Updated for Marks

Hi! I'm Asad! Please just call me by my name :)

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

About me: I did LD and graduated in 2019, TFA qualled, and help a few people here and there!

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

These are things I find important and how to win the round

1. Warrant out your args - explain it and do it well

2. WEIGH - for the love of god!

3. Signpost - If I am lost on the flow I will stop typing and then good luck!

4. Slow down on analytics and taglines - my speed is decent so emphasize on the important stuff

The stuff that matters but rlly doesnt

Speaks

- 99% of the time im pretty lenient with speaks but I base it off of strats, the arguements being made, etc.. not your vocals

- Sit or stand I could care less

Post round

- Feel free to do it - dont be rude

- Sorry you dont like your decision - If i tell you something take it as advice dont be mad about it

- I will always disclose even in prelims

Speed

- I'm decent but slow down on analytics/taglines/anything important

- See me not typing? Your going too fast

- Even better? Just send a doc

Me in a round

- I dont default to anything and will vote on anything

- I have no bias in a round however I am still a human and still have preferences

- I rlly prefer u writing out my ballot for me in the last speeches makes it easy

The nitty gritty specifics

first and foremost i can and have judged everything from k,s, shells, larp, and all

(1)Identity K's (2) Pomo

- familiar with most common lit

- psycho k's annoy me - run at ur own risk

- my specialization is in islamo so identity k's are good

- not a fan of pomo k's but im not having my bias in a rd so run whatever

(1-2)Shells

- line by line is best

- pls make sure there is weight to it especially for TVK or TVT debates

- i dont default to anything

- im usually a good judge for shell debates i just think people dont know how to run them efficiently

(1)LARP

- my grandma can judge larp and she dont even speak english

- every judge should be able to judge larp lolll

- cp's must be competitive - i feel like this is obv but sometimes the most obv stuff isnt that obv

(5/strike)Phil/Trix

- run at ur own risk - my head hurts trying to comprehend these deb8s (im getting old)

- probably the worst judge for this

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. I want you to 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: 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.

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.com. 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.

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.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 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 TFA offers except POI and DUO. Slay all day.

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 pdf > docx > paste in email > Google Doc. If you do Google Doc, you better pray I don't catch you live adding new cards.

On speed and generally, Talk to me before round if you want me to say clear or hold up a hand or something of that matter. I can handle speed in person (speed depends on my WiFi online), but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Do articulation warm-ups before round because I won't flow what I don't hear. 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 don’t think you should read any more than three contentions. If you spread and your articulation is bad or you read two words off a card, I probably won’t flow it and it’ll have been a loss of your time. 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.

On Sept/Oct Topic: "Try or die" does not end the round for the AFF. I oftentimes struggle to evaluate the NEG BIC overview as it applies to the case and teams have struggled to explain how I am supposed to vote for it. I encourage you to do so if you are running it and want to win. More recently, I've seen it characterized as terminal defense, which is fine, but a very high burden to prove. The BIC also tends to get dropped in frontlines or doesn't progress with the round and just wastes NEG time.

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 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. Check hearing disabilities above and look into reading a more flay case with me in terms of speed. I can handle it but I'm not flowing off the speech doc and most teams just cannot articulate well enough. 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.

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 am a juvenile probation officer who works mainly in the court system. I participated in debate many years ago from 2002-2006. I have judged all Debate, and speaking events for the past 14 years.

Speed is not a problem when it comes to delivery. Eye contact is very important along with organization. For CX I am particularly a STOCK issues judge, and for LD, I want to know why your value/criteria is better than your opponents. For PF, make sure that your case solves and that you have well-developed arguments against your opponents. In general, remember to stand when speaking, and to remain respectful towards others throughout the round.

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.

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 Paridigm!

In extemp rounds I'm looking for a clear answer to the question, and for you to uphold your answer with information that is cohesive and factual.

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. I am not familiar enough with Ks to feel comfortable judging them, so try to avoid those as much as possible. 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, 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

If the round has gotten messy, there’s two opposing claims and both sides haven’t cleared up which claim I should vote on, I’ll vote on turns and weighing.

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.

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 PLEASEEEEE???

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'm a trad judge,

I prefer no spreading just because I need to flow your round so I can give proper constructive feedback. If I can't understand you then you have a high chance to loose my ballot.

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.

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.

Overall, Good luck!!

I’ve decided to update my paradigm for two reasons. First, after judging the first third of the season, I have generated some thoughts based the debates I’ve seen. Second, I thought it would be more helpful to modify my paradigm to give readers a greater sense of how I view debates generally (rather than just a list of bullet points).

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for death).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and you show me that you used your flows as the basis of your argumentation throughout the debate, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round (which will be reflected in the speaker points).

Theory

I’m unlikely to reject the team but have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency deficits, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts:While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good. On another note, I think the complex grammatical structure of the rez means that teams could likely get mileage out of defining more words together.

General thoughts:I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative. I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). A fun and underutilized aff tactic is to argue why a 1NC interpretation actually harms NEGATIVE ground/limits.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and underbaked “no link” arguments. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I often find that framework debates often become a wash and thus a secondary part in my decisions. I thus appreciate it when teams initiate a “compromise” of sorts near the end of the debate, such as by conceding part of the other team’s framework and still explaining why you win. This could sound something like “even if they win this debate should be about the consequences of the plan, we meet because the links are reasons why the policy action of the aff makes things worse.”

Other Notes on Policy-Oriented Debates

Counterplans:As mentioned above, I’m not usually enthusiastic to vote down a team on theory. However, if a counterplan cheats, the affirmative can argue that the problematic aspects of the counterplan justify things like intrinsic perms. Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantages:Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case:Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

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.

I currently do PF/LD at SLHS

For email chains: courtney6129@gmail.com

Debate:

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 28-30 range and as long as you weigh and implicate well you will get high speaks.

Speech:

I rank mostly on speaking ability and entertainment but pls don't lie abt sources during extemp :))))

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 before.

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, and well

as timeframe.

Truth > Tech

Spreading consent: Spreading is not preferred but if you do need to spread the maximum speed I can understand is about the speed of Crash Course: John Green, 1.5x speed

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

hi :)

for email chain/questions: ngocktran2009@gmail

pf & extemp at Seven Lakes HS

Debate:

- warranting = important- make sure you can explain your arguments

- weigh- as much and as early as possible

- don't go too fast, especially for non-substance (idk how to evaluate progressive stuff); slow down on tags and author names and analytics

- extend arguments, don't read new ones in summary/2nr

- if there's a framework - respond to it; I will vote under conceded FW; if there's none I default to util.

- time yourself; I won't pay attention in cross - point things out if they are important

Speaks will start at 28.5 and go up/down depending on how you speak/debate (not win-loss) - js don't be rude :)

Extemp:

- content>presentation

- I don't mind you making up evidence (just don't make it obvious and don't do it too much...) and I won't police you for x amount of sources
- no evidence but good analytics will rank you high

Speech:

- parent judge style

For PF-specific stuff scroll to the bottom.

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

Bach Tran (he/him)

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

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

I vote for anything with a warrant and impact; tech>truth bar the exceptions below. My threshold for a warrant is lower than most and my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but the caveat is that the more ridiculous the claim the more "tech" you need to win it. That said, concessions matter only if there are implications to them made during the same speech.I have neither the capacity nor the will to connect the dots for you, so please collapse, do impact calc, compare arguments/ev, and have judge instruction or prepare for dissapointment.

In round-isms, illegal stuff, double wins, self-harm good, soliciting audience participation+other things that make the tabroom yell at me=L. Ad homs/other non-disclosure grievances are for the tabroom and not me to handle. Besides those, I will vote for whatever--wipeout, spark, the death K, etc. You are always free to object to whatever that is being read and call tab, but of course the tabroom will take some objections more seriously than others.

Please start email chains early and be ready to go at the start time.

Speed is fine but unclearness is not (will slow/clear you). Slow down on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. I will look at docs from time to time.

Speaker points: My current average is in the 28.8-29 range. You will do well if you are nice/technical/strategic. Timing/ev sharing/logistical shennanigans irritate me to to ends and will lead to below-par speaker points. Ask for a 30 and you'll get whatever I feel like giving (most likely not a 30).

Ethics challenges: Would prefer that you save them for serious things like clipping or malicious distortions. No take-back, winner(s) W30(s), loser(s) L0(s).

Rehighlights: yes inserts if less than a sentence and you explain what the inserts are about, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. This is very debatable.

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

Specific Arguments

Policy: I like people who know the topic lit and can weigh impacts. Also a big fan of impact turns/case-specific strategies. Zero risk probably exists but of course offense is always better. Good analytics > bad cards. Whatever terrorism you want to commit (condo, fiat abuse, intrinsicness, whatever) is fine unless there are theoretical objections. Slow down with the perm spamming/competition debate so I can keep up. Won't read your cards unless told to by the 2AR/2NR.

The K: Know the tl;dr version of most Ks (cap, set col, security, some pomo etc.). Please explain the theory and unpack the buzzwords. The best 2NRs explain what count as offense/uniquess/solvency for the K and weigh them against aff offense. LBL more, overview (yap) less. Framework: weighing plan is fine, rejecting reps is fine, embracing whatever also fine--debate it out. Slight bias towards the policy interps but out-teching the other team is more than sufficient.

Theory/T: Probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds (terrible flower). Please send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Defaults: DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs. Will vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. "[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

K Affs: Do whatever if you can defend your 1AC but ideally aff teams should defend a change from the squo that is vaguely related to the topic. Please err on more explanation of the aff/method than less. Debate is probably a game. Impact turns or CIs is your choice, but "haha fairness bad" is probably unpersuasive. For KvK rounds, explain interactions between the K and the aff + how perms work because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

Phil: Bad if you use this to deploy tricks. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this (I would really rather not) but if you want to, feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

Trad: I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue," "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE," and the like.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I flow and vote by the flow so feel free to do whatever. See Bryce Piotrowski's paradigm for more details--I mostly agree with his takes.

Not sending ev/speech docs before speeches, Google Docs, cards in email body, making me find your paraphrased segment within a 78-page pdf=28 points ceiling. Made-up cards/ev fabrications=L0.

Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing bad, however, is almost a no go (just read cut cards...)

I am more than willing to evaluate progressive positions but if your A-strat is spamming dumb friv shells or whatever expect the bare minimum when it comes to responding. I also find appeals to PF "rules" (e.g. "you can't read Ks!" or "how dare you fiat an alternative") extremely unpersuasive. You can read whatever and do whatever as long as it is not in the list of stuff I won't vote on and/or something the tabroom forbids me to vote on. If the argument really is that bad you are much better off just beating it than complaining about it.

Prepositions are not taglines.

Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) and explaining them consistently matters, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should call out bad ev and ridiculous/new extrapolations in the back-half. This also applies to "link chains" (in quotes because PFers have no idea what a warrant is).

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse. I don't know what "defense is sticky" means and at this point I don't even want to find out. Just extend whatever you want to go for in the back half.

Answering/impact-turning case in 2nd constructive=based+very high points.

I like warranted, comparative weighing. Link/internal link weighing matters. Judge instruction/warrants/examples are crucial in the backhalf. Condensing your offense down to 1-2 decisive issues greatly increases your chances of winning and make my life easier.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.

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. Rudeness and disrespect don't belong here or anywhere. 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, 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.