As a Speech & Debate judge, my foremost commitment is to foster an environment that encourages constructive discourse, critical thinking, and respect for all participants. To achieve this goal, I hold the following principles at the core of my judging paradigm while also considering the specifics of each event:

1. Fairness and Impartiality: I will evaluate all participants' performances objectively, without favoritism or bias. My decisions will be based solely on the merits of the arguments presented and the effectiveness of the communication.
2. Respect and Civility: I believe that speech and debate should be a platform for diverse voices and perspectives. I expect all participants to engage in respectful and civil discourse. Discrimination, bigotry, or any form of hate speech targeting Debaters should address their opponents' arguments, not their character.
3. Adherence to event rules and expectations:

4. Policy Debate: I will evaluate teams based on their ability to present and defend a coherent, well-researched, and strategic argument. The quality of evidence, cross-examination skills, and teamwork will be crucial.

5. Lincoln-Douglas Debate: I will assess debaters' ability to construct clear and logically sound arguments while maintaining a respectful and ethical tone. Values and ethical principles should be well-articulated and supported.

6. Public Forum Debate: Debaters should provide well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. Clarity, persuasion, and the ability to engage with opponents' points are key criteria.

7. Extemporaneous Speaking: I will evaluate participants on their ability to deliver well-structured, informative, and persuasive speeches on current events. Coherence, evidence, and articulation of a clear viewpoint are essential.

8. Original Oratory: Speakers should present well-researched, persuasive, and engaging speeches on a chosen topic. Effective use of rhetoric, emotional appeal, and clear organization will be considered.

9. Dramatic Interpretation and Humorous Interpretation: I will assess the interpretation of literature, character portrayal, and the ability to engage the audience emotionally. Clarity, memorization, and the use of voice and body should enhance the performance.

10. Duo Interpretation: Duos should demonstrate strong chemistry, character differentiation, and a compelling narrative in their performance. Timing, pacing, and emotional connection are key factors.

11. Congressional Debate: Participants should exhibit knowledge of parliamentary procedure, articulate speaking skills, and the ability to engage in meaningful debate on legislation.

12. Feedback: I will provide constructive feedback to help participants improve their skills. Feedback will be specific, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. My goal is to contribute to the growth of all participants.
13. Adaptability: Different events may have varying expectations and criteria. I will adapt my judging to fit the specific event, always maintaining a commitment to fairness and inclusivity.
14. Professionalism: I expect all participants to conduct themselves in a professional manner, respect the venue, the time constraints, and their fellow competitors.
15. Continuous Learning: Just as participants strive for improvement, I also commit to ongoing learning and self-improvement as a judge. I will stay informed about current debate practices and strive to provide the best judging experience for all involved

As a judge, I look for a couple of things. Overall, I want to see you engaged and having fun with it, and not seem like you are forcing it.

Speech/Interp:

1. Good Introduction, those first few seconds need to get me engaged.

2. If it's a binder event, please don't read of the pages every few seconds. Have a good portion of it memorized.

4. Emotion is key! This is something I really look for, especially in DI.

5. Keep me entertained and hooked to your piece.

6. Good diction, tone, and use of appropriate gestures.

Debate:

1. Clear understanding of the topic being debated.

2. Good evidence and sources.

3. Be kind and respectful towards your opponent.

Tim Cook, Salado HS

tim.cook@saladoisd.org

I debated in high school and college. I have been coaching for over 40 years.

TFA State

If you run "tricks", I will probably vote against you. Debate is about developing substantive arguments on the topic, not finding abusive trick strategies. You will also probably get the lowest possible speaks I can give.

I will not tolerate speed! I will say clear and then stop flowing. If I don't flow it, you don't get it. I will not be flowing from a doc. Assume low speaks.

Don't run theory unless there is real in round abuse (Not a fan of theory).

K and other progressive arguments (Not a fan). Don't assume I am familiar with the lit on your K. The K should link to the topic, including K affs. We are given a topic for a reason.

I am very traditional! Establish a framework and link offense back to it.

No flex-prep

Flashing part of prep time.

Congress

Prefer clash or topical AGD. Have 2 developed arguments with good evidence. Think think tanks.

Clash and no rehash essential.

Make me laugh! DO NOT BE RUDE OR OVERLY AGGRESSIVE. Have fun.

PO's must run efficient and fair rounds. Don’t make parliamentary mistakes.

Ask me more specific questions.

Speech/Extemp

I have coached multiple UIL State champions, TFA state finalist and TOC finalist.

Answer the question! Have a clear thesis and three germane points. Prefer quality over quantity of evidence. Love AGD to be weaved throughout the speech.

Prefer controlled gestures, not repetitive. Movement should have meaning.

Ask me more specific questions.

LD

Establish a framework and link offensive back. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature. The K needs to have a pragmatic alt. Theory needs a real abuse story.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

CX

My default paradigm is policy maker. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature.

The K needs to have a pragmatic alt.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

-NO EMAIL CHAINS AT ALL.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk into the room. Pre-flows, bathrooms, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to ensure integrity in the round. If someone asks for cards, please be quick about it because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

- I will not disclose decisions unless I say I will. After the round is done I will let you know if everything is on the ballot or if I will be giving general comments.

LD: Old school traditional: Framework debates are paramount. Conceding framework, to me, undermines the validity of LD debate.Be specific with impacts and why they weigh over the opposing sides impacts. Absolutely NO SPREADING, speech score will be dropped. I don't understand progressive debates like K's, shells, etc. Adapt or strike me.

PF: Truth > Tech. I will vote for a moral argument and whether it is reasonable and cohesive. Again, NO SPREADING. Second rebuttal Must respond to first rebuttal.

Hello,

I am a parent judge and am less experienced. I look forward to judging all of you. Here are a few things I'll be looking for as you deliver your speech or performance.

• I am less well versed in Interpretation events, but what I look for is emotional and engaging performances that truly resonate with what your piece is about.
• I enjoy well-structured speeches that address your topic, make sure that your aim is to address the main concerns of the topic you have. and that it is delivered in a fashion that is understandable.

Background: I was a high school debater, extemper, and orator back in the 1990s. I became a debate coach in 2003; I coach all the events.

Everyone: Be as polite and professional as possible.

For debate events: No spreading; speak at a normal, conversational speed. I will deduct speaker points and you will likely lose the round because you've made it too difficult for me to understand what you're saying. I shouldn't have to read a copy of your case to figure out your arguments; I should be able to flow it based on what I hear in your performance. In rebuttals, I need you to signpost the part of the case before making your argument so I know where it goes on my flow; otherwise, your arguments don't count because I don't know what you're attacking or defending. Give me voters in your last speech. Do not waste time running disclosure theory; I will not vote based on it.

For congress: Be prepared before the tournament; I have no sympathy for students not having their speeches ready before the round begins. Don't take excessive breaks. We must meet the minimum time for the round while also keeping the tournament on schedule. If you think the Presiding Officer makes a mistake, deal with it immediately; otherwise, it's too late and we have to move on.

For IEs: ranking can come down to small details; bring your best! I like clever introductions that get my attention with personal stories, jokes, etc. In poetry, the cadence of the verse matters to me; if your poetry performance sounds like a prose performance, you may rank lower compared to others who perform poetry as spoken word. For extemp, the depth of your analysis will impact your ranking.

LD: Just defend your side of the argument. I will almost always flow towards who has the best value debate. Using sources, philosophies and statistics are great tools towards being able to win a round but they shouldn't distract from the value debate. I'm not really a fan of spreading for LD debate but if you believe that it is still understandable then I will be fine, and if there are any concerns about that either bring a paper copy for both me and the opponent . And I am not strict in regard to the cases that are non-conventional but don’t do it just because you can. Make it be topical, obey the rules of LD with your case, do not let it be offensive and be prepared to argue your case against any type of argument.

Extemp: I primarily did extemp in high school so my paradigms represent things that I did while giving speeches that I was counted off for. For one do not be monotonous. If you feel yourself being repetitive it is probably best to move onto the next point. Always try and get as close to 7 minutes as possible, but if you have gone over all your points 5 or 6 minutes in then I will grade you better for wrapping it up then rather than being a scratched record player for the rest of the speech.

Persuasive: allow your opinion to control your debate and try to persuade me of your side of the argument. Stats and quotes are great tools to use and absolutely necessary but do not let them be filler for your speech.

Informative: Do your best to inform me of the topic at hand, try your best to not offer your opinion on the topic or give any hints about where you might lie. Stats and quotes are absolutely necessary in your speech but do not use them as filler and make sure to connect points and offer own insight.

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

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 look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched 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.

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 on 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.

I am an assistant Debate Coach, and Debate I teacher, and have judged Individual Events/Speech judge for a year. I have judged each of the following types of individual events this year including OO, POI, HI, DI, Poetry, Informative, Domestic Extemp, International Extemp, and DUO.

I keep extensive typed notes during competitions to note:

Style

Fluency

Fluidity

Analysis

Information presented

Organization of thoughts and information

Speaking proficiency

Smooth and logical transitions

Correct use of binders or info boards

Eye contact

Body language

Poise

You have worked hard. Now is your time to shine.

Interp: I have been teaching speech for 8 years; and teaching, directing, and performing theatre for over 40 years. I know an engaging, well-rehearsed performance when I see it. I will give you the kind of quality feedback I give to my own Interp students.

I am looking for clear characterization(s) both physically and vocally. Establish setting with blocking and business. Pantomime should be realistic and establish object permanence.(ex: a glass of water must be picked up and put down while maintaining a consistent shape and size. Refrigerators don't move unless the character moves them as part of the performance.)

Every performance must tell a story. You must convey the who, what, when, where, and why. Emotion is borne out of action.

Drama is is not all screaming and crying. Pauses and soft spoken words can often covey far more than NOISE. Please, don't play the end of your piece at the beginning in terms of objectives and emotion.

Great acting may boost your rank, but I must understand what is happening and why. The performance must tell a story to receive a high rank in the round. Show that you have chosen material that is meaningful to you and with which you have a connection.

Humor arises from a character's total commitment to and belief in what they are doing and what is happening. Never TRY to be funny. It doesn't come off as humorous or believable. The absurdity of a situation should be evident to the audience, not the character. That's true comedy.

Most importantly, I want to be moved and entertained. Nothing is more thrilling than witnessing a great performance.

Please, let me know what time signals you prefer.

I truly appreciate all of the time and effort you put into preparing for these tournaments. Break a leg!

Debate: Please, make it clear to me what is happening. My audio processing issue makes it difficult to comprehend 350 wpm spreading. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow the round. I can't tell if you are making a good case or argument. I have judged too many debaters who have ignored this part of my paradigm, and I am left HOPING that I have chosen the winning side.

I am a 6th year coach who knows enough about LD, PF, and Congress to judge, but I am not a seasoned veteran. I teach speech and interp as well, so I KNOW about speaker points.

Simply because "everyone" in the debate world knows a term's meaning, doesn't mean your judge knows it. Ex: Flow that through to the neg/aff, structural violence, disad, block, kritik, voters, etc. (I know what these mean, but most lay judges do not).

I prefer to judge a debate that is won on your skills as a debater rather than running a theory shell. Show me what you know about DEBATE. I'm not a big fan of kritiks.

If you want to ensure a fair decision, you must give VOTERS. That helps me make sense of my flow.

Please speak slowly. Speed is okay but please slow down for important points.

Do not be unnecessarily aggressive, never be offensive, and avoid excessive gestures.

I cannot understand your speech without a clear structure. For me to comprehend your speech accurately, it is necessary to provide it with a clear and structured format.

Interpretive Events:

As a judge in interpretive events, I prioritize the connection between the performer and the material, the clarity of communication, and the emotional impact. I appreciate performers who bring creativity, authenticity, and a deep understanding of the text they are interpreting. I value creativity, but I also expect a clear interpretation that resonates with the audience. All speeches should adhere to event guidelines (time limit, specific rules, etc.). The big key points I look for are:

• Connection to the text and audience

• Emotional authenticity

• Clear and varied vocal and physical delivery

• Strong character portrayal and interpretation

• Thoughtful, creative use of the material

Speech Events:

In individual speech events, I value clarity, purpose, and authenticity. Every speech should have a clear thesis or central idea, a clear, logical structure, and a deeper than surface level analysis. Speeches should stay on topic. Each speech should feel like a conversation, not a performance. I am looking for competitors who engage me with well-structured content, compelling delivery, and a position that is clear and backed with thoroughly explained information. I am looking for understanding of the topic. All speeches should adhere to event guidelines (time limit, specific rules, etc.). A summary of the big main points are:

• Clear and well-structured content that is easy to follow.

• Effective delivery with vocal variety, purposeful gestures, and strong eye contact.

• Engagement with the audience through connection and energy.

• Emotional and logical appeal that aligns with the goal of your speech.

• Creativity and originality in both content and delivery.

Please remember performance is subjective, so keep in mind that my feedback reflects my personal preferences and approach to interpreting the material.

Speech Events: I look for a clear preview of your main points of analysis, integration of multiple sources, effective use of gestures and a speech clear of fluency breaks. Nonverbal cues are important and help make your analysis more effective.

interp Events: Great performances will feature clean transitions between characters that have distinct voices for unique characters. I look for students/teams that are well prepared and jive well together. Your personal analysis in the teaser should be easily tied to your piece and a greater theme throughout.

Debate: In all forms of debate I look for a clear impact calculus that sets your impacts apart from your opponents. You are safe to speak at a brisk pace but if you spread I won't be able to keep up well. I'm not a great judge for theory debates, though I understand the basics of topicality. Try your best to persuade me and I will consider any argument.

LD Debate

Aff has the convince me to support the resolution. Neg has an obligation to provide clash, and if either fail in their respective roles, then the win falls to the one that does it correctly.

Presenting arguments/speeches should be in an easy, digestible way.

Congress

-The main thing I'm looking for as a judge is how much of an overall impact you're making throughout the round--actively listening is key. Are you bringing up new arguments/evidence or are you just repeating things that have already been said? Are you asking questions that continue to develop the debate through the different rhetorical appeals?

-Quality > Quantity

-The more you embrace the nature of the debate + the event overall, the better you'll do in my eyes.

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

Simply put, speak so that I may understand you clearly.

I competed in Speech & Debate from 2010-2013. I was a DI State Champion in 2013. I was a NSDA Poetry Finalist in 2013. I was also a UIL State Poetry Finalist in 2012 and 2013. I am also a OO Semifinalist at the Harvard National Speech & Debate Tournament.

I am a parent judge who competed in high school, mostly in Extemp and a category similar to Info called Sales (it's a Michigan thing).

Extemp - main goal is to answer the question. A logical argument with good supporting evidence goes a long way. Fluency, humor, and good use of time helps me break a tie.

Other IEs - bring your energy, I love good blocking and good cutting. For multiple characters - vocal variation is important if you want me to be able to distinguish between them.

My "1" will go to the one who is able to convince me the best that they are the character(s) they portray.

Good luck!

.

As a judge, my main objective is for you to deliver your best performance and enjoy the process. If you're not finding joy in it, then something's amiss. Remember to engage in respectful and effective communication with your peers.

In Speech/Interpretation:

1. I generally look for effective use of voice, tone, diction, eye contact, suitable gestures, and intentional movement.

2. I value believability and your ability to embody the characters.

3. I appreciate captivating teasers or attention grabbers – make me sit up and pay attention!

4. Your delivery should be clean and clear.

In Debate:

1. I expect a clear understanding of the resolutions being debated.

2. I discourage the practice of spreading.

3. Good use of credible evidence and sources is crucial.

4. Effective diction, tone, and appropriate gestures are important.

5. Always maintain a kind and respectful demeanor.

...