount of cards - how do you interpret your cards for them to uphold your case's stance on the resolution?

PF -

• Absolutely no spreading
• This is a people's debate, please make sure that your case displays a cohesive development of your critical thinking skills
• In this debate, you are speaking to an average person, do not treat like I am an expert
• Second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal

Speech -

• I value a clear and organized speech that contains strong and profound analysis.
• Creativity is another important aspect as well. Let yourself shine by delivering your speech in the most memorable way to make yourself stand out.
• Citations!! Please do not give me a speech about a topic that is not cited. How do I know your analysis is credible if it is not supported by a source?
• Your critical thinking skills should stand out when performing; meaning that the topic chosen should be developed progressively rather than having points that sound repetitive or do not correlate to the topic at hand.
• Remember that the time of the speech does not matter when the content of the speech has given nothing.

A few general points -

• I do not want to be on the email chain
• I will not disclose during prelims
• Do not ask me about speaks
• Please treat your opponents and judge with respect and integrity; this is supposed to resemble a professional environment meant to develop your communication skills
• If you bring spectators to round, please make sure that YOUR spectators respect the flow of the round. Once you enter room, they are there from start to finish. I will not tolerate an interruption of the concentration and flow of the participants and the judge. I will leave a note on your ballot for your coach to review or speak directly to your coach.

Hastings Speech and Debate Coach- 6 years

Total years as a speech and debate coach-10 years

20 years Speech and Debate total experience as a competitor, judge, consultant, and coach.

Specializing in IE's and Speaking events, with experience in congressional and other debates.

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

I have been the coach at James E. Taylor High School (Katy Taylor) in Katy, Texas for the last 23 years, where I have coached all events.

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

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

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

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

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

I like to see quality speeches with research and logical conclusions. Support claims with a variety of devices.

Don't try to shock me with content.

I think you should dress professionally and be polite to everyone in the room. Put your phones away during performances.

I enjoy watching performances and appreciate the work you put in to your craft.

Mostly an IE judge so be sure to speak confidently because I will be taking note of that, even though it won't be a huge factor in my decision it will be a factor. I am somewhat familiar with debate but not an expert. I have competed a few times in college Parliamentary tournaments, and this is my only debate experience. I am not familiar enough with Ks to feel comfortable judging them, so try to avoid those as much as possible. No spreading and no running disclosure theory, we’re trying to make this as fair and accessible as possible. Stand up while speaking, unless obviously you have a disability that prevents that. Overall, be nice because if you're especially rude to your opponents I will down you just on that.

I view debate as a communications event. So, present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. If I'm not flowing, you are not clear. You may speak at a pace a little faster than that used during normal conversation as long as you are not speaking in a monotone and normal breathing is not inhibited.

There is a reason the topic is being debated at this time. Take it seriously and don't waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers' intent. Debate topics reflect real concerns present in society. I'll consider most anything you present as long as it's done professionally and with thoughtful analysis and supporting evidence. I try hard not to debate you and to vote based on the arguments you and your opponent present.

TFA World Schools Debate:

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

Hired (yes/no) (required): No

Years Judging/Coaching (required): 20 plus

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

20 plus

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

__X___I have not judged WS Debate this school year but have before

Rounds judged in other events this year: Congress

__X__ I have not judged much this school year. --My team has a strong parent volunteer group that judges during local tournaments so that I can be available to problem-solve, etc. for our competitors. These include a large number of World Schools debaters. I teach four full-year debate classes.

Have you chaired a WS round before? No

What does chairing a round involve? facilitating the debate round

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? A group versus group debate with a focus on world views or global concerns. There is much more emphasis on analysis and logical reasoning than in other debate types where citing evidence is critical.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? I flow what each team member says and I make knows of the opponents' responses or lack of them.

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. Not really. I listening for clear and logical explanations for each argument. Debaters should carry a basic thesis throughout the round.

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? The "model" should be carried throughout the round. Clarity of strategy is important.

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? Style

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? Clarity and reasonableness of the claim; relevance is important as well.

How do you resolve model quibbles? Whoever best carries the model throughout the round wins. Making connections and articulating relevance is important.

How do you evaluate models vs. counter-models? They need to be linked to the topic. The counter-model, if given, should clearly link to the topic and provide something that the model does not. Exposing the weaknesses of the model helps.

Speech Events: I first look for good structure within the speech. I look for attention given to the organization of claims and data. Proper citation of valid source material is essential to promote ethos of the speakers personal perspective. Additionally, smooth presentation of of all sources is a small technical detail I weigh. The tone of a speech should not be one note. There should be variation in style to drive the emotion and level of importance of the material presented.

Interp: I consider a structure where teaser, intro, piece is the standard flow of performance. The introduction must bridge the gap between the teaser and the primary presentation by unveiling the importance and merit of the literature. For me, this is key, even in HI i look for relevance and merit. To me, this is what sets interp apart from acting. This is also an important factor when considering the competitiveness of the selection. I expect the performer to have a deep understanding of the authors purpose and message. Blocking when needed must be creative. I put a heavy emphasis on the small technical details. For example, POI: binder blocking and smooth transitions between pieces in the program. The transitions should melt together, not shift abruptly. HI: popping and character differentiation are important. DI: Character depth and use of space. Duo: Coordination. characterization, and synchronization.

Debate Events: I evaluate each event differently. I tend to gravitate to what I interpret as the

purpose of the debate's intended style when evaluating the round. That is to say, I evaluate the events differently, as they each function differently and have different purposes/objectives.

I am a stickler for standing during speeches and in cross examination. This is the formal and professional part of this activity. Please do not take it for granted. The only time sitting is appropriate is during the grand cross in PF.

Policy: I evaluate all argument types when presented, so long as they are presented effectively.

LD- I lean more traditional, in that framework is an important part of LD. I am open to progressive arguments if they are presented well and properly. The structure of these arguments are important and you must signpost well.

PF: I evaluate more traditionally and put heavy emphasis on professionalism and personal character (i.e. Don’t be mean), especially in crossfire.

WSD: I stick to the governed norms you would see in most judge training sessions. Congressional Debate: I evaluate clash as well as speech structure heavily. I put weight into participation and leadership.

In general for debate, I am not a fan of spreading. It has always been a "thing" in debate. it was a "thing" when I was a student, it is still a "thing" now. Just because some"thing" is popular does not mean it is a good "thing".

If I cannot understand it or catch it, then I cannot flow it. If I cannot flow it, I cannot evaluate it.

In any debate event, try not to spread too much. Some speed is fine, but I can't vote based on arguments I can't understand.

For interp events, I pay close attention to the flow of the cut, unique characterizations (including voice and body language), and transitions. Make sure those pantomimes are clean!

For speaking events, fluency is important. Make sure your ideas flow well from one point to the next. In extemp, be sure to actually answer the question, and try to connect each point back your answer as a whole.

I am a stickler for good presentation and civil debate. Respect and clear argumentation are important for me in all events. I will be very focused on the flow of argumentation and will judge off of what was presented and how.

Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.

CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid Kritiks and spreading.

LD: I prefer traditional LD; No spreading, civil clash, and a strong emphasis on philosophy over policy. I will tolerate progressive debate/Kritiks and policy, however, be careful and make sure your case is well crafted with this.

IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery!

PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.

WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is not encouraged.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

Background

I debated for Cypress Woods highschool in Houston in LD for 3 years, and dabbled a little bit into policy my senior year. I primarily went for the Ks and LARP throughout my career, but did all forms of debate.

Short Overview

sophia.a.larsen@icloud.com - email chain

Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating.

Spreading is fine.

Read whatever you want!

UPDATE: ive judged almost every bid tournament this season including some elims so dont be afraid to run things.

tech > truth

Prefs Shortcut

LARP - 1

Less Dense Ks - 1

Phil - 2

Theory - 4

Dense Ks - 4

Tricks - 5

Specifics

k's:

I specialized in the Fem K and know most about that field of literature. I read it on both aff and neg. I also read other kritiks like the cap k and abelism.

k v k debates

• these are my favorite form of debate. I LOVE a good k v k round where both debaters know what they are talking about and go down the flow well.

pol v k

• I really like this form of debate. A lot of things that go missing in this debate is either why the k is necessary to solve and or why the plan solves the impacts of the k.

TO NOTE: I will NOT vote on kritiks involving social death if you are not from that identity group

LARP

• I will vote on almost any impact IF AND ONLY IF it makes sense and isnt abuse.
• I like this form of debate. make sure there is a clear link chain and impact weighing. make sure your clear down the flow. Ive seen a lot of debaters this season forgetting their solvency claims and or dropping impacts. be careful.

Phil

• This form of debate is fine. if you are going to run philosophers like DNG make sure you explain it well to me.
• I did a lot of research on philosophers like Kant, Rawls, locke, etc.

SPEAKS:

I was screwed a couple times in my career due to low speaks so I tend to give higher ones. I will give you additional points if you win the debate and sit down early, but dock points if you lose the debate and sit down early.

In debate I look for clash within a round, I think it prevents the round from coming down to a "he said, she said" argument. I also like seeing detailed explanations behind why an opposing sides argument is flawed. These detailed arguments prove to me that the student understands the base of the argument. I in general, like students to be as detailed as possible when they make their arguments. It is important to avoid making vague arguments. I like clearly stated impacts in a round, but I also need to be given a weighing mechanism to evaluate the impacts. I think it is also important that students are speaking clearly, in order to make understanding their case and points easy. I like clear impacts in the round, but I also want to see a weighing mechanism of how to evaluate said impacts. I fine with you talking fast but there is a clear line between talking fast and spreading.

Make sure your arguments are fully fleshed out. Don’t be vague, be as specific as possible.

in speaking events, I pay a lot of attention to speaking style. I feel that your style should be clear and fluid in order for the speech to have clarity. Content is also really important, I look for detailed analysis on topics, which shows me that the student fully understands the topic. I like speaking events where it is clear that the speaker is finding ways to engage their audience.

When it comes to interp events, I expect the performers to have fully formed characters and showcase believable interactions. Emotions can be hard to capture, and I look for students who are able to fully convince me that they are feeling these emotions. I think that performances should be dynamic. When pacing is stagnant the entire performance I feel that it becomes difficult to be invested in the story that is trying to told with their performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm looking for solid story telling and establishment of physical Spaces in interp

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

Any other questions may be asked in the room.

In L-D:

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

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

I am an opponent of speed.

In Congressional Debate:

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

Interp Events:

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

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

Speaking Events

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

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

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

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

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 big mistakes 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.

LD & Policy

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.

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. 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, 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.

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).

Education
Niceville High School - Class of 2001
University of West Florida - Class of 2005

Coaching Experience
Head Coach at Channelview High School 2009-Present

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

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

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

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

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

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Be a storyteller in your IE. Captivate me with your words, your use of body language and gestures, and pull me in to your story or speech. Make me want to hear more. I also want a very organized speech. Make sure that I can follow you and know where you are going and what you want me to take away. You should use all of the voice, emotion, and emphasis you need to help me believe in you and what you are saying.

Hi! I’m Kelly (she/her) and I’m currently a freshman at the University of Houston Honors College. I competed in World Schools in high school w/ the Houston Urban Debate League, TFA, and NSDA + Team Texas :)

Email: kellytnguyen30@gmail.com

[World Schools Debate]

*General Notes

Your case should be laid out in a way that even someone who isn’t familiar with the motion or World Schools can follow along. Always assume that I don’t know the examples or topic. Do NOT overcomplicate your material thinking that'll automatically win you the round. I prefer organized and straight forward rounds.

If you're a novice, then no worries! We all start somewhere and I'd be happy to answer any general questions you might have before/after!

*Framing

Please do NOT turn the entire round into a framing debate. Make sure to get framing settled out early on. Your framework should break down the motion + set your team’s stance well, and doing so gives me a good impression (i.e. clear characterizations, model/counterfactual). However, it shouldn’t be so defensive that it makes it impossible for the other team to productively engage (i.e. very unfair burdens). Don’t be afraid to contest the other team’s framing + reinforce/refer back to your own if necessary.

*Substantives

Your arguments don't just need to make sense, but also need to be ORGANIZED. Just because you have more material doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re ahead in the round. Never underestimate the importance of organization! I’m always flowing (except during replies), so if you’re numerating and signposting your material, that will help your team win my ballot. By clearly organizing your warrants/impacts, you’re making my job easier.

I’m fine with both principled and practical arguments. Be careful to not make a practical argument, but label it as a principled arg. (principles need to be proven/weighed regardless of any practical outcomes).

*Clashes/Engagement

I was a 3rd speaker, so I expect clashes in the 3rd speech. I'm going to vote off of clashes over individual arguments because those are dropped or get lost throughout the round. Lay out your most important pieces of argumentation and be sure to weigh! Your arguments may be good, but tell me why the impacts they create matter in terms of the bigger scope. I love seeing rounds where one side is able to generously engage with the other team's material, yet still prove WHY THEIR WORLD IS COMPARATIVELY BETTER. So, don't forget to use comparative weighing to your advantage. If any new substantive material is presented after the 2nd speaker block, I will not consider it (you can still bring in new examples to extend on material that's already been said).

*Strategy

Know which arguments/impacts your team should prioritize as the round progresses. You're not going to win all of your arguments, so be careful on what content you collapse on. Something to be mindful of is unknowingly switching your bench stance (basically your team contradicting itself trying to save itself in another area of the round).

*Style

I LOVE style. However, I will not vote off of style alone, unlike many judges I ran into while I was a debater. Your style needs to be able to reinforce your engaging refutation/content. Style looks different for everyone, but I love seeing good tone, unique phrases, or humor (be polite!).

Best of luck!!! :D

Debate 

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

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

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

4. Additional items.

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

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

I have been teaching Theatre/ Speech and Debate for 34 years, and participated in High School. I am an IE Coach primarily. Although I have coached and judged debate rounds for LD, PF, and most recently Congress and CX.

Articulation is key for me. I need to understand you, the use of the voice and body is also pretty important. The emotional connection to the character needs to be very clear, and there should be motivational beats that I discover in your performance.

Simply put, I am looking for the total package for performers, someone who can immerse themselves in a character but also show me differentiation between characters.

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain
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
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) 2024-Present - Interim Head Coach
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.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear.

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 things are in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks. 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. 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, so 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 finding how you link to any of the ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on-case. 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 and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to 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. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline on-case that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF
This was the very first format that started me on my debate journey way back in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; 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; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it devoid of jargon so you can make it a ballot issue. 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. Crossfire activity/decorum/momentum is my most common ballot tiebreaker. 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 go: 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 if they know what they're doing but a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. 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 this event, as well as other parliamentary formats, were by far what I was best at on the college level. 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 on international stages. This format is THE definitive way to debate outside of the United States, so I expect your rhetorical representation of the American perspective to be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate anywhere else in the world. As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this is 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 the big picture in every style, I'm a tab judge through-and-through, even in this style. Your strategy score is determined by the skill in which you apply your content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model is something I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come in with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of a social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and a consistent storyline down the bench. Generally speaking, 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 great 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 will let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolutionmore 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 born last century 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. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want 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]. The subjectivity of 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. My recognition and criticism of this factor ought to secure I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally values 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 on this debate manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't actually 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 04/28/2024

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

I look for strong clash in a round; make sure to address every argument your opponent makes in addition to defending your own case. Make sure to give clear voters as to why you won. A well thought out impact calculus will help separate you from your opponent. When presenting evidence throughout the round, don't just refer to the card you're using, paraphrase the evidence, and make it clear why it applies. I don't want too much speed. I need to be able to hear your claims and especially how your evidence supports those claims. Analysis will be paramount in making it clear how the evidence you use pertains to the arguments you are making.

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.

For congressional debate:

it is called debate not repetition. Clash is not optional.(there is a fine line between clash and disrespect, tread carefully)

I value the ability to adapt, control the room don't let it control you. Earn respect and you win the room.

if you cause the room to not move to previous-question, you better have the most important speech of the legislation.

if you volunteer to PO, have a very good understanding of parli-procedure

you know the rest.

For LD/PF:

keep spreading to a minimum (will say "clear" if needed)

keep the debate traditional

impact based debate

Tech over truth

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

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

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

I am conflicted with Cypress Park High School

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.

I was a LD debater in high school and I currently debate in college. I primarily did progressive debate so Im well versed in different debate styles and arguments. This also means I wouldn't recommend running anything you don't understand well. I mainly look for big picture debate which means weighing and voters are appreciated. Speed is fine. I don't like frivolous theory but will buy it if argued correctly. If possible please have your case already flowed before you enter the room. I don't really like card readers, like obviously when needed but not every speech. There's value in analytical arguments. Don't be rude to one another, have fun!

Coach at THE Atascocita High School

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: John.Rogers@humbleisd.net

I debated for New Caney High School for three years and have completed my seventh year as a high school coach. My program competes primarily throughout the Houston TFA circuit and has a heavy focus on Congressional Debate, Original Oratory, and Dramatic Interpretation. I judge as needed at local invitational TFA tournaments and have experience judging all debate events, with the exception of World Schools.

CONGRESS:

Presiding Officer Philosophy- If the PO runs a flawless chamber, it is almost certain that they will advance to the next round, especially if they were the only one volunteering to do so.

I like to see all of the normal things we look for within a speech (arguments, evidence, responses to arguments from previous speakers, etc.). Offense is key.

Pet Peeves- (1) Do not tell the PO you have a speech when gathering splits and then not have a speech for the chamber. This makes for bad debate. (2) Faux outrage in order to gain a ballot is annoying. Refrain from shouting and pretending to be angry about something that you don't have a personal stake/connection in/to. (3) Questioning should not be a competition of who can scream over who. It's not a shouting match. (4) Gotcha questions and questions that you already know the answer to are annoying.

CX Shortcuts (1-YES; 5-STRIKE):

T/Theory: 3
DA: 1
CP:1
Conditionality: 4
K: 4

General CX:

· From the 1AR of one of my favorite former Kingwood HS debaters, “You’re a policymaker. You vote on one of three things: (1) a policy option, (2) a competing policy option, or (3) the Status Quo.” I think that this debater did a great job of describing pathways to win my ballot.

· I don’t like intervening in debate rounds. However, I have to write a ballot. My suggestion for all debaters is to use your rebuttal speeches to write my RFD for me. I’m very fond of “even if” strategies when it comes to ordering arguments of importance (Ex: “You vote NEG because of _____. Even if you don’t buy that, you vote NEG because of ___.”)

· Tech > Truth (Please note that I’m reevaluating this idea each time I hear a terrible argument. I don’t recommend counting on me dismissing an argument on a truth standard. I DO recommend going line-by-line.)

· PREP TIME ends when your flash drive leaves your computer. If we’re on an email chain, which I prefer, you will see me get frustrated if I feel you’re stealing prep.

· Line-by-line is important. This is where clash should happen. When you read a long overview, and even though most of y’all tell me to flow it on a separate sheet of paper, those arguments don’t ever cross over to my flow. This is where arguments are missed and, possibly, rediscovered post RFD.

· I will presume NEG in policy rounds due to unlimited prep for the AC. I will, from time to time, depending on the quality of the argument, go for the “any risk of [impact solvency] you vote AFF” in the absence of any negative offense. I will NOT presume NEG for a counter advocacy other than the status quo.

· NEG STRAT: Not a fan of negative teams that go more than 4-5 off.

Speaks:

· In really good rounds, I don’t have a problem giving more than one speaker a 29.5. I don’t tend to give tenths of points other than halves. My speaks in these rounds usually averages somewhere around 28.5.

· I will tank your speaks if you use arguments to attack debaters personally. You should be responding to the argument itself, not assuming that the argument represents the debater that is making it. Same goes to being rude and/or disrespectful to other debaters.

o With that said, I love aggressive debate. If your level of aggressive toes the line of aggressive and disrespectful, I’ll err on aggressive when it comes to my ballot and just make a comment to you at the end of the round.

o Anything overboard that deserves more than just a warning, I’ll stop the round and give you a loss (this hasn’t happened yet throughout my career).

Speed:

· I’m about a 6/10. I can give you a little room to go faster if I have your doc in front of me on my computer.

· Please slow down on your tag lines so as to help me flow. I don’t tend to flow authors unless they’re addressed in the round, so please let me know what the author said (the tag), let me find it on the appropriate flow, and THEN give me your analysis.

-If you try to read at a 10/10 pace and mumble over half of your evidence, that is grounds for 25 speaks. This is almost the same thing as clipping to me.

Disadvantages:

· Go for it.

· Full, 4-card DAs are best for a 1NC.

· Case-specific links are best. As debates get better, I like to see more unique DAs that are more specific to the AFF. Then again, I’m probably more familiar with the generic DAs, so you do you.

Counterplans:

· Go for it.

· Not a fan of multiple CPs as a neg strat.

Impact Calc:

· Please be sure to evaluate risk of impacts instead of making the round about how a nuclear war is definitely going to happen. Appropriately evaluating impacts improves quality of debates tremendously.

K Debate:

· This is probably not the best way to my ballot, but I’d love for a good K team to help me change this mindset.

· While I understand real-life impacts are present in our society (structural violence, racism, sexism), I’d prefer to have some kind of policy solution to these problems rather than just talk about them. I will roll my eyes if the word "reimagine" is in the text of your ALT.

· I have not read any of your literature. I am not familiar with any of your literature. Please make appropriate adjustments if you choose this strategy.

· Not at all a fan of non-topical affirmatives. 1AC should always have a plan text.

Ethical Challenges/Cheating:

· If there is an accusation of cheating, the round will stop, and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the accused cheated. If cheating is proven, the round will be awarded to the accuser, if cheating is not proven the round will be awarded to the accused. 30 speaks for winning team; 20 speaks for losing team. The purpose of this is to discourage false accusations, but at the same time encourage teams to challenge if they have solid evidence that cheating has occurred.

· Debaters are accountable for the evidence that they read. I will be a little more lenient if the card is from a camp file, but that does not excuse blatant misrepresentation/academic dishonesty.

Hi i’m Ashley! I attended Jersey Village High School and was an executive council member for the varsity debate team for 3 years. I’ve competed in Tfa state,Nsda, and Uil tournaments for 4 years but my main event to judge is World Schools Debate but overall I judge everything including ie’s, speech, and debate events. Time signals can always be given if wanted :)

Debate overall:

• I will be flowing the round but my flow will not be in my comments. I will provide feedback in my comments and if asked will provide verbal feedbacks.
• Please be civil and respectful during the round there is a difference between being assertive and or witty v.s just being rude.
• I judge mostly on content and argumentation.
• Please do not spread :|
• I would appreciate and prefer off time roadmapping before speeches.
• You are allowed to time yourselves but I will be timing as well so try not to go overtime.

LD/PF:

• I like structured arguments ( claim, warrant, impact ).
• I put heavy emphasis on weighing when judging so make sure you show me that your impacts are more probable/severe.
• When clashing make sure you emphasize why your evidence is better than your opponents especially when your opponent is saying the complete opposite. Repeat your strongest evidence against them and provide a solid link to your argument.
• I flow crossfire.
• Make sure to try to address all of your opponents main points and don’t ignore or drop them. If your opponent has completely ignored a main point in your argument make sure to bring up their lack of rebuttal.
• Again do not spread as this is NOT Policy debate! I do not mind stuttering and would rather you take a second to recollect your thoughts than feel worried about not speaking fast enough.

WSD:

• For content make sure to provide solid international examples in your arguments as this is WORLD schools. I prefer less hypothetical evidence but if stated make sure the hypothetical is actually likely to happen or at least even be plausible.
• For style I really like well structured speeches with off time roadmapping but I also like some sort of personality in the speech as that’s what makes this event so fun! Good attention getters, anecdotes and humor would be really interesting to hear just make sure not to be blatantly rude to your opponent.
• For strategy structure your team in order of who’s best for each speaking position. Make sure your substantives and rebuttals are carried throughout the bench consistently and answer and ask POI’s as I do evaluate them.
• Again do not spread as this is NOT Policy debate! I do not mind stuttering and would rather you take a second to recollect your thoughts than feel worried about not speaking fast enough.
• I put heavy emphasis on weighing of worlds when judging so make sure you show me how your world is most beneficial under your burden.
• Clearly define your definitions. If your definition has been challenged please address it ASAP.
• Make sure to try to address all of your opponents main substantives and don’t ignore or drop them. If your opponent has completely ignored a main point in your argument make sure to bring up their lack of rebuttal.
• When clashing make sure you emphasize why your evidence is better than your opponents especially when your opponent is saying the complete opposite. Repeat your strongest evidence against them and provide a solid link to your argument.

Extemp:

• Make sure you structure your speech when answering the question.
• Questionable facts will be checked!
• Try not to fidget so much but including movements like hand gestures and moving when transitioning to the next point (triangle method) is great!
• Try to include around 2-3 sources within your speech and include an attention getter preferably one that can connect to your conclusion and has a little personality and or humor.
• Try to maintain good eye contact and tone of voice. I do not mind stuttering and would rather you take a second to recollect your thoughts than feel worried about not speaking fast enough.
• You are allowed to time yourselves but I will be timing as well so try not to go overtime.

Speech:

• I like organized speeches with credible sources.
• Try not to sound monotone the whole speech, the most crucial parts of your speech should be distinguishable.
• I really like humor, relatability and personal connections as it can really let personalities shine through.
• Please shed light on the importance of your topic that we listened to for 10 minutes, and how we benefit from being aware of the solutions or just being aware of the topic overall.
• Try not to fidget so much. Move with your points and include some hand gestures.
• I do not mind stuttering and would rather you take a second to recollect your thoughts than feel worried about not speaking fast enough.
• Try to maintain good eye contact and tone.

Interp:

• A big thing for me is to be able to understand and follow the plot of the piece, try to make sure your piece is cut into a clear narrative.
• Try to make sure your teaser does not appear confusing to your audience.
• I really like clearly defined transitions!
• Try not to sound monotone and use dynamics throughout your piece.
• Make sure to show the ranges of emotions throughout your piece not just yelling.
• It is extremely crucial to me to be able to also distinguish characters from each other and I really like when I see clear developments within characters throughout the story.
• I really like the use of creative blocking but make sure it’s not confusing.
• Make sure your intro contextualizes the theme/topic of your piece well.
• I do not mind stuttering and would rather you take a second to recollect your thoughts than feel worried about not speaking fast enough.
• Try to maintain good eye contact and tone.

If you have any questions about my paradigms or judging style you’re more than welcome to ask :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.

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

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

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

Director of Debate

Dulles High School 2022 - Present

Westside High School 2017 - 2022

Magnolia High School 2016-2017

Summer Debate Institutes

Lab Leader - Texas Debate Collective 2020 - Present

Admin - National Symposium for Debate 2022

Lab Leader - Houston Urban Debate League 2019 - 2021

Emails

All Rounds: esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy Rounds: dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD Rounds: dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. I'll reward deep content knowledge, organization, clarity and depth of explanation, judge instruction, efficient file sharing, and flowing. Other than that, do your thing and do it well. Read the full thing to get a sense of how I understand what it means to debate well. Non-Policy event specific thoughts are at the bottom.

General Thoughts

I am a full time classroom teacher who oversees a large team and judges frequently (over 100 rounds in the 22-23 season). I debated for a small rural high school and read exclusively policy style arguments; however, I have since coached students who go for the K on both sides and every other kind of argument under the sun. I am probably fine for whatever you want to do. Although most of my experience competing, judging, and coaching is in Policy and LD, I have worked with debaters across all formats. My preference is for national circuit style debate, but I have worked with a number of traditional debaters and judge traditional rounds quite frequently. I believe that debate can be one of the single most transformative activities for high schoolers who engage deeply in the processes of research, argument refinement, skill development, and content mastery that it requires to be done well. As such, I am committed to the educational integrity of the activity. This has a few different implications for you, regardless of format:

• Safety, inclusion, and access are my first priorities because students can’t get the benefits of the activity if they feel unsafe, unwelcome, or lack access to the materials they need to be successful. For you, this means to be cognizant of your words/actions and their effects on other people, especially those coming from social locations different from your own. Assume less, listen more.

Respect people’s pronoun preferences, honor requests for accommodation, and be kind to novices and those less experienced than you. Don’t bully or harass people, don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist. If something is happening and I’m not picking up on it, please bring it to my attention either verbally or via email. If I am part of the problem, please let me know so that I can do better.

Recording your speeches is fine. You must get consent from everyone in the room to record the whole round. It would also be polite to offer to send your opponents a copy of the recording if they consent. If you record others sans consent and I find out, you will be reported to the tabroom.

Content/Trigger warnings should be read if you suspect a position might be triggering to someone, and you should be ready to read something else if your opponents or I say we are not comfortable with the position being read. If an observer objects, they are free to leave, but we have to be there.

I will not be evaluating arguments about people’s character or their conduct outside of the round we are in and the prior disclosure period. Any significant issue of safety or comfort that impacts your ability to engage with someone is not something that a ballot can resolve. That needs to be taken to the tabroom.

If you debate for an under-resourced program and would like some materials to help you improve, let me know and I’ll send you some of the resources I make sure my students have access to.

• The rigor of academic debate is the main reason it has such a large and long lasting impact on people’s lives. I will reward displays of it with generous speaker points and will tend towards being punitive with regards to practices that compromise the rigor of the activity.

The two teams on the pairing are the only entities taking part in the debate. Coaches, teammates, random spectators, and AI chatbots are not to be assisting once the door closes. Chatbots shouldn’t be used before the door closes either. If I find that academic dishonesty of this variety has occurred, I will go to tab and lobby for you to be disqualified.

You should do your own research, reading, card cutting, and block writing. Using open evidence, the wiki, or published briefs is fine as a starting point, but that hardly constitutes research. Similarly, it is fine if some of your blocks are written by a coach or more veteran teammates, but overreliance on things cut/written by other people is detrimental to your learning and development. This will put a cap on your speaker points. I will bump speaker points for quality work that is obviously your own.

When cutting cards, make sure not to clip or power tag. For those who don’t know, clipping entails cutting around parts of cards that are inconvenient for your argument, not cutting at paragraph breaks, reading more or less than what is highlighted, and failing to mark cards if you decide to move on. Power tagging is simply when the tagline you have written does not represent what the body of the card says. Evidence ethics challenges are limited to claims that evidence is fabricated in whole or in part, so you should be confident that you are correct before staking the round on it. In the event of a challenge, you win if you are right and you lose if you are wrong.

Citation drives research, which is the source of argument innovation over the course of a topic. Complete citations contain the following information: The author’s complete name (you only need to read the last name), the date of publication (read month and day if the evidence is from this year, just the year if it is from a previous year), a list of author qualifications, the title of the source, the name of the publishing entity, a url to the text if applicable, and an indicator of who cut the evidence.

Generally speaking, I am pro disclosure since having time to read, think, and strategize tends to improve the quality of engagement from both sides exponentially, which in turn results in debates that are more educational for the participants and, incidentally, more enjoyable for me to judge. This is my default position; it doesn’t mean you can’t get me to vote against disclosure. I freely acknowledge the validity of objections regarding student safety and competitive equity.

Recording audio of your speeches, later transcribing and editing them, is a good habit to help you notice issues with clarity, efficiency, and explanation. It can also be a part of your block writing process. The final product might be super specific, but it does not take that much time to convert the specific speech to a generic block that you can use in future debates.

Prep time exists for a reason. You should not be typing or strategizing with your partner if there is not a timer running, be that yours or your opponents’. Stealing prep is cheating.

Take notes during feedback, preferably in a word or google doc. It’s a good habit to be in, as some judges don’t write much, memory is pretty faulty, and it helps create the impression that you care about improving and are actively listening to what judges are telling you. I would also suggest labeling and saving your flows.

Ask questions with redos and file updates in mind. I welcome all questions; however, understand that once the ballot is submitted I can do nothing to change it. Aggressive post-rounding of me or another judge on a panel is futile and immature. I would suggest that you choose to focus on growth and improvement rather than burning bridges with people.

• Debate is a skill focused activity that necessitates a degree of technical mastery. As such, I tend towards tech over truth, but I think that paradigm is overly simplistic. In reality, truth is constitutive of tech, meaning that arguments more germain to my understanding of the world will inevitably require less work to get me on board with. I do my best to check my preconceptions at the door, but the idea of a truly tabula rasa judge is a farce.

While I prefer fast debates over slow debates, I enjoy debates I can understand even more. If you are not capable of spreading clearly, then don’t do it at all. Slow down for taglines and parts of cards you wish to emphasize. Raise your volume when something is important. If you are not doing speaking drills for at least 15 minutes every day, you are not working to improve or maintain what is, realistically, the easiest skill to practice. If you spread, be ready to honor a request for accommodation.

All arguments should make a claim, support that claim with evidence and/or reasoning, and explain the implication of that argument for the debate. They should be organized in a line by line fashion, meaning “they say . . . we say . . . that matters because . . .” or an equivalent organizational schema. Compare arguments/evidence and weigh as you go down each flow sheet. If the affirmative team introduces a position, the negative team sets the order for line by line on that flow. When the negative team introduces a position, the affirmative team sets the order for line by line on that flow. Any overview that summarizes an argument should be kept short, and should include weighing and judge instruction, especially as we get deeper into the debate. Get to the line by line and do the work of debating there. Affirmative teams should start on the case page (T first is an exception), and negative teams should start with the off case positions they are extending, then go to the case (unless presumption or an impact turn is what they go for in the 2NR). Neither side should jump around and go back to a page they have already moved on from.

Most errors get made because debaters don’t flow or are not proficient at flowing. This should be one of your most practiced skills, as you can’t do line by line effectively or make intelligent decisions if you don’t have an accurate record of what happened in each speech. Flow every single speech of every single debate you are in or that you observe in order to practice. I am generally of the opinion that it is better for competitors to flow on paper rather than on your laptop, but do what works best for you.

Housekeeping tasks should be done at the beginning of CX/speeches. This means that questions about independent reasons to affirm/negate, CP/alt status, etc. go first in CX, counterplans get kicked and no link arguments get conceded at the top of speeches.

Don’t just answer the previous speech, anticipate and shut down the arguments that will be in the next speech using lots of judge directed language. The 2NR should be focused on beating their best 2AR options, and the 2AR should be focused on narrating the debate back to me and beating the 2NRs ballot story. The earlier you can start the process of judge instruction, the better off you are.

Aff and Neg Case Debating Thoughts

Affirmative teams must identify a harm or set of harms that is being caused by some aspect of the status quo. They must also propose some method of addressing those harms. If you can’t articulate how you’ve met those two burdens clearly and succinctly, you probably lose on presumption. I don’t particularly care if you prefer policy/law, philosophy, or critical theory as the part of the library you research from, nor do I care if you read a plan or poetry. I do, however, think that the topic should have some effect on the research and writing you are doing when crafting your case. If every aspect of the aff is generic and not specific to the area of controversy that we voted to have debates over, I will likely be voting neg as you have clearly not thought hard about the way that your particular literature base engages the topic and topicality/FW answers will be bad. If you are not extending the case from the 1AC to the 2AR, you will likely lose (exception for going all in on theory, for which I have a pretty high threshold).

Case is the core of the debate. The role of the negative is to disprove A.) the truth claims of the 1AC and B.) the desirability of the plan text/broader 1AC scholarship. It is way harder to do B if you have neglected A by not making offensive and defensive arguments on case targeting different aspects of the aff. Don’t just spend time at the impact level. Don’t just make cross applications of off case positions. Read cards, contest link and internal link claims, contest claims of solvency, etc. You need to think about how these case cards interact with other off case positions. I’ve written a shocking number of aff ballots in debates where someone goes for a security K in the 2NR without extending carded link, internal link, or impact defense on case, and they end up losing the debate because the 2AR gets to wax poetic about how good and true their China reps are given the conceded empirics. If it interacts with the case page, you probably need to have case cards that help the argument make sense. There are no instances where the 1NC can afford to ignore the case page. There are a few instances where you can afford to not extend case in the 2NR, but those are few and far between.

Topicality Thoughts

I default to competing interpretations, as I think choices should have to be justified. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not the specific aff, arguing that it is sufficiently predictable, limiting, etc. to mitigate the impacts of the shell, and that losing the round would be disproportionate punishment, even if there is some marginal benefit to the negative interpretation. Interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.

Framework Thoughts

I’m of the opinion that both sides should defend a model of debate that they believe to be desirable. The social structures and dynamics that define competitive debate are fair game for criticism; however, I think the fact that you’ve voluntarily chosen to come to a tournament probably concedes that there is some benefit to doing the activity as it is currently instantiated. Tell me what your vision of the activity is and why you think it’s worth it to show up to tournaments, not just why your opponents’ model is bad. Both sides should start with a caselist of affs that would be topical under their interpretation and the various possibilities for negative testing their interpretation would permit.

For T USFG vs K affs, a limits standard with a skills impact, switch side debate net better/read it on the negative solves their offense, and an example of a topical version of the aff is most persuasive to me. If you prefer to go for fairness, that’s fine, just be aware that I understand myself as an educator first and a referee second, which does implicate how I end up thinking about close debates.

For K frameworks vs policy affs, I am unsure why we are making this section of debate more confusing and self-serving than it needs to be. They want me to look at just the plan and its consequences, you want me to look at the 1AC holistically. Other questions are either secondary to this core controversy about the evaluative terms of the debate or are irrelevant altogether. KvK debates have a tendency to be less clean cut at the framework level, so just be sure you are being clear about the model you think is good and explain how the debates your model would value relate to the debates they think matter.

Kritik Thoughts

My favorite and least favorite debates I have ever judged have involved the K in a substantial way. Do with that information what you will.

You should have done a lot of reading on the thesis of your kritik so you actually know what you are talking about and can effectively apply the theory to the aff/topic you are critiquing. Over reliance on jargon isn’t a flex. Explain big concepts simply and use lots of examples to illustrate your link and alternative arguments. Links should be specific to the aff/topic you are criticizing. Illustrate the link by quoting your opponents and/or their evidence.

Performances should relate to arguments that appear later in the debate.

Disadvantage and Counterplan Thoughts

In an ideal world, disadvantages would be intrinsic to the action of the plan. Explain the link story and do impact comparison.

Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides. Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for a counterplan without making an argument about judge kick.

LD Thoughts

Everything mentioned above applies to LD. I'd prefer not to be subjected to tricks or frivolous theory debates. I am old, grumpy, and have little patience for shenanigans.

A philosophy framework should have a clearly articulated relationship to the relevant impacts for the round. I would suggest slowing down to ensure I don't miss key steps in your syllogism. I'm fine for one or two substantive tricks like skep triggers and paradoxes here, provided they make sense in the context of your framework.

I'm agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs in the context of this event.

PF Thoughts

This event exists with the explicit purpose of preserving lay debate, so pretend that this is a short policy round, and I am a lay judge who knows how to flow. If you want to do "progressive debate" things, come to policy. We would love to have you.

Cards are good. Paraphrasing is bad. If we are sending out speech docs with carded evidence before speeches, I will be a happy camper and likely bump speaks.

"Flowing through ink" is not a thing. You have to attend to responses if you want to extend something. Additionally, defense is not "sticky". You have to extend it if you want me to consider it.

I understand PF to be advantage vs disadvantage debate, with the resolution functioning in place of the plan in policy debate.

Topicality doesn't make a ton of sense in PF considering that the aff doesn't default to speaking first and the negative isn't tasked with upholding the resolution. Just do the thing traditional debaters used to do and define your terms at the top of your first constructive speech to parametrize the debate.

Counterplans are allowed at TFA sanctioned tournaments. They are banned only at NSDA sanctioned tournaments.

If you are considering reading a kritik in front of me, you don't have enough time to do the requisite amount of explanation and contextualization for me to feel like you have a shot at winning. Come to policy and read all the Ks you want.

WSD Thoughts

This event suffers from inconsistency of argument from speech to speech. Introduce your arguments in you first speech, and start answering your opponents' arguments as soon as you are able. Arguments and answers must then be extended in each successive speech in which you'd like for it to be up for consideration.

Congress Thoughts

After a few speeches of floor debate and cross examination on a given bill, you should not be reading speeches word for word. Clash with arguments presented by people on the other side of the issue and extend arguments made by representatives you agree with.

TOC Conflict List:

Coach for Break Debate: Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH.

If you're looking for a cost-effective speech/debate camp, come to the UH Honors Debate Workshop (HDW). We have top faculty from across the nation and an intense two-week course for CX, LD, PF, WSD, Congress, and IEs.Can't recommed this enough, truly astounded by the quality of faculty really great value and amazing deals for commuters in houston. Check out the website for more info: https://uh.edu/hdw

Background ---

UH '26

Conflicted against Seven Lakes HS, Barbers Hill HS, and anyone in Break Debate.

Policy debater at the University of Houston 1x NDT qualifier

Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate

Put me on the email chain --- debatesheff@gmail.com

If I am judging PF also put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Overall perspective ---

Please don't call me judge---Bryce is fine

I will vote on anything. I have done extensive policy and K debate so it is naturally my preferred styles. I am open to other styles of debate and will vote on anything just might be less comfortable.

I hate deadtime in debates. It makes me increasingly frustrated when there isn't a timer running and it seems like no one is doing anything. To minimize this please have the email chain with the speech doc sent AT START TIME. If the email chain is sent at start time (WITH A DOC PF DEBATERS) both teams will get .2 speaks boost.

thoughts---essentially the same for policy and LD.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate

--- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

--- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

--- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

--- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

--- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

--- I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round.

--- New affs bad is a bad argument.

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

I'm looking for a well organized speech. If your event requires that you support your argument against a counter, how well you support your argument often makes the difference between a win and a loss.

Confidence speaks louder than volume itself! I need to be able to understand what you are saying in order to understand your message.

Connection with the audience is important. Ways to achieve this are making eye contact, facing the judge, and making your argument relevant.

If your event contains a dramatic component, please warn me of any possible triggers. I appreciate warnings for: screaming, death, and assault. If you think I should know, speak up.

My reason for decision is based on effectiveness. The above details are part of what helps me make each decision.

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.

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.

Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.

Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge

*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob

General

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.

DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.

CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.

K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.

If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.

1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.

2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.

3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.

4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.

____________________

Other notes:

Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.

Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.

Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.

Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.

Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

No Tricks

ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.

PF Specific Notes

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.

Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.

For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner arguments that are dropped on the flow unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.

Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.

If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.

IE

All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.

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.

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.

Email: xanderyoaks@gmail.com

Experience: I have taught at NSD, VBI, TDC. I've been coaching since I graduated in 2015 and I am the former director of debate at the Woodlands High School. My main experience is in LD, but I competed in/coached in NSDA nationals WSD (lonestar district), judge policy and PF somewhat irregularly at locals and TFA State. Across events, the way I understand how things work in LD applies. (WSD Paradigm at end)

Update for series online:

1. I have not judged any circuit-y debate since Grapevine, go slightly slower especially since it is over zoom. I do not like relying on speech docs to catch your arguments, but this is somewhat inevitable in zoom land. If you do go off doc or skip around you need to tell me.

2. Do whatever your heart desires. The paradigm below is merely an explanation of how I resolve debates, not a judgment on what kind of debate you like/have fun with. You can read pretty much whatever you want in front of me (with caveats mentioned below).

LD Paradigm (sorry this is long)

TL;DR: Use TWs, do not be rude, I am truly agnostic about what kind of debate happens in front of me. If you do not want to read through my whole paradigm check pref shortcuts and "things that will get your speaks tanked/I won't vote on."

Pref Shortcuts:

Phil: 1

K: 1-2 (more comfortable with identity Ks like queer theory, critical race theory, etc. I know some post-structuralist like Derrida, some Deleuze, Butler, Foucault, Anthro). Give me a 3 if you read Baudrillard unless you're good at explaining it

A bunch of theory: 2. I have been judging a lot of this lately, so do what you will. More specific theory stuff below.

Tricks: 2-3 I like good tricks but please have the spikes clearly delineated. There have been a couple rounds recently where I started to believe negating was in fact harder due to the affs that were being read. This kind of debate makes my head explode sometimes so collapsing in this form of debate is essential to me.

Policy/LARP: 3 (I guess?) I understand all of the technical stuff when it comes to this style, but I am not the judge for you if you're hoping that I would give you the leg up against things like phil or Ks. I vote on extinction outweighs a lot though (just bc I think LD has made a larger ideological shift towards policy args)

The trick to win my ballot regardless of the style/content: Crystallize!!!! Weigh!!!! Your 2nr/2ar should practically write my ballot.

I know that all of these have me in the 1-3 range, just consider me 'debate style agnostic'

Kritiks:
I am familiar with most kinds of K lit, but do not use that as a crutch in close rounds. Underdeveloped K extensions suck equally as much as blippy theory extensions. Here are some other things I care about:
1. Make sure the K links back to some framing mechanism, whether it is a normative framework or a role of the ballot. You can't win me over on the K debate if you don't clearly impact it back to a framing mechanism. The text of the role of the ballot/role of the judge must be clearly delineated.
2. Point out specific areas on the flow where your opponent links. I'm not going to do the work for you. Contextualize those links!
3. If the round devolves into a huge K debate, you must weigh. Sifting through confusing K debates where there isn't any weighing is almost as bad as a terrible theory debate.

Overview extensions are fine, people forget to interact them with the line by line which makes me sad. If there are unclear implications to specific line by line arguments I tend to err against you

Non-black people should not read afro pess in front of me. You will not get higher than a 27.5 from me if you read it, I am very convinced by arguments saying that you should lose the round for it.

"Non-T" Affs

I vote on these relatively consistently, the only issue that I have seen is an explanation of why the aff needs the ballot -- I rarely vote on presumption arguments (e.g. "the aff does nothing so negate!") but that is usually because the negative makes the worst possible version of these arguments

I am just as likely to vote on Framework as I am a K aff -- to win this debate, I need a decent counter-interp, some weighing, and/or impact turns. Recently, I have seen K Affs forget to defend a robust counter-interp and weigh it which ends up losing them the round. Maybe I have just become too "tech-y" on T/Theory debates

Also, generally, a lot of ppl against Ks have just straight up not responded to their thesis claims -- that is a very quick way to lose in front of me -- I sort of evaluate these thesis claims similar to normative frameworks (e.g. if they win them, it tends to exclude a lot of your offense)

Phil
This is the type of debate I did way back when, so I am probably most comfortable evaluating these kinds of debates (but I only get to rarely). I studied philosophy so I probably know whats happening

Make all FW arguments comparative

Unless otherwise articulated, I probs default truth testing over comparative worlds when it comes to substantive debates

Phil debaters: stop conceding extinction outweighs. It is my least favorite framework argument and it makes me sad every time I vote on it

Theory

If you are reading theory against a K aff/K's then you need to weigh why procedurals come first and vice versa. If the K does not indict models of debate/form then I presume that procedurals come first (e.g. if the neg just reads a cap k about how the plan perpetuates capitalism, then I presume that theory arguments come first if there is no weighing at all)

You should justify paradigm issues, but I default competing interps and no RVIs. Reasonability arguments need a specific/justified brightline or at least a good enough reason to 'gut check' the shell. I think people go for reasonability too little against shells with marginal abuse

I tend not to vote on silly semantic I meets unless you impact them well (e.g. text>spirit) my implicit assumption is that an I meet needs to at least resolve some of the offense of the shell. So, if the I meet does not seem to resolve the abuse, then I likely will not vote on it absent weighing

aff/neg flex standards: need to be specific e.g. you cant just say "negating is harder for xyz therefore let me do this thing" rather, you should explain how aff/neg is harder and then granting you access to that practice helps check back against a structural disadvantage in some specific way

If there are multiple shells, I NEED weighing when you collapse in the 2nr/2ar otherwise the round will be irresolvable and I will be sad

Really, just weighing generally.

Shells I consider frivolous and won't vote on: meme shells, shoe theory, etc

Shells I consider frivolous and will vote on: spec status (and various other spec shells beyond specifying a plan text/implementation), counter solvency advocate, role of the ballot spec (please do not call it 'colt peacemaker')

Combo shells are good but please be sure that your standards support all planks of the interp

Tricky Hobbits
Alright, so you roll up into the room and you got this really tricked out case with 100 different a prioris, so many theory spikes that they are literally jumping off the page to fight for fairness, and the classic incontestable descriptive offense, and you are ready to win. I just have a couple of requests:
1. I want the spikes clearly delineated. None of that hidden theory spikes between substantive offense bs. I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist (like absolute moral truths).
2. Slow down a little for theory spikes. I was and continue to be terrible at flowing, so help me out a little by starting out slower in the underview section.

Sometimes these debates make my brain explode a little bit, so crystallization is key -- obvi it is hard to be super pathosy on 'evaluate the debate after the 1ac' but overviews and ballot instruction is key here

Also, I likely will never vote on evaluate the debate after "x" speech that is not the 2ar. So if that is a core part of your strategy I suggest trying to win a different spike. I probably voted on this once at the NSD camp tournament, which was funny, but not an argument I like voting on. Similarly, I will evaluate the theory debate after the 2ar; you can argue for no 1ar theory or no 2nr paradigm issues however.

Against Ks, I will likely not vote on tricks that justify something abhorrent. I think 'induction fails takes out the K' is also a silly argument (again, I voted on it like once but I just think its a terrible argument)

Policy style

Unsure why I have to say this but DAs are not an advocacy and if I hear the phrase "perm the disad" you immediately drop down to a 28. If you extend "perm the disad" then you will drop to a 27. I'm not kidding.

Perms need a text, explanation of how the advocacies are combined, and how it is net beneficial (or just not mutually exclusive)

I do not really have any theoretical assumptions for policy style arguments, I can be convinced either way re:condo and specific CP theory (PICs, consult, etc)

Extinction outweighs: least favorite argument, usually the most strategic argument to collapse to against phil and K debaters

Unsure what else to say here, do what you want

Speaks
Speaker points are relatively arbitrary anyways, but I tend to give higher speaks to people who make good strategic decisions, who I think should make it to out rounds, who keep me engaged (good humor is a plus) and who aren't mean to other debaters (esp novices/less experienced debaters). Nowadays, I tend to start you off at a 28 and move you up or down based on your performance. The thing I value most highly when giving speaks is overall strategy and arg gen. If I think you win in a clever way or you debate in a way that makes it seem that you read my paradigm before round, then the higher speaks you will get. I think I have only given out perfect 30s a handful of times. At local tournaments, my standards for speaks are a lot lower given that the technical skill involved is usually lower.

Things I like (generally) that ensure better speaks: overviews that clear up messy debates and/or outline the strat in the 1ar/2nr/2ar, effective collapsing, making the debate easy to evaluate (about 7 times out of 10, if I take a long time to make a decision it is due to a really messy round which means you should fear for your speaks; the other 3/10 times it is because it is a close round).

If you are hitting a novice, please don't read like 5 off and make the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just is not necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).

Things that will get your speaks tanked and that I will not vote on:

1. Shoe theory, or anything of the like. I won't vote on it, instant 25.

2. Being rude to novices, trying to outspread them and making it a public beatdown. Probs a 27 or under depending on the strength of the violation. What this means is that you should make the round accessible to novices; do not read some really really dense K (unless you are good at explaining it to a novice so that they can at least make some responses), nor should you read several theory shells and sketchy/abusive arguments to win the ballot. Not making the round accessible is a rip, and I think it is important for tournaments to be used as a learning experience, especially if it is one of their first tournaments in VLD.

3. If you are making people physically uncomfortable in the space, and depending on the strength of the violation, you can expect your speaks to be 26 or lower. If you are saying explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc things then probs an auto-loss 25.

4. Consistently misgendering people. L 25

5. I will not vote on the generic Nietzsche "suffering good" K anymore, I just think that it is a terrible argument and people need to stop going to bad policy back files, listen to some Kelly Clarkson if you want that type of education. L 25

WSD Paradigm

Style: To score high in this category, I not only consider how one speaks but the way arguments are presented and characterized. To some extent, I do think WS is a bit more 'performative' than other debate events and is much more conversational. As such, I think being a bit creative in the way you present arguments wins you some extra points here. This is not to say that your speech should be all flowery and substanceless; style is a supplement to content and not a replacement. Good organization of speeches also helps you score higher (e.g clash points, the speech has a certain flow to it, etc).

Content: The way I evaluate other forms of debate sort of applies here. The main thing I care about is 1. Have you provided an adequate explanation of causes/incentives/links etc? 2. Have you clearly linked this analysis to some kind of impact and explained why I care comparatively more about your impacts relative to your opponents? Most of the time, teams that lose lack one of these characteristics of arguments. The best second speeches add a new sub that puts a somewhat unique spin on the topic - get creative.

Models v. Counter-Models: The prop has the right to specify a reasonable interpretation of a motion to both narrow the debate and make more concrete what the prop defends on more practical/policy oriented motions. To some extent, I think it is almost necessary on these kinds of motions because while focusing on 'big ideas' is good, talking about them in a vacuum is not. Likewise, the opp can specify a reasonable counter-model in response/independent of the prop. I try my best not to view these debates in an LD/Policy way, but if it is unclear to me what the unique net benefit of your model is (and how the counter-model is mutually exclusive), then you are likely behind. On value based motions, I think models are relatively silly in the sense that these motions are not about practical actions, but principles. On regrets/narrative motions, I need a clear illustration of the world of the prop and opp (a counter-factual should be presented e.g. in a world without this narrative/idea, what would society have looked like instead?).

Strategy: Most important thing to me in terms of strategy is collapsing/crystallizing and argument coverage. Like other formats of debate, the side that gives me the most clear and concise ballot story is the one that will win. The less I have to think, the better. Obviously, line by lining every single argument is not practical nor necessary; however, if you are going to concede something, I need to know why it should not factor in my decision as soon as possible. Do not pretend an argument just doesn't exist. I also do not evaluate new arguments in the 3rd speeches and reply. For the 3rd speech, you can offer new examples to build on the analysis of the earlier speech, which I will not consider new.

Also, creative burden structures that help narrow the debate in your favor is something I would categorize as strategic. The best burdens lower your win conditions and subsequently increase the burden on the opposing side. Obviously, needs to be somewhat within reason or a common interp of the motion but I think this area of framing debates is under-utilized.

(sorry if the above is somewhat lengthy, I figured that I should write a more comprehensive paradigm given that I am judging WS more often now)

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.