I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

Experience: I am a parent judge

Debate/Speech: I primarily focus on how much research you've done and your delivery. You need to have two key communication principles to rank high for me - good verbal and non-verbal communication. If you don't get to the point, your speech lacks anything relevant, or you're just repeating information to fill the time, you won't rank high. I am not a fan of speakers lacking research and knowledge about the topic they're debating. You have to know what you are talking about. I'm looking for more than just surface knowledge about a topic.

General:

If y'all have any specific questions about what I prefer feel free to ask prior to the round and I am more than willing to help out

I will absolutely kill your speaker points if you are a jerk to your competitors, you may still win the ballot but I will give you extremely low speaker points. This is a HIGH SCHOOL debate, while you shouldn't blow this off, it's not serious enough for you guys to act like jerks because you are losing the ballot. With that in mind remember to have fun, y'all are wayyyy too young to take this super seriously and forget to have fun.

Don't make offensive arguments (i.e. racism/sexism is good). In that same vein, don't fake offense to an inoffensive arg for the sole purpose of winning a ballot. Finally, don't lie about your evidence I will look and vote you down because of cheating.

Fine with Spreading just make sure that you slow down for taglines and explain your cards/args. I would prefer to not have to write my flows from a written version of your case due to speed, but I will if need be. If your opponents ask for a document/card, give it to them I truly couldn't care less how fast you are going, they may need it for personal reasons. As a general rule, I don't flow cross-examination periods, if you want an arg from CX to be flowed make it during a speech otherwise it's a drop.

I did two years of policy and two years of LD in a traditional circuit, (as well as four years in Congress and four years in Extemp) but I'm an open-minded judge about arguments just ensure that you aren't physically painful to hear (i.e. squirrely args)

Policy Debate:

Overall I am a mix between a stock issues and policy maker judge

I'm fine with progressive arguments just make sure that you understand your argument well enough to be able to explain it to me and your opponent. I don't sit around all day reading critical theory and you will not win if I don't understand your argument, so slow down and ensure that you can explain your argument to me and your opponent. It is cheap to try to win solely by confusing your opponent, if I feel like that is what you are doing you will likely not win the ballot.

I'm fine with new in the two (and will likely not buy an argument that it's abusive to the Aff because yall are wasting your time by running theory instead of actually answering the args)

Love Clash, Love unique args, love smart and creative argument, love impact cal, and I'm down for most args (except for offensive ones obvi).

LD:

Love a good Value/Criterion debate and would prefer if you didn't just agree to a single V/C at the beginning of the debate unless it's obviously the same. I truly love Clash in LD

I don't really want to listen to a one vs. one policy round but once again if that's what you have prepared go for it.

LD (in my opinion) focuses on speaking ability more than policy/PF so I would prefer less spreading in LD (once again I'm pretty open-minded as long as you have a good reason to spread)

In terms of progressive arguments please see Policy Paradigms

Public Forum:

Look to Policy Paradigms and feel free to ask specific questions

Extemp:

I evaluate rounds based on three things in the following order for priority:

1. Structure- Please please please have at least a basic structure to your speech; if I cannot follow your speech I cannot give feedback or evaluate your speech. But in more competitive tournaments/rounds substructure and micro/macrostructure are important and will be rewarded.
2. Speaking- This is a speaking event primarily and I will judge accordingly. Make sure you are confident and have your own style. You should seem confident and your mood should convey the subject of the speech. Just be a good speaker. Minimal fluency issues (filler words, stumbles, speech breaks) will be understood as the nature of limited prep, but after multiple or if it’s obsessive or distracting I will dock you. Variety is also important
3. Analysis- This more important in competitive rooms. Source quality, content depth of analysis will be rewarded and will make you stand out in a room where everyone is a good speaker with structure.

Other than that just make sure you answer the question. I love this event and can’t wait to see your speech.

Congress:

For congress I don’t necessarily prioritize certain things I just compile them for my ranks:

Content: strong and unique args are valued. Your speech should have powerful rhetoric that engages me and convinces me you are the best speaker on your side and in the round.

Speaking: Similar to my extemp paradigm. Confidence, style, mood with minimal fluency issues will put you in a good spot. Your speech should be extemporaneous, please don’t read me a canned speech off of a paper. You are a congressperson, so act like one and not a debate kid. Your speech should be accessible to a layperson. I know minimal debate lingo, so don’t tell me about link/impact turns.

Clash: Overall the round should be an actual debate, so please further your side and address the other Rep’s args. Please know when to give your speech, round vision is super important. Early round- speech should be polished with strong args with beginning clash. Mid round- Deeper refutation, expanding on arguments, furthering debate, and offering new more unique args. Late round- crystallize and weigh. tell me why I am voting on your side and which arguments matter and have held up throughout the debate.

FOR POs : Have good chamber presence. I personally won’t keep up with recency and precedence, but I will read the room and check point of orders and with the parli. Make sure to minimize mistakes while also being as fast as possible. If you do this you will PROBABLY (not always) be ranked.

Interp:

Best speaker/performer(s) win. Make sure you have dynamic blocking and acting vocally, physically, and facially. Your performance should be genuine and believable. Other than that wow me with your performance.

Platform speech:

To be honest I’m less experienced with OO and INFO, but I will judge similarly to extemp, but your speech should be more entertaining and polished than extemp. Please be creative with your topic and what you say. Inform or persuade while also entertaining and telling your story.

Debate events:

I am genuinely sorry if I am your CX/LD/PF judge because I am lay, so explain it in simpler terms. Write my RFD for me using simpler debate lingo. DO NOT SPREAD, if I do not understand you minimum speaks and you will usually lose.

Be respectful of your opponents and your opponent's arguments. Clash. Impact your arguments out.

This is your round, I'm not here to impose my opinions, and beliefs onto your round. I strive to be a blank slate for your arguments. Keeping that in mind, your words have meaning. I will hold you accountable for problematic arguments.

• I believe content is the heart of any speech, and its potency lies in its ability to inform, inspire, and engage. From captivating anecdotes to thought-provoking statistics, every element should serve a purpose in driving the narrative forward. As an Extemporaneous Speaker, competitors should be able to enforce their content with valid and timely sources. These sources must be part of the presentation.

• Delivery is the vessel through which content is conveyed, and its impact cannot be overstated. From vocal modulation to body language, mastering delivery techniques is essential for commanding attention and conveying confidence. By practicing articulation, pacing, and posture, we elevate our presence in the room we leave a mark on listeners.

• Authenticity is the cornerstone of effective communication. Audiences can sense sincerity from a mile away, and it is our genuine passion and conviction that truly connect us with them. By embracing vulnerability, sharing personal insights, and speaking from the heart, we forge authentic connections that transcend the boundaries of rhetoric.

Hi,

My name is Clay Parker, I did Speech for four years n the Dallas, TX area. I now compete for the University of Texas at Austin and help coach for NSU in Florida. For all intents and purposes, treat me as a lay judge. I have been around debate through my almost eight years but rarely competed within it.

Email: clayparker@utexas.edu

Judging Philosophy:

- I won't look at a card unless you tell me to do so!

- Impact calc is the easiest way to win and the most important part of PF. Just please explain your impact clearly with a fully supported link chain to it and weigh and you will the round. I expect clear weighing in the round and it is beneficial for y'all to do so, if you don't weigh I may default to my own mechanisms and you may not like that. ---> your final focus should just write my ballot for me

- summary and final focus should mirror each other ALWAYS. Please don't make me play a game of I SPY on the ballot, it will much easier for you to win if you as a team know exactly what you are going for and mirror each other

- I would really prefer clear full extensions. I don't simply want just "extend Jones 12" because that doesn't really tell me much. Instead, extend Jones, the warrant, and any necessary offense from it. Explain to me why Jones is important.

- warranted responses >>> blippy card dumps

*I am not super versed in progressive debate like Ks you can run them but I may need a lil while to comprehend the argument. I am not a super big fan of theory (disclosure specifically), I have a very high threshold for it, so if you go for it make sure you are right.

do people even read these anymore ?

Former Argyle HS debater

UTA CAP (mav up)

i prefer speech drop

gcparris10@gmail.com

he/him

if you talk to me about basketball we will get along

Update after Coppell (10/6):

For 3NRS: Do NOT post-round me. If you are going to be anything but respectful to me, I am going to ask you to leave the room. There is a difference between asking genuine questions and aggressively asserting to me (through the thinly veiled guise of "asking questions") about why you should've won the round. I am by no means saying I don't make mistakes, but simply that a 3NR wastes your and my time, because the decision was finalized prior to me delivering the RFD. Doing this will only further validate in my mind that I made the right decision at the end of the round. I debated for four years across multiple circuits, I know that losing sucks, but part of being a good debater is handling losses well and implementing strategic changes to the way you debate so you never lose another ballot in the same way. I do not care who/where you've debated, been coached by, or how right you think you are, this practice is unprofessional and unacceptable in the debate space.

CX Paradigm:

TLDR:

Be respectful to yourself and others.

I will evaluate any argument as you present it to me, do what you do best and make your path to the ballot clear/explain the paradigmatic lens through which I'm casting my vote. I'm a tab judge and default to tech over truth in evaluation, I also default to policy making if not given an alternative way to vote.

I debated for a while in high school (UIL, TFA, NSDA) and I'm familiar with most arguments, just be sure to explain any obscure/high-level theory arguments well. I am a flow judge first and foremost (voting based on offense/defense) and the best way to get my ballot is by concisely explaining what you're winning on the flow and why that wins you the round.

Speed is fine and I would prefer you to not read the stock issues version of the 1AC in front of me. Spreading is fine (assuming you can articulate the words you're saying), just signpost clearly and articulate author names/dates. I prefer analytics sent in the doc.

I won't tolerate any form of rudeness, racism, homophobia, sexism, ableist rhetoric, etc. (L=25)

Topicality: I love T and am totally cool with teams running it, even as a time-suck. I default to competing interps! The threshold for me to vote on it is high, as I need you to articulate why the 1AC is unfair/quantify how the ground you're losing as the neg is crucial to a fair round. If the extensions are blippy or not as in-depth as they should be to go for it in the 2NR, I will have a harder time voting on it.

Theory: I'm cool with theory and find in-round-abuse impacts to be the most compelling (I'll vote for potential abuse impacts or other impacts also though). I prefer theory to be centered around what happens inside the round, but I will fairly evaluate things like disclosure. Theory shouldn't be used as a tactic to get an advantage on less experienced teams who you think don't know how to answer it. I'll vote on evidence ethics/card cutting/highlighting theory---these were annoying things when I debated.

Disads: I love disads and I'm super cool with them. On the uniqueness debate, I prefer warrant analysis over the date on the card (although I suggest you have uniqueness evidence that is as up-to-date as you can get). The more specific the link the better, and I/L analysis is always appreciated. On the aff I love a strategic link-turn or good no-link arguments, and I really appreciate good internal-link takeouts.

Counterplans: I love a good counterplan and the more specific it is to the 1AC the better. I will default to voting off of the net benefit (which should be clearly articulated) but I'll vote on sufficiency framing if instructed to. For the aff please debate perms clearly and explain any theory you run on the flow in-depth if you want me to vote on it.

Kritiks: You can run Ks in front of me. I like them, have read them, and I will vote on them. What I don't like is when teams that run Ks do so in an attempt to get an advantage over another team---the literature you use should be a tool for education, not confusion. If you're reading high-level theory please clearly articulate the thesis of the K. (I'm mostly familiar with Cap and Set. Col. but I've seen all sorts of args in my time debating).

K-Affs: I'm cool with K-Affs, just make sure you are clearly explaining what framework to view the round through and be concise on why this is the best metric for debate. This is admittedly not my most knowledgeable area of debate.

Framing: I like framing and will default to Util unless told otherwise. I love soft left/structural violence framing and am well-versed in slow violence literature. Please explain WHY your framing should be preferred over the other team's to win the round/outweigh their impacts.

AFF Notes: I prefer extensions/overviews of the case in every speech. A good 1AR is one that goes for the most strategic arguments to win the round, and creates the crucial winning distinctions to me that are extended in the 2AR. I love judge instruction and ask that you tell me what to flow where, etc. You are fine to kick the aff/advantages, but this should have a meaningful strategic implication in the round.

Neg Notes: Don't read brand-new arguments in the 2NC. You are more than welcome to expand on existing arguments through reading new evidence and I will flow whatever you read and vote on it, but the Aff will have an easy time persuading me on why these arguments shouldn't apply/don't matter as much. You are more than welcome to read corroborating evidence for your arguments, and brand new links/args will be flowed, albeit begrudgingly. I encourage debaters to debate in the style they feel most comfortable, but I am not the judge to read ridiculous amounts of offcase positions to. I think I tend to sympathize with condo as the Aff easily, and I find consolidating down to a few key positions and debating those in a way that is in-depth to be a much more compelling judge position. This doesn't mean you should throw away your neg strat, just maybe don't run 13 off----I will flow everything but this opens you to a very real possibility of losing on conditionality.

You are more than welcome to ask me any clarification questions before the round!

MISC:

****I will have limited knowledge of the topic, so please clarify any acronyms for the sake of the round.

Be nice to novice teams---they are literally the future of the event.

CX is supposed to be fun, so I always appreciate teams that are clearly having a good time/making it feel like they want to be there (this will reflect in your speaks!)

UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.

CX: I'm a policy maker judge. I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (Anna.rhea@kempisd.org), but I prefer Speechdrop. I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must. I DO NOT vote on CX. That is for you to get an advantage on your opponent through inquiry.

experinece: past debater mostly focused in LD and PF

congress: simple respectful debate. In congress you should be able to say your point without talking over, or dominating the question. Questions must be short and concise and not long drawn out sentences. Besides that I'm a rather simple judge in the grand scheme of things.