My name is Luey Garcia. I am currently studying law at the University of Texas, so debate is sort of my life now. I also competed in policy for 4 years, heard just about every type of argument under the sun, I'm familiar with all the terms, so go for anything that you might want to do.

Argue as if I have never read the news, and know nothing before the round. Evidence within cards should prove your tags. Bring me the arguments, explain them well, CLASH with your opponents and show me how you beat them down the flow, and I will appreciate that very much. Argumentation as to why your opponents' arguments fail to adequately answer your points (and why that's important) will always prevail over just telling me they "completely dropped" something (which is usually untrue).

-Don't be offensive.

-I expect analysis on all cards provided. I am not in the business of analyzing your research for you.

-I'll let you know if you're going too fast or if anything similar comes up.

-Feel free to ask me questions before the round starts if any of this is unclear.

Overall (Speech):Speech is a game of engagement with the audience, and your efforts should be towards engaging the audience with the message of your piece. My ranks are always based primarily on this. Of course, there are many tools to engage an audience, and your choice to use them and your effectiveness with them will vary.

Oral Interpretation: In interpretation events (HI, DI, DA, DUO, POI, PR, PO), I am looking for a performance that creates a significant personal or social meaning from the literature chosen. I am also looking for a performance that shows emotional and tonal complexity and a range that is both suitable for the piece and is demonstrative of the skills of the interper.

There should also be intentionality in the decisions made in the interpretation of the piece. For example, all the blocking employed in the piece should have a purpose and should not seem haphazardly included in the performance. This also goes for what is included in the cutting of the piece, for the words spoken, the emotions, sound effects, etc. conveyed should all contribute to the message you are trying to convey in your interpretation.

Public Address: In Public Address or Platform events (IX/FX, USX/DX, OO, INFO), I am looking for speeches that add novelty and insight to the topic of the speech. Making the topic relevant and understandable to a general audience is necessary for success in these speeches.

Speeches in these categories are more effective and engaging when they employ a variety of pacing and tone that convey to the audience the significance and emotional stakes of the points you make. On top of clear speaking and style, one needs to create the engagement for the audience with their voice through these tools. In general a conversation

Speeches should be well organized and easy to follow for the audience. They should have clear but original signposting to help the audience keep track of where they are in the speech.

Congress:

In congressional debate I'm really looking at the analysis of the argument and the ability to create a logical and well-backed chain of arguments to why we should pass or fail. Generally awareness of the round is highly valued, and I want arguments from competitors to be well addressed. Obviously, fluency and rhetorical impact are important as well, and I'm not a huge fan of Jargon in Congress. Speeches should generally be broadly approachable.

The people who will score high in the round are going to bring in novel arguments and ideas, and dive into the language and the implications of the bills as well as the claims of their competitors. Ask good questions! Be a balanced speaker.

Don't take being P.O. for granted, you still have to present yourself among the top in the round. Judges should seldom have to get involved.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I'm a speech coach, and this is not my preferred event. That being said, I am rather traditional when it comes to judging LD with heavy emphasis on the battle of values and achievement of the value criterion through your use of your evidence.

I have some debate experience through high school, but consider me more of a lay/UIL circuit judge.

Speed is okay if you are understandable, but I should not have to read along to understand you, if I can't flow it, it didn't happen. Elements of progressive debate such as theory and K are fine but have to be well justified within the context of the debate, otherwise, I'm not sure it'll make it to my flow.

Speaks are awarded on quality of debate based on speaking and presentation with 28 being the average debate performance, lower being, well, lower, and being among the best I've seen will be awarded a 29-29.5. If you are somewhere in between you will be awarded somewhere in between.

For PF, keep it as the event was intended, which is less CX and more general debate. Speed should allow even a novice debate participant to keep up, but does not need to be as slow as a general speaking event. Make sure that you stay civil, as debate in general is intended to make sure that you are learning civil discourse and not just how to argue with someone.

Hi! I’m Georgia, I’m a graduate of St. Edward’s University with a bachelor’s degree in psychology and certification in Evidence-Based Addiction Counseling. In high school I competed in mostly PF but also did info, oratory, extemp, CX, and world schools.

For the debate side, I would consider myself a tab judge. I’m fine with speed, counterplans, turns, etc. I also am fine with using more logical arguments than cards, as long as you utilize both. I’m more so looking for which side can uphold their own case while successfully hitting the other’s in a respectful way, as opposed to who has the most techy case.

For the speech side, I don’t have many paradigms other than to be respectful to others when they are performing, be engaging, and be thoughtful in what and how you are presenting.

Thank you!

Hi! I’m Georgia, I’m a graduate of St. Edward’s University with a bachelor’s degree in psychology and certification in Evidence-Based Addiction Counseling. In high school I competed in mostly PF but also did info, oratory, extemp, CX, and world schools.

For the debate side, I would consider myself a tab judge. I’m fine with speed, counterplans, turns, etc. I also am fine with using more logical arguments than cards, as long as you utilize both. I’m more so looking for which side can uphold their own case while successfully hitting the other’s in a respectful way, as opposed to who has the most techy case.

For the speech side, I don’t have many paradigms other than to be respectful to others when they are performing, be engaging, and be thoughtful in what and how you are presenting.

Thank you!