In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.

In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.

In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.

In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.

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.

Hello, I am a parent Judge, and I have some experience through judging congress. I value good speaking and clear argumentation. Most of all, respect your competitors and don’t be rude or aggressive.

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.

My paradigm is geared more towards national circuit style Public Forum, because that's what I'm judging most often. I have notes on other events towards the bottom, but everything in my paradigm generally applies to everything I judge.

--

General Information:

he/him

I am conflicted against the following schools: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI). I am separately conflicted against Jason Zhao from Strake Jesuit - he is a former Seven Lakes competitor.

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 now coach and judge every event throughout the season across tournaments that align with UIL, TFA, TOC and NSDA norms and expectations. I occasionally go back to NPDA, too. I have great respect for all formats and styles of speech and debate across the ideological and stylistic spectrum. I try to meet competitors where they are when I judge.

I spend more time every year in tab rooms and doing administrative work rather than judging and coaching. I stay as active as I can, but I can feel myself slowly becoming a dinosaur.

--

Email Chains:

Yes.

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.com.

Add one of the following emails to the chain if you're in an event where email chains are expected:

sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com -- PF

sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com -- LD

sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com -- Policy

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 AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/etc, that's also fine, just tell me when I get to the round.

--

How I decide rounds:

I am not ideologically opposed to any position you want to stake out, provided that you have a) put in work before the tournament to research your position and b) embrace clash with your opponents, regardless of what your position is.

I would prefer to judge a small but deep debate about the resolution or desirability of a topical plan.

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. There is no grace period of any length. 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. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". The sooner that you realize that they are two sides of the same coin, the faster you’ll get better at debate. Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed and technical skill. I have voted for patently false arguments before and no doubt will again. However, you will have a more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. Between two evenly matched teams on a technical level, I am far more likely to vote for the team that has done better research and has more “true” arguments than a team reading arguments that are poorly researched and constructed. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot, because debaters are more persuasive when they make good arguments.

I will not vote for arguments that I cannot explain back to both teams during my RFD – whether that be because a) they did not make sense when presented in the round, b) they were not clearly signposted or articulated by the team introducing that argument, or (often) c) both.

Most debate rounds are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, or a couple of sentences that one debater said. Spending more time identifying and comparing the most significant arguments in the debate will probably improve your odds of winning my ballot.

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. My speaker points are roughly normally distributed but slightly skewed left from that mean between 26 and 30.

Critical arguments:

Theoretically, 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.

Practically, however, especially in PF or LD, I often think these arguments struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of the short speech times of these events. If you don’t care much either way, I’d lean towards you picking strategies that lean more towards the policy than the K side of the spectrum, especially in PF or LD.

Additionally, I find that many teams (particularly in PF) choose to employ these strategies as an attempt to avoid clash or obfuscate the debate to the point of unintelligibility. These debaters generally rely on use of jargon and a pompous air of superiority rather than warrants and impacts to win the debate. I dislike this practice. If you cannot explain a link or how voting for you resolves the impact that you have identified, I'm not going to vote for you regardless of how strenuously you said "epistemology first" or "they drop that we're the root cause of violence" or "fiat isn't real" - these are claims, not complete arguments.

I am not a good judge for strategies that ignore the topic entirely. I am an even worse judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense, and a terrible judge for arguments that debate is unequivocally bad. I generally do not think that these strategies solve an impact or outweigh disadvantages to their method. 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:

It's boring.

I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad. Good is good enough - I don't want to hear disclosure theory if your opponents forgot to disclose last round after disclosing the past 60 in a row. Similarly, I don't want to hear paraphrasing theory or a "clipping IVI" if your opponents miss a sentence in the middle of a card. Presume that your opponents are operating in good faith and that we're all here to have a good time.

If you’re reading some kind of procedural that is specific to the current topic (e.g., Topicality, specification shells with carded evidence, etc.), I’ll probably be more interested in evaluating your position. In PF, zero teams have ever read such a position in front of me.

Here is a non-exhaustive 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 (defined as procedural arguments with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution), trigger warning/content 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, assuming the abuse story is as silly as I think many of them are.

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.

LD/Policy:

I don't judge these events as often as PF and I am very rarely in the judge pool at a TOC bid tournament in these events. Please don't read PF as "this man is an idiot". Everything from above applies. I am agnostic on almost all theoretical claims made in LD/CX rounds (e.g., 1AR theory in LD, conditionality, etc.). Frivolous theory and tricks are still silly.

You'll probably want to start and stay slower than the average national circuit judge. I need a little bit to get warmed up to your speed, and I'm out of practice enough that I probably can't get to your top speed. I won't look at the document to fill in my flow - only to evaluate disagreements over what evidence says that are initiated by the debaters in the round.

I'm going to be most comfortable in the back of a round where the aff reads a topical plan. I'm not ideologically against any style of debate, but I will have less experience evaluating these arguments in this context compared to somebody judging these events more frequently, which will likely harm the affirmative more than the negative in rounds where the aff does not defend the topic in a reasonably predictable way. Fine to vote on topicality, T-FW, or other similar positions.

I find rounds between two criticisms often difficult to resolve - isolating an impact external to your opponents' or explaining how you solve an impact(s) better than your opponents goes a long way.

Read good evidence. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. Read more parts of good evidence rather than blips of lots of bad evidence. The more specific you are when warranting arguments and doing impact calculus, the more likely I am to vote for you.

I generally think about debates in terms of which side solves the most significant impact - so when making a decision, I start on the impact/weighing/framework level of the debate and generally work backwards from there.

Topicality is generally a question of limits/ground as an internal link to fairness and education.

The further you get from a clear in-round abuse story on theory, the less likely I am to vote on theory. This is especially true in LD.

Congress:

Actively participate and use good evidence to engage in the most clash that you possibly can. Where in the cycle you speak does not matter to me nearly as much as whether you advanced debate on the item on the floor - though, in my experience, most competitors in Congress are best at giving speeches that are earlier rather than later, because most competitors seem more uncomfortable or less skilled engaging in direct refutation during the round and grouping arguments later on in the debate. The PO will start as my 5 and go up or down depending on how effectively they facilitate debate and how good or bad debaters in the chamber are. Competitors that ask more questions tend to be more engaged in the debate, and therefore are more likely to rank well (though pure quantity of questions asked does not matter to me). Compared to other judges, prioritize content over delivery, though both matter.

Speech/Interp:

You do you. If you've put in a lot of work to get your piece ready for competition, you'll probably do well in front of me. I tend to look more at technical execution and how well-practiced you are rather than big picture things like how your piece made me feel. I come from a debate background, which means I'm less concerned in finding your truth, telling your story, or authenticity than I am excellent technical execution, especially compared to people who more regularly judge (and are more qualified to judge) these events or an average parent.

Extemp:

Everything above, but you really do need to answer the question that is written. You aren't giving a speech about the idea of the question, or the topic area of the question: you need to answer the question. I probably want you to give me more context around the question in the introduction compared to other judges, and each body point should link back to your thesis statement. Compared to other judges, prioritize content over delivery, though both matter.

Other/Misc:

I am Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota with Christian Vasquez, Assistant Director at the Blake School. If you do high school PF and you want to come to PFBC, let me know. Last year, we were able to offer ~$50,000 in financial assistance to make sure that everyone that wanted to attend PFBC could.

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 strongly believe that every debater and coach is partially a product of their environment. If you're at the bottom of this paradigm, please make sure that you take some time to express gratitude to anybody who has shaped your career.