Memorial Mustang Spring Woods Tiger Swing
2024 — Houston, TX/US
Congress Judge Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am an old school traditional judge who does a lot of congress and extemp.
In Congress - If you ask for an in house recess to pad a speech or to address the chamber because no one is speaking - DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK! Nothing annoys congress judges more than 15 minutes of caucusing and getting splits, only for no one to be ready. The PO should be running the round and is perfectly capable of admonishing those who are not ready to speak. Otherwise, I like a good intro with a 2 pt preview and good, creative arguments that show critical thinking. Be active in the round and ask good questions. As for trigger warnings: unless you are giving some graphic description of something, there is no need. The simple mention of a word does not require a trigger warning.
PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.
LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.
Extemp - I like a good AGD and want effective communication and sources are essential.
Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.
FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.
I am the Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director before moving over to Speech and Debate.
First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.
Congress
Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.
Interp:
I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, the environment should be clear and the blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this within the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to the character, and share that with the audience.
Public Speaking:
Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose, and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, your content must be accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.
PF:
-
I try to flow, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.
-
Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.
- Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.
-
I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.
-
Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.
-
If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.
-
Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.
Judging Paradigm for Jennifer Chii
Background: I am a new judge and a parent, and I am new to debate. I value clarity and logical argumentation.
1. Arguments & Evidence: I vote on well-supported arguments with clear reasoning. Explain why your points matter.
2. Clarity & Speed: Speak clearly. If I can’t follow, I won’t evaluate it.
3. Dropped Arguments: If you don’t respond to an argument, I may consider it conceded.
4. Weighing: Tell me why your side wins. If you don’t, l’ll decide based on what I find most important.
5. Respect & Decorum: Be professional and respectful.
6. Decision: I vote for the team that best supports and defends their case while refuting their opponent.
Head Coach @ Jordan HS
Wake Forest University – 2022
Jack C Hays High School – 2019
Add me to the email chain: jordandebate@googlegroups.com
General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger
i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters
you can use any pronouns for me
speed is good, pls slow down on analytics. i do not flow off the doc and will not vote on things that are not on my flow. i'll clear you twice and then give up. please get off the doc in the back half of the debate - i am much more interested in your analysis than in hearing the same docced responses that i've heard ten times in the tournament. major kudos to people who have paper flows and are doing line by line work from the flow
For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue
please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else
CX:
K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less
Framework:
I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this
I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff
To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.
DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.
Topicality/Theory:
I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.
I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.
all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story
LD specific:
Tricks:
no thanks
LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.
PF:
if your evidence does not have a tag at all, or it is functionally nothing (ie “concludes”, “explains”, etc), I will not flow it. use good evidence ethics practices and don't paraphrase
Congress:
I am a debate judge, and I flow Congress. However, your delivery is also important. I want to be persuaded by your speech. To borrow from Calen Calber, "introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank." CX matters a lot to me - you should use it efficiently and strategically without getting heated with other people in the room. I strongly dislike people being unprepared for Congress (ie. having to take in house recesses because people are not prepared to speak) and breaking cycle and it will be reflected on my ballot.
PO's typically start at a 5 and go up or down depending on: 1) how well the round runs and 2) how good everyone else in the room is. Again, from Calen Cabler, "A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot."
hi team
i'm a oo and dx mommy pretty pls don't do anything crazy
dont run a k or spread or a shell or u automatically LOSE!!!!
second half of the round, regardless of debate event needs to write your ballot - dont make me do any work for u thats silly
jus don't be an evil debater its not that deep and its never gonna be that deep - as soon as u start tweaking out u lose!!!!
jus ask any questions u need, but it's gonna be a lay round
CONGRESS
When judging congress, I always rank the speech with quality clash, that’s well-timed, has an observable impact, and isn’t repeating previous speeches. If you’re going to repeat an argument, I want to see you expand the impact and add new evidence. Otherwise, it’s just rehash. Further details are below.
Delivery: You shouldn’t be speaking too fast, especially if I see that you have a good 15+ seconds left when you’re done with your speech. Make sure you add vocal, volume, and speed variation. Also, I can tell when you’re doing a cold read in round. Try to memorize the important points of your speech so it sounds more fluid.
Structure: Signpost, signpost, signpost. The easiest way to lose me is to forget your signpost. List your arguments after your intro so I, along with the other judges and your competitors, can keep track of your speech.
Clash: QUALITY OVER QUANTITY. If you are listing everyone in the chamber’s name and just following with “is wrong”, that’s not clash. I’d rather you fully address just one representative’s argument and back it up with evidence.
Questioning: There’s nothing I hate more than mini speeches in questioning. You’ll get your turn to speak. These 30 seconds are SUPER valuable and should be used for their intended purpose; to ask questions. I also don’t like when either competitor repeatedly interrupts each other during questioning. All you’re doing is making it harder for the judges to hear the arguments made.
PO:I rank PO based on efficiency, accuracy, and speed. A few mistakes here and there is fine, but I expect a PO sheet and clear understanding of precedence!
PF, LD, CX, WSD
Lay judge :)
I am a stickler for good presentation and civil debate. Respect and clear argumentation are important for me in all events. I will be very focused on the flow of argumentation and will judge off of what was presented and how.
Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.
CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid spreading.
LD: I prefer traditional LD. No spreading, civil clash, and a strong emphasis on philosophy over policy. I will tolerate progressive debate/Kritiks and policy, however, be careful and make sure your case is well crafted.
IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery and compelling storytelling!
PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.
WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is not encouraged.
I would like to be on the email chain for documents in the round → rmassey3@kleinisd.net
My name is Ronnie Massey — I have 10 years of debating/coaching/judging experience in an
array of events.
I prefer Truth > Tech and should be treated as a lay judge.
You need to stay under 250 wpm. It's much more important that you are clear than slow. Either
way, I’m not especially accustomed to spreading.
I’m not particularly well-versed on the topic so keep excessive jargon to a minimum. On that
note, I do not feel comfortable evaluating progressive and/or “circuit” arguments.
I have zero tolerance for any “-isms” (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) that will get you an L25.
Speaks should average from 28.5 to 29.5.
Have fun debating!
I am a third-year debater from Spring Woods Sr. High School. My primary events are Congress, and Extemp.
CONGRESS
Presentation will make you noticeable. Argumentation will make you sensible. Both of these factors make you memorable.
But if you are the only person, in a novice room, who has clash, you will have my 1.
EXTEMP
I am looking for a tone of voice that is easy on the ears. Whether it be humorous, conversational, dramatic, it must intertwine with your words and make me want to listen to you. If you are monotone, you will be upped.
I am largely forgiving of fluency breaks.
Contrary to popular belief, extemp is not an event where you put down the tracks as the train hurtles south. It must be evident to me that you know your topic. I expect to see differentiated points that tie back to the question, and are clear and concise.
If you're funny, you're upped.
Congress:
Congress isn't entirely one genre of speech and debate it's a culmination of just about every style. I don't lean toward favoring a lay debater or a flow debater. In this event, you're just trying to convince the judge to rank you whatever means you go about doing that is 100% up to you. However, if you're able to balance both the flow and lay appeal you're going to rank higher in my ballots than someone who's just good at one or the other.
For PO's: Run the round as smoothly and quickly as possible. I'll grade you on how well you can keep the round on track and avoid disruptions. The more the parli has to intervene(within reason, I won't fault you for asking for the specific rules of the tournament) the lower I'll rank you.
Local/TX Circuit: Please Clash
LD: I don’t have a preference on which style of LD you choose to do. Whether it’s modern or classic is fully up to you I will grade each style equally.
PF: I find PF strategy really interesting I’m more of a flow judge but I can ealso be influenced by the lay although not as strongly.
I am a new assistant coach at Jordan High School. This is my second year coaching in Speech and Debate. I competed in high school all 4 years and judged some tournaments in college.
I like to judge oratory, domestic and international extemporaneous, and prose events. I like to judge Congress as well.
I believe a well-delivered speech is organized, and concise. State your arguments clearly and defend them with analysis. Making general comments and not backing them up does not earn points with me. I look for a clear thesis or introduction and entertainment value. I also like to see changes in tone, volume variation and facial expressions that will engage the audience. The use of hand gestures and movement is also helpful in your presentation.
Congress: I like a clear road map of what you will cover for each speech. It is important that you argue your opponent's case and explain how your case is stronger. If your speech is earlier in the session, you should emphasize your key points in your speech. If your speech is later in the session, spend more time explaining how your case is stronger than the opposing side. Emphasize how your key points clearly outweigh the opponents. I'm always looking for good rhetoric as you prove your position and reinforce with analysis.
I am a policy centered cross-x judge. I try to stay tab as much as possible and keep an open mind but I don't have the high-level experience that many other national-level judges have. I flow the speeches and take notes during cross-x. I will look at the doc to get the cites and try to read the evidence between speeches.
When you stop prep time, please be in the process of sending or uploading the speech doc. If you say "stop prep," do not turn around and whisper to your partner. If you are the 1NR and you say "no prep," do not start talking to the 2NC and you should have the doc already uploaded if you have new evidence.
I did not debate in college and I am not well-connected to NDT level trends.
As I get older, cognitively I am a little slower and a more concrete thinker. That being said, my weaknesses are high theory kritiks, performance / identity arguments, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplan theory.
I have no predispositions against arguments. I actually love innovative arguments like critical philosophy, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplans but I just lack experience so my decision may be a bit unpredictable. I will defer to an offense-defense paradigm and list the offense that each team is winning and then decide which impact or framework I should choose based on the arguments. I will also try to compare the evidence if needed and use the arguments to compare warrants.
I do my best to get a tight flow but I can't get every word. If you are debating theory, you might want to go 90% of top speed and make sure you are enunciating well. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and it won't be on the flow.
Topicality-I like topicality debate but I am looking for examples of cases that the other team would allow. I am looking for specific arguments that you will not be able to run. Saying "limits" and "ground" does not qualify as an extension. You will need at least 2 or 3 sentences to explain what that theory means, give examples of in-round or potential abuse impacts, and warrant out why I should down the team.
Theory-I can flow theory pretty well and I will vote on it. But again, you need to give a 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what the in-round or potential impacts are to your theory and why downing the team is merited. Extending taglines or buzzwords won't be sufficient.
Disadvantages-Make sure they are unique and the links are specific. Do impact calculus and compare the impacts.
Counterplans-I like counterplan debate. I like all types and am open to counterplan theory but just don't go too fast and be specific. "Perm: do both" might not always be sufficient. The affirmative may need to have a perm text that is written out and specific to what the perm does especially in a process round or advantage counterplan round.
Kritiks-Sure but I am not the most up to date on kritiks. I sometimes don't understand really dense theory and philosophy. I do prefer specific and timely links that interact with the assumptions of the case over generic links of omission. Framework debate needs to interact so if you are going for an identity or performance argument, I can't be expected to automatically vote for your framework; there needs to be a clear extension of the in-round and out-round implications of endorsing your specific framework and a comparison with the other teams framework. I do prefer kritiks that are timely and germane to the topic and connect to real-life events.
Case Debate-You probably are going to need this and it needs to specific and recent. There needs to be impact comparison and engagement with the warrants of the evidence.
Congress
Argumentation - Make sure your arguments make sense(CWDI), please don´t do non solvency or nonunique arguments, it get´s pretty boring to your judges. You must have impacts, don´t give me word salad. Clash :)
Presentation - PLEASE DON´T READ YOUR INTRO OFF YOUR PAD, it should be our first impression of who you are and if you can´t memorize something as integral as your intro it´s not a good look. Maintain eye contact, don´t overuse gestures, speakers triangle. Funny intros are good, but just make sure they relate in some way to the bill or topic itself. If you say ¨the opposite of congress is progress¨ in your speech I will down you. Engage me and I will listen to you, you´re already here, make the most of it.
Questioning - If you ask a question make sure you know the answer too it, it get´s pretty awkward when you somebody says ¨im sure you can tell me¨ and you can´t. Be direct, use your time well, engage the questioner. Active questioners will be noticed, and having a presence in the chamber is equally as important as speaking itself.
PO - Be confident, know parli procedures please, if you can make your PO sheet available to observers(tinyurl or bit.ly) it will be noted. Keeping decorum is a must, you will not be an automatic break just for POing. Please tell your judges to mark you down as the Xth speaker after each hour. POing isn´t really my thing, if you step up to do it if no one in your round wants to I´ll keep it in mind, most importantly don´t let the small mistakes get to you, and have fun.
Extemp
Restate the question, have an engaging intro, good presentation, use your time well, make sure you give me your sources+dates. I will listen to a confident, collected speaker any day over someone rushing.
LD/PF/CX
Spreading is a death sentence
Everything else
Have fun, I´ll try my best, be entertaining