This paradigm will include Policy.
I am a former competitor from 2020-2024. I've had appearances at TFA 2x, UIL, NSDA 2x. I'm currently a traveling judge for my former high school at state competitions and I juge majorily in the Waco and surrounding areas due to school. Currently I'm a college student at Baylor University in business with a minor in Legal Reasoning and Analysis. Which means I've had or I'm currently taking classes over rehtoric, logic, and argumentation. If there is a linkchain with email please use maleenabarrientos05@gmail.com
In all events I perfer decorum over anything. I understand debate events may get heated, I understand peoples voices rise higher than others, and I understand sometimes we take things personally. However if I see anything that is racist, homophobic, abilist, or bullying in anyway I will not hesitate to write it on your ballots for your coach and TAB to see. I don't condone any of that and willl make it known within the round. That being said debate is heavily based on heated discussions and argumentation and I understand if a room tends to gain a tension because of emotions. Do not allow that to control you.
In regards to flowing, I understand some people worry when a judge is and isn't flowing. Please don't worry about that with me. Most of the time I'm either taking notes, flowing, or remebering something I needed to write previously. If I'm not flowing its mainly because I'm listening to the round and nothing more.
POLICY:
For AFF and NEG:
I'm here to see you do your best. If you're new or a long time competitor in the event I'm cheering both sides on. This is a high school event and after this round you can't change the outcome. With that being said, I came from an area that heavily focused on policy debate as the rule book deffered. Which means I'm not accostumed but not against spreading, theories, or Ks. I have a general knowledge of it all and wouldn't mind any of it. If you are going to spead please pop your tags. If I can't catch it then it'll be hard for me to flow the round. If you even have an hint of doubt about spearding and making your tags known, I'd advise heavily on not spreading or it will be count against you and your speaking point.
NEG:
When it comes to the type of judge I see myself as, I would say I lean towards Tab but heavily I perfer policy over everything. I want to see the basis of Policy debate before you run theory or Kritiks. I don't mind theorys or Kritiks but I would like to have a verbal explination over the "big words" that your arguments include. I stay up to date but I'm not responsible for knowing every theory or K item on the circut and it's your job to explain it. If I don't understand it then your opponents don't understand it.
When it comes to the argumentation I want to see the aff's plan crumble. I want to see the flaws, the holes, and the missing information within the plan itself and not the idea of what the plan is trying to do. I want to see the flow be broken up on the aff's side.
AFF:
In your rebuttals I want to see you clearly back up your plan with evidence instead of saying "because of my ____ card". I want to know what the contents of that card means, don't repeat the tag line each time. If the neg breaks even one of your issues on your plan in the round then I'd perfer to see you uphold that then a timewasting argument.
Speaking:
When it comes to speaking points I typically base them on a 25-30 scale. I will rarely give 30s out unless its at the level of national or state grade debaters like I've seen in the past. 25 typically means you heavily need help with your speaking. That could include mumbling, slurred words, or no articulation with your words.
