*** IF YOU ARE AT STATE PLS SEND A DOC ***

"Win a no win situation by rewriting the rules” - Harvey Specter

For questions and email chains --asad.ahmed0987@gmail.com

About me: I did LD and graduated in 2019, TFA qualled, and coached a few people as well

Debate

First and foremost, debate on the circuit is a game - don't take anything personal

How to win a round

I'm tech over truth however, you still need to warrant out your arguments, this means explain it tell me why your argument is true.

Do not read a card that with a tagline that says "No nuclear war" then don't explain. I won't vote off it. Always explain the why to your card.

IE. AFF says econ collapse causes nuclear war. The neg should say "there won't be a nuclear war, mutually assured destruction protects war from happening."

After this weighing is your best bet to win that argument. "O/W on probability it won't happen." Guarantee you're winning if you do this

Speaks

Sit or stand, I could care less. This isn't a speech event. I believe speaks are based on strats, the arguments made, order of the R's, etc...

Post round

Feel free to do it but do not be rude. Take everything I say and use it as advice

Speed

I think debate has changed throughout the years where people don't use their critical thinking skills anymore and just docbot. I'm very decent with speed but no judge can flow your top speed without sending the doc.

Argumentation

First and foremost I can and have judged everything

I prefer a very good KvT or KvK debate however that's just my preference

(1)Identity K's

-I'm familiar with most common lit (fem, ableism, afropess, queer, etc...) however you still have to do the work!

- My specialization was in Islamo so running non T was my go-to strat

(1)T/Theory

- I don't default to anything, it's your job to tell me what to do in the round

- The best shell debates I've seen are the ones where you go LBL

- 1AR restarts? do it. It's the best strat for negs with 3+ offs.

(2/3)POMO

- Not a fan of judging it but judged a lot of it recently

- Specialized in haunto but must do a lot of work for me depending on the author (familiar with common lit like Foucault, Baudrillard, etc...)

(1)LARP

- Every judge should be able to judge larp it's just.... boring

(5/strike)Phil/Trix

- I can judge trix however I don't believe that's debate at all. It just means you're looking for an easy win. I'll still flow it and put it in consideration but my threshold for trix is super low and it'll tank your speaks

I will judge you how I want to, you will play by my rules buster. Period. If you are in Congress, when passing a bill you need to say the line “Pass this legislation for two reasons” if you’re neg, say “Fail this bill, for 2 reasons”, if you say anything else I WILL DOWN YOU. Speak clearly and confidently, if you’re quiet and timid and submissive that does not bode well in my rounds. If you’re in OO you should be funny, if you have a bad joke I WILL down you. However, you need to also be able to convey how your topic is an issue

Hi! I'm Poojita, I've competed in debate for about 5 years in a wide range of events. I have qualified for TFA State all 4 of my high school years and have qualified for NSDA Nationals twice.

Feel free to ask me specific questions before the round! Good Luck and make every round your best round!

LD/PF: I expect you to keep your own time, however I will do so as well. I'm can handle spreading, but I would prefer not to see it, especially in rebuttals. If framework is introduced to the round, I prefer to see arguments link to the framework. Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. I will vote for competitors who weigh impacts. Give me an off-the-clock roadmap before going into a speech. Nontraditional arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. I prefer line by line rebuttal. I expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. Be respectful, especially during CX: don't cut each other off, but if they are droning on for too long, you can intervene.

SPEECH: I'm looking for clarity, confidence and unique thoughts. I expect fluency and a fully memorized speech(OO/INFO). Present what you have as if it's your first time saying it - if you're enjoying it, the audience will enjoy it.

I will time you, however, I will not provide time signals unless asked. I rank based off of confidence, cadence and your passion regarding the topic...humor definitely helps too. Fluency, hand signals, eye contact, etc should all be present throughout. Every movement should be purposeful and meaningful.

For EXTEMP, I usually look for around 4-7 pieces of evidence. More is always good, less is not so much.

INTERP: Everything applicable from speech, but also, I want inflections in your tone and I want to see you immerse yourself in your characters. Make sure they are distinguishable.

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.

CX:

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.gov. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

Congress:

For Student Congress, I look for speaking skills, clash, and depth of information. I prefer unique arguments and reference to other speakers rather than heavy technical speeches; although, I do appreciate weighing arguments because I am a CX judge. I will rank P.O.s accordingly. I feel like the P.O. deserves a high rank as long as he or she does not make any (or many) mistakes. I look for proper structure in sponsorship and first negative speeches. I prefer speeches with good rhetoric and effective presentation skills.

Hello,

As a general idea I am not a very strict judge. However, I do have a few preferences.

• In your speech, I prefer clear concise structure and ideas.
• Good conclusions in any event are a big win for me because of the importance of wrapping your piece.
• I would like to see everyone make the most of your allotted time.
• I am very passionate about having respect and kindness to your peers and the judges.

Have Fun!

Main Points/Voters:

- My background is primarily in extemperaneous speaking, so presentation and analysis are extremely important to me. While I value strong statistics and logos in all events, they're worthless if not properly contextualized and argued, especially in WSD.

- I'm not super strict with the flow; Just because someone doesn't directly address a specific point in a speech doesn't mean they entirely concede it in my mind, especially if the primary purpose of the speech is to construct. Of course this has limits within reason, but I think it's a waste of time for a debate to become each side trying to persuade me that their opponent 'dropped this and that' rather than just continuing the argumentation. If you think this is important, say it and move on to arguments of substance to the debate, rather than the meta of it.

- Similar to the last point, I prefer a contention-based debate to a definitional and value-based debate. If each side has basically the same definition/value, we don't need to waste time on it. But, if it's considered important to contrast with your opponent, it can of course be of value.

Minor Points/Semantics:

- I don't need reminders every speech saying, 'This is why you have no choice but to vote for the affirmation, judge.' I'll vote for you if I want to, and constant reminders how I will absolutely obviously vote for you just make me roll my eyes.

-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, unless they are similar.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.

Ultimately, the most important thing to know about my judging is that debate is a communication event. If you are not communicating effectively, you cannot win the round. If you are going to speak fast, you have to speak clearly. Do not spread. I do not want to be included on a doc chain. If I cannot follow your case/what you are saying without reading along with you, you are not communicating.

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 3-5 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.

Email chain/questions: tcrivella@me.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

__________________________________________________

I'm Tyler Crivella, current freshman at UTD and former Seven Lakes High School ('24) competitor. I have competed in every event NSDA offers except POI and DUO. Currently coaching and judging mainly national circuit debate tournaments.

Loud sounds, eating, chewing gum, sniffling, gaveling, and other sounds will down you. I have hearing disabilities and your articulation and reasonable (but not overbearing) projection are crucial to my participation. If I put headphones on, do not adjust to speak louder, it means you are too loud and you should likely adjust.

__________________________________________________

Debate:

TLDR: You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me. Be kind.

On logistics, you should do the following: respect tab pronouns, show up on time, don't paraphrase, and send speech docs quickly after prep time stopping. Email chain, please. Flip and send a test for the email chain to both emails by posted round time, with or without me in the room. I always prefer docx > paste in email > pdf > Google Doc. If you do Google Doc, you better pray I don't catch you live adding new cards.

On speed, I can handle speed in person, but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Do articulation warm-ups before round because I need to actually hear letters—PFers can suck at enunciation sometimes.

On general thoughts,I will time speeches with an alarm and stop flowing the second it starts ringing. You don't have grace time in debate. Stop talking please. Stealing prep is bad. Knocking when speech time ends is bad. I will keep time and down speaks if your opponents are over/stealing so you don’t need to get mean in round if it’s happening. I evaluate the round based on only arguments in the round. Cards with one word are not cards. The warrant debate is something that I value more than most judges; still impact weigh but don't drop your delinks in the back half. I'm more than happy to vote for a K if the link is clear. You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me. Warrant your extensions/turns/voters in back half because I will not vote just off a card saying it happens. Also, pet peeve: don't tell me you're "going to get to something" ever. That wastes time and ruins my flow; applies to CX or speeches.

On speaker points, I care about the technical moves in round rather than your "vibes" unless those vibes are trash. This looks like making the right collapse, answering all the offense, not reading red cards or needing to recut the constructive, not speaking over time, etc. About 10% of the rounds I judge end in me giving a sub-26.5 because of truly terrible aggression in CX. That's a bad trend and you should be conscious of that in your round.

PF: I am more than happy to vote off of theory arguments or Ks-- you obviously must win them but I can and have voted for them. I can handle speed but good lord do PF'ers absolutely suck at spreading, if you can even call it that. If you spread and your articulation is bad or you blippily read two words off a card, I probably won’t flow it and it’ll have been a loss of your time. Probably not flowing the doc so you should do some drills before round. I understand that you might be tired after all these rounds, but I am really a fan of dedication/enthusiasm. I know this is PF but you need to cite a warrant on your offense if you want it to be a voter in back half of the round. On this, extensions need to happen in the back half if you want to get my ballot. Obviously, please weigh. I will only use the metrics provided in the round and use as minimal judge intervention as possible. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.

CX: I try to be Tabula Rasa. Cool with Ks and T, but I don't have a very familiar understanding of a lot of the niche literature. If you cannot explain the K in plain English in cross, I'll likely drop that sheet of paper direct to the bin and bump your speaks down too. I think Ks are super fun but newer teams need to be given a chance at beating them—empathy and respect over aggression in CX goes a long way. Check hearing disabilities above if you’re thinking about a performance shell. I can handle speed but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.

For negative teams, I feel most comfortable voting in this order (DA, K, Case > CP > T), but believe that you should run the offs that work best for the round. Strategically, all are important. I feel that negative teams drop case too often and willingly.

LD:I honestly don't have a ton of LD experience. I did a few rounds as a novice, but the event is obviously deeper than that. I'll likely evaluate the round like a policy round but with a framing debate. Consider reading my above paradigms.

Congress:

Generally, I have very mixed opinions on this event. I did this event for about a year and a half and ended it by giving an equity speech complaining about accessibility at TFA Finals--Congress has not improved much since that speech. I generally care more about contributions to "the flow," structure of speeches, and procedure more than the average judge. If you are reading this, you're likely the type of debater that will do better in my rounds.

Also, evidence is not something that you simply can fabricate in my rounds. I might call for a card; I might down you if you make up a statistic; I might take an evidence concern to tabroom. At locals, I probably won't look favorably on a student-led evidence challenge, but at a national circuit or final at a regional tournament, I may feel inclined to hear an evidence protest. Here's the link to the rules on evidence and procedure from the Harvard tournament, which I see as a generally good Congress tournament. Follow the process present and share with my email at the top of paradigm. Again, though, this generally does not go well and should not be seen as a means to climb the ranks but rather a means to check unfair ethics.

Speaking: I prefer two point speeches but I can ride with one argument speeches too. Refutation is a must if you are not giving the first three speeches and even those one should have some. Questioning is not a screaming match. More speeches ≠ better speaker. The "PO" and "two speech" meta is bad. I would rather the round hit four bills with good, short, and dense debate than a prolonged, dead round after twelve speeches on each bill. AGDs, fluency, stance, and general speech skills do actually matter; it's not just the flow. Amendments are a dead medium that should make a resurgence. Bryce Piotrowski is a mentor that has a lot of ideas on this event that I agree with.

PO:If you PO, do not expect a free break. In a round of great speakers, you will be ranked under them even with perfect PO'ing. Do not gavel as PO or I will straight up kick you out of the room. Use the end of the stick, use hand signals, knock, get creative and be consistent. POs should run the room: asking for splits if needed, moving things along rather than a representative.

Worlds:

This event is a little goofy and we both know it. As a judge, I am presented a rubric that gives equal points style as content. This allows some teams to hypothetically win despite losing on the flow. Though I feel that this system is a bit weird, I recognize its usage and why it exists (stop spreading) and want to respect the event; thus, if presented a rubric on my ballot, I will be using it exclusively to evaluate the round. If not, look to my debate paradigm; otherwise, read on to see how that rubric will be graded. I usually evaluate style and content relative to their closest immediate counterpart from the other side (1st PROP Speaker against 1st OPP Speaker) with strategy being pretty solely based on POIs. Here's a more detailed breakdown of what I am looking for with each point:

Style:I handle this like a competitive one-on-one platform speech against each relative counterpart. I generally note things from this laundry list only when they are particularly well executed or harmful to the speech: projection/volume (see top of paradigm), structure, speed of delivery, respectful attitude, fluency, hand gestures, control of POI taking, eye contact. The order of that list reflects my order of importance.

Content:This usually simply equates to who best moves the round forward on the flow. 1st Speakers should introduce around two substantives that have distinct, non-repeating ideas and logical warrants for those points. This role often leads to a detatched late-round presence, which I will discourage with low strategy points. You are still in this round after your speech. 2nd Speakers should do a ton of new refutation with minimal reference to prior ideas and expand the round. This role requires a very clear structure while not directly becoming repetitive. 3rd Speakers should add a newlayer of refutation and start to collapse the round down. I feel particularly that 3rd Speakers tend to not contribute to the round as much as they should. In general, new ideas/warrants that shape the round (meaning that they make sense on a quality level) will be rewarded.

Strategy:Most tournaments let me give a 13, 14, or 15. You start at a 13. If you give a good POI and attempt about three times, you will move to a 14. If you give two excellent POIs or three good POIs and attempt about six times in the round, you will move to a 15. Excessive POIs (once every 30 seconds is the absolute limit--err on the side of caution if I start giving you looks), attempting during protected, and long-winded POIs (anything over 15 seconds will start to drag on) will result in a slide back down.

Extra:If you knock a lot and I give you glances, that's not a good sign...

Speech:

Don't adapt your speech for me unless it's a concern of volume/sounds, in which case that is existential to your placement. I will do time signals and if I mess them up, you will not receive any retribution or penalty. I suggest you ask me about how time signals will be given and about how the structure of the round will go if you aren't sure. Be a good spectator; no phones and no leaving during speeches.

Extemp:This event is my baby and I love it. Please don't break that opinion. I have a modern view on how extemp should be run but still a pretty basic rubric in most rounds. For 90% of all speeches, I don’t think the question gets answered enough. I care more for answering it than giving me a good, narrative impact or something. Focus on that and you will do good. For higher level extemp, I prefer speeches to be both comedic and dramatic: doing both in a speech is a lot more skillful than just one. No layered analysis unless you really, really think it'll work. Priorities are as follows:

1. Answering the Question
2. Quality of the Points
3. Quality of Analysis (Including background)
4. Stucture and Fluency
5. Presentation
6. Number and Quality of Sources

My name is Senae Davidson, I participated in Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Poetry many years ago from 2002-2006. I have judged Debate/ Speaking Events/ IEs for the past 15 years.

I graduated from El Campo High School in 2006, Wharton County Junior College in 2009, and University of Houston-Victoria in 2012 (BS Psychology).

************************************************************************************************************

Overall Speaking:

I. Speed is not a problem when it comes to delivery (debate)

II. Eye contact is very important along with organization.

III. Please stand when you are speaking (in person events)

IV. Make sure that your organization is good and you follow your roadmap or outline presented in the speech.

V. Be respectful during all rounds- this is designed to be an educational experience. Rudeness will not be tolerated!

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I. I am a traditional LD Judge meaning I focus on the Value and Criterion that debaters use to weigh which side has proven or disproven the resolution based upon supporting evidence. For LD I prefer a philosophical standpoint in addition to other evidence. I am not a fan of Disadvantages, Counterplans, Kritiks, or Topicality in an LD Round! (However, I will not vote you down for these types of arguments) I would rather hear why your value/criterion is better than your opponents and applies to the resolution. Arguments need to be well-developed as well.

Cross Examination Debate:

I. I am STOCK Issues judge. I will not vote you down for other arguments if they are well-developed but they need to be in addition to arguments surrounding the STOCK issues.

Public Forum:

I. Make sure that your case solves and that you have well-developed arguments against your opponents

Congress:

I. See “Overall Speaking”

I typically do not disclose and will write all comments on the ballot, in the event we are on a panel and they choose to disclose- I will as well.

Extemporaneous Speaking:

I. Eye Contact is Important

II. Deliver an organized speech (Intro, 3 Main Ideas, Transitions, and a Conclusion)

III. Be sure to fully cite your evidence used in your speech! (There is not a set number that I prefer per main idea, however, make sure the evidence that you use strengthens/adds to your speech)

IV. Speak Clearly

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

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.

Interp: When judging interp, I want to ensure your story is easy to follow and that your characterization is distinct. Use tone variation and maintain a strong, audible volume so I can hear you clearly.

OO and Info: Your speech should be well-structured and logically organized. The use of credible sources is crucial for supporting your arguments.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Ensure your speech is well-structured, with clear points and credible sources to back them up.

My main concern is that you try your best and have fun!!!

Across all debate events, and all circuits, I am flow oriented. Meaning, competitors cannot spread past a certain speed or I will loose cards and arguments and that WILL inhibit my ability to judge the round efficiently and effectively for all parties involved, and very well could cost a team/competitor a round. Debate is about communication; therefore I should NOT have to work to understand you. Please keep this in mind when competing in front of me.

Timing: Yes I will be timing you. My time is official. No, you may not ask me to cease prep and then spend another few minutes "sending" the document. If you're not speaking, I am running your prep time unless you are actively getting yourself together to walk to the podium.

Policy: I am a stock issues and clash judge. I love DA's and topicalities. If you’re going to run a CP make sure it’s being done right. I will not vote on K's. If there is directly conflicting evidence or a specific card becomes a point of contention, I will ask to see the evidence.

LD: This is a value debate, that is what I will vote on. Give me the best defended and presented value while keeping in touch with clash.

WSD: I judge as close to how WSD was originally designed, in terms of I judge style and content. No spreading, remain cordial and respectful with your opponents and we'll all have a good time.

Thank You For Reading My Judge Paradigm!

In no particular order and where applicable, the following list outlines my key areas of observation and scoring during Speech and Individual Events:

• Clear and concise understanding of topic and ability to communicate your personal interpretation
• Use of voice, eyes, hands, space, body language and engagement with the judge and audience
• Follow program format where useful/required; introduction (opening), title with source(s), body and closing
• Use of blocking that enhances the program and communicates interpreted meaning
• Cite relevant sources throughout
• Clear, articulate and confident presentation of program
• Selection of a relevant and unique topic

I'm a parent judge with 3 years of experience

Please be clear and go slow, please explain exactly WHY I should vote for you and clearly explain your impacts.

I will vote for whoever's arguments I can best understand and are clearly explained.

I prefer people with confidence in their answers

Good Luck

I'm a parent judge with 3 years of experience

Please be clear and go slow, please explain exactly WHY I should vote for you and clearly explain your impacts.

I will vote for whoever's arguments I can best understand and are clearly explained.

I prefer people with confidence in their answers

Good Luck

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.

Hello,

I am a parent judge. I will evaluate:

1. Clarity in Speech: Please speak louder and slower than your usual conversation tempo.

2. A Strong Argument: Do you demonstrate knowledge of the topic? Is there enough logical support for your stance? What are your references or evidence? Do you present your case in a way that helps me understand your argument?

3. A Strong Refutation: Have you undermined each of your opponent's points?

4. Professional and Confident Demeanor: Please treat this time as you would a college admission or job interview. Your posture, body language, facial expression, and choice of words are important.

Thank you!

Mostly a speech 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. No spreading and no running disclosure theory, we’re trying to make this as fair and accessible as possible. I would consider myself a truth judge, please refrain from making wild claims. 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.

Please weigh (tf, magnitude, scope, reversibility, etc.)

I vote on the team who extends case (uq+link+impact)

has the cleanest case (little to no conceded responses on ur case)

and attacks the opponents case the best

Hi, I've done Speech and Debate for 4 years throughout high school. I have mainly competed in Congress and Extemp.

Congress

General Speech Requirements: I value argumentation over speaking (more like 60% argumentation and 40% speaking). I need sources in order to believe the point. Even if you have a good argument but no evidence, then I can't really rank you high because you got no proof to back it up. Arguments also should have a valid impact in the round. Don't make arguments that are really vague and out there. Also please add some humor if the topic allows it. Don't make it offensive to anyone or else you will get docked.

Author / Sponsor: A good author/sponsor is supposed to explain the legislation and set the foundations for the debate. The easier they explain the bill, the higher I will rank you (however don't speak without meaning). If there are no sponsors/authors, I will really like it if someone volunteers and will keep it in mind when ranking.

Round Integration: This is a debate event, so I better see some clashing in the round, even from the early speeches. If you're giving a late round speech but just rehashing (just saying the same thing that someone earlier has said), you won't rank very high. If you're giving early, you can mix clash and your argument.

PO: I appreciate a good and smooth PO. Normally I'll start you around the middle (4 or 5). I will keep in mind if you volunteer to be PO if there is no one in the chamber who wants to PO.

Questioning: Quality over Quantity. Don't ask questions for the sake of asking questions.

Extemp

Pretty much my congress ballot but I value speaking and argumentation equally. Humor is nice.

My name is CK or Chanakya Khanna.

Add me to email chain kchanakya13@gmail.com

I prefer speech drop

Don't call me judge, I'm not old. Call me CK

I have been debating for more than a year now and I have competed in PF, Extemp, Impromptu, and currently LD.

I'd love for you to say "its game over" in round for you opponent. Bring me a coke or spicy chips for 30 speaks!

!!!!SPEECH ALERT!!!!!!!-

I also judge speech, but I'm more of a debate person so yea.

ALL DEBATES-

-explain why dropped/conceded items are important (my opponent failed to respond _ arg proving why _ is true...)

-if new args are brought up (in last speech) just say so it won't offend me (points will be docked if a significant amount of new arguments are presented last speech)

LD

IMP- DONT DROP CONTENTIONSSSS OR IMPACTSSS

I need warranted responses

I am ok with spreading. If I can't understand you then you have a high chance to loose my ballot.ZERO JUDGE INTERVENTION

I need to know why your value/criteria is better than your opponents.

Although I do prefer a battle of frameworks, I would also like opponents to outweigh each other.-------------> Key to winning my ballot

FW debate is not a cop out for me so dont JUST focus on it. Focus on providing warranted responses to opps arguments.

For theory don't run some stupid shell ( font, shoes, comic sans, attire)

THE ONLY REASON TO RUN FONT IS IF YOU HAVE EYE PROBLEMS, tell me before hand so I don't down you cause I didn't know.

I believe Disclosure is good cause it levels out the debate for novices. The only argument I don't agree on is its not needed to disclose at a local or non TOC bid tourney.

There's people with hearing problems or an ability which causes them to blank out (ADHD) so disclosing is the best.

Make the argument standard---> Disclosure for debate for people with disabilities as standard= equality and you have a high chance for my ballot.

For disclosure, don't make an argument that you're a novice, especially if your doing varsity debate, their two different debates for a reason so js don't cause it make some a lil mad.

Even if your a novice run theory, its great for practice

I believe that even without a wiki disclosure can be ran but I think the best arg is----> with a wiki the Aff didn't disclose 30 min before round. SS their wiki and paste it and the email you sent and put on case.

Spreading Theory

Run it if your opponent didn't say or ask one word regarding spreading. Honestly if you spread without asking I'm gonna dock you(speaker points) regardless of theory or not cause its just mean and not fair.

What I'm comfy with: 1-5 ( 5 being the worst, 1 being my strong point)

Theory-1

K-2

Larp/Trad-1

Phil -4

Tricks- strike cause I want a fair debate and I hate them

PF

IMP- DONT DROP CONTENTIONSSSS OR IMPACTSSS

I need warranted responses

Need to provide sufficient evidence for all claims and outweighing is key to winning my ballot. Do not spread because this is a very statistical debate and it is important for me and your opponent to hear every part of your constructive speech etc.

Policy

I'ma be honest, I don't know much about this event but I will do my best to making a fair ballot and give good constructive feedback.

GOOD LUCK!!!!

Add me to the email chain: m9305311@gmail.com

I have past judging experience. treat me like a parent judge(i.e. go slow, don't use jargon, no prog args)

Debate: (LD, PF, WSD)

I am an engineer so logical arguments appeal to me.

if it doesn't make sense to me I will not evaluate it.

please be polite in crossfire(i.e. no cursing or homophobic or racist or ableist comments). I enjoy seeing argumentative clash in cross but keep it controlled.

Overall: just have fun. i will vote for the team that persuades me to.

Progressive args and Ks:

I am a parent judge. Please do not read any theory shells, kritiks, or progressive arguments. I will not evaluate them as I don't understand them. I prefer substance debates.

Speaks:

I typically give 28-29 if I think you speak well.

anything 25-26 means you said something offensive

rhetoric is good: will add speaks.

Speech/Interp:

rhetoric is good.

Speak clearly and with some emotion. monotone isn't very appealing.

that's pretty much it.

i will give you a ranking based on how well you perform and how well you express the nuance of a prose or poetry piece or inform me in your extemp speech.

Have fun guys.

Hello, my name is Jam Lopez. If you need to refer to me at all in the round, please just call me "judge" or if you must, refer to me by name, call me Ms. Lopez.

My background is in medicine and education so if there are any debates/topics about medicine and your arguments are inaccurate, I will know.

I have been judging for three years now. The last time I judge was at Nationals, I was able to choose the first place winners of Original Oratory and Duo.

For speech: Speak loud, clear, and at a casual talking pace. It is ultimately your decision if you decide to speak fast or slow, but note that I will be less likely to understand your arguments if you choose to speak fast.

Use layman's terms on me. I don't know any debate terms so explain to me what certain terms mean if it is necessary that you use specific debate terms.

This is my second year volunteering as a parent judge and I am humbled by your talents, your dedication, and your hard work in preparing for every tournament.

Debate: - Please speak a little slower than the radio announcer reading the disclaimer of an ad. I like being able to follow your contentions while I make notes for reference as it helps me frame and judge your arguments. - I expect every contention to have well-researched and data-supported evidence. I try to stay abreast of current events and issues and will verify your points if necessary. Unsupported or erroneous arguments do not work well for me. - Please ensure that you fully understand all technical terms and terminology you use in your speech. Please do not reference terms or points you cannot explain during cross. - I also expect you to pay attention to your opponent's arguments and ask intelligent and relevant questions during cross. I also would like you to treat your opponents with respect. Being too offensive or defensive towards your opponents during cross will be counted negatively.

Speech:

Extemp/Info/Oratory: - I listen to the news daily and am quite up-to-date with current events. Please make sure your arguments for your topic and sound and well-researched. I like statistics but only ones that you can source and support. - Be passionate and persuasive on your topic - educate me and win my vote for your argument. HI/DI/Prose/Poetry/POI/Duo/Duet - I welcome and embrace every topic you choose for your speech as they all tend to be subjects that are dear to you. Since you will have a deep emotional connection to your topic, I would like you to share that with me - be dramatic, be emotional, be bold. - I like speeches that are performed with every part of your body - voice variation, facial expression, body movement, dynamics, sound effects, and a lot of emotion. I want to be immersed in your world, your passion, your story. Don't read me a story, tell me a story. Your speech should educate me, make me laugh, make me cry, or make me angry. - I enjoy seeing your creativity and firmly believe that it is the key element to a passionate and moving speech. - I am neutral to trigger warnings. I appreciate that some topics contain sensitive content but I will not be offended if you don't tell me ahead of time.

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.

hola!!! :)

I currently do PF/LD and extemp :((( at SLHS

For email chains: courtney6129@gmail.com

I would say I evaluate rounds pretty similarly to Coach P :))))

Debate:

tech>truth

I understand prog/tech arguments but if your arguments are COMPLETELY improbable or just straight-up make no sense I'm probably not evaluating them.

I'm fine with spreading but please be clear. I flow.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!!!!!

Implicate so I know WHY I should care about what you're saying/the cards you're reading.

I love clash and when you're dominant in cx.

Speaker Points:

I start in the 28.5 range and as long as you weigh and implicate well you will get high speaks.

Speech:

I honestly don't know much about speech events...I rank mostly on speaking ability and entertainment but pls don't lie abt sources during extemp(if you're going to at least lie well) :))))

Hey all!

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging world schools debate, however I do understand the basic structure of world schools. All I ask is that you break down the motions to a level where I can understand, and speak at a conversational speed.

Good luck yall!

Debate Paradigm

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. You can spread if you please but don't if you cannot properly.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

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

I am a parent judge. Please speak/debate accordingly. 

Speech-

Enunciate and speak at a moderate pace so I can understand you.

Debate-

Please don't yell at one another. 

Enunciate and speak at a moderate pace so I can understand you.

Pronouns He/Him/His

Boling High School 06/ West Texas A&M 10

LD debate

I am more traditional and believe in a strong Value and Criterion debate. I am not a fan of CP in LD but will use it as a voting issue if the AFF doesn't answer it strongly. Speed is not an issue but if I can't understand you then there is an issue. I love philosophy debate and appreciate a strong philosophy based case.

CX Debate

I have been judging CX debate since 2008. I am a policy maker judge. I believe that the affirmative has the burned of proof and the Neg has burden of clash. I do not like time suck arguments. If you are running topicality please make sure that it is warranted. I have no issues with speed but if your diction suffers because of speed i will not flow your speech and your arguments will not matter. I am ok with K, CP and DA. Make your impacts realistic.

Hey, I'm a sophmore at Rice, and I've done Speech and Debate all four years of high school, primarily competing in Congress, Worlds, PF, and Extemp. I've judged state finals for worlds in 2024.

Worlds for State -

1. Good Ideas - I care way more about the quality of arguements (in terms of how they are laid out, insightfulness, thoughtfulness, etc.) over technical debate skills. If for one speech, a team forgets to bring up something that's been mentioned the entire round, I won't count it as a drop. One really really compelling reason to believe in X is better than 5 really really bad refs on X, but don't straight up ignore "bad" refs/args.

2. Keep Arguments Grounded in Reality - Crazy implausible ideas will be immediately thrown out if the other team provides any intelligent response. If well defended, I will vote for moderate, but far more likely impacts over something like nuclear war.

3. Principle vs Practical - I know it's hard to know the difference sometimes, but I will be strict on what's truly a principle argument. I won't consider arguments you call principled if they aren't genuinely moral arguments.

4. Style - If you can start a speech with really cool/hard-hitting rhetoric, I'll give a bunch of points. The rest is pretty obvious.

5. I'll try to give verbal RFD.

Congress - Needs clash. I'll reward sponsorship speakers in rooms struggling to produce one.

Worlds - Should be grounded in reality. I won't consider arguments you call principled if they aren't genuinely moral arguments. You should understand the motion's wording and defend your take.

Other Debates - Signpost and impact weigh well. If you run a K or theory, it better be for a really good reason. (ex. your opponent punched you in the face before round started)

Speech - Make them interesting and have good analysis.

Interp - I'll be similar to a lay judge here. Entertainment and strongly argued thematic lessons will be considered.

2024-2025 Season

Howdy! I've been actively judging every year since I graduated in 2018, so this will be year 7 of judging for me.

PF/LD General:

- NO EMAIL CHAINS. If you ask me to be on the email chain, this indicates you have not read my paradigms.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to pre-flow or take forever to get set up, I WILL doc your speaks. Pre-flows, bathroom, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will usually use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to make sure you're not lying about how much time you have left. When someone asks for cards, please be quick about this because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

-I will not disclose. Info will be on the ballots.

-Please be respectful in round and have fun!

PF: Truth > Tech. I will vote for a more moral argument, I do not want to hear a lot cards being dumped throughout with "Judge vote us because of XYZ cards." Show me an argument that makes sense. Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and please no spreading. Moderate speed is fine, it's PF, not CX.

Treat me like I don't know anything about the topic, it's not rocket science.

LD: Traditional debate is what I would like you to do. Conceding framework throws away essentially the validity of LD debate. Framework is what I value the most in a round, please uphold it throughout the round. Spreading is not allowed, moderate speed is fine. Do not ask me about K's, Tricks, etc. I'm trying my hardest to figure it out like y'all are in round.

Congress: If you author or sponsor, please EXPLAIN the bill and set a good foundation. For later speeches, I don't want to hear the same argument in different fancy words. Be unique and CLASH is NOT OPTIONAL throughout cycles.

PO's: If there is no one who can PO and you know how to, please step up. I used to PO so don't worry. If there's no one who can PO, don't be afraid to step up and try, I'll take that into consideration when I do ballots.

Remember this is DEBATE, not repetition. I don’t wanna hear the same thing for 5-6 speeches straight.

I’m a junior from Jordan High School and have been in Speech and Debate for 2 years now. I mainly do Congress, but also do Extempt on the side. I am an East Texas District Finalist.

I highly value good speaking and presentation skills. Have good volume, tone variation, and cadence to get a good rank from me. If you are too quiet and lack much passion don’t expect me to listen too attentively. Having a lasting and impactful “personality” throughout the round is something I really value. Be present, engaging, and vocal. I also want to be constantly engaged. If you can be entertaining and genuinely keep me engaged then you’ll get far. I am especially a sucker for humor and a fun AGD might all be what it takes for me to pay attention. Structure must be easy to understand. Signpost Signpost Signpost! If your speech is all over the place and inconsistent don’t expect me to try to understand.

A good way to get upped is to bring a new or unique argument. Repeating other speakers or refusing to do refutations will hurt you. Be an essential contribution to the round that no other speaker can. You won’t get points if you cannot add anything to the overall debate.

What I look for in the sponsor/author: You must completely cover the bill and explain the important sections that I need to understand the debate that comes. If I still don’t understand the bill after your speech consider your sponsorship/authorship a failure. In the end, it doesn’t matter how good your impacts are, if I don’t know what the bill means then every impact falls flat. Talk to us like we’ve never heard the bill and make sure you know the bill! If you get questioned on the bill and can’t answer it correctly then you’ll suffer.

What I look for in late-rounders: You’ll get my point if you can successfully turn main arguments to your side or if you can clarify a confusing debate (I love when you can do the latter). Also, remember to ref continuously. If you cannot do both of these then you won’t look well.

All in all, I cannot remember every single speaker and their speech. Make a good and significant speech to make me remember you’re presence and importance to the round and it will get you a good rank.

If you have any questions or remarks please email me at justinshin06@gmail.com

Congress:

Looking for speeches that have good fluency and arguments. Rhetoric is appreciated but mainly focused on impact and statistics/analytics.

Early speeches should be constructive and lay out the major topics/arguments that will be discussed throughout the debate.

(Sponsors/Authors): Should be explaining everything the legislation is doing and how the legislation will change the problem.

Later speeches should have A LOT of clash, not as focused on what the bill is doing as earlier speeches would already explain that. Looking for late speakers who can properly weigh other debater arguments as well.

if you have any questions email me: maxta5310333@gmail.com

LD:

I prefer debates that have framing, weighing/magnitude, timeframe/probability

Trad > Tech

Spreading consent: Don't spread

I highly value cross examination so I prefer you spend most of cross asking meaningful questions and not trying to evidence challenge

hi I'm Clara, currently a pfer at Seven Lakes

for Debate

- tech > truth

- I'm alright at speed, but probably don't spread, or send docs if you are and be clear

- pls collapse and weigh -- explain your arguments and why you're winning

- pls signpost and be organized

- if you're running prog pls explain it well or else I won't understand

speaks starts at 28.5 and go up/down

for Extemp/Speech

- I generally prefer content > presentation in events like extemp, OO, info

- for everything else just speak well, be entertaining, and have good vibes I guess (especially if it's one I've never heard of before...)

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

Bach Tran (he/him)--please call me Bach!

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 (at) gmail (dot) com

If I am judging you in PF please also add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27

1.5 years of HSLD, now (semi) coaching PF for Seven Lakes

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

tl;dr/read before round - scroll down for PF-specifics

Tech > Truth. I flow and the flow will dictate my ballot.I will vote on anything up to and including the Death K or "must read author quals" if won technically. A few caveats, though:

1) I will discard the flow if debater(s) insist the round must stop. If this happens I will do what the tabroom tells me to do. Of course, stopping the round because someone said a slur will yield drastically different outcomes than stopping the round because you feel upset about having to answer the K. I might invoke this on my own in egregious cases. Please be kind and a decent person.

2) Ad homs/character attacks are not arguments--out of round concerns about behaviour are for the tabroom and coaches to deal with, not me. I have neither the capacity nor the interest to referee interpersonal beef between minors that I myself cannot verify.

3) Only complete arguments count--claim+warrant(s)+impact/implication(s). My bar for a warrant is lower than most. For reference, "condo bad--time skew" is not an argument and neither is "conceded MAD checks--terminal defense."

4) New arguments in the 2ar/nr/backhalf are bad but you must call them out. The exception is of course the 2ar where I will try my best to protect the 2nr from nonsense (preemptive instructions from 2ns help a lot). All in all, ballot-instructive language in the rebuttals are great and decreases the probability of intervening.

5) CX is binding. Aside from maybe the granular details of your positions, cx and speeches should be consistent. Cowardice and dishonestly are bad and I will use speaker points to punish you.

6) Explain more if you don't read standard policy stuff. I have a tl;dr understanding of most things, but it's up to you to hash out the nitty-gritty details. This applies equally to things like postmodern Ks or dense CP competition debates.

Speaker points start at 28.8. Points go up if you are technically proficient, strategically courageous, and/or demonstrate excellent research practices. Likewise, points will go down if you decide to be unserious/a jerk. You are playing a dangerous game asking for a 30.

The 1AC should be read at the start time and shared before that. Dead time=less decision time=bad ballots.

Any questions just ask--I have way too many thoughts to put on here. My ballots tend to be shorter and the verbal longer - for this reason postrounds are highly encouraged. Do note that this is different than 3ars/nrs - these will be meet with boomer "go away" energy.

Evidence

- Speech docs/ev sharing is non-negotiable - I will not look at anything that is not a word/pdf document (verbatimzed word docs are preferred).

- Speed is fine, if you are clear. If you think I can flow round-decisive analytics in the rebuttals with at top card speed, you should strike me. I flow on paper without author names - pen time, numbering, signposting and referencing arguments/warrants are all musts.

- You can insert rehighlights up to the point of an objection, provided they are short and the implications explained. Obviously if you are recutting cards you need to read them out loud.

- I refrain from reading ev after round unless explicitly and instructively told to by teams. If I do, I will not bail out incoherent highlighting.

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

Policy: anything goes absent theory but no judgekick if not instructed to. 0% risk is possible. Please explain topic vocab/acronyms. In depth case debates and impact turns are my favorite. Not the best for dense competition debates. Condo is a voting issue, everything else is debatable.

Vague theory interps however are not persuasive to me - "cp results in the plan, voting issue" = just win the cp results in the plan (and if you can do that, why bother going for theory?). Stuff like "no international fiat" is fine though. Reject the team or the argument are both fine, just make the argument.

The K: you should explain & weigh what is offense/uniqueness/solvency under your framework. Framework/ROTB can be anything if you out-debate the other team. These things are done better via the line-by-line and not massive overviews. If you can't explain what the K means/what the alt does in plain English in less than a sentence or two in CX, your chances of getting my ballot are vanishingly small.

Theory/T: no defaults on paradigm issues (read them!) + slow down on analytic walls. Weighing between shells is really important.

I am very good for reasonability against nonsense. Please stop letting the trolls get away with murder.

It takes more than 5 seconds to explain why an IVI is "independent" and a "voting issue." Will not vote on these otherwise.

K Affs: the 1ac should probably defend a change from the squo. Debate is probably a game (plus probably a bunch of other things). Framework is fine, impact turns are fine, CIs also fine. Do whatever you want as long as you can justify your practice but please get off the blocks and interact with the other team (can't really vote for you if I don't know the part(s) of the 1ac that "fairness" is supposed to outweigh...)

Please hold my hands through a KvK debate (especially your vision of competition/perms). I prefer impact calc over "our theory over yours" and so forth, because the latter is almost never resolvable without intervention.

Phil: bad for the tricky variety but otherwise explain and we're all good.

Tricks: please don't - I won't hack but I just really don't like judging them. At the very least read complete arguments not the dumb stuff (looking at you, "no neg arguments"...).

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable. My views are really similar to that of Bryce Piotrowski.

Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing is bad and the chance I vote to the contrary is vanishingly small.

Please stop having prepositions as taglines. If "indeed" is all there is then I will, indeed, not flow the card.

Defense is not sticky - frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend whatever you want to go for in the back-half. The back-half should also collapse.

Link weighing is underrated and usually round winners

Weighing requires explaining scenarios and how the world works, not yeeting buzzwords at each other. The fact that you can win by reading nonsense and then screaming "try or die" for half an hour is ridiculous. Metaweighing/judge instruction on how to resolve different layers wins rounds.

I think K teams get more mileage if they go for (real) impact framing argument instead of yapping about such things as "pre-fiat" or "discourse." I will, of course, vote on them if you win them but that does not mean that they are, in fact, serious arguments.

I debated (mainly policy, after a very brief foray into LD) throughout high school, back in the debate dark ages. After a decades-long time away from the activity, I have more recently begun attending tournaments again, assisting my wife with coaching responsibilities and judging for her Houston-area school team. I've had many years to appreciate the skills that speech and debate helped me begin developing in high school, and the importance of seeing those skills develop drives my judging paradigm more than anything.

In short, I'm a traditional judge that considers debate to be a communication event above all else, with logical argumentation and researched evidence being a close second and third. I value clash, and I will always go back to my flow of the round to determine a winner in a close round. I don't mind hearing obscure contentions if they are well prepared and presented, but I don't appreciate outright tricks, excessive speed, or anything else that comes across as abusive or generic.

In LD debate, I expect a value debate and not a discussion of plans and counterplans or other concepts borrowed from other formats. In PF, I want to see that you've done the research and that you understand the tradeoffs between pro and con, so weighing is important to me. I grew up with stock issues as voters in policy, so those arguments are most comfortable to me. In any of these formats, if you’re taking a different approach than what I’m describing, know that you’re taking a risk, and be sure to take me with you.

Speaker points are based on professionalism, persuasion, and polish. Most importantly, rudeness and disrespect don't belong in debate... or anywhere.

I appreciate signposting during your speech, and if you're doing that well, there's no need for an "off-the-clock roadmap" particularly in LD or PF.

If you came to my paradigm primarily to see if I can handle spreading, I suggest you don't test that in round. Even if I can keep up with you, I don't want to have to work at it, and it's tough to persuade me to vote for you if I can't follow your logic or if I'm annoyed that you've ignored my paradigm. I appreciate the need to hurry things along, particularly in the compressed rebuttal time, but quality of argumentation will beat out quantity every single time.

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.

Speech:

EVERY performance must tell a story.

Extemp: Someone with zero knowledge of your topic prior to the round should be able to walk away from your speech with a basic understanding of your topic and your stance on the issue. You should include a variety of sources, and they should be as current and relevant as possible. I look for organization and structure, but I also like to see some evidence of your personality to keep me engaged. Knowledge of your topic is important, as is rhetoric and logic throughout the speech.

Info: These speeches should be clear and entertaining, and should include concise and organized ideas, thought-provoking takeaways, and interesting, engaging visuals. I will be looking for how well you inform your audience about your topic.

Oratory: Original oratories are a place to share personal experiences, either lived or researched, and should showcase your passion for an idea that matters to you.

HI, DI, Duo, POI: Tell a compelling and meaningful story that can be clearly followed. Acting and blocking should ADD to the performance, not detract from it – remember that drama is not always about crying, shrieking, and falling on the ground. Oftentimes, the best performances utilize pauses and soft spoken words more often than noise to convey emotion.

Prose and Poetry: I was an English teacher before coming to coach Speech and Debate, so I absolutely love listening to prose and poetry. I will evaluate characterization, insight and understanding as far as the mood and meaning of the piece, how clearly themes and ideas are expressed, and overall delivery (aim for distinct enunciation without sounding pedantic).

Final Interp ranks are based on the story, acting, blocking, message, and overall effect of each performance.