Athens TFA IQT
2024 — Athens, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePrefs 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.
I have been judging multiple speaking event for the past two years. I am an English teacher, so, naturally, I will notice organization, credible evidence, clear arguments. For debate events: make sure you point out your framework clearly. I do not care for spreading and I do like when you layout why you think you've won. I have a basic understanding of the jargon, but do not usually speak to it in my critiques; however, I will try.
CX
- I am ok with New in the 2 as long as it isn't abusive (example: pulling excessive attacks in the 1NC and then even more in the 2NC)
- I want good speaking/explaining. Don't just read to me for 8 minutes with no explanation of what you read or how it links to the case
- I want to hear clash.
- organization, speaking quality, and quality of attacks are more important to me than the number of attacks. Continue to flow it across the board and extend/elaborate on it.
- (CX) I do lean more toward stock issues - I will flow a DA & a CP. I am not opposed to K or Theory; however, my ballot will not normally come down to just the K or Theory
- (LD) In the UIL world, I want to hear the clash down the flow - Hitting as much of the case as possible (value, criterion, contentions)
- (LD) in the TFA world, I am open to any arguments as long as they are organized, there is clash and they are pulled across the flow
- I want you to outline it for me in the end. Give me good voters going down the flow along with impacts and net benefit. Don't assume I know.
GENERAL:
- I do not time roadmaps as long as they are brief
- I am ok with speed but I need to be able to flow it
- signpost
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.
I have been a coach and consultant for the past 29 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and/or Senior Instructor for LD, PF, and WSD. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.
If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.
In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.
In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.
I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.
In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.
I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!
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 am a traditional judge. I am a lay judge (sorry). I can not vote for things I don’t understand, so don’t talk fast… seriously, do not talk fast (I apologize to the progressive debaters… again). I’m a tabula Rasa judge, but i evaluate truth > tech, and I evaluate on predictability. I don’t really care what you run, just make sure I can actually understand your arguments. I prefer strength and confidence over agression without substance. There should also be civility, not condescension. Convince me with common sense and logical reasoning. If you don’t think you’ll win, I do accept PayPal (just kidding… cash is king). Also, I will give extra speaker points for referencing The Simpsons. I apologize in advance to all the kids my decision will tick off, sort of.
I have judged debate on and off the past 22 years. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school.
I don’t mind spread, but it has to be done well. If it is not done well, I stop flowing.
LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting and weighing a value with a criterion instead of a second value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments and extend their cases. I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case
CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly.
I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. I am good with most things in a round.
Address me however you want. joeylopezdiaz00@gmail.com
Princeton HS (2020-2024), UT (2024-present). I’ve done LD, extemp, congress, world schools, and interp (in order of most experience).
Pref (1-4) (1=high, 4=low):
Phil - 1
Trad - 1
LARP- 1
FW/T - 1
Kritiks - 2
Theory - 2
K-Affs - 4
Tricks- 4
I'm mostly tab. Run what you want as long as you know what you’re doing. Send the doc before the round if you're spreading. Slow down on taglines and authors. I like to see impacts and framing; framework isn't automatically put on the top of my list unless you tell me. I'm pretty open to whatever you want to run, and if you want to ask questions, feel free to ask. I'm going to vote based on what you tell me to vote on; I will not fill in the blanks for you (that's what the RFD is for).
I don't like power tags and highlighting that doesn't fit your argument or make sense. Avoid over-cutting your cards in general because it can be abusive. This is a friendly match--don't sweat too hard. Play fair and don't be a bigot. Hook 'em!
My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 23 years and I am an NSDA Three-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.
I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.
I have been judging speech and debate for a couple of years. My preference is for Speech events, but I've judged a lot of LD as well as some WS and CX. While I myself do not have a background in speech and debate and consider myself a lay judge, I do have experience teaching elementary and middle school students in an after-school EFL academy. In addition to evaluating essay writing, memorized speeches, and presentations in standard EFL classes of varying levels, I also taught higher level students in subjects including literature and test prep. I also have a long history as a trainer in various fields, which included assessment, feedback, and improvement plans for my trainees. As far as educational background, I have a masters in Library and Information Services, a masters in East Asian Studies, and a bachelors in Literature.
In my judging, I will be looking for a well-supported argument with evidence to support your view or a clear strong characterization of your story. I like to see both style and substance! I want you to persuade me and convey your point, which means I also want to be talked to in a way that's easy to understand. I prefer a conversational pace, and if you include any jargon make sure to explain it. Be sure to utilize your non-verbal communication skills, but don't force anything that would feel unnatural. I will be taking notes while you speak, though I'll also want to see that you are engaging with the audience as you go through your piece, even if you are reading from your materials. Make sure you are answering the question or speaking to the prompt you've been given, that you address any points made by your opponent, and that you follow any rules or guidance provided. All other things being equal, I have preference for performances that provide a personal connection or explanation to the story or argument you're making.
Above all, do your best and have fun!
LD- Value/Criterion block is key to me in this form of debate. However, use your contentions to detail how and why that is so. Remember, philosophy plays a big role in this. Flush out exactly why yours should be upheld more than your opponents. Speed is fine, as long as it's understandable.
Contentions are the building blocks for your value and criterion. Give well presented warrants and explain how it connects.
Analytics are fine, but back it up with well given reasoning.
Congress- Be involved! Ask good questions, understand your arguments as well as the opposing arguments, but most of all; keep the round moving.
CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.
LD Philosophy
I consider myself traditional.
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.
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. 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.
If you run theory in front of me, you are wasting your time. I will not vote on theory.
I do not disclose at the end of a round so no need to ask.
Preferences:
*Civil, respectful, conversational rate preferred. If I do not hear your material that is on you.
*Well prepared sources clearly stated
Personal background:
Aircraft Maintenance Controller
My work in a 24/7 operations center consist of guiding pilots in-flight or on the ground with immediate and complex aircraft maintenance problems via various forms of communication. Additionally, we assist aircraft engineers and technicians in the timely repair and return of aircraft to service. Our fast past environment requires precise and critical thinking for the safety of our fellow employees and our passengers. I am giving you this background as to reinforce my communication preferences. Clear, precise and factual speaking is of the upmost importance to make decisions.
Hello everyone, my name is Giselle Tinajero, and I’ll be your judge today. I competed in speech and debate during my high school career, so I understand how much effort you’ve put into preparing for today. While I’m still fairly new to judging, I’m excited to hear your speeches and see your arguments unfold. One key piece of advice: please speak loudly and clearly so I can fully understand and evaluate your points. I’m looking forward to a great round—good luck!