Prefs Shortcut:

Larp - 1

Kritiks - 1

FW/T - 2

K-Affs - 2

Phil - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks/Unnecessary Theory - Strike

Introduction

Debated for Princeton High School on NSDA/TFA/UIL. I did Policy, LD, plus multiple speaking events. I ran a lot of Larp and phil, dabbled in k's but did not run them often.

Any Pronouns, Reference me in any way you want, i will default they/them for you unless you say otherwise

Email Chain plz : hdkcangell@gmail.com

Real Paradigm

please run whatever you want, i will listen to anything and will judge off what you tell me to, there are some exceptions and clarity required for this though:

YOU CAN SPREAD, but If you're going to spread be aware that my hearing is bad and i will rely on your document THIS APPLIES TO ANALYTICS. I will default on speed theory if the doc isn't sent.

I appreciate Kritical debate greatly, if you want to run it please do, but my understanding is a few steps below my peers, so crystalize, especially in regards to K v K debate.

No tricks, especially if you cannot explain them in a way that matters, and you don't want to be the one to fail to change my mind on this, this includes truth testing.

Be logical and reasonable with theory, observations, etc. The meta debate is very important but treat it with grace, it's not your path to a free ballot.

On that note, I consider disclosure frivolous no matter what, I WILL DROP YOU IF YOUR OPPONENT SAYS THE WORDS RVI.

Overall

I will start at 29 speaks and go up or down from there

Don't be the reason that i add something to my paradigm

Ask me specific questions if you wish, and email me if you have questions as well.

Competitive History: Competed in NSDA/UIL for 3 years at Princeton High School. My main event was LD, but I also competed in OO, Info, Extemp, Duo, and Congress. 3-time national qualifier (info, senate, LD), 1-time UIL state qualifier in LD (7th), and 1-time TFA state qualifier in LD.

Be respectful to your opponent(s).

SPEED: Ask me before the round. I can usually keep up if you are clear but that is different for many. If I can’t follow you, then I will not flow the arguments

ARGUMENTS: I LOVE framework debate and phil-based arguments. If you are running more progressive cases, that’s great too! I did a mix of it all, just make sure to emphasize impact calc and really explain your arguments. If you don’t tell me how to frame the round, I will almost exclusively vote on the framework/impact calc debate.

If you have any other questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Please include me on the email chain @savannahraeb04@gmail.com

I am wearing a brace on my hand so my flowing sucks right now.

LD

Please share your case with me beforehand so I can more easily flow.

Email chain: retsehcc@gmail.com

Spreading: Keep spread to a minimum. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation.

Rebuttals: Very important. Anything I missed in your case must be brought up there or I will be unable to flow it. Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you.

Kritiks: Not a fan of "K"s.

Topicality: Important to keep topicality in mind. The scope of the debate should be contained to the topic. This does not diminish impact value.

Evidence: It is up to the teams to call out bad evidence, not mine. Take caution with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments.

Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief

I competed in speech and debate during all four years of high school (mainly LD, Congress, and Extemp). I judge tournaments relatively frequently and plan on coaching once I have my degree.

Overall, I'm okay with any argument you want to run as long as it is respectful. No classist, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise awful arguments because I will drop you (feel like I shouldn't have to say this but apparently I do)

If you decide to run a complex/niche argument (whether it be anything from certain philosophies to a kritik), please please please know what you are talking about. Read the stuff you are going to talk about in round and learn how to present/explain it in a concise accurate way. Also, I default to basic impact calculus if no alternative framing for the round is presented.

Speed is completely fine but I do have hearing issues, so if you decide to spread just make sure to have a way to share your case with me. If I can not understand you, whether it be due to speed or lack of clarity, I will say clear three times before just putting down my pen. If there is a speech drop or email chain, please include me in it. (ecopeland2023@gmail.com)

thanks :)

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. At heart, I am an old-school purist. Because I judge all categories, I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. I believe each form of debate helps the student build particular skills that are part of the design of each category.

I believe there is great benefit in learning to weigh a subject through a value based moral criterion, as in Lincoln Douglas debate. The greatest orators throughout history have changed the world by appealing to the nobility within each of us, and offering us the WHY. A great stock issues orator, as in classic policy debate, spells out the WHAT clearly. Powerful debate presents relevant and useful information to educate and enlighten. I believe vivid story telling are two of the most powerful tools in any speakers tool box and can take any speech to the next level. The greatest leaders were either great storytellers, or great stories were told about them. Vivid descriptive language will elevate any speech. ( This is especially true when addressing any form of human suffering. When you are creating a call to action,(a vote) to must make the subject come alive for your audience. Referring to suffering is as engaging as the evening news, but even the evening news will grab your attention if they are talking about your school, your town, your friend. The more personal it feels to your audience, the more persuasive and more impactful a speech. People forget facts and figures, unless they are vivid, but they don't forget how you made them feel. We remember people like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Amelia Earhart because they said and did things that made us believe that the world could be a better place and that there were things worth laying down one's life for.

Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge both the style and the content they have prepared and give feedback accordingly. I will say, if you run a K, you need a really good reason. Part of the educational process is to be able to do what is asked. There are times when challenging an idea is very valuable, it is where progress is birthed, but I will weigh ideas through probability, legitimacy of source, and a real world analysis. I am not a fan of an idea thrown out merely to trip up an opponent if there is no real weight behind it.

It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy and the latest therapies for cognitive stimulation, pain reduction and life enhancement. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide. The communications programs have helped over 100,000 people create projects and non-profit organizations making a profound difference in the world. I have a background in youth, family, and educational ministries and have served on the board of several non-profit organizations. Communication skills were the foundation of all of these endeavors.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have coached some CX, and I married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.

LD Debate:

I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

PFD:

See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.

CX/Policy:

I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.

EXTEMP DEBATE

This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.