Katy Cats Swing TFA
2025 — Katy, TX/US
Speech - In Person Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideDo not spread, I cannot vote for you if I don't understand what you are saying. If I feel you are speaking to fast, I will only give one verbal warning to slow down.
Disclosing is at my discretion unless otherwise stated by tournament rules.
Please be respectful of your teammates/opponents.
CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical. I WILL NOT VOTE ON DISCLOSURE THEORY!!!
LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.
I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.
PF 1. obviously clash is a must. I prefer all debaters take part in grand cross fire, but will judge on case by case. Clear impacts and weighing mechanism.
Extemps
1. Make sure your address the topic.
2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.
3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.
4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.
Oratory
1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.
POI
1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.
HI, DI
1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.
2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.
Prose, Poetry
1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.
Congress
1. Be an active member of the session.
2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.
3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.
4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.
Hello!
Please speak clearly, avoid debate jargon and explain everything well.
Have fun debating!
I prefer to have nobody spread, as I pay close attention to how clear and polished the speech is. I pay attention to how much the speech is directed at the judges and catered to them. I pay attention to how much people are good on time and staying within time. I pay attention to how good one defend's their argument.
-NO EMAIL CHAINS AT ALL.
-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk into the room. Pre-flows, bathrooms, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.
Prep time: I will use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to ensure integrity in the round. If someone asks for cards, please be quick about it because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.
- I will not disclose decisions unless I say I will. After the round is done I will let you know if everything is on the ballot or if I will be giving general comments.
LD: Old school traditional: Framework debates are paramount. Conceding framework, to me, undermines the validity of LD debate.Be specific with impacts and why they weigh over the opposing sides impacts. Absolutely NO SPREADING, speech score will be dropped. I don't understand progressive debates like K's, shells, etc. Adapt or strike me.
PF: Truth > Tech. I will vote for a moral argument and whether it is reasonable and cohesive. Again, NO SPREADING. Second rebuttal Must respond to first rebuttal.
Hello! I debated for four years in high school and have been judging for seven years. Currently, I am in my second year as an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School.
I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate styles. As a debater, your job is to communicate your arguments clearly and persuasively—if I can’t follow your reasoning, it’s your responsibility, not mine.
General Philosophy
I view debate as an educational activity that prioritizes critical thinking, effective communication, and strategic engagement. My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round fairly, without imposing personal biases.
Debates should balance technical precision with accessibility. While I appreciate strategic complexity, clarity and persuasion remain essential.
Key Aspects of Evaluation
1.Framework
-
Clearly establish a framework for the debate. This helps me understand how to evaluate the round.
-
If no framework is provided, I will default to weighing impacts based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.
2. Clash
-
Direct engagement with opposing arguments is essential. A good debate involves refutation and comparison of ideas.
-
Merely reiterating your case without engaging with your opponent’s arguments will weaken your position.
3. Impact Analysis
-
Explain why your impacts matter within the context of the debate.
-
Weigh impacts explicitly (e.g., through magnitude, probability, or timeframe) to guide my decision-making process.
4. Evidence and Logic
-
Evidence should be accurate, relevant, and properly cited. Misrepresenting evidence will hurt your credibility.
-
Logical consistency and coherence are just as important as evidence. Make sure your arguments follow a clear and reasonable structure.
5. Clarity and Organization
-
Signpost your arguments clearly so I can follow your reasoning.
-
Stay organized in your delivery, especially in later speeches when crystallizing the round.
6. Speaker Etiquette and Respect
-
Maintain professionalism and respect throughout the round. Disrespectful behavior or tone will affect speaker points.
-
Debate should be a constructive activity. Engage in a way that fosters mutual learning and growth.
Procedural Preferences 1. Dropped Arguments
-
Dropped arguments are not automatically round-winning. You must explain why the dropped argument is significant and how it impacts the round.
2. New Arguments
-
New arguments introduced in the final speeches will not be evaluated unless the format explicitly allows it (e.g., Worlds School Debate).
-
Extensions must be clear and consistent with earlier speeches.
3. Evidence Standards
-
Be prepared to provide evidence if requested. Refusal to share evidence or misrepresenting sources will negatively impact your speaks and possibly your overall standing in the round.
4. Speed and Accessibility
-
I can follow speed, but clarity is essential. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot evaluate them.
-
Debate is a communication event; your delivery should prioritize understanding over sheer volume.
5. Framework and Weighing
-
Clearly articulate your weighing mechanisms throughout the round.
-
If no weighing is done, I will default to my own evaluation, but this will make your case less persuasive.
Event-Specific Preferences
I have more in depth paradigms for the events linked at the bottom of the paradigm page
1. Policy Debate
-
I am comfortable with technical arguments such as kritiks, topicality, and theory, but they must be well-explained and linked to the resolution.
-
Impact calculus is crucial. Make sure to compare your impacts to your opponent’s explicitly.
2. Lincoln-Douglas Debate
-
Value and criterion debates are important but should not overshadow the substantive arguments.
-
Philosophical arguments are welcome but must be accessible and applied to the resolution.
3. Public Forum Debate
-
Focus on clarity, big-picture analysis, and accessibility. PF is meant to be audience-friendly.
-
Avoid spreading or overly technical jargon. Engage in direct clash and emphasize impact weighing.
4. World Schools Debate
-
Persuasion, style, and structure are just as important as content.
-
Team dynamics and strategic roles matter. Make sure your speeches complement each other.
5. Congressional Debate
-
Clash is critical; reference previous arguments and specific speakers.
-
Delivery, organization, and the ability to adapt to the debate are key factors in my evaluation.
Speaker Points Criteria
-
Clarity: Are your arguments easy to follow and well-structured?
-
Engagement: Do you interact effectively with your opponent’s arguments?
-
Strategy: Are your speeches cohesive and aligned with your overall strategy?
-
Delivery: Is your tone persuasive, professional, and engaging?
-
Speaker points will range between 27-30, with higher points awarded for outstanding strategy, engagement, and delivery.
Final Notes
-
Debate should be an enjoyable and educational activity. Focus on creating a meaningful and respectful exchange of ideas.
-
My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round, not to impose my personal beliefs or preferences.
-
Have fun, and remember that the skills you develop in debate go far beyond winning individual rounds.
-
DON’T BE RUDE
- I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS
-
It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage
-
Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues
-
I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage
-
Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.
-
Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language
-
Ethics and Respect:
If I observe a debater exploiting a less experienced opponent to boost their ego, I will not hesitate to drop their speaks to the lowest possible, assign them a loss regardless of the flow, and inform their coach. Such behavior is unethical and detracts from the educational value of debate, which should be a space for growth and learning. Everyone deserves respect in the round, regardless of skill level or experience. -
Progressive Arguments:
While I usually prefer traditional arguments, I’m open to progressive arguments if they are well-constructed, clearly explained, and relevant. However, I’ve seen many cases where these arguments are poorly executed, unclear, or run simply for the sake of being progressive. If you choose to run progressive arguments, ensure you fully understand them and can articulate their significance effectively. Poorly run progressive cases will not be well-received. -
Expectations:
-
Pre-Flowing: Do not ask me to pre-flow your case. You should know it well enough to present confidently without needing my assistance beforehand.
-
Judging Style: I’m equally comfortable with big-picture overviews or line-by-line analysis. Just make sure your arguments are clear and structured.
-
Weighing and Impact Calculus: Always provide impact calculus and weigh your arguments for me. This is essential for guiding my decision.
-
Theory and Arguments: I dislike frivolous theory—run it only when it’s necessary and justified. Don’t present arguments you don’t fully understand or cannot defend under cross-examination.
-
Case Preparation and Presentation:
-
Do not ask me to pre-flow your case. You should already know it.
-
I can judge rounds on either big-picture analysis or line-by-line. Choose the style that best supports your argument.
-
Always include impact calculus and weigh your arguments clearly.
-
I dislike frivolous theory. Only run theory if it’s necessary and justified.
-
Don’t present arguments or evidence you don’t fully understand.
-
Please stand when speaking
- make sure you weigh for me
- make sure you are doing the work for the judge
- don't ask me if you can skip grand cross in PF the answer is no it's a part of the round
-
Spreading:
-
Debate is a communication event. Even if I can understand speed, DO NOT SPREAD. I cannot flow what I cannot comprehend, and I will not rely on your speech doc unless there is an evidence-related issue.
-
Integrity:
-
Do not fabricate sources. If I suspect you are making up evidence, I will fact-check it and contact your coach and the tournament director.
-
Educational Priority:
-
I prioritize the educational value of debate over competitiveness. If you spread out a novice team, use overly vague terminology, or act dismissively, I will give you an L and minimum speaks. Debate should foster critical thinking, respect, and communication skills.
-
Disclosure:
-
I do not disclose decisions. All feedback will be provided on the ballot. Please do not ask me to disclose.
-
Education Over Competition:
I prioritize debate as an educational activity rather than purely a competitive one. If you spread your opponent out of the round, especially a novice team, are intentionally vague with your vocabulary, or act dismissive, rude, or uncooperative, I will assign you a loss and give you the minimum speaks. Debate is about fostering critical thinking, communication, and respect, not exploiting others for a competitive edge. Local tournaments, in particular, are opportunities for growth and should nurture nuanced, thoughtful, and educated participants. -
Final Note:
Be respectful, aim for clarity, and, above all, have fun. Debate is a space to learn, challenge ideas, and grow—let’s keep it that way.
Event-Specific Preferences Policy Debate
- I’m comfortable with technical arguments (e.g., kritiks, topicality, theory) if they are well-explained and linked to the resolution.
- Impact calculus is critical—explicitly compare your impacts to your opponent’s.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
- Value and criterion debates are important but shouldn’t overshadow substantive arguments.
- Philosophical arguments are welcome but must be accessible and relevant to the resolution.
Public Forum Debate
- Clarity, big-picture analysis, and accessibility are key.
- Avoid spreading or relying on technical jargon—PF should be audience-friendly.
- Direct clash and effective impact weighing are essential.
World Schools Debate
- Persuasion, style, and structure are as important as content.
- Team dynamics and strategic roles should complement each other.
Congressional Debate
- Content>presentation, Congress is a debate event and needs to be treated as such, don't just give a speech just to give a speech.
- Clash is critical. Reference prior arguments and specific speakers directly.
- Avoid repetitive speeches; focus on adding new insights to the discussion.
- Delivery, organization, and adaptability are key factors in my evaluation.
Extemporaneous Speaking (Extemp)
- Answer the question directly—failing to do so will hurt your rank.
- Speeches should be well-organized, with a strong hook and clear structure.
- Fabricated sources will result in penalties. Integrity is non-negotiable.
Interpretation Events (Interp)
- Good blocking, clear character transitions, and distinct portrayals are essential.
- Emotion is important, but avoid overacting—subtlety and nuance are often more impactful.
Original Oratory (OO)
- A strong oratory should educate and inspire.
- Start with a catchy AGD, provide clear solutions, and end with a powerful call to action.
- Choose unique topics to stand out.
Informative Speaking (Info)
- Info is distinct from OO—do not present an OO in an Info round.
- Focus on societal implications and use creative visuals.
Expectations and Final Notes
- Debate should be an educational and respectful activity. I prioritize growth over competitiveness.
- I do not tolerate discriminatory language, fabricated evidence, or unethical behavior. Violations will result in a loss and the lowest speaks.
- Do not spread excessively. Debate is a communication event, and your delivery must prioritize clarity.
- Make my job easy—weigh your impacts and clearly explain why you’re winning the round.
Finally, have fun! Debate is a space for learning, challenging ideas, and growth. Let’s keep it that way.
Conflicts: Blanson CTE, Avalos P-TECH
Good Energy and Have loud, audible, and confident voice. :D
I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.
Debate Judging Paradigm
1. Speed (Spread):
- I prefer a moderate pace. Excessive speed detracts from the clarity and depth of the arguments, making it difficult to capture the nuances. If you choose to go fast, ensure your arguments are still clear and easy to follow.
2. Critical Arguments:
- I value critical arguments, but they need to be explained thoroughly. I am less persuaded by dense jargon without clear explanations. Focus on the depth and clarity of your analysis.
3. Topicality:
- Topicality is a prima facie issue for me only if there is demonstrated in-round abuse. Merely claiming non-topicality is insufficient; you must show how the case is unfair or disruptive to the round.
4. Argument Strategy:
- Avoid making time-suck arguments that you plan to drop later. This wastes time and detracts from the quality of the debate. If you bring up an argument, be prepared to defend it.
5. Organization:
- I pay close attention to my flow. Please clearly signpost your arguments and keep your refutation organized. This helps me track the debate and evaluate your arguments effectively.
6. LD Debate Specifics (Value and Criterion):
- In Lincoln-Douglas debate, emphasize your value and criterion. These are central to your case, and I expect you to tie your arguments back to them consistently. Make it clear how your arguments uphold your value and criterion better than your opponent’s.
7. Congressional Debate:
- Speeches in Congressional debate should be extemporaneous in nature, showing clear evidence of preparation while allowing flexibility and responsiveness to the debate as it unfolds.
- Make sure to include clash; engage directly with the arguments made by other speakers.
- Strong research is essential, but avoid excessive rehash of points that have already been made. Originality and depth of analysis are key to standing out.
In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.
Mostly a speech judge so be sure to speak confidently because I will be taking note of that, even though it won't be a huge factor in my decision it will be a factor. I am somewhat familiar with debate but not an expert. I have competed a few times in college Parliamentary tournaments, and this is my only debate experience. No spreading and no running disclosure theory, we’re trying to make this as fair and accessible as possible. I would consider myself a truth judge, please refrain from making wild claims. Stand up while speaking, unless obviously you have a disability that prevents that. Overall, be nice because if you're especially rude to your opponents I will down you just on that.
I am a speech judge who has been doing this for several years and is experienced in judging various interp events, platform events, as well as extemp. I look for clean and creative blocking for interp events and hope to see authenticity in the piece. Topics should be original with a fresh perspective and should have a cohesive argument. I appreciate preparedness including a fully memorized piece. Overall I look for performances that are fluid, easy to follow along while being captivating, and if you’ve invested time and passion into the performance!
I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD, & LD at NSDA Nationals, but not recently.
In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery. In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon. Contentions/substantives must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to link back to the main argument / claim. I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present. Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic. I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible. I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important. Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.
Any other questions may be asked, and are encouraged, before the round.
In L-D:
I am a traditional judge. Value & Criteria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.
L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.
I am an opponent of speed.
In Congressional Debate:
As a traditional judge, I am a huge proponent of effective persuasive speaking; no speed. I look for the fundamentals of speech structure. A speech must include, but not be limited too: An attention getter, signposting of main points, a logical and organized sequence, a summary and effective closing. Within the content of a speech, clash on previous speeches is necessary, while extending arguments. Participation in the chamber is essential. I frown on unprofessional behavior in the chamber during cross. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other.
In PF:
I am a traditional judge. My main focus centers on the word "Should," if present in the resolution. Should focuses on the desirability and undesirability of the topic. I really am not interested in Plans or Counter Plans, but I normally do not vote for them unless it is significant. Impact Calculus is beneficial. I do not weigh Kritiks. I do not like speed. Effective communication is essential, along with clash. I frown on unprofessional behavior during cross fire & Grand Crossfire. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other. Case should have the essential elements of a standard speech...No jargon. It is necessary to signpost, and beneficial to break down the main contentions into sub-pts to link sub-arguments back to the main contentions. Impacts should be stated at the end of each contention(s). It helps if debaters go line by line in the rebuttals and the final focus. Voters are necessary. PF is not CX debate. Other questions for clarification may be asked, and encouraged, before the round.
Hello!
I am a parent judge. I have completed cultural competency training.
Speaking Preferences:
Please speak clearly and be sure to enunciate. Speed is fine, but no spreading please.
Debate Preferences:
Outline your arguments clearly and in a way that is easy to follow along with. Be sure to frame the round and give voters during your last speech.
Please provide a roadmap at the start of your rebuttal speeches. Do impact weighing.
Please be respectful during the debate and most importantly, have fun! Feel free to ask any clarification questions before the round.
Good luck :)
If you have any questions for me, particularly in Congress I can be reached at nevras@yahoo.com
Individual events: in extemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.
I will say that the key to winning in International Extemp is to immerse yourself in magazines, books and newspapers involving all things not United States. You'll get questions from areas not familiar to to normal lay person or someone that only follows domestic news. You then have to put the speeches together on non tournament days so that you are not scrambling to find the research within a half hour. Know what you want to say in advance, pick the question you have a good speech lined out and deliver. Friday night and Saturday mornings are not the time to piece together an international extemp speech. And keep in mind, more than 50% of the judges you face may not know a thing about a Morocco, a Republic of Congo or a Myanmar and somehow you have to bring that judge in to explain yourself these situations in a way that you are explaining it like a college professor while explaining it to a five year old. Only then will you see true success in International Extemp.
In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.
My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.
In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.
In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.
In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.
LD & CX: I will honestly say that I don't judge those debates in the traditional sense and as such I draw my decisions based on my IE and PF experiences. Like PF your cross and rebuttal speeches usually wins the day in my eyes so if you can extract good counter information in cross and use it in rebuttal, then you'll likely get the win.
PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.
I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.
Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. Research means sources like Washington think tanks and other sources. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bog down the debate with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary, you are going to go far.
Also, rely on Washington think tanks to use as sources to support your point. They put time into the research so you don't have to. Search top 10 think tanks to get the idea who to use.
During the question period, it's about getting answers, not taking 20 seconds giving your opinion about anything. You need to ask three questions tops and that should take up about 10 seconds of valuable time. Remember, you are asking questions to take down their arguments they put time and effort into.
If you are the presiding officer, it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll do well. Being the presiding officer means that you have to dedicate your life and your time to the speakers and make sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.
I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.
My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.
Hi, I am a parent judge having an experience of judged in World Scholars Cup Global Rounds at Manila and Dubai. Do not spread, do not run theories, live action role plays and kritic as I may not be able to comprehend it. Speak in a conversational pace.
Hi, i'm a parent new to judging.
Debate-
Slight spreading is okay as long as you're clear enough to understand- I don't really know how to flow off doc so make sure I can hear every argument you make.
SIGNPOST!!
Crystalizing is super important for me since im not familiar with flowing.
(For CX)Please run easy-to-understand off-cases since things like K's might fall short on me.
Speech/Extemp-
Be clear and give it your best!
(Paradigm written by my kid)