I am a new parent judge.

As a judge, my focus will be on clear communication, originality, and audience engagement.

For Public Speaking: I will evaluate content clarity, structure, and the effectiveness of delivery in Oratory, Extemporaneous, and Informative speeches. I appreciate well-researched material that is presented confidently and creatively.

For Interpretation: I look for emotional depth, character portrayal, and the ability to connect with the audience in Dramatic, Humorous, and Duo performances. Creativity and interpretation of the material will be key factors.

For Public Forum Debate: I expect logical reasoning, strong evidence, and effective rebuttals. I value respectful engagement and the ability to adapt arguments based on opponents' points.

I aim to foster a supportive atmosphere and encourage all competitors to showcase their best efforts. Good luck to everyone!

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 :)

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

Coaching & Competitor History:

(2020-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Melissa High School

(2019-2020): Assistant Director of Forensics & Head PF Coach, Delbarton School

(2019-2020): Policy Debate Coach, Princeton High School

(2017-2019): Policy Debate Coach, Melissa High School

(2017-2019): Graduate Parliamentary Debate Coach, University of North Texas

(2015-2017): Policy Debate Coach & PF Coach, Southlake High School

(2014-2016): Policy Debate Coach, Prosper High School

(2014-2015): Policy, LD, & PF Coach, Crandall High School

(2013-2014/15ish): Policy Debate competitor, University of North Texas

(2009-2013): Policy Debate competitor, Lampasas

Overview: I view the debate though an offense/defense paradigm. I think that this is the best way for me to grapple with the debate. Throughout my paradigm, I've tried to limit my regurgitation of knowledge or information about debate to you, and instead tell you how I view debate based on specific questions with the specific events. I think that there are some things that I will not change based on the nature of whatever event I'm judging. Theoretical disquisitions and procedural issues are ones in which I evaluate the same. Please see the theory section. If there's a question I do not have within here, please ask me. Finally, the questions that I am answering below are 1.) questions in which people have asked me before that I can remember and 2.) attempting to answer them as best as possible.

Reasons to Strike Me:

3NR's: After nationals in 2019, I have this to say. If you're going to be rude because you lost the debate, and attempt to get me to generate some sort of concession about why I messed up, I think that you're looking for the wrong judge. I make mistakes, but if I wanted to waste my time with some sort of asinine 3NR, I would have stayed home to waste my time doing nothing. If I feel it's going poorly, the 3NR, I'll shut my laptop and tell you the same thing I told the team at nationals in 2019. You should be ashamed of yourselves and your coach should be even more ashamed due to their inability to make you understand that that's not a healthy practice.

Clipping Cards: This is defined as "intentionally or unintentionally skipping over the parts of the evidence that is highlighted, bolded, and underlined." As Louie Petit says, do not be a Lance Armstrong (Petit, 2013).

Ideological Issues: Being racist, sexist, or a biggot is a great way to strike me.

Coaching: if I have coached you in the past 4 years, I will strike you. If I forget to, it is your obligation to strike me.

Cards: If you are paraphrasing and not cutting cards in PF, strike me.

Cards (PF): I'm so tired of people "calling for evidence" and it taking a majority of the round, while in the interim stealing prep. You should either 1.) send the case before you read or 2.) immediately after you're done before cross-fire or prep starts. I will start calling for prep when you call for evidence at a certain point, and if you do not like this, strike me please.

Dumb Theory Arguments: There's a national trend going on in LD indicating that we or judges should vote on frivolous argument (e.g. shoe theory, laptop theory, and so on). These are just absurdly, un-strategic, asinine arguments. Strike me please.

Email: Brendendimmig1995@gmail.com

***Policy Debate Paradigm

General Things

What does extrapolation mean for you? For me, I think that the 2AR and the 2NR get extrapolation based on previous claims made within the debate. I think that, if this is based off of evidence, and your evidence has some sort of glaring issue that prevents you from generating access to said extrapolation, then I probably won't vote for you.

What do we have to do to flag evidence? Just say look at the evidence or make some sort of evidence contestation that necessitates that I look at your evidence. It just takes a couple seconds.

Extending is important: I think that, if you do not extend the aff or example within the 1AR, I may have a hard time giving the 2AR credit. Even if it is just a shadow extension, I think that that is better than nothing.

Is evidence comparison important? Yeah. I would say that that's probably a good way for me to reevaluate why I should prefer a particular argument over another. I think that engaging in some sort of substantive level (i.e. the warrants, author, and so on) make for good case debate (for example).

Email me: I think that this will help in case I have to go back and re-read a piece of evidence. I try not to waste people's time, thus, I do not want to have to ask if you can send me a specific piece of evidence. If you're looking to get documents from a previous debate, please see the above email.

Do you prefer a specific kind of aff? no. Read a method, soft left, or big stick aff. It's up to you. I grew up going for the big stick aff and coached that the first 2-3 years out of high school, while also coaching big stick 1AC's in PF at Delbarton. I coached pre dominantly soft left aff's at Melissa and Princeton. I coach a kid now in LD reading a historical geneology that discusses why debate is bad. I think that you should do whatever you want. I've judged some great [Coppell DR and Wylie QR] teams going for the method. I've judged some great teams [Greenhill & Jesuit] going for Soft left affs. I've judged some great teams like Highland Park and Jesuit go for some big stick affs. I think that you should be able to read what you want.

Are you okay with speed? Yes. The fastest team I ever saw was the Georgetown team that won nationals twice. Unless you're going faster, I may need you to slow down. If I cannot hear you, I will say clear.

Speaker Points: I generally do not give below a 28.5. I do not know what else to say here.

Procedural Issues

Does Competing Interpretations come before reasonability or vise versa? I think that it depends on the arguments made within the debate. Absent this sort of debate, I will default to competing interpretations within the grande scheme of this or other competitive venues of debate.

What's the biggest thing people do poorly (in your opinion) on T or any procedural issue? I think that impacting your disads or standards is important to me. For example, on the ground disad, make sure that you're indicating 1.) HOW you're losing the argument (i.e. the link) and 2.) WHAT those arguments generally look like or what they specifically are and 3.) WHY those arguments are important for either topic education and/or competitive equity.

What's generated more ballots for you on T: The limits disad or Ground disad? I think that, while not having any sort of verifiable data via my ballots, I couldn't tell you. However, I have a gut feeling that it is the ground disad. I think that people, whenever making a limits claim, are not contextualizing why a particular limit based on the interpretation or rule set in debate is a better thing or idea.

Is Framework inherently argumentatively racist? I think that it depends on the debate.

Can we impact turn competitive equity and/or topic education? Absolutely.

Does or can a theoretical argument (e.g. Condo, or some other theory argument) come before T? Sure. I've seen these debates, but I've never judged them.

Do I get broad level extrapolation for my interp? No. What do I mean by this? Well, if you just say in the 2NC "conditionality is bad", but then precede in the 2NR or 1NR to clarify this statement by saying "conditionality is bad BECAUSE they can only get dispositional counterplans or advocacies", I am not likely to give you that level of extrapolation. I think that that is too late for me.

Have you ever rejected a Framework claim to a K aff (i.e. you did not vote on framework)? Yes.

Have you voted on a framework claim against a K aff? Yes.

What are things not to do or recommend not to do on Framework? I think that you should attempt to separate the procedural issues from the aff itself. I understand that making state good or bad claims and having research burdens on Framework may come as a result of some sort of argument made on framework. however, if you can separate those two things instead of them bleeding over on the same flow, I would appreciate that. If not, that's not an issue.

If I do not have either a predictability, ground, and/or limits claims within the 2NR for T, are you likely to vote for me? probably not.

Case:

Impact turning the aff? Great. I love these debates.

Can I just go for defense, or what some people call the stock issues? No. The only time I have voted on defense was in 2015. The Role of the Ballot was quite literally to vote on defense or what I believe was solvency within that debate.

Disad:

Can we win the disad absent case in the 2NR? Maybe, but I hope that you either are making claims that 1.) the disad turns the case and/or (depending on the disad) 2.) That you're making disad solves the aff's offense in some manner.

Can we win a link turn absent a uniqueness contestation made? Probably not. Right, if you do not prove why a problem is high now and are concluding that you substantially reduce that problem, absent the first sort of argument, I presume that the problem is not likely happening now (i.e. the uniqueness argument of the disad is true).

Do you prefer to hear disads? Read what you want.

Biggest issue on the disad? Same issue on an advantage; there needs to be a good explanation of the internal link or impact module that describes how we get to the impact.

Absent a disad, can we still win the counterplan? Sure, but you'll need to make either 1.) why the counterplan is just inherently mutually exclusive or 2.) Win some sort of internal net benefit to the counterplan.

What if the disad links to the plan AND counterplan? Making link differential arguments here and explaining why (whichever side's) level of "linking" (so to speak) is not enough to trigger the disad. I also then think that this is a question of the evidence, and how good or bad the evidence is. I think that this also a question of spin, so making sure that you spin the argument is important here (for me at least).

Thoughts on the Politics Disad? Fantastic.

Counterplan

Is conditionality fine? yes.

Are two conditional counterplans fine? I mean sure, i don't care.

What about 3? Look, I'm not the arbiter that determines the number of conditional counterplans or unconditional counterplans that you get to read. I think that at a certain time, there needs to be a limit set within the debate. If the affirmative proves why their limit on the certain number is good or better, then I am more likely to vote for them. I think that this ALSO means having a NON-blanket statement interpretation. Just saying that conditionality is bad is probably not a good interpretation for the debate. I think that there's a whole slew of disads and turns that the interp is going to generate. I think that parametrasizing your interp (i.e. the negative teams gets 1 conditional counterplan and a dispositional counterplan) is probably a better interpretation.

Would you vote on internal net benefits? I would yes. If you have a specific question here that I can better answer, please let me know.

What kind of counterplan do you prefer? I like PICS's. They're really cool. Read a counterplan; i don't know what else to say. Debate is cool. Counterplans are fine.

What are some dumb counterplans? Delay is probably dumb, but I've voted on it (yeah, make fun of me. It's fair). I think that consult counterplans on the wrong topic are dumb, but I've still voted for them on the topic in which they do not make sense argumentatively to be read on.

When's the last time you voted on condo? Plano West Finals, 2020. Before that, I think that it was in 2015. People do not read conditionality in front of me a lot.

What about sufficiency framing? Yeah I guess presumption would err in your direction even if there is not a net benefit or internal net benefit. I'll err this manner if the permutation cannot solve, or if the permutation is not made, or if the permutation argument is not sufficiently explained.

What's a poor permutation? One that is not explained. I also think that good permutations are one's that are thought out and take the part of the counterplan that resolves the disad and combines it with the plan. I think that teams that are strategic with these better forms of permutations are more likely to win.

Issues on permutation debates? If you're going to make assertions that the other team's permutation is either severance or intrinsic, I need some sort of warrant or violation explaining why the other side's permutation is intrinsic or severance. Absent this theorietical or structural argument in your theory argument, I'm willing to note vote on it even if you told me all day why severance or intrinsic permutations are bad. Also, if you want to impact turn severance, go ahead. Finally, explaining to me what the world of the permutation looks like and why it avoids the internal or external net benefit is going to be important to me.

Kritiks/Kritikal Aff's:

Preferred strategy against a K aff? I don't have one. It depends on the aff.

Method vs. Method debate? Well yeah, I think that these are great debates to be had.

Do you have a preferred literature base of critical scholarship that you would like to see debated? No. I read a lot of gender studies scholarship, but I do not think that this should deter you from reading the arguments that you want to read within the debate. If you're looking to up someone based on the prerequisite knowledge of things like black feminism, islamic feminism, intersectional feminism, womanism, and various other derivatives, I guess I'm that person, but I would hesitate from deeming myself that person.

Is framework against a K aff fine? yeah, absolutely.

What's the biggest issue with the K or K Aff's? Explaining the alt and how it resolves the offense within the specific debate. I think that more tangible alternatives have a better time of operationalizing an explanation for this question. That's not to say that you can NOT read reject alts. I'm just letting you know based on things that I have been judging on the national and local circuits. I think that, like my friend Chris O'Brien, I start with the alternative, look there, and then go up.

Link argument issues? I think that you are better off with doing a couple things in front of me. First, I think that going for just one link (most likley the conceded link) within the 2NR is going to be helpful. I think that good K teams are doing this because it increases the time that they can spend on other things within the debate. Second, putting the evidence or having evidence in the context of the aff is going to get you much farther. I think that these generic state bad links are fine, but just be understanding that if the evidence after reading it is in the context of the status quo and not some new proposal, I think that I am likely to err aff on this question if said arguments are made. I think that kritikal affs to better win framework we/meet arguments should have a kritik that is in the direction (at the minimum) or at least about the topic in some sort of way. Debate bad affs for instance are nice, but if they have nothing to do with immigration, arms sales, or water, then I am more likely to vote on the argument.

Impact issues? I think that whenever judging a K vs. a Soft Left aff or a K vs. K aff, make sure that you are doing sequencing work if both teams have some sort of root cause argument. I think that this level of explanation is going to warrant higher speaker points while also generating a better ballot erred in your direction.

Would you be willing to vote on a K absent us winning the alt? I think that, like my friend Chris O'Brien, I start with the alternative, look there, and then go up. If you do not have some sort of tangible alt, then I am likley to not vote for you i if the other side then makes arguments about why these things are happening in the status quo and/or the offense is just a non-unique disad at this point.

***PF Paradigm

Calling for evidence: please see the strike section above.

Is defense sticky? No. Absolutely not.

Do you have a preference of offense (i.e. scalar offense, or threshold offense)? No? I don't care. If you're reading your scalar offense, I'm not entirely sure why you're reading these uniqueness arguments above your scalar offense. Right, in policy this is just linear (or that is the synonymous term). I think that you are waisting your time for this.

Can I read multiple ethical positions within the pro and con cases? Sure, why not. If LD gets pre and post fiat, I don't understand why you can't read structural violence arguments and util arguments, and then collapse to one within the final focus.

If I don't frontline arguments within the rebuttal, are they dropped? Yeah. The way that I view the rebuttal is that is it similar or analogous to the 2AC in policy debate. Absent some sort of answer to the rebuttal's arguments that they are making probably means that you do not get to respond to them within the summary speech.

Can I shadow extend arguments in the summary and extrapolate in the final focus? Sure. I think that that is a smart move.

Can I read disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory? I'll answer both of these separately. First, I think that paraphrasing theory is inherently not something that I think that is substantive to vote on. Go look up in the theory section of my policy debate paradigm and int he overview. I think that theory here is treated the same in policy. In other words, I think that you need to win some sort of predictability, ground (or predictable ground), and/or limits (or predictable limits) claim for me to vote on your theory argument. If I do not know why paraphrasing destroys or erode one of those standards, I'm not voting voting for you.You can have as many bright line standards, contextual definition standards because you've read some sort of great (not really great) piece of evidence by some camp staffer who published an article, or whatever. That will not get you far enough in my book. Second, sure, read disclosure theory. Again, I think that the above arguments related to this applies here as well (the criticism about offensive vs. defensive standards).

What's your threshold for a warrant or an explanation to an argument within the final focus? Pretty high. Absent a warrant for an argument mean that I am going to discount that argument. It's pretty simple; I evaluate arguments in a vaccum, and just because you explained it in the summary does not mean that you necessarily get to just shadow extend arguments with the same or full weight.

What if we did not highlight our cards? I'm noticing that more and more teams are not highlighting their cards. I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose, but I think that I will look to the analysis of the card's tag within the final focus, and adjudicate my decision from there. This is not on you. This is on the PF community to establish a set of card norms. In other words, I will hold you to your analysis, not what is on the evidence.

Can I take prep before cross or the opponent's speech? Sure.

Do you prefer Util or Structural Violence Framing? I think that these impact framing debates and risks analysis disquisitions are fun to have. No, it's not abusive for a team to read an alternative util calculus. I think that I am more adverse to giving higher speaker points to the team that goes outside the boundaries, and pushes them, by reading some sort of alternative ethical framework or calculus.

What does collapsing mean for you? I think, collapsing for me, means that you're going for less arguments but in a manner in which you extrapolate and interact those arguments in a manner that does more for you. Whenever I hear this answer, I see some sort of upside down triangle, whereby there's 2 levels (i.e. the aff case and the negative case). Going for all the arguments that you made within rebuttal within the final focus on the opponents case, while also going for all of your contentions, seems like a strategy or easy way to lose.

Why did you say that you recommend I have uniqueness for my warrants? Yeah, you have 3 different warrants (i.e. impact modules or scenarios) about why something is bad. Just asserting that X, Y, and Z will happen does not make a lot of sense absent some sort of uniqueness argument made that postulates that that issue is not happening now.

If I win a pre-req does that mean that I win the debate? Maybe? I think that it depends on the debate. I think that I would need some more context to this question, but you may be giving away some strategy to your opponents by adding context.

Can I read definitions or observations? Sure. Be my guest.

Can I read a kritik? I mean, there's a small amount of time to get through the K within the debate. If you think that you can do it, be my guest. If you don't have certain things, and are just certain you won the debate because you only read a link argument, don't be surprised when I tell you that you lose. I think that a better strategy you be just to read the link and the impact as a case turn, and then contextualize how the aff specifically increases. I think you should see some of the link sections within the kritik section in the policy section of my paradigm.

Does the new 3 minute (or relatively new) summary change how you judge? Not really. It's like going from high school policy debate to college police debate insofar as the time is concerned (i.e. everything increases by a minute). it doesn't change strategy, or largely I should say.

Speaker Point notes: I find that there is this assimilated, similar way of speaking in PF. It sounds great, but you repeating your claims over and over, and getting to the point 10 or 15 seconds in will not necessitate me giving you higher speaker points in PF. I traditionally give higher speaker points to teams that are warranting their arguments, have good word economy, and are efficient.

3NR's: I've noticed that PF has become way worse about 3NR's than even policy debate. While this hasn't happened to me in PF, or really in any event absent the 1 time at nationals, I do want to say this. You berating a parent judge is just absurd. You berating a coach who evaluates the debate differently is not going to help you win the debate back. Tack a breath, because we're all in this together. If you're doing a 3NR because someone said something egregious, I'll be there with your coach and tab to explain the situation. Absent some sort of issue like this, just don't do it in front of me. Why? The next time I see you I'm just going to think back to the unsavory moment of you berating a judge for no reason. If you want to make judges better, have a conversation with them. Ask questions. If you want judges to get better and stick around, talk to them. Also, the other person on the panel who may or may not have voted for you will also remember. Lastly, Yes, parent judges or inexperienced judges or traditional judges are people that you may not like, or would even conclude are not the ideal situation that any competitor would like. I'm probably in the same boat as you, but that doesn't justify asinine discourse.

Evidence indicts: I think that this is great, and becoming even more popular. I think that if you just assert that their evidence errs in your favor, have a compelling reason and a piece of evidence. This is really simple.

Concessions not warranted isn't a ballot: If you go for all the concessions in the final focus, but you have not warranted a SINGLE one of those arguments, I think that I am less likely to vote for you. In fact, I probably won't. Please make sure that you are explaining your arguments.

Presumption: I think that this errs a bit differently than the way that it does compared to traditional PF judges or people that have been brought up into the PF community. If there is an absence of offense from both sides in the debate, I will err aff because I presume that voting aff does something different and changes things nominally better. If you're a coach reading this and think that I need to start erring on the negative insofar as presumption is concerned, that's fine. Please explain it to me.

Can you read arguments attacking the other side's case in the 2nd speech or for the 2nd team during the constructive speech? Absolutely. I see no reason why. This is the equivalent to reading everything within the 1NC in policy debate.

Can I read theory? Sure. I think that you should reference my theory section above.

Can I go fast? I don't care. Go as fast as you want. If I cannot hear you, then I will say clear.

Can I impact turn in PF? Sure. If you. want to read dedev, give it your best. I think that, if you don't have the proper structural components, I'm probably less willing to vote for you.

***LD Paradigm

Should I pref you because I am a Phil Debater? Probably not. I'm trying to get better at having a deeper understanding of phil, but this is not my strong suit. I'm learning more in the process and doing my due diligence to better understand different philosophy and philosophers arguments.

Will you vote on framework? Sure. I think that if you decide to go for framework, please make a mental note of several things. First, if you just want to weigh your framework above the opponent's, that is fine. I think that I need some sort of good reason about why your framework is better than your opponents. Second, I think that if you want to prove some sort of pre-condition argument or pre-req, then that is fine. Just make sure that you do this. However, if you are making these sorts of link turn arguments, and you are also impact turning their framework, just note that I am likely to not vote for you because you have functionally double turned yourself. Right, you are making an argument that your criterion better gets to their value, but that value is bad, well, that means that your framework leads to a bad thing. Just be mindful of this.

Can I go for a link turn on framework and an impact turn on the opposing value? Probably not because you have double turned yourself.

Is reading post fiat and pre fiat arguments in the 1AC Fine? For sure. I don't care or see a reason why you cannot. if the opposing team make theoretical dispositions to why you can't, then that is a different debate to be had.

Can I LARP in LD? For sure.

Can I read spikes and under-views? For sure. I think that these sort of blippy arguments or analytics made within the 1AC and the 1NC that then you extrapolate on latter within the debate, that is fine. However, be mindful that if you do not give me enough pen time to flow it and I miss it, that is not on me. That means that you should slow down.

Theory? In general? Cool. If you end up reading theory, that is fine. I want to make this as specific for LD as possible. I think that there is a difference of what offense looks like on Theory than it does for say in policy debate. If you go for a time skew argument or a bright line argument, that is not offensive. That is an internal link into some sort of offensive standard, which there's universally 3 (predictable, ground, and/or limits, or some sort of derivative [i.e. predictable ground and predictable limits---depending on who you talk to]). Moreover, if you are going to be reading a lot of frivolous theory, I think that’s you need to be discussing these arguments in one of those veins.

email: emandicore@gmail.com put me on the email chain plss :)

pronouns:he/him

prefs (in order):honestly, after becoming a judge, i've realized that prefs are kinda dumb, have fun, spin your own arguments, just make sure you are well-versed enough to do so. if you have any questions pertaining to your args, ask me before your rounds and I'm happy to help in any way. keep me entertained with good debates and we will all be happy :)

Call me Judge or Simba, I don't really care.

Auto-loss (up to my discretion):

Cursing

Hate Speech

Ad Hominem

JUST BE RESPECTFUL TO YOUR OPPONENTS

Paradigm Overview- For me as a judge, a paradigm is arbitrary. I think all args can be good args. As a judge I'm willing to vote on anything, be it topic specific disads, or high level telos args, I am always excited to see what young debaters come up with as the sport evolves. Please reach out to me before your rounds with any questions, comments, concerns, or even doc review, arg supplementation etc. I love debate and helping debaters in any way I can. While I am very prog, there are a few beliefs I have are pillars of debate: stand when you talk- command some sort of presence in my room, it will go a long way for you. be clear-even if you are at a snails pace I will write it down on my flow, but if you are not clear and engaging, I won't tend to be engaged. use rhetorics-arguments only have weight with framing. make it clear that your args and framing have the best outcome utilizing the skills you learned early in debate.

POLICY PARADIGM:

TECH OVER TRUTH- Tech will ALWAYS beat truth, the burden of proof is upon you as a debater, please make sure that all arguments are answered and contended

IMPACT CALCULUS- Aff AND Neg, you CANNOT win a round that I'm judging without impact calculus, as in, if only one team completes an adequate impact calc, including timeframe, magnitude, and probability, they will win the round GUARANTEED. If no team successfully asserts an impact calc, I will base the ruling off of the tech of the round.

LINK CHAINS- I believe in abusing link chains (call me crazy). Link Chains in my opinion are the backbone of policy debate, and can be used to win the round. Utilizing link chains well by pivoting, attacking, cross-applying etc WILL result in good speaks.

SPEAKER POINTS- This is my favorite part of debate, I used to always try and max my speaks at all of my tourneys. That being said, I reserve a lot of my attention as a judge for speaks. Being articulate and respectful will do you wonders for your speaks when I'm judging. MOST IMPORTANTLY, be funny, entertaining me while concisely and articulately asserting your argument can get you a 30. PLEASE MAKE THESE ROUNDS FUN, BECAUSE DEBATE IS FUN.

KRITIKAL DEBATE- I love K debate, but that being said, vagueness is the bane of kritikal debate's existence. Make sure that your Kritik has a clear link, alt, and a defined impact with a strong impact calc. Speed is fine but be clear, if I can't understand you when you deliver the alt, you run the risk of me not writing the alt on my flows so tread carefully.

Be clear. Speed is fine but lack of clarity will be noted. Don't worry if I tell you to be clear, you can still get a 30 with one warning.

PF PARADIGM:

PF is not my forte, but I'm well-read enough to keep up (excluding truly high-level PF). Definitely more of a Prog judge, the viability of your link chains is not as important as asserting link chains. I like prog args as well, just specify your mechanism and link, and make sure the argument has some sense of precedence.

LD PARADIGM:

See my policy paradigm. Be clear. Speed is fine but lack of clarity will be noted. Don't worry if I tell you to be clear, you can still get a 30 with one warning.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

Have fun. This is your chance to practice true real-world-esque diplomatic debate. Be respectful, articualte and charismatic and your world schools career can be very fruitful. Be smart, cross-application is your best friends. Good traps and cross-application will definitely win my favor but ultimately I favor the winning argument so rememebr that it is your job to convice ME and no one else.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!

Hayley Harp, Email:hayley.harp@argyleisd.com

CX & LD: If I cannot understand you, I will not be able to flow your round. Do not spread to be intentionally deceptive. Professionalism and respect are held high in my eyes and you are able to debate will doing/being both.

For speaking events I appreciate well structured and supported arguments (cite your sources). A good persuasive speech or informative presentation should be well paced with a clear voice and some audience engagement, for example, through humor. Please avoid humor that may insult your audience.

For interpretation events I look for performances that provoke audience emotion and engagement. I don’t look for structure as heavily, but a clear through line with transitional elements (like using specific characterization through voice and/or gestures) is important.

Parent Judge

Extemporaneous Speaking: I value a clear, logical structure and thorough analysis. Use high-quality, varied sources with accurate dates for credibility. Deliver confidently with a clear voice, natural gestures, and good eye contact, maintaining an engaging, conversational tone.

Informative Speaking: Present a well-organized, research-backed speech with credible evidence. Maintain a conversational tone, purposeful gestures, and confident delivery to keep the audience engaged and informed.

Oratory: Deliver a structured, research-supported speech with a conversational tone and purposeful gestures. Confident delivery and relatable content are key to audience engagement.

POI: Emphasize strong characterization, emotional depth, vocal variety, and confident, purposeful movement throughout your performance.

LD: - no spreading

· Framework: Clearly establish your value and criterion, and justify why they best evaluate the resolution.

Argumentation: Use clear signposting, logically warrant your claims, and directly engage with your opponent’s case.

· Rebuttals: Weigh impacts, address key arguments, and prioritize clash over repeating earlier points.

Public Forum Debate:

· Speech & Rebuttal: Use clear signposting and warrant your arguments. Address responses in the second rebuttal to avoid drops.

· Summary/Final Focus: Introduce no new arguments; extend critical points and use comparative weighing to show why your side prevails.

For the Domestic/International Extemp, below are the things I looked for when I judge:

• Does the student answer the question?

• Does the student cite sources?

• Does the student have a clear speech structure​?

• Does the evidence and analysis convinced and support the answer?

• Does the student seem confident and speak clearly and fluently?

Overall, I will focus on clear communication, originality, and audience engagement.

For Public Speaking: I will evaluate content clarity, structure, and the effectiveness of delivery in Oratory, Extemporaneous, and Informative speeches. I appreciate well-researched material that is presented confidently and creatively.

For informational: overall these are my key points when listening: I look at content originality, delivery – voice and engagement, and structure – memorability and overall style.

For Interpretive: I look for emotional depth, character portrayal, and the ability to connect with the audience in Dramatic, Humorous, and Duo performances. Creativity and interpretation of the material will be key factors.

For speaking events I appreciate well-structured and supported arguments (cite your sources). A good persuasive speech or informative presentation should be well paced with a clear voice and some audience engagement, for example, through humor. Please avoid humor that may insult your audience.

I’m not keen on speed for speed; it’s ok however, be clear. If I can’t follow, I’m not impressed.

For interpretation events I look for performances that provoke audience emotion and engagement. I like transitional elements; they should not take away from presentation. I like memorable for the topic not for presentation. Will I remember your topic in 2 weeks or just the flair? I will give higher scores to unique topics, thoughtfulness, and memorability for the topic choice not the novelty of props. Connection is important.

I am a parent judge. Content and clarity or logical flow in speech events is important to me - did you really address the topic you picked for the event. Next, I focus on delivery, tone which are critical, especially in interpretation events. Good luck!

I am a tab judge who would likes to see well structured, solid debate. Clash is great, but I am really more prone to vote for a well-structured and supported argument. I prefer a debate in which non-responsiveness isn’t an issue. While I do take style into consideration, I believe a fully reasoned argument will always get my vote. 

Be clear, compelling, and most important, concise.

Be courteous, and present yourself with maturity.

Be authentic.

Experience: 4 years of judging IEs/Debate and 3 years coaching high school debate teams, with experience at local, state, and national tournaments.

Philosophy: As a tabula rasa judge, I remain neutral and judge based on the arguments presented. I value well-structured, logical arguments supported by credible evidence, with ethical and value-based arguments welcome if well-articulated. Evidence is crucial.

Preferences:

Argumentation: Appreciate direct refutation and clash; offensive arguments are more persuasive than purely defensive ones.
Speaking Style: Clarity and persuasion over speed; no spreading.
Framework: Establish a clear framework and weigh impacts accordingly.

Round Conduct:

Points of Contention: Summarize and crystallize key points in summary and final focus speeches.
Crossfire: Viewed as an opportunity to clarify and challenge arguments; not the primary basis of decision but can enhance presentation.
Other Considerations: Maintain respectful behavior; be clear, concise, and structured in speeches. Be open to different approaches if justified well within the round.

Email: hmacias1931@gmail.com

Interpretive Events:

As a judge in interpretive events, I prioritize the connection between the performer and the material, the clarity of communication, and the emotional impact. I appreciate performers who bring creativity, authenticity, and a deep understanding of the text they are interpreting. I value creativity, but I also expect a clear interpretation that resonates with the audience. All speeches should adhere to event guidelines (time limit, specific rules, etc.). The big key points I look for are:

• Connection to the text and audience

• Emotional authenticity

• Clear and varied vocal and physical delivery

• Strong character portrayal and interpretation

• Thoughtful, creative use of the material

Speech Events:

In individual speech events, I value clarity, purpose, and authenticity. Every speech should have a clear thesis or central idea, a clear, logical structure, and a deeper than surface level analysis. Speeches should stay on topic. Each speech should feel like a conversation, not a performance. I am looking for competitors who engage me with well-structured content, compelling delivery, and a position that is clear and backed with thoroughly explained information. I am looking for understanding of the topic. All speeches should adhere to event guidelines (time limit, specific rules, etc.). A summary of the big main points are:

• Clear and well-structured content that is easy to follow.

• Effective delivery with vocal variety, purposeful gestures, and strong eye contact.

• Engagement with the audience through connection and energy.

• Emotional and logical appeal that aligns with the goal of your speech.

• Creativity and originality in both content and delivery.

Please remember performance is subjective, so keep in mind that my feedback reflects my personal preferences and approach to interpreting the material.

Parent judge.

Please speak clearly. Confidence matters, I will be judging on the overall presentation of the speech.

I am a parent judge with previous speech competition experience.

I focus on the clarity and relevance of the content, evaluating how well the speaker organizes and presents their ideas. I also assess the delivery, including voice modulation, pacing, and body language, to ensure effective communication. I consider your ability to engage and connect with the audience, leaving a memorable impact on me as a judge.

Simply put, speak so that I may understand you clearly.

I competed in Speech & Debate from 2010-2013. I was a DI State Champion in 2013. I was a NSDA Poetry Finalist in 2013. I was also a UIL State Poetry Finalist in 2012 and 2013. I am also a OO Semifinalist at the Harvard National Speech & Debate Tournament.

Speech: For oratory and Informative speaking, I am looking for a unique perspective on the topic you chose. With Informative, inform me. I don't mind advocacy but I am not looking for a Persuasive speech.

Interp: I try really hard not to take notes during your performance as I want to give you my full attention. If you can make me forget that I am timing you, that is great. It means, you took me to a new place, time, thought and away from the real world for the moment. That means you hit the mark! I love that. I enjoy all types of selections, those with many characters and those with one. I judge on how well done you performed that selection.

Congress: Congress is a wonderful event. I want you to clash with the other debaters in the chamber but in a professional way. Don't be snarky. If we are in the fourth or fifth speech on a particular piece of legislation, you better be bringing something new for argumentation or your speech will not be ranked high. You need to embrace the role of an elected representative/senator. You are not a high school student during this event.

LD/PFD: If you spread you will not get the win. Spreading is for policy debate. Keep it there. In LD, good analogies are just as good if not better than evidence. I want to hear logic and reasoning. Seriously, if you spread, it will be really hard to get the win. In PFD, if you spread you will not get the win. This is the layperson's version of Policy. It's more evidence driven. But it is not policy. Seriously, do not spread.

Mark D Perry

Policy Debater should use the most traditional approach to engage my attention. Inherency - Barrier to plan passage as well at their plan early in their presentation, then solvency, followed by evidence to benefits and finally impact links to fulfill there burden that they are meeting the dictates of the Topic. Significant, arguments to prove the plan and advantages that create ground are important. UIL does not spread and should reflect the intent to the creators.

Lincoln Douglas are tasked with proving the resolution and defining terms associated with the event. They should have a value, use cites to prove the credibility of their position and prove a clear criteria that is the best lens from which to judge their stated intention. Information should reflect the value they are advocating. The burden of the negative speaker is to clash with the affirmative. Kritik's are not acceptable in LD.

IE events are normally based upon the topic, information, current events and must reflect knowledge and they must use varied vocabulary, cite, eye contact and organization in the presentation and volume, rate, tone, inflection, stage movement and gestures appropriate to the topic should be evaluated.

I have no intention to let personal bias, personal opinion, language that is forbidden at anytime. I believe that the goal of UIL events is to help all students to improve their skills and enjoy the benefit associated with debate, improve the application of their skills and knowledge of the events.

--Speech--

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? I enjoy the traditional format of extemp speeches, but prefer them to be as conversational as possible. if you're going to have a standard opener that you use religiously, be sure it makes sense. also be sure it isn't the exact same as every other person on your team. Use what YOU know and lean into that so that conversation flows naturally.

How much evidence do you prefer? quality over quantity for me. cite your sources with the date included, and use varied sources. at least 3 different ones! and make sure if you're bluffing that i can't tell you're bluffing.

Any preference for virtual delivery? acknowledge the camera if we're competing virtually! make sure you are in a space where you can be seen and heard.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? CONVERSATIONAL. Do not make it seem like this is the umteenth time you've competed with this piece. The beauty of oratory/info is that this is, or should be, your passion piece! YOU wrote every word. and if you're going to speak on something for 10 minutes over and over again, you should love it. And no matter how many times you've run it, it should feel like the first time every time. Your topic is near and dear to you and it's your job to make it near and dear to us. Universality is key. Though I may not be a part of the community or group or conversation, I need to understand why i MUST become a part of it or aware of it. Your passion and excitement for your speech should be palpable. Make it feel like the first time every time because for most people in the room it is the very first time we've gotten to hear this speech. and you have ten minutes to use this room as your platform and speak on what's important to you. make sure we leave this room talking about YOU! Your goal should be for us to be at our family dinner table telling everyone who will listen about this moment we took away from your speech. your gestures need to make sense and be natural. do not simply fall into gestures that you see being done just for the sake of doing them. if you wouldn't normally use particular hand gestures or vocal variations DONT DO IT for the sake of a round.

How much evidence do you prefer? I need enough statistics to not feel like you're just giving me your own personal think tank. back up what you're saying with multiple different credible sources. offer viewpoints that challenge yours, and then back them up with your facts.

Any unique thoughts on teasers? Your teaser sets the tone for the entire piece. Think about how you want to introduce us to the next ten minutes that we are going to watch!

Any unique thoughts on introductions for Interpretation events? Make them personal to YOU! Tell me why this piece matters to you while also telling me about the piece. What qualifies you to speak on this? Why should we listen and care? If you don't know who/what you're speaking on don't waste your time. oftentimes we are lifting up and bringing awareness to a community or an issue that is very delicate. use your intro to tell us why you're doing this and why it matters. Even in HI!!! i LOOOOVE a good tie in to real life. leave us talking about what we learned regardless of whether we are laughing, crying, or everything in between. take me on a JOURNEY.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc: Make every movement a moment. I should be able to snap a photo of you and tell what you're doing and where you are. make movements and pantomimes intentional and thoughtful. break the mold! take me somewhere I've never been.

What are your thoughts on character work? you absolutely must BECOME your character. you need to study people who have experienced what your character has experienced. embody them wholly. whether it's in a humorous or serious way. do not halfway commit to something and expect us to buy in.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)? Author’s intent- doesn’t bother me too much. Appropriateness is BIG for me. You’re in HIGH SCHOOL- crude sexual humor and excessive cusswords just aren’t necessary. It’s also cheap comedy IMO. If you’re that “mature” aim higher for your content. A few innuendos are okay, but don't get crazy. There are far more ways to get laughs then to take it literally below the belt.

Attn: All debaters, please avoid jargon due to the fact I have only judged one Congress competition and no Debate rounds. Please avoid speaking too quickly and I will do my best to take thorough and clear notes on your speeches and points given. Thank you.

I tend to include performance, diction, voice, energy, etc. in my evaluation for events like oratory, info, and extemp, along with the obvious analysis of content, ideas, and supporting material.

I think creativity in blocking and staging should be rewarded in a digital atmosphere as much as they are in a live one.

I am pretty liberal on content - language, sexuality, etc. do not bother or offend me, as long as the performer has a real grasp on the subjects they are talking about and understands them fully. However, I view 'profanity' much differently than slurs, derogatory language, etc. In general I would prefer that they not be used. There are scripts that use them in order to bring home a point about the vileness of such ideas and beliefs, but in my opinion, that must be very earned, and in most cases, it is not.

I am a parent judge. Lay arguments only. Do not spread.

WSD: I am a parent judge. Please make arguments understandable, and explain each principle and practical clear. I normally judge speeches, so that is where my viewpoint is at.

I am a parent judge who competed in high school, mostly in Extemp and a category similar to Info called Sales (it's a Michigan thing).

Extemp - main goal is to answer the question. A logical argument with good supporting evidence goes a long way. Fluency, humor, and good use of time helps me break a tie.

Other IEs - bring your energy, I love good blocking and good cutting. For multiple characters - vocal variation is important if you want me to be able to distinguish between them.

My "1" will go to the one who is able to convince me the best that they are the character(s) they portray.

Good luck!

.

Hello
My name is Isswarya Srinivasan. I am a parent judge and new to judging.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. Please ensure you articulate a clear and fully developed argument in a conversational pace.
Assume I do not know anything on given topic. Do not overload your speech with debate jargon.

I will do my best to provide feedback as allowed.
Have Fun! Best of Luck!

Thanks
Issy Srinivasan

Note: Send debate cards or any relevant documentation to my gmail

isswarya@gmail.com

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

Hi , my name is Satya Vanukuri. I am a parent judge . I'm a novice at judging. I'm open minded looking for well spoken arguments, slow , clear and loud speeches .

Clearly state why you think your argument is better and deserves to win. Go Slow.

I'm a full-time teacher and coach in the North Texas area. I have experience coaching, teaching or competing in every event. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 14 years.

PF

Theory and Ks - I'll evaluate and probably be able to understand these, but it's honestly not my preference to judge this kind of PF round. On theory in particular - please try to only run this if you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behavior. Otherwise, I'd rather you just talked about the topic.

Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

Some answers to questions I've been asked:

-I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

-If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

-If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

-Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

LD

The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down or remember. You'll also probably find that unless you don't spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.

Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes, but with some caveats. The farther your argument goes from traditional LD or traditional policy case structure, the harder it will be for me to grasp it and the less likely I am to vote on it.

I used to have a lot of really negative stuff about theory arguments in my paradigm. My position on that has softened a bit. There is a place for theory arguments in modern LD debate, but I still generally think theory should be in the minority of LD rounds, and the abuse should be substantial, deliberate, and clearly demonstrable if a theory argument is being made.

I do not disclose speaker points.

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers.

A few particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read or analyzed the item you're discussing!

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

-I want to see a strong debate, not parliamentary games.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Your speech should be over at seven minutes. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion. I often rank people down for talking longer than 7:10.

Oratory/Info

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research.

The most important thing to me about your informative speech is whether or not you are actually informing me about something. Again, this might sound obvious, but I feel like many Infos are either disguised persuasive speeches or speeches that are repeating very widely known information (and therefore, no actual "informing" is taking place). I tend to have a "less is more" attitude when it comes to Info visual aids - this isn't to say that I penalize students who have elaborate visual aids; just that if you only have a couple unsophisticated visuals you could do still quite well with me if you have a good speech.

For both of these events, I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples).

Interpretation Events

My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it.

On the "what's more important, author's intent or creatively," I don't have a strong opinion, other than that is important to know and follow the rules for your event in whatever league you're competing in.

I prefer in HI, POI, and Duo fewer characters to more characters; 3-5 is perfect, more than that and it is likely I will get confused about your plot unless your differentiation between characters is exceptionally good.

I'm not the judge you want if you have a piece that pushes the envelope in terms of language, subjects for humor, and depictions of sex or violence.

My attitude towards blocking is that it should be in service of developing a character or making a plot point. I find myself writing comments like "I don't know what you were doing while you said XXXX" and "you doing XXXX is distracting" way more than I write comments like "need to add more blocking."

Policy

I judge this event extremely rarely, so if you have me judging you here, treat me like an old-school, traditional debate coach. You'll do best debating stock issues, disads, topicality, and fairly straightforward counter plans. I probably haven't judged many (or any) rounds on your topic. As I said earlier with LD, spreading is fine but probably not your "top speed" if your goal this year is to qual for/break at the TOC.

Interp: It is of utmost importance that you tell your story meaningfully and impactfully. It is even more important that you have a strong intro and topic, and that your piece represents the effects or relates to your topic well. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, vocal variation, believability, and articulation will all add to the overall decision.

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

I am a parent judge with 10 years history. Normal conversation speed will help me get your points and write them down.