Katy Cats Swing TFA
2025 — Katy, TX/US
LD/PF - In Person Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideINTERP Specific: DO NOT SCREAM in your performance. I understand being loud for emotional reasons, but you do not need to scream at the top of your lungs. I hear a fair bit of screaming my day to day and it genuinely bothers me more than any uncomfortable social issue/topic. I will rank you lower for screaming as a tie breaker.
Truth over tech: I don't think abusing link chains makes you a good debater. I'm willing to buy more abstract arguments to an extent I have solid general knowledge of most things political. The more complicated your argument the more clear your link chain should be. That being said as long as your argument isn't based around a lie or fatal mistake on your part I still require the other team to do the work and refute it.
Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.
Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've only vote on two theory arguments. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win.I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)
In LD: Value criterion is extremely important to me. I need to understand how different contentions/cards tie into your value criterion and why your VC outweighs.
In PF: I value more of a big picture voters speech than a line by line, the speech is 2 minutes so if you drop unimportant parts of the debate here you can win. With that said in PF I really prefer slower speaking even more than LD
Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't. I really like it when you understand why an extemp question is an extemp question. A good extemp question is about a bigger picture and if your analysis reflects great topic knowledge and I am typically going to be more interested/engaged and rank you higher.
Platform/Interp: Delivery is critical especially for jokes, practice practice practice. If your unsure of how you are saying a joke ask someone before giving it to me as a judge. Moreover in Interp please don't scream/yell super loud especially if you are standing right next to me.
"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."
That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.
In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.
I do have a few pet peeves.
1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.
2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.
3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.
4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.
I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.
*EMORY NOTE: No PDFs or cards in the body; Word docs only.*
Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Heights High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP
Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.
If I'm judging you in PF: bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com
I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire, and coach a variety of debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.
Pref Shortcuts
- Policy: 1
- T/Theory: 1-2
- Phil: 2
- Kritik (identity): 2
- Kritik (pomo): 3
- Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.
General
- Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
- Tech > Truth
- I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
- I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
- Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
- It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
- I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
- If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
- I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
- You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
- Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.
Policy
- I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
- You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
- Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
- I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
- If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.
Theory
- I default to competing interpretations.
- I default to no RVIs.
- You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
- Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
- Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters do not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or teams who are genuinely unaware of the wiki.
- "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
- I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.
Kritiks
- I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
- Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
- I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
- I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.
Philosphical Frameworks
- I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
- You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
- I default to epistemic confidence.
- Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.
Speed
- Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
- Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
- If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.
Speaker Points
- A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
- I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
- I don't disclose speaks.
- I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
- I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
- Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
- Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
- Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
- If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
- As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.
***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***
For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org
Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.
Judge intervention - My role as a critic in a debate round is different than my role as an educator as a teacher in a classroom. I think the debate round should be understood as a brave space, where creative perspectives are presented with the expectation of student-centered competitive rejoinder. If there are arguments that your opponent makes that you believe have racist/sexist/heterosexist assumptions, I would encourage you to interrogate those assumptions within your debate speeches. I am far more hesitant to intervene and stop the debate than I would be to stop micro-aggressions between students in my classroom.
Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.
Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.
Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.
Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.
Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)
Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).
Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.
I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.
Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.
Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)
If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.
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 usually will time speeches with an alarm and stop flowing the second it starts ringing. 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 don’t think you should read any more than three contentions. If you spread and your articulation is bad or you read two words off a card, I probably won’t flow it and it’ll have been a loss of your time. I understand that you might be tired after all these rounds, but I am really a fan of dedication/enthusiasm. I know this is PF but you need to cite a warrant on your offense if you want it to be a voter in back half of the round. On this, extensions need to happen in the back half if you want to get my ballot. Obviously, please weigh. I will only use the metrics provided in the round and use as minimal judge intervention as possible. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.
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
The simplest way to describe my judging style: old-fashioned.... very old-fashioned.
Translation: I don’t like spreading, and I want to hear people making a coherent and persuasive argument. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the fastest possible speaker in the world, then max out around a 5 for me and average around a 3, please. I generally don’t award wins on a technicality, meaning, if your opponent dropped two of your five contentions, but only because no human could possibly respond to them all in the given time limit, I’m going to cut your opponent some slack as long as he addressed your most salient and important contentions. In short: win points by making points, not by playing tricks, working the system, or taking cheap shots. Cut the jargon, engage with the substance of the debate.
A bit more detailed advice on how to win my ballot:
1) Prioritize common sense, evidence (not too much... just enough to make your point), and clarity as you present and defend your case. Hint: repetition is often helpful for bringing clarity. Slow down on your tags, make sure I can see the case you're making. Put simply, if I can understand what you’re saying and what you mean, I’m more likely to vote for you.
2) Always answer the question “WHY?” Don’t just tell me your opponent is wrong and you are right, tell me WHY your opponent is wrong and WHY you’re right.
3) Keep it classy… the whole tournament. Off-hand snide comments, insults, and general rudeness or disrespect are all good ways to lose speaker points. You’re here to share in a respectful conversation. Certainly, there can and should be passionate disagreement, but that does not mean pettiness or disrespect. Little things like thanking and congratulating your opponent could be the difference maker.
4) I tend to weigh cross and final rebuttals more heavily than other rounds.
5) Clear voters based on what happenedand the substance of the arguments during cross and rebuttals are often persuasive for me.
For LD: I know history of western philosophy pretty well, but I’m more familiar with the ancient and medieval ideas than the early-modern, enlightenment, empiricism, rationalism or post-modern. I can follow the conversation in any era, but I always prefer substance to jargon. Don’t just toss out a quote or reference to a concept from Hume or Locke, instead (1) demonstrate that you actually understand the idea by explaining it in a respectful and simple manner, and (2) demonstrate that the quote or idea is actually relevant to the argument you’re making.
I don't have experience in Speech or Debate and this is my first year participating in judging.
In my career, I am a Benefits Quality Control Manager who ensures that items in my department are completed accurately. I'm a fairly detail oriented person.
I have hearing loss and although I wear hearing aids, I'd appreciate it if you speak loudly.
I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. I will attend only to the arguments presented in the debate when making my decision. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room.
My email is pxd2010@gmail.com
I am a physician with neuroradiology and public health training and have been judging debate since last year. I assign 28.5 as average performance. Ballots with results will be sent to you. At the end of debate, please feel free to excuse yourself if you need. I often read my notes again before making the final decision. You can refer to me as Judge during the debate, my pronouns are her/she. Good luck!
Hello, everyone and I can't wait to judge your round!!
To introduce myself, I am Idara Etuks. I am an undergraduate student at Washington University in St. Louis and a former competitor in congressional debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I competed at the local, state, and national level, semifinaling TOC in Congress and TFA State in Domestic Extemp, finaling at tournaments like Harvard and Emory, and placing 8th at TFA State in Congress, placing 2nd in UIL 6A Congressional Debate, and placing 3rd at the 2024 National Speech and Debate tournament in the Senate.
For Congress:
Congress is both speech and debate, meaning you need to speak well and convincingly while mastering the argumentative part of the event. I don't want to hear the same rehashed argument as we continue, but I will give brownie points to someone who provides a great late-round or crystal. Your objective as a senator or representative is to present the issue to me in a way that I would immediately vote for what side you are speaking on. The people who will rank on my ballot are the ones who embody their personality in their speeches, provide an argument that applies to the real world*, and are respectful.
If you want to make jokes in your speeches, make them funny and easy to understand. I don't want to be in the 3rd hour of the round laughing at a joke you said in the first 30 minutes because I just now got it. If you use rhetoric in your speech, I am a sucker for a good theme and story. I would always run rhetoric related to that, or I made it personal!! If you attempt personal rhetoric, I just pray it is real. The only type of rhetoric I dislike is abusive rhetoric like "blood on their hands", generalized negative rhetoric (for certain groups or nations), descriptive language of death or abhorrent conditions, or just blatantly restating another individual's words. You may think it sounds pretty cool, but I would be looking at you thinking it sounded pretty annoying. Make the round fun, not unbearable.
I have been in the event for a long time and watched too many rounds; if I hear a speech that copies a former competitor's speech, expect a 9 and an angry comment on your ballot. If you PO, you should expect a ranking between 4-6--if the round is terrible, you can expect a 1-3. For speaking, you can be a great speaker, but if absolute nonsense is coming out of your mouth, I won't listen. The same goes for content. You can have the round-winning argument or the best content in the world, but if your speaking prevents me from understanding the argument, then I will tune you out.
*Added this because I am so serious when I say your argument must understand the way the real world works. You should not be drafting an argument based on something someone ran in 2019 or 2020 because it benefited them at that time. The world is always changing, so your arguments should too!!!
For Extemp:
If you follow the structure of having the hook/ AGD, background source, your answer and question, a roadmap, and 3 points with the right amount of evidence and analysis, then you will be set! The point of extemp is to inform me about a topic, give me your opinion, and provide an engaging argument as to why your opinion is right. Projection and speaking is key for this event because that's mainly what I must go off of. The best speakers may not answer the questions the best, but they will keep me engaged. Don't lose me in the 7 minutes, and you will do great.
For Speech:
I don't typically judge speech, but I love it so much!!! All I have to say is for oratory, I go based on the most compelling topic with an adequate solution and clear problem. Same for info. I need to be able to relate in some way to the topic so that I can care for it in my ranking. This doesn't necessarily mean making the topic about black people or being a woman, but you should incorporate relatable content in your speech that is a universal experience for most judges. The solution should be a solution. If it is one that is hard to implement, then focus on making it feasible in a certain area. I just want to know if the issue can be addressed. Now, it is lovely to hear about everyone's families because the stories are truly inspiring, but if you have little relation to the story, don't put it in. There will always be real-life stories of other individuals that can fulfill that part of the speech. Also, when deciding what current events to include in your speech, include examples not just from 2024 but from 2019, 2012, 2005, and before. Your judges will most likely be familiar with those events as well and it prevents you from repeating the same current event as another speaker.
For Interp:
I love watching Interp so much. If I cry during your speech, congratulations!!! I was moved. (I cry really easily, though) Ensure your piece is polished and the story is clear. As a judge who spends more time in debate, I will be critical of content but understanding of the differences in the events. If I am placed as your judge for interp, do not fret!! I have reviewed the information necessary to be a trustworthy judge. Just be confident, have fun, and do well!
For Debate:
Say your prayers because I probably did not want to be in that round. Not because of you! Just because I don't love the event. If I am judging, I will know what I am doing, but probably do not spread.
Debate:
LD:
Moderate speed is fine. If I can't flow you, I'll just stare at you. I don't know why debaters assume I understand spreading. I don’t flow from the doc or really want to look at it (unless you tell me to –> ev ethics/ev comparison) but if your opponent does, then set up the email chain/speechdrop. Do this pre-start time.
I was a trad debater, so trad and larp are my pref (be mindful of the policy jargon which I guarantee I won't get). Trad: FW debate is cool. I want to see it more often. Anything else, proceed at your own risk or ask before the round.
Please line by line, signpost, and tell me the big picture. I prefer you go top down the flow, but if you don't then PLEASE tell me where you are. Saying "on the econ disad" and then reading a big block isn't doing the lbl. Extensions have claims, warrants, and impacts. I really hate hearing "extend card x" but not hearing the argument.
I dislike rebuttals that solely rely on card dumps and don't contextualize the evidence. Of course, read cards when you need to, but not every argument needs one. I highly value your ability to pick apart a link chain logically rather than read a 5-point block that partially relates to the adv/da. If you're neg, debate the case and engage with the actual warrants. Reading multiple offs to overwhelm your opp or as a time suck will cap speaks at 28 (especially when you barely touch case)
Last speeches should tell me exactly what I'm voting for. I don't want to look at my flow at the end of the round and see that you went for everything. BIG FAN OF OVERVIEWS AND VOTERS. Please weigh, do impact calc, and give judge instruction.The simpler you make the debate, the more likely I am to vote for you.
I'm a sucker for good CX, so good/strategic CX = high speaks.
Be nice to novices and to your opponents, your speaks will reflect your actions
WSD:
Content over style, but style is still important. Being overly stylistic is not going to get you very far if the other team is on the offensive
Please signpost during your speeches, even in the 3's
Weigh/Be comparative. Tell me why your world is good AND why it is better than your opponent's
Principle vs. Practical Debates: clearly establish the principle in the first speeches and make sure to extend offense under the framing. Weigh the principle against the practical
Models/Counterfactuals/Countermodels:theseare not always needed, but they make sense for some motions. I do think on some topics it's valid for the opp to argue that the prop needs one. If you have them, fully explain them in your first speeches. I don't want to hear at the end of the opp 2 that there suddenly is a countermodel.
This is debate, so clash.
IEs:
Extemp: The biggest thing for me is whether or not you answered the question. Your points should be distinct enough from each other and have in-depth reasoning. I value your ability to take a complex topic and articulate it in a way that is relatable or easy for the audience to understand.
OO/Info: Your speech should have energy and personality. Sounding passionate about your topic makes my experience more enjoyable and = higher ranks
New to judging/ Parent Judge.
Please don't spread/speak fast.
Do not use advanced Debate Jargon as I wont understand it.
Explain the topic and try to not use acronyms such as GPC, rather just say the full name.
Be respectful.
Time yourselves, and hold opponent accountable if they go over time.
Please add me to the email chain! jobbysneha@gmail.com
Hi! My name is Sneha, and I'm excited to be your judge! I loved speech and debate in high school (LV Hightower) and served as my team’s Speech Captain for my junior and senior year. I qualified for TFA & NSDA in 2022, 2023, and 2024, and NIETOC in 2024. I was the 2023 TFA Impromptu Speaking State Champion. While I primarily competed in Original Oratory, Extemp, and Impromptu, I have also tried LD, Expository, Poetry, and Prose. Additionally, I am a private coach.
LD: I enjoy a well-structured framework debate and consider myself a fairly traditional judge. If we are in a virtual tournament please speak slower. I like impacts and weighing. Towards the end of the debate, condense the round and tell me why you have earned my ballot. I'm not very familiar with K debate. I like Yale's Speaker Points Guide:
- 29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament.
- 29.1 to 29.4 - NICE! You should be in late elims.
- 28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD! You should be in elim rounds.
- 28.3 to 28.7 - OK! You might or might not break.
- 27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little.
- 27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot.
- 27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do.
- 26.0 to 26.9 - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong.
CX/PF/WSD: Consider me to be a lay judge.
Speech Events: Limited Prep (Extemp/Impromptu): Your speech should sound planned, not canned. One of the most important aspects of extemp, which students often struggle with, is actually answering the question. Your response should specifically address the question being asked, rather than focusing solely on the "general topic." Research is a crucial part of Extemp, so don't fabricate sources. For Impromptu, I don't mind if you use your topic as a springboard for a broader speech, as I understand you may not be familiar with every single topic you receive. However, you’ll need a much stronger link and clearer preview than someone who directly addresses the given topic. It is essential that your speech relates to your topic—if you're off-topic, I cannot rank you well, even if your speech sounds great.
OO/Info: I love a good AGD! Tying your AGD or anecdote into your transitions is impressive. Pay attention to the mechanics of speech, such as platform movement, blocking, structure, and rhetoric. For OO, incorporating a personal connection or appealing to pathos can be powerful and will make you stand out among your fellow competitors. For Info, remember that visual aids should complement your speech, not distract from it. Overall, ensure that your speech is fluid and supported by solid evidence.
Interp Events: Characterization and blocking are key in interp events. Additionally, please be mindful of the rules in binder events.
Be civil to your fellow competitors, and know that I am rooting for you! If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Good luck!
Hi, my name is Vibhu Kanna and I am a graduated hs student. I mainly used to compete in congressional debate and foreign extemp, but also some WSD for fun.
Congress:
There has been this weird trend where a lot of judges emphasize that congress as a debate event but never really care about the "debate." I ain't all about that. I personally believe Congress is equivalent to actual debate if you make good arguments and actually interact with the round, which is why I weigh arguments over speaking. HOWEVER, your speaking must be good enough to the point where I can coherently understand your argument. If you give good speaking but a really bad argument that's out of the scope of the round (ie. this is a resolution so it is vague and therefore fail) you will get dropped. But if you give bad speaking but a good argument, you'll be in the middle 50-60% of the ranks. If you give GREAT SPEAKING and GREAT argumentation, that will be the top of my ranks.
Questioning: I want to see that you answer questions well. I don't really care about asking questions that much, but make sure you do ask some and make those questions unique. This will be part of my ranks. I want to see you being engaged.
PO: You will start my rank at 5 and then move up or down based on how you do.
Oh and also if you use humor you get brownie pts. I hate that sappy congress rhetoric everyone gives; however, if your rhetoric isn’t humorous but is also original you will still get the brownie pts!
Extemp:
I value speaking a lot here but you should also answer the question.
I want to see you have an in-depth understanding of the topic you are speaking about. I also want to see that creative element shine in your speaking.
Debate events:
Whatever argument I believe the most will win, make them believable. Make sure you have good responses and backups as needed to defend your argument.
Also:
BE RESPECTFUL!!!!
I am a traditional judge. I would like to see the consistency in your arguments throughout the debate.
Please speak clearly, and do not go too fast! You'd rather get your point through me, not just incomprehensibly throw out your points at me and your opponent(s).
Be polite during cross. Personally I read news everyday and I do a bit of research on the debate topic before I judge. I respect your opinions on each topic, your job is to explain your arguments logically and convince me!
Make sure your evidences are correct and up to date.
Please track your prep time accurately. I will not track prep time for you during debate rounds, but I do pay attention to the time you spend. Do not steal prep.
You are not required to send me the case doc. But if you prefer to do so,you can send it to my email: liugr@hotmail.com.
LD and CX:
If it'll make it simpler, consider me a relatively traditional/lay judge.
Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.
Not a fan of plans in LD - find a friend and do Policy instead.
PF:
Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.
Congress:
I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.
Speech Events:
I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).
Interp Events:
With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.
Hello, my name is Falak Malik. My son participates in PF Debate so I understand the format of speeches and times. Please keep track of all times. I cannot understand any speech over 200WPM. Please keep all speeches coherent and clear, you are not as clear as you think online. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SIGN POST AND GIVE ROAD MAPS BEFORE SPEECHES AFTER CONSTRUCTIVE!!! I am a lay judge after all. You can control crossfires with respect, otherwise disrespect = speaker points. I am okay with open crossfires as long as they do not become abusive and that one partner does not answer / give questions every cross. PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY KRITIKS OR THEORY AND KEEP IT FLAY AT MOST. I understand most arguments as long as the link chain is clear and not messy (i.e. do not link recession with nuclear war and claim Starr 15 is the best card to exist)
parent judge for st agnes MV (pf) and st agnes EM (ld)
speech + congress just do normal stuff lol
debate - ld + pf
- adapt your case how you would w/ a lay judge
- cross is flowed :)
- u can totally run unique args as long as u warrant everything! it's not the political stuff thats hard it's the debate-y words
- when u tell me u ow tell me why u ow - nobody gets what u mean when u say "i ow on magnitude" w.o saying WHY
- don't be evil + run theory or a K or spread or anything like that - ur setting urself up for failure
have fun!!!! ????
(written by debate daughter!!! if i've hit u tell my dad thats lowk so funny)
I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:
Congress
I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several mistakes, struggle with procedures and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.
Debate
Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.
Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points. I tend to flow arguments over card names. Be very clear with your signposting or I will get lost.
Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.
Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. Tricks are dumb. I will not vote for them except as a RVI against the trickster. See my assumptions below.
Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, in LD I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."
Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.
Policy Debate: I am a fairly traditional judge who naturally defaults towards a policymaker mindset. I do appreciate the stock issues and am willing to vote on Topicality. Spamming the affirmative with 18 off annoys me. Label your off case arguments. I am not well versed in a lot of policy theory or critical arguments. Explain what you are doing and tell me how arguments should work in the round.
Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).
Debate
1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round.
2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast. While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.
3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument. Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible.
4. Additional items.
a. When sharing or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this.
b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.
Context: I'm a new parent judge that has only judged a handful of rounds, and while I have completed the Adjudicating Speech and Debate course by the NFHS I'm still learning multiple aspects of speech and debate.
For: Speech
For all the Speech, people. YOU must be respectful of others in your room, don't be nervous, stand confidently and give your speech to the best of your ability; it can get nerve-racking at the front of the room. Just know I'm judging you for all the good things you do, not the bad things!
Interp, Poetry, Duo Interp, Duet Acting
Delivery- I want to know if you have honed your speaking abilities and if you have practiced. It's easy to tell how much work you have time into memorizing and perfecting every part of your speech. Don't let a little stutter or stumble trip you up. A little mistake like that won't be the thing that holds you back. Your Presentation should be WELL prepared.
Passion- I want you to express yourself as much as possible. Truly embrace your piece and make me feel it. I want to cry, laugh, or reminisce at the end of your speech. If you can make me feel your speech and piece, I will feel significantly more connected to your piece.
Piece- It should be unique. It should be something you can relate to and a piece you have a connection with. Make sure your story is coherent and that it flows well. Overall ill be focusing more on your presentation, but if the piece isn't good, then neither will your speech.
Informative and Original Oratory
Delivery-I want to know if you have honed your speaking abilities and if you have practiced. It's easy to tell how much work you have time into memorizing and perfecting every part of your speech. Don't let a little stutter or stumble trip you up. A little mistake like that won't be the thing that holds you back. Your Presentation should be WELL prepared.
Research- It should be clear to me that you have a deep understanding of what's going on. Whether that comes from your tone or content, it should be well thought out and, more importantly, well-researched. I don't want you just to give me a lot of facts and expect me to give you a high rank. Carefully weave it within your speech so that it flows well. I want to learn something new during your speech!
If you have any questions, please let me know!
For: Debaters
I am a new parent judge. Consider meextremely lay.
Speed- I don't like speed. A conversational pace is preferred. Nothing faster than 165wpm at most.
Kritik/Theory/Disads/Add-ons/Framework- I don't debate, nor have I ever done debate. I won't be able to evaluate these arguments, so DON'T make them.
How to get my vote- Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Don't assume that I will grasp any argument made; I won't, so explain them; I evaluate everything from basic content to cross-fire to presentation. I enjoy it when the debater is persuasive and can stay calm and collected. Of course, debate to the best of your ability, stand confidently, and do your best.
Cross Fire-Be kind to each other; I will be accounting for crossfire during my ballot.
Speaker Points- I will give points if you follow the other aspects mentioned. I don't want a rude or condescending tone, BE RESPECTFUL to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent. Don't say anything racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic I will down you and give you the worst speaker points I can give. Debate well and be confident. Explain everything, and you will get better points.
If you have any questions that aren't answered, please let me know!
Hi everyone I am a first time parent judge.
I don't prefer spreading since this is my first time, I will judge you on your argumentation and your speaking.
Naveen Santhosh // Seven Lakes '16 // Updated 2025
TLDR: I competed in PF / qualled to TOC. I will flow all rounds. I like clash and clarity. Weigh pls. Have fun!
PF:
Does 2nd rebuttal have to respond to 1st? Yes pls.
Being nice and funny helps your scores, don't be rude. I think the best debaters don't need a laptop in front of them to win the round.
The debate space should be comfortable for everyone; do whatever works for you (sit / stand / flex prep / etc.)
My willingness to vote on theory is low in this event unless there's really, really,really serious and grave offense / abuse that is worth calling out.
LD / CX:
I will understand and flow anything outside of highly complex Ks and frivolous, nitpicky theory.
Parent Judge - please speak slowly and explain your arguments well
About Me - UT'28 - Gov and Humanities (Double Major),CX Debater - UT Austin
Credentials -I went to TFA Texas State Championship in both 2023 and 2024. I went to NCFL National Championship in 2023. I specialize and am experienced in PF as this is my event for these tournaments.
Overview -I will not tolerate anyone being purely disrespectful. While I am a Tech judge, I can be very lay. I am tech>truth. I will not do the work for you so make your links as clear as possible and explain all arguments you want me to consider when making my final decision. While I know speed can be useful please refrain from spreading WITHOUT A SPEECH DOC, If I can't understand you I will not flow it. I will give you two warnings before dropping my pencil. Debate is an event based upon communication so communicate clearly. Use prep time wisely and you have a grace period of one sentence.
Framework + Case Structure -I will evaluate the framework given by both teams. If only one team offers a framework and there is no clash or framework given by the opposing team, I will judge based on the framework given. I expect clear and concise contentions that should be easy to follow and flow.
Flowing + Clash -I will flow all contentions and subpoints plus evidence, AGAIN IF YOU ARE TOO FAST OR UNCLEAR, I WON'T FLOW. Any evidence you want specifically considered or any arguments please continue to emphasize throughout the round. You must carry your arguments throughout the round otherwise I will consider them to be dropped. I am fine with theory cases. CLASH on all arguments and provide offense plus defense. I will evaluate all case turns and I am fine with you collapsing similar arguments.
*When extending, don't just say, "Please extend Wagner 23." Instead, say what exactly am I extending. For example, say, "Please extend Wagener 23, which shows xyz."
*I have judged tricks and kritiks but they are a little hard to follow so be clear and make them understandable*
Cross Ex - Please use Cross Ex wisely. Try to refrain from making arguments but rather set traps to exploit in speeches. I will evaluate Cross Ex. While I do know Cross Ex can get heated, refrain from being disrespectful. If something is mentioned in cross but not brought up again I will consider it dropped.
FF -Make it clear what I am voting on. Weigh throughout rounds but especially in FF. IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT. When I vote I need to know what happens when I vote AFF vs when I vote NEG or vice versa. Basically, why should you win, and why they should not.
WORLDS - I will evaluate the two best arguments in the round and compare them and that will win my ballot. You can drop args in the round but the one you collapse on needs to outweigh and have stronger links than the other team's strongest arg. Presentation matters just as much as argumentation. My flow and clash + framework and case structure cross-supply to worlds as well.
LD - I have never judged LD before so please no spreading as I am a flow judge, but like lay appeal. Be careful with the type of arguments you run as I am not super familiar with heavy K's and tricks around the circuit. Substance would be your best bet, but do what it takes to win the round. My PF rules still apply and treat me like I am a flay judge.
Congress - Please use heavy lay appeal and very humanitarian impacts, and be clear, concise, and profound when speaking. Ask good questions that interact with your speech and opponents and be ready to think on your feet when asked. Middle speeches should clash and the last third should combine clash and summarizing. Overall I am not super techy with congress but please try not to bore me.
Any other questions feel free to ask. (Yes put me on email chains - Devon.stevenson08@gmail.com)
*NOTE - I HAVE NOT DONE ANY RESEARCH ON THE NEW TOPIC - TREAT ME LIKE I'M CLUELESS*
I am a parent judge with little experience. I will listen and judge without bias. I flow arguments and judge based off of what I wrote. Please avoid the use of jargon and remain respectful to everyone. Thank you
Congress:
Looking for speeches that have good fluency and arguments. Rhetoric is appreciated but mainly focused on impact and statistics/analytics.
Early speeches should be constructive and lay out the major topics/arguments that will be discussed throughout the debate.
(Sponsors/Authors): Should be explaining everything the legislation is doing and how the legislation will change the problem.
Later speeches should have A LOT of clash, not as focused on what the bill is doing as earlier speeches would already explain that. Looking for late speakers who can properly weigh other debater arguments as well.
if you have any questions email me: maxta5310333@gmail.com
LD:
I prefer debates that have framing, weighing/magnitude, and well
as timeframe.
Truth > Tech
Spreading consent: Spreading is not preferred but if you do need to spread the maximum speed I can understand is about the speed of Crash Course: John Green, 1.5x speed
I highly value cx so I prefer you spend most of cross asking meaningful questions and not trying to evidence challenge
Contact Info (please add me to email chain):
Email: ntom18@mail.strakejesuit.org
Facebook: Neville Tom
Paradigm:
Hi! My name’s Neville. I haven't been judging as much lately so getting a bit back up to speed with how things are moving now in LD.
Main things:
1) Don't do any -isms
2) Make things very clear in the final rebuttal speeches
I am relatively new to judging. When I judge a round, I am looking for clear ideas that are spoken at a slower pace so that the listener can understand the ideas that are shared. I really dislike spreading. Arguments and counter arguments are lost when spreading occurs and the listener is left with only maybe one or two ideas.
I value strong arguments over clashing. When making points I like a strong statement of the point along with support for each point.
I do use flow. I deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters to break ties. Well, I have not debated myself before, I’ve taken public speaking and give many presentations. I think it must be challenging to create a debate that has time limits. So choose your words carefully and deliver for an audience that can hear and understand you.