No Unintelligible Spreading

Pronouns: HE/HIM

if you want to address me call me judge or Robert I'm cool with either

I have been doing policy debate and extemp as well as congress for 3 years I am a very chill judge and there is not much you can do to make me mad or upset you can see how I feel about certain arguments under this

speed: go as fast as you want if I have the doc so send it to me BUT DO NOT SPREAD ON ANALYTICS OR EXTENSIONS

I will not extend anything for you so if you don't extend your case and the neg says this I will vote neg if it doesn't get extended and that gets called out so flow well so you can catch drops

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

da's: I want disads to have good links. I'm cool if it is generic but I will be more lenient to the aff on delinking from the argument. explain the link story really well and internal link as well. I want a lot of impact calc from the aff and neg and impact calc is something I use heavily when deciding which impact to go for. I don't have a preferred impact. I can be persuaded on any impact

cp's: I want them to have a very clear net benefit. I am open to the aff reading cp abusive if they want but will have a very high threshold on abuse

Topicality: If you run this as a time suck I honestly don't care but if you do I will hold you to a higher threshold on abuse I want abuse to be proved in round and I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously, the most important thing in these debates is the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization, but that is your time, not mine. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the Kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine but you need to give me a good explanation on how my voting aff does anything without an alt.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

disclosure: if you are a massive school with tons and tons of backfiles (you know who you are) I won't even evaluate it but if not then I err on the side of the aff and hold a uber high threshold of abuse

Speaks: I know what it is like to go 3-1 and then not break because the judge gave you 25 speaks so I won't the lowest I will go is 27 normally but I will go to the lowest I can if you say anything RACIST HOMOPHOBIC TRANSPHOIBIC XENOPHOBIC SEXIST (don't be an incel) OR IF YOU ARE JUST GROSSLY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(treat them like humans)

LD: im getting better at trad ld but If I was you I wouldn't

For reference, I competed mainly in a Traditional circuit, so i have more experience with traditional arguments. That said, I'm not totally opposed to progressive styles when done correctly.

Speed: I can keep up with a pretty fast pace, but I do based my evaluation of the round based on the flow. Meaning if you go too fast for me to flow, it won't get counted towards the round

Role of the ballot: i believe the ballot is to determine if the resolution should be affirmed or rejected. as such, I only value arguments on the affirmative that affirm the resolution itself and arguments of the negative that reject the resolution itself.

Plans: I generally am comfortable with plans if they are within the scope of the resolution.

Counterplan: I am okay with counterplans on the neg that are still negating the resolution. I don't like Counterplans that are just affirming the resolution in a different way.

K arguments: Topical K's to the resolution are generally okay. I don't value non-topical K's and am not a big fan of Language K's.

Theory: Theory is fine as a mechanism to argue against abusive tactics in debate.

I competed in speech and debate during all four years of high school (mainly LD, Congress, and Extemp). I judge tournaments relatively frequently and plan on coaching once I have my degree.

Overall, I'm okay with any argument you want to run as long as it is respectful. No classist, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise awful arguments because I will drop you (feel like I shouldn't have to say this but apparently I do)

If you decide to run a complex/niche argument (whether it be anything from certain philosophies to a kritik), please please please know what you are talking about. Read the stuff you are going to talk about in round and learn how to present/explain it in a concise accurate way. Also, I default to basic impact calculus if no alternative framing for the round is presented.

Speed is completely fine but I do have hearing issues, so if you decide to spread just make sure to have a way to share your case with me. If I can not understand you, whether it be due to speed or lack of clarity, I will say clear three times before just putting down my pen. If there is a speech drop or email chain, please include me in it. (ecopeland2023@gmail.com)

thanks :)

Hello! I am very anti-spreading.I cannot process an argument that comes at me lightning fast--my brain simply doesn't work that way. The quality of your argument matters much more than the quantity of your argument. I want to be able to understand you!

Lincoln-Douglas: I vastly prefer traditional-style LD that focuses on clash between the Value and Criterion of each opponent's case. Please, don't make this a one-person CX debate. That isn't the point of LD; the Value and Criterion are the point! There should be lots of clash and good use of the time you have.

Congress: A well structured speech goes a long way towards making an excellent speech. If I can tell what your points are from the intro, that's great. Evidence goes a long way as well! Even citing just one source makes you sound much more believable. I don't care how extravagant the argument is as long as you have evidence and can connect it to your point. If you're not the first affirmation speech, I expect to hear at least some clash with other speakers. It shows you've been paying attention and that your speech is strong enough to withstand other representative's arguments. Furthermore, try to get through more pieces of legislation rather than having everyone speak on each bill.

Speech: Confidence is key! I want your performance to be left lingering in my mind, and the best way to do that is to be able to feel that you're passionate about what you're speaking about. If you're doing a form of Extemporaneous Speaking, make sure that you have some evidence and that your speech is structured well.

For all forms of debate: Evidence, confidence, and eye contact are all very important and will help you stand out as a competitor to me. I enjoy a debate where it seems like the competitors have passion for what they're doing.

Most importantly, be respectful of your opponent. It should be a competition, not a personal attack battle.

Debate

I have a more traditional background in debate. However, I evaluate what is presented in the round. I like to hear in rebuttals why you believe you're winning the round (how there's a path to vote for you). Explain how you access impacts and weigh those for me.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

I’m a parent judge with background in marketing. I like to read a lot especially with healthcare, economics, technology and customer.

Lincoln Douglas:

I much prefer a traditional LD round. I expect this style to be more philosophy/moral based, so I will vote primarily based on the value & criterion debate unless contention level debate is what matters most in round.

I am okay with slight speed, but ‘am anti-spreading, quality over quantity.

Evidence, confidence, and eye contact are all very important and will help you stand out as a competitor to me. I enjoy a debate where it seems like the competitors have passion for what they're doing.

I keep a flow during rounds (you should do the same, by the way), walk me down the flow at the end of the round. Don’t look like you're winning; tell me why you're winning.

Most importantly, be respectful of your opponent. It should be a competition, not a personal attack battle.

Have fun!

About Me:

I am a Texas-based professional working as a director for healthcare/benefits company. While I haven't coached (or obviously competed) in a while, I continue to actively judge at local tournaments and am an assistant director for the MBA Extemporaneous Round Robin each year in Nashville.

I’ve competed in various speech and debate events from middle school through college, including 4 years of debate from 2000-2004. I’ve competed at tournaments run by UIL, TFA, and the NSDA (NFL) in both LD and Policy (and Extemp, Congress, OO etc.) so am well-versed in the various styles of debate and argumentation.

At a tournament, I will try to judge mostly Extemporaneous or LD, but when I offer to adjudicate any event, most tournament directors often end up putting me in Policy (because of judge scarcity), Public Forum (because of competitor abundance) or Congress (because no one else wants the multi-hour ballot).

LD Paradigm:

I am open to any type of argument so long as it is clearly articulated, coherently presented, and relevant to the specific round. In general, I prefer to judge a round by evaluating (in order):

1) Are there any in-round performative voting issues: Some sort of harm that occurred in round that merits my ballot be used as a tool?

2) Are there any critical arguments that are well-presented that pre-suppose acceptance of debate on the resolution?

3) Are there well-reasoned topicality arguments with clear impacts presented to evaluate?

4) Are there any overall framework arguments that rise to be voting issues on face prior to evaluating argumentation?

5) Finally, based on the most clearly articulated and defended value and criterion presented in the round (yes, I’d love to see a resolved standard by the end of the round someday!) which side of the debate did a better job articulating and supporting unique arguments in favor of why their position meets that standard best.

a. In the event that there is no clear standard (it happens frequently), I weigh the presented impacts of voting issues/arguments still ‘standing’ on the flow against each other and vote for the debater with the best argumentation for why those impacts outweigh the other

b. In the event that there are no clearly defined voting issues or arguments, I apply my judgement as to which debater best performed best and had the most logical argumentation style and supporting evidence

I am hesitant to give you a license to speed because my flowing is not as good as it used to be, but I will not penalize you for speaking at your most comfortable speed. Clarity and coherence are important, and I will very much appreciate you helping me by slowing down for key tags.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Policy Paradigm:

I am open to any type of argument so long as it is clearly articulated, coherently presented, and relevant to the specific round. In general, I prefer to judge a round by evaluating (in order):

1) Are there any in-round performative voting issues: Some sort of harm that occurred in round that merits my ballot be used as a tool?

2) Are there any critical arguments that are well-presented that pre-suppose acceptance of debate on the resolution?

3) Are there well-reasoned topicality arguments with clear impacts presented to evaluate?

4) Are there any overall framework arguments that rise to be voting issues on face prior to evaluating argumentation?

5) Is there a counterplan to consider and has it been shown to be unique from the plan with access to the same benefits?

6) Finally, has the affirmative debate team advocated for a clear plan and proven it to be solvent, inherent, and without any disadvantages left to outweigh it.

a. In the event that there is no clear plan (it happens sometimes), I weigh the presented impacts still ‘standing’ on the flow against each other and vote for the debater with the best argumentation for why those impacts outweigh the other

b. In the event that there are no clearly defined voting issues or arguments, I apply my judgement as to which debaters best performed best and had the most logical argumentation style and supporting evidence.

I am hesitant to give you a license to speed because my flowing is not as good as it used to be, but I will not penalize you for speaking at your most comfortable speed. Clarity and coherence are important, and I will very much appreciate you helping me by slowing down for key tags.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Worlds School Debate Paradigm:

This section is still a work in progress, as to-date I've judged very few WSD rounds. I am excited to see how this format grows over time. Establishing a framework is key in this sort of round. With topics that are broad and open to multiple interpretations, I need to understand exactly what you think the topic means and how you are attacking or defending under that framework. If there is ambiguity or two competing interpretations that never get resolved, it makes all of our jobs more difficult.

Unlike LD or Policy, I do not have a pre-set method of evaluating these debates. I will listen to whatever sort of argumentation you present, whether that be a more detailed example-based approach or a more theoretical logic-based approach. I would like to see you debate the main thesis of the topic and not get stuck in extreme edge cases.

Once you get to the later speeches, I would love to start hearing resolution to the debate. Crystallize your position, explain how arguments interact, identify how those arguments relate to the framework and what their impacts are. I'm fine with you going line-by-line, but would be far more impressed with a few strong well-articulated arguments cross-applied well across the flow.

Points of Information: BE RESPECTFUL!

If you are asking a question: make sure you're asking something that matters. Don't continue to do it repeatedly for the sake of interruption. I generally expect to hear between 2-4 POIs per constructive.

If you are responding: Speakers should expect to take some of the POIs but are not required to take all. Please be both polite and definitive in accepting, delaying, or dismissing questions. Dismiss when the opponent's POI is become excessive or interrupting the flow of debate. Do not dismiss just because you're pretty sure they are making a good point.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Debate Pet Peeves:

I generally don't write a ballot because of these things, but if putting them here will prevent you from asking me about it in the round, then so be it.

1) If you are going to ask me for any advice or paradigms pre-round, please listen to what I have to say. Don't just ask it out of habit and then ignore what I tell you!

2) All time is either speech time or prep time. If you need to share materials, please coordinate and do it before the round, our you are welcome to to use prep time to do it. There is no stopping mid-round for a 5 minute break of transferring evidence or 'I'm not starting prep until I receive your evidence'. If no one is speaking then it is prep time!

3) Digital sharing is not a substitute for communication. While I am an advocate for flashing, using an online file share, or email thread to share digital content for education and fairness purposes, it should be done appropriately and with reason. You are under no obligation to disclose cases, and, as a judge, I will make my decision based off of what was clearly articulated in the round and not what was written on the piece of paper or laptop screen. I do not share my email for any direct chains in a round, but I will occasionally peruse files shared on speechdrop or the Tabroom file share. Either way, I am not reviewing the text to understand your arguments. You should be communicating them to me clearly!

4) Slow down and deliver taglines and author names clearly if you want to later refer to it by name only. I would highly prefer you give me the specific argument and impacts in extensions, but if you are insistent on saying things like 'Extend Smith 2004' then make sure I catch those author names the first time around!

Extemporaneous Paradigm:

First and foremost, make sure you are answering the question. Specific words always influence the exact framing of the question and if your speech in its entirety does not respond to that framing then I am not sure if you are giving me a fresh speech based off the topic you are given, or just regurgitating something you did in practice for a tangentially-related question.

I like to hear good research and a variety of sources. If you are going to cite a source, make sure you telling me something specific from the evidence.

My primary focus is that you have well-developed areas of analysis with a specific set of warrants and impacts to your position in response to the question. I do also evaluate having a nice conversational delivery, but I find that secondary in importance to analysis. With that said, in a competitive round, I will reward having a sense of humor and being personable as differentiator between two close speeches.

Congress Paradigm:

Under Construction

Participate. Ask thoughtful questions. Be consistent in your positions or explain why you changed. Be conversational and persuasive.

Platform Speaking Events Paradigm (OO, Info, CA etc.):

Under Construction

Please do not go overtime. This is a prepared speech. Move with a purpose. Be organized and clearly signpost. Explain to me why you care or why I should care.

Interpretation Paradigm (PR, PO, HI, DI, Duo/Duet, etc.):

If you are reading this, you must have had to scroll through all the other events I should have been judging before the tournament assigned me to your interpretation round. With a mind pre-disposed for debate, I look for an 'argument' in your interpretation. Argument in interpretation does not necessarily have to be persuasive, but rather just a purpose for why you make your decisions.

Your introduction should reveal to me that purpose and help me understand why it is relevant either to me or to you.

I want to see variety throughout the performance. Instead of it all being in a single voice, there should be inflections in tone, volume, pacing, and emotions all throughout. Conventionally, that may add up to a climactic moment near the end, but it doesn't have to. I just don't want to see a one-note performance that ends the same way it began.

I'd like to see crisp and clear characterization. If I can't figure out who you are while you are performing, that is a problem. Its okay with me if you be super subtle and realistic, or choose to be over the top and dramatized. I just want to make sure you make specific thoughtful choices that are best for your material.

Don't be overtime. In interpretation, I am assuming that this is your piece that you have been doing all year. Unlike extemporaneous or debate, you know what you are going to say, how people might react to it, and how much time you need. You should be delivering near the same times consistently and have cut the material to be the appropriate length.

Logic, reason, explanation, impacts. Speed is fine, but winning isn't achieved by numerosity alone: a single quality argument can win the day, particularly if I'm convinced (by you) of why that issue/point matters more than all the others.

Kritik is fine; progressive plans/args/cases are fine--in both cases the argument just needs to make sense.

No off clock time other than very brief roadmap.

For congress, I really like crystalization speeches. I tend to observe that bill/reso sponsorship speeches handicap the speaker's ability to demonstrate their thoughtful analysis of counterarguments, so folks should endeavor to give speeches in the whole lifecycle of the debate on bills throughout the session (e.g., don't just give 3 sponsorship speeches). Rehashing previously-argued points without adding value is frowned upon. Last, thinking/arguments that demonstrate an appreciation for second order and third order consequences of a bill are highly respected.

Bit of background: former debater; competed on national circuit in Congress and Extemp; competed statewide in LD, Policy, PF, and Oratory. Now a practicing lawyer. I read, a lot.

My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after. Currently associated with Marcus HS and DFW S&D.

FOR NFA - MY LD PARADIGM BELOW IS ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL. In general, refer to my policy paradigm. Here are some key differences:

• NFA-LD is short and I have a lot less tolerance for exploding blippy arguments than you'd probably hope. Keep in mind that the neg only gets two speeches- make your arguments have warrants in both of them. This is true in HS too but I'm also a lot less sympathetic to affs that rely on blip extensions.
• No I do not vote on RVIs in NFA-LD
• No RVIs means I'm more interested in procedural debates

At some point I will add a NFA-LD section but for now if you've got a specific question just ask me.

Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.

Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at emilujackson@gmail.com

GENERAL/ALL
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.

Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and you should check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)

Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.

Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.

LD PARADIGM

Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.

I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.

Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.

On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.

Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.

Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.

Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.

Fairness is an internal link to education

AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate

Disclosure is good

1 condo advocacy fine

Nebel T is also silly

POLICY PARADIGM:

Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.

T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.

Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.

PF PARADIGM:

I don't have anything specific here except for the love of all that is good you need to have warrants. Please have warrants. Collapsing and having warrants is like 90% of my ballots here.

Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:

- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.

- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"

- Misgendering is also a paradigmatic issue. ESPECIALLY if you double down

Hello, I'm a parent judge!

Few things about me-

1) I will flow your case to my best ability and will vote on which side has refuted the best.

2) I prefer quality over quantity. Truth > Tech

3) Clarity over spread.

Thankyou and Goodluck!!

Hello! I competed in LD and CX throughout High School & I currently do policy at the University of Houston.

Do what you are comfortable with! Please be kind and respectful of your opponent as well as myself & other judges. I do not tolerate racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other argument of that sort. That is an automatic L & the lowest speaker points I can give.

General: Sign post and roadmap with cards and analytics. Write my ballot for me. Tech > Truth. Rebuttal speeches should mainly be used to explain to me in simple term why I should give you the ballot. For me, it is important to spend rebuttals doing voters/simplifying arguements because that is where I will either decide or confirm my ballot, so please do your best to limit spreading there.If you have any questions about my RFD, please email AFTER the tournament is over :)

UIL LD/Trad: I expect this style to be more philosophy/moral based, so I will vote primarily based on the value & criterion debate unless contention level debate is what matters most in round. I am okay with slight speed, but spreading will impact your speaks.

Prog LD/Policy:I am not familiar with tricks. If you're spreading, please add me to the email chain/ speechdrop( yoanak23@gmail.com). I am tab/policymaker, so make it a priority to fully explain disad links, impact calc, etc and not just spread through them.

Disadvantages: The more it links to the Aff, the better. You should be comparing impacts with the aff.

Evidence: I'll flow from the doc and skim through it, but it's up to you to do evidence comparison. I won't vote on evidence unless you tell me why I should.

Topicality/ Counterplans/ Piks: I am okay with all of these! T should always have competing interps and impacts. and CPs must have a net benefit.

Kritiks: I have extremely limited knowledge on the literature( in order: Afropess, Pyscho, cap). I will try my best to read the evidence, but you have to "dumb'' it down for me and make my role as a judge ( role of the ballot & alt) VERY clear. If I'm still unsure by the end of the rebuttal, I will vote aff/neg off of risk. K-affs are okay, but I prefer a real alt with them.

Theory: I have a high threshold for proving abuse as in there has to be potential & in-round abuse. I have no bias other than condo good. I will not tolerate frivolous theory or just running it as a way to suck time. I will honestly never vote on theory unless I feel like something is truly unfair, so be mindful. Spending rebuttals on everything else rather than extending theory will benefit you.

Good:

-Conversational Tone

-Robust back & forth; engagement with your own and your Opponent's Value & Criterion, weaving in the Contentions

Bad:

Speaking too fast- Spreading

As a new judge, I prioritize justice as the foundational value in any debate round. I believe that the ultimate goal of debate is to explore and evaluate ideas that contribute to a fair and just society. While I appreciate well-reasoned arguments, I find that solid evidence lends significant weight to persuasive discourse. However, clear and logical reasoning can outweigh poorly presented evidence.

I encourage debaters to be authentic in their presentation. While I prefer that competitors refrain from excessive technical jargon, I also value their unique voice and perspective. I appreciate a clear organization of arguments. A well-structured debate allows me to follow the flow and make informed judgments. Debaters should clearly link their arguments and counterarguments back to their established criterion.

I view cross-examination as a critical component of the debate. It should serve as an opportunity for both debaters to seek clarification on points and challenge their opponents to defend potentially weak arguments. Effective questioning can illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of both positions.

While I have a preference for traditional frameworks, I strongly encourage debaters to challenge the status quo and present fresh perspectives. Innovation in argumentation is valuable as long as it is grounded in solid reasoning and clear connections to the resolution.

I prefer a conversational pace in speech delivery. A comfortable speed enhances my ability to take accurate notes and ensures that the arguments are conveyed clearly. Rapid-fire delivery often detracts from the clarity needed to effectively evaluate the round.

The most crucial aspect of a debate round, in my view, is the clarity of position regarding the resolution. I look for debaters' ability to present their arguments using a well constructed flow while consistently relating them back to the established criterion. The ability to effectively rebut and link arguments will be crucial in my decision.

Above all, I value sportsmanship and respect in the debate environment. A respectful attitude towards opponents and the judge contributes to the educational experience of all participants, and I believe it fosters an atmosphere conducive to constructive debate.

I have been judging speech and debate for a couple of years. My preference is for Speech events, but I've judged a lot of LD as well as some WS and CX. While I myself do not have a background in speech and debate and consider myself a lay judge, I do have experience teaching elementary and middle school students in an after-school EFL academy. In addition to evaluating essay writing, memorized speeches, and presentations in standard EFL classes of varying levels, I also taught higher level students in subjects including literature and test prep. I also have a long history as a trainer in various fields, which included assessment, feedback, and improvement plans for my trainees. As far as educational background, I have a masters in Library and Information Services, a masters in East Asian Studies, and a bachelors in Literature.

In my judging, I will be looking for a well-supported argument with evidence to support your view or a clear strong characterization of your story. I like to see both style and substance! I want you to persuade me and convey your point, which means I also want to be talked to in a way that's easy to understand. I prefer a conversational pace, and if you include any jargon make sure to explain it. Be sure to utilize your non-verbal communication skills, but don't force anything that would feel unnatural. I will be taking notes while you speak, though I'll also want to see that you are engaging with the audience as you go through your piece, even if you are reading from your materials. Make sure you are answering the question or speaking to the prompt you've been given, that you address any points made by your opponent, and that you follow any rules or guidance provided. All other things being equal, I have preference for performances that provide a personal connection or explanation to the story or argument you're making.

Above all, do your best and have fun!

I’m a lay judge, persuade me

Corey Puckett

LD:

I am a fairly traditional LD judge with lots of experience in LD specifically. LD is philosophical debate and that is what I would like to see, however I will flow policy. I’m fine with spreading and will flow it, however do not be intentionally deceptive with bad spreading to get an advantage, I will not flow illegible speech.
This is a competition and I want to see a competitive nature in round, however good sportsmanship is priority and I will not hesitate to give low speaks and file the opponents ballot for egregiously bad sportsmanship. Be courteous, be professional, and give me a reason to give you the ballot.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Email: Cbugpuckett@gmail.com

Centennial UPDATE: Try to set up that email chain/speech drop/etc ahead of time pls. Flight 2 also feel free to enter and set up the doc share asap pls.

Last updated - 12/12/24

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX), Isidore Newman (LA)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please at least read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) +0.1

- including funny/relevant/topical memes in the doc +0.1 if it's funny

- playing good music during cx - up to +0.3 depending on song choice

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes two framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

LD Philosophy

I consider myself traditional.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being.

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

If you run theory in front of me, you are wasting your time. I will not vote on theory.

My History With Debate: I did LD 2 years in high school and finished 6th at state my first year and was a finalist my second year (those being junior and senior year respectively). I also have judged LD for the past year.

Rate Of Delivery: Absolutely no spreading. I can keep up with some speed but if I clear you once you need to slow down and if I have to clear you again you will not be flowed for the remainder of that round. It is my job to hear you debate not read your debate.

Criterion & Value: This is what your case lives and dies by. It is not the only thing I consider; however, if someone can prove their VC completely supersedes yours, then your case will have a major uphill battle.

Voting Issues: These are necessary, even if you think we both know where you are winning. Explain why and how your winning line by line as the cherry on top of a great round and you can sinch a close one.

Evidence: Any purely empirical claim should have purely empirical evidence. I can follow your logic if you want to lead me down it, but evidence for your logic or a strong philosophical precedent will make me much more likely to believe the argumentation.

Flow: I always keep a flow during rounds (you should do the same, by the way), and walking me down the flow at the end of the round for your voters is essential. Don’t look like you're winning; tell me why you're winning.

Final Notes: I do not tolerate any form of mocking or bashing of the opposition. You are here to compete their case not them, and any Ad Hominems will lose you the round almost on the spot. Be kind to each other and have fun because this is a lot of fun! I will request a copy of each case at the beginning of the round and you must be able to provide a copy to your opponent if asked if your case is virtual (see UIL LD DEBATE RULES: Guidelines For Use of A Computer)

Email: Finchruggles@gmail.com

Former circuit debater in the 2012-2015 school year. I have judged at several TOC bid tournaments like Harvard, Science Park, Yale and Berkeley for several events but mostly LD and speech. I would expect to see some form of framework in LD rounds like traditional value/value criterion or K structure role of the judge/role of the ballot.

If I can't understand your spreading, I can't flow you, I will give you a warning and you should adjust.

If you read frivolous theory I will probably drop the argument. If you're losing substance and this is your strategy, I'm most likely dropping you too. It's boring and reduces the educational value of this activity.

I enjoy K arguments if they are well done.

Howdy, I am Charles Schlichenmeyer, an engineering student attending Texas A&M University, where I am the President of the Speech and Debate Team. I have been debating for many years and therefore can understand a wide range of arguments able to be made on both sides of the issue. That being said, do not spread under any circumstance. Debate is about communicating your stance on an issue effectively and clearly, spreading runs antithetical to this. Also, be mindful of the room and speak in a normal tone and volume, do not yell. Another big thing is to make sure to signpost so that the judges and other debaters alike can follow the flow easily. I will make sure to follow the round to the best of my ability, but making this easier to do certainly does not hurt.

When it comes to congressional debate, make sure to speak early and often, there is no harm in giving the first affirmative or negation speech, they are vital to keep the debate moving. Also do not shy away from running for PO, an effective PO who runs an efficient chamber is likely to be ranked high. Another thing is that if you are giving a crystalization speech as the 11th speech on the legislation you will not be ranked high unless you can give novel arguments so late in the debate on the legislation. It is better to move to the next bill or resolution than to stay on the same one forever.

For LD, I much prefer a traditional LD round. Value and Criterion are the most important, and contentions must be relevant to your framework. Do not make the round a 1v1 policy round. Kritiks can be effective, if woven into the round properly. In my mind theory has almost no place in LD. You can of course make any arguments you like, and I will evaluate the round without bias, but I find theory to be counterproductive to the goals of Speech and Debate.

Experience: past debater mostly focused in LD and PF

congress: simple, respectful debate. In Congress, you should be able to say your point without talking over or dominating the question. Questions must be short and not long drawn-out sentences. Besides that, I'm a rather simple judge in the grand scheme.

LD: My biggest thing in LD will be value criterion, Lincoln Douglas, and whatever debater wins is who carries their value and criterion through the round and weighs it properly. I also weigh heavily on flowability and whether arguments are carried through rounds. If you drop a card or an argument isn't properly flowed, I won't weigh that in the round. Other than that be respectful, and courteous in the round, I will mark down a little if you are rude or disrespectful in the round.