IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery! Also I am a stickler for effective movement and blocking.

PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.

WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is discouraged.

Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.

CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid Kritiks and spreading.

Keep in mind I am a traditional judge! However I am open minded to new ideas presented/performed!

** side notes from judge

DEBATE:

Speed

I do not like speed I do prefer a pace where all judges and contestants can understand as well, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you did not make it to the ballot, however I will still try to keep up. Therefore, keep in mind mumbling the word is NOT saying the word so if I say CLEAR -> it means that make sure that each word is being pronounced correctly. The word LOUD means speech a bit louder to hear you.

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win.

Speaker Points

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

29-30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies. 30 usually goes to the contestant that kept it professional from the beginning to the end of the round

**Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally un-responded to but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

My focus is on the content of arguments as well as the presentation, and I believe that strong speaking style and clear articulation are key components of success. Below are some specific guidelines for the events I will be judging:

World Schools Debate (WSD)

I am a big advocate for WSD. I think it is the best form of debate offered. I have been on every side of the event. In high school, I competed on the state, national, and international levels. I've been a judge. I've been a coach. Knowing this, I look forward to a good debate and have certain expectations when evaluating a round. A Worlds round is evaluated on style, content, and strategy. I expect a winning team to demonstrate a mastery of all three elements. I am not impressed by an overly technical team that lacks style when speaking. Similarly, I will not be persuaded by great speakers who do not engage with content and the heart of the motion. A few points:

• The range for speaking points at TFA is 66-74, with 70 being the average
• I expect all participants in a round to actively give and accept POIs (per the style norm). POIs are tools to be used strategically.
• The first speaker has several obligations: establish the framing for the round. If you have a model that you expect the debate to revolve around, it should be clearly established and fair. I do not like it when a debate becomes contingent on which team's model I support. Provide your substantive arguments with clear organization. I expect to see a claim, warrant, and impact for each argument. Explain why what you are saying matters, not just that it does. (The opposition's second speaker obviously has the obligation to begin rebuttals against the proposition. A failure to do so is a significant strategic weakness.)
• The second speaker needs to engage with the arguments presented and rebuild their own case. This is a vital speech that frames your defense and offense in the round. Do not sacrifice your style.
• The third speaker must describe the key clashes in the round. What is the interaction between the teams, and who is winning? Weighing is essential. You can lose one clash and still win the round if you can persuade me to weigh another argument heavily.
• General note: I can only flow so fast, so it does not benefit you to spread if I cannot clearly follow what you are saying.

Public Forum Debate (PF)

1. Organization is Key: In Public Forum, I expect a clear and logical structure in both the cases and rebuttals. Both teams should ensure that their arguments are easy to follow, with clearly labeled contentions, subpoints, and impact analysis. Each speech should be well-organized, and the flow should be evident.
2. Clarity and Speaking Style: Effective communication is paramount. I want to hear articulate, confident, and coherent speakers. The ability to communicate your ideas with clarity will weigh heavily in my decision-making process. While it’s important to present evidence and analysis, I am equally focused on how well you explain your points and engage with your opponent’s arguments.
3. Big Picture Evaluation: I will evaluate Public Forum debates with an emphasis on the big picture. I want to understand the overall framework of your argument—why your side of the resolution matters, how your evidence supports it, and the broader impact on society or policy. I’ll look for cohesive reasoning and strategic decision-making in your arguments.
4. Weighing Arguments: The best debaters in PF are those who understand not just the mechanics of argumentation but also how to weigh competing arguments effectively. I will expect debaters to make clear comparisons between the two sides' cases, demonstrating why their arguments matter more than their opponent's.
5. No Spreading: I am not a fan of “spreading” in Public Forum debate. Speed reading or talking excessively fast diminishes clarity and makes it hard for both me and your opponent to follow your arguments. I expect you to speak clearly, at a pace that is understandable, and to focus on the quality of your analysis, not just the quantity of information you present.

Interp (Interpretation)

1. Style and Delivery: In Interpretation, how you deliver your performance is just as (if not more) important as the content itself. I am looking for strong emotional engagement, varied vocal delivery, effective use of body language, and the ability to captivate your audience. I value performers who can inhabit their characters fully, bringing them to life with sincerity and depth. A good interp should leave a lasting impression through both the performance and the story you tell.
2. Clarity: Clarity in articulation, pacing, and voice projection are critical. While your interpretation might be deeply emotional or nuanced, I want to be able to follow your performance. Speaking clearly and with purpose will be key to receiving high marks from me.
3. Structure and Cohesion: While style is important, I also expect a logical flow in the interpretation. The scenes, characters, or monologues should connect in a way that makes sense and guides the audience through the emotional and thematic elements of the piece. Transitions should feel smooth, and the story arc should be evident.

Speech

1. Organization and Structure: I value clear and logical organization in all speech events.
2. Clarity and Style: In speech events, your ability to clearly articulate your message is essential. Whether you're delivering a prepared speech or responding to impromptu prompts, your speaking style should be clear, engaging, and confident. Use your voice, gestures, and pauses strategically to keep the audience (and me) engaged. A strong speaking style can elevate a speech, but it should always serve the content. I appreciate speakers who can balance enthusiasm with seriousness when needed, and those who use their personal style to make their argument or message more compelling without detracting from clarity.
3. Big Picture: When evaluating speech events, I’ll focus not just on individual points but on the overall impact of your message. I will assess how well you tie your points together, how persuasive or informative your speech is as a whole, and how well you engage with the audience through both content and delivery.

General Preferences Across All Events

• Clarity: Regardless of the event, clarity in speech and argumentation is non-negotiable. If I can't follow what you are saying, I will struggle to evaluate your performance fairly. Speak at an understandable pace, use pauses to emphasize key points, and ensure that your audience (including me) can track your logic.
• Speaking Style: I appreciate speakers who can adapt their delivery to suit the context of the event—whether it’s formal or interpretive, persuasive or informative. The ability to vary tone, speed, and body language enhances your delivery and helps keep me engaged.
• Big Picture Thinking: Whether in debate or speech, I value a comprehensive understanding of your topic or performance. Be strategic with your argumentation and delivery, focusing on why your points matter and how they contribute to the round’s outcome.

As a judge I have a responsibility to the process. To remain open minded, treat the debaters with respect (in words and deed), encourage them, and remember this is an educational opportunity. Debating is a great way to learn to think outside the box, to learn from other student's experiences and exposures and evaluate what is said. These are life skills that will carry them far.

I am a retired administrator and Fine Arts Coordinator but, I do judge regularly and serve as the UIL One Act Play trainer for adjudicators. As a former speech and debate coach I enjoy seeing students share what they have learned while researching, analyzing and preparing to create, present and defend their case. Applying the basics of debate and some creative strategies, they are able to challenge the most savvy opponent and work to PERSUADE me to see things their way. I must admit that I have learned a lot from students, and I love it. Whether they are working individually or as a team they can employ critical thinking, logic, reasoning and argumentation. They learn to take a stand and defend it and, by all means remain TOPICAL and present what they have worked on.

Presentation and delivery are key. Rate does not bother me however, I expect you to speak as clearly as possible to be heard and understood. I take detailed notes. Oftentimes, any information requiring clarification will be resolved. Argument and style are equally important to me. They work to compliment each other. Specific words and phrases drive delivery and require amplification when used.

I pride myself in being a life long learner so I listen critically and focus on key points to see if it makes sense. Please keep me engaged. Back up your claims with solid references?

Each round is new and stands on it's own no matter how many times I have heard the topic debated. There is no comparing or contrasting.

Debate coach specializing primarily in Public Forum debate.

Things that generally make a debate round enjoyable for me are the interactions between debaters through clash, cross examination, rebuttals, POIs, etc.

I don’t like judging rounds where I am just being read at.

When it comes to speed, I prefer slower deliveries. I value speeches that are understandable, stylized, and with inflections that highlight the most important aspects of your case. A rapid delivery dumping card after card does not impress me.

I value manners and sportsmanship EXTREMELY heavily. Debate is supposed to be fun and engaging. If I feel like a debater/team is being overly aggressive, demeaning, or rude, the speaker points and possibly the ballot will reflect that. You should ultimately welcome a lively discourse with your opponents. Even if you are facing a team that is inexperienced or unprepared you should try to promote a discourse and avoid intimidating or shutting them out of the round.

Ultimately, thank you for the time and effort you put into debate. It’s a pleasure to be involved in the debate community and to work with debate students. I hope you get something valuable out of the debate experience and make some lasting memories.

PF Specific Items:

I prefer the "old PF" style where speeches were more persuasive and accessible to the general public and less about dumping cards.

Truth > tech

I do not like Ks or Theory arguments in PF. I do not want to be on any email chains.

Please do not cite NSDA, TFA, or the Public Forum "rule books" to me at any point in the round. Yes I know PF shouldn't have counterplans, bring up new evidence in the final focus, etc. and I can decide what I won't consider in a decision. I'm also not going to decide a round on minor technicalities.

The easiest PF rounds for me to judge are the ones where debaters use their final focus speeches effectively. I don't need to hear the line by line recap of the round for potentially the third time. I want to hear why your team won and it should be more than just how the other team dropped all their arguments or how all your arguments went conceded. Highlight the most important argument in the round and key areas of clash and how (through weighing/calculus) your side wins the clash. If done correctly, I should be able to recite parts of your final focus in my Reason For Decision.

Email:bakerzachary0@gmail.com

INTERP Specific: DO NOT SCREAM in your performance. I understand being loud for emotional reasons, but you do not need to scream at the top of your lungs. I hear a fair bit of screaming my day to day and it genuinely bothers me more than any uncomfortable social issue/topic. I will rank you lower for screaming.

Truth over tech: I don't think abusing link chains makes you a good debater. I'm willing to buy more abstract arguments to an extent I have solid general knowledge of most things political. The more complicated your argument the more clear your link chain should be. That being said as long as your argument isn't based around a lie or fatal mistake on your part I still require the other team to do the work and refute it.

Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.

Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've only vote on two theory arguments. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win.I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)

In LD: Value criterion is extremely important to me. I need to understand how different contentions/cards tie into your value criterion and why your VC outweighs. Policy makers have values too.

In PF: I value more of a big picture voters speech than a line by line, the speech is 2 minutes so if you drop unimportant parts of the debate here you can win. With that said in PF I really prefer slower speaking even more than LD

Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't. I really like it when you understand why an extemp question is an extemp question. A good extemp question is about a bigger picture and if your analysis reflects great topic knowledge and I am typically going to be more interested/engaged and rank you higher.

Platform/Interp: Delivery is critical especially for jokes, practice practice practice. If your unsure of how you are saying a joke ask someone before giving it to me as a judge. Moreover in Interp please don't scream/yell super loud especially if you are standing right next to me.

Don't spread.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if it's fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

I have been judging since 2009.

i prefer conversational rate of delivery. I know of no profession that spreads or talks really fast other than an auctioneer. Your delivery of information is to help the person hearing you and convince them you have the best argument so you can win the decision rendered.

i enjoy judging: LD, Impromptu, Informative, Original Oratory.

I've been judging and coaching various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever topic you're speaking on. That isn't to say that you should treat me as a lay person but rather you should not expect me to know the intricate literature on complicated topics that you have been doing massive research on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have. I prioritize fairness and transparency as much as possible.

If you're curious as to what kind of judge I am: the PF Discord says that I am tech, flay, fake tech, a worlds coach, and a hack. I'm not purposefully sandbagging my paradigm but I will say that I am human and I won't get it right every time.

If you're curious as to whether or not I'm a good judge: the people I voted for would say yes, and the people I voted against would say I'm a goober behind my back.

Predominately, I just try my best with the information given to me and try to keep any personal bias or prior information out of the round and I like to have things implicated within the speeches.

I will often default to the tried and true: I will vote for the least mitigated link into the biggest. properly weighed impact.

I have voted on everything you can think of - but they must be run well and correctly.

Most importantly, the reason why I don't try to preclude specific types of arguments is because I think everyone should be able to debate how they want - whatever you want to run in front of me, do it! The activity gets stagnant and exclusionary if everyone just did the same thing every time; there is no one way to debate and no one way to judge a round.

Feel free to challenge me and my perceptions, to educate and entertain me, and to have fun and enjoy the activity that we all have dedicated countless hours in doing.

Try to be kind to each other, stop calling each other lazy or adding quippy personal attacks to refutations; please don't speak loudly while another competitor is speaking and try to maintain decorum when you're not speaking [ie keep the over the top reactions, eye rolls, and laughter down while your opponent is giving a speech].

Speech:

Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.

Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life.  Draw me into your world. 

Debate (PF/LD/WSD):

Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me.  I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence. 

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.  Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.  

Congress:  Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in.  Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons. 

Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points.  I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro.  If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.   

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2024-2025 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last couple of years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds. I am not going to evaluate the round after a certain speech.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jordandebate@googlegroups.com

General

I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger
i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

speed is good, pls slow down on analytics. i do not flow off the doc and will not vote on things that are not on my flow. i'll clear you twice and then give up. please get off the doc in the back half of the debate - i am much more interested in your analysis than in hearing the same docced responses that i've heard ten times in the tournament. major kudos to people who have paper flows and are doing line by line work from the flow

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

CX:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.
I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.
all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD specific:
Tricks:
no thanks
LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

PF:

if your evidence does not have a tag at all, or it is functionally nothing (ie “concludes”, “explains”, etc), I will not flow it. use good evidence ethics practices and don't paraphrase

Congress:

I am a debate judge, and I flow Congress. However, your delivery is also important. I want to be persuaded by your speech. To borrow from Calen Calber, "introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank." CX matters a lot to me - you should use it efficiently and strategically without getting heated with other people in the room. I strongly dislike people being unprepared for Congress (ie. having to take in house recesses because people are not prepared to speak) and breaking cycle and it will be reflected on my ballot.

PO's typically start at a 5 and go up or down depending on: 1) how well the round runs and 2) how good everyone else in the room is. Again, from Calen Cabler, "A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot."

Ultimately, the most important thing to know about my judging is that debate is a communication event. If you are not communicating effectively, you cannot win the round. If you are going to speak fast, you have to speak clearly. Do not spread. I do not want to be included on a doc chain. If I cannot follow your case/what you are saying without reading along with you, you are not communicating.

Congress Paradigms:

Your speech should be thoughtful and touch on one to three key issues related to the legislation. Your time should be well balanced between all points. If you are spending significantly less time on one point than on your others, cut it. You aren't spending enough time developing it if your other points are significantly longer.

Your delivery should be slow and deliberate. It should be a conversational, extemporaneous style. If you bring a laptop up to speak from, you will be docked points. You should be communicating and speaking to the chamber and judges, not speaking at them. You cannot accomplish this if you are reading from a laptop.

You should have one to three reliable pieces of evidence per point. I don't believe you need to cite everything in your speech, but you should be able to name the source if asked/challenged.

If you are not the sponsor/author for a piece of legislation, you need to incorporate some element of clash or engagement with earlier speakers. Do not come up and give a completely pre-written speech that doesn't engage with the debate that has already been established. This isn't mini-extemp. You need to be engaged with the debate. If there have been more than 3-5 cycles of debate on a piece of legislation or the debate is heavily one-sided, someone in the chamber needs to motion for previous question or motion to table to allow competitors to write speeches to allow for a more even debate I shouldn't hear the same speech over and over with nothing new being presented.

What can/should PO's do to earn high ranks? A PO can earn high ranks by running an efficient and error-free chamber. One of the biggest issues I find with POs is their lack of active engagement with the chamber. It is the PO's job to keep the chamber running as quickly and efficiently as possible. If debate is getting repetitive, suggest motions. If there seems to be a confusion about procedure, don't wait for the chamber to figure it out. Suggest motions and keep the chamber moving. Have a strong knowledge/practice with your gaveling or time-signal procedures and precedence tracking. Explain them clearly and then stick to them.

PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.

LD/CX: Tabula Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.

WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to "force the hand" of the other team.

While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created (clash). Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give the reason(s) why.

Hello! My name is Luis De La Cruz, or Mr. De La Cruz. You can call me “judge” in round.

I am unflinching on Truth > Tech and should be treated as a true lay judge. I have no knowledge of speech times, norms, etc., so err on the side of holding my hand through those things.

You need to stay around 200 WPM. It's more important that you are clear than slow. I’m not at all accustomed to “spreading.” The closer you are to speaking like you’re giving a TED Talk, the better.

Speaker points should average from 28.5 to 29.5. I have zero tolerance for any “-isms” (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.); this will always result in an L25. To get higher speaker points, be persuasive, craft a simple/compelling narrative, and make the round easy to evaluate.

Judging Philosophy:I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily ongoodextensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T:I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points:I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed:I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed;slow down on tag lines/author names.I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous:I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

I am a retired coach and teacher, I coached for 31 years, I coached all events successfully, my philosophy for speech events rewards students who are knowledgeable, informed, and prepared, I focus on speaking style, organization, and creativity, For Interp events, I look for creativity and style, I do not like extreme profanity or sexual material, in all debate, no speed, any arguments are acceptable, I lean towards organized, factual arguments, I do not like debates that “kick” arguments

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

I'm Nathan Fell and I can be reached at nfelldebate @ gmail.com

If you would like you can send your case and rebuttal evidence to the above email address.

This is my first year with any formal debate involvement, but I've been arguing and debating in different contexts my whole life. My formal training is historical academia which has informed how I think about arguments so I approach through that lens. You should think of me basically as a lay judge.

I am open to all types of arguments even if they go against my personal opinion on the motion. With my background in history academia the use of evidence and logical progression of ideas is much more important to me than technicality, although those are not unimportant. I am still new to formal debate so debate jargon will lose me unless it is hyper relevant to your argument and you define your terms, which is important to do anyway. For Public Forum specifically I think it is important to remember that it is Public forum and so your arguments should be open and accessible to people without debate background, like me. :)

Slow down. I'll try to keep up if you go fast, but remember, persuasion is more important than speed. If you get fewer words in, but the words have impact, that will be much more strategic. Spreading will be actively disadvantageous for me to follow, understand, and judge your argument. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. Be loud and clear in your speaking. I'm a touch hard of hearing so this will be a big help for me.

Debate as an academic exercise is good for learning civil discourse and exploring ideas, so be charitable. A round where both sides are extreme in their characterizations and uncharitable is not fun to watch and is extremely difficult to evaluate. Do not misrepresent your opponents position. I don't want a rude or condescending tone. Be respectful to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent.

If possible please time yourself as I'm still new and would prefer to focus on your speeches and arguments.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to come up to me before or after the round and ask! I am new and eager to learn more from you as well!

Alumni of Cypress Ranch High School - Primarily Congress and Extemp (De Moine DX 2024). Current Novice Policy Debater at the University of Houston.

Email: pablo.debateuh@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

Policy

T - I tend to default to competing interpretations. Good T debate should have clear standards at the end of the debate and reasons why I should vote for a team.

K - I love Kritik debate, despite not being well-versed with all of the K literature. I am familiar with Settler Colonialism, Security K, and Cap K, and I've ran some Latinx Ks. For more general Ks just as long as the links are contextualized to the aff.I should caveat that the K v K debate is the thing I am the most unfamiliar with - for you to win with me you need two things (1) the Role of the ballot; (2) Comparison standard (evaluate alt v. plan, eval k as non-plan v. neg, etcetera)

DA - At the end of the debate there should be good link analysis and impact calculus. DAs should have a focus on the IL to impacts of the affirmative (e.g. We access... or We turn their impacts.)

CP - Good CPs should be specific, they should also have a good net benefit. I lean more negative when it comes to theory (conditionality). But if the neg reads four conditional CPs I will lean towards the affirmative when standards are flushed out and explained.

Lincoln Douglas

Phil - I love philosophical debate. I am familiar with Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau. That said, I am open to learning during the round as long as it is simplified and explained thoroughly. That said, any good Phil debate contains the links to the conclusion of the literature.

Framework - I believe in leveraging framework to win a round (e.g. If you win on protecting property and your resolutions accomplish so, even marginally, I will vote on it.) I ask that you make an effective comparison with your opponent.

Public Forum

By popular request, this is the only debate event I judge differently. I judge on the abstract of which world I would prefer to live in. Even if marginally. I derive this decision by defaulting to utilitarianism, that said, I will change this if the framework is debated. This does not mean I don't evaluate cutting links or targeting solvency.

CP - Because of the paradigm of judging mentioned above, con fiat is bad. Therefore, I don't vote for CPs

Speech

Presentation > Analysis

Extra

https://www.equalityinforensics.org/blog/getting-into-progressive-lincoln-douglas-debate (This a great article made by EIF that is beneficial, especially for trad debaters at locals)

https://www.ratemydebatejudge.com/JudgeInfo_signup.php?judgeID=386324 (If you have an outrageously bad experience with me or good experience feel free to rate me; also I have slight pro bias from the 2024-2025 season)

Debate Events: When judging debate events, I look for the following criteria. Did the contenders:

• Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, and fluency?• Display solid logic, reasoning, and analysis? • Stay away from overcomplicated/hard to follow argumentation? • Present a clash of ideas? • Counter the arguments of the opponents? • Create content that was organized and focused on the topic? • Deliver in a professional manner and implement an appropriate professional tone? • Stay within time limits?

The winning contenders are those who, though they may be passionate about a topic, are driven by logic-based arguments and stay away from being emotionally fueled while speaking/interacting with their competitors. Respect is important. The winning contenders are those who present the best key arguments and most effectively persuade me in the end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech Events: When judging speech events, I look for the following criteria. Did the contenders:

• Communicate with clarity, organization, and fluency? • Avoid rushing and provide for clear diction? • Create a unique, engaging, and creative speech? • Utilize appropriate vocabulary? • Present ideas in an organized and cohesive manner? • Create a cohesive, flowing performance? • Maintain appropriate volume, presence, and energy throughout the entire performance? • Seem believable as their character(s) and/or in telling their stories? • Develop an entertaining and enjoyable presentation? • Fall within the allotted timing per event?

The winning contenders are those who are aware of all that goes into creating a character and/or passionate speech. In the context of "performance", specific choices are made as to how and when to move based on the character's needs and style of the piece/speech. They utilize tempo and rhythm that are appropriate for the piece (there is a logical build present). The winning contenders are those who create a display of emotion that is believable and appropriate for the piece, whether it be informative, humorous, or dramatic.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -My theory threshold is High I have to see clear abuse

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

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.

PF:

I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during the case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.

If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.

I will vote on a warranted argument regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.

In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to pref me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.

Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.

I have a very long history in speech and debate activities as both a coach and competitor. I have coached all formats of debate along with public speaking and interp events over the last 35 years. I attended high school in a small town Texas school back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, where I competed in policy debate, extemp, oratory, dramatic, prose and poetry. I also competed in college at Southwest Texas State University (which is now Texas State University) in NDT and CEDA along with individual events.

I have been the coach at James E. Taylor High School (Katy Taylor) in Katy, Texas for the last 25 years, where I have coached all events.

In debate, I tend to take a very traditional approach to evaluating rounds. As such, I don’t care much for conditional arguments or the theory spawned by them. I also expect the debaters to weigh arguments in the round and establish a decision calculus. I.E., if both teams present me with extinction impacts and the end of the world as we know it, each should give analysis on how I should weigh those arguments. Likewise, a framework should be established to weigh policy and non-policy arguments against each other. I much prefer to vote on the framework established by the teams in the round than be forced to intervene with my own.

I expect arguments to be clearly articulated and supported with evidence. To clarify: I believe that both the argument and the evidence are of equal value. I will not read evidence after the round unless the content has been questioned. It is the responsibility of the team to frame and support the argument and I will not read a card after the round and interpret it for the team. Also, while I understand that speed is relative and that what is considered fast in some areas is considered slow in others, intelligibility is of critical importance. I will not give any weight to evidence that is incomprehensible (see above). I will, however, try to indicate that speech is unintelligible.

Additionally, I have a very traditional view of the purpose of debate. I believe that we are supposed to be analyzing a specific resolution. I am very unlikely to vote for arguments based on the notion that the “debate space” is a forum to discuss issues of personal, rather than resolutional, relevance. If you want to posit issues (such as those of identity) which are not directly related to the resolution, you do not want me in the back of the room.

Generally, if you aren’t sure, ask and I will try to clarify.

In public speaking events, I generally weigh 3 things: analysis, organization, and delivery (in that order). In any public speaking event, I expect to hear citations of credible sources. In extemp I normally expect a minimum of 2-3 source per area of analysis (more is fine). In oratory or info, I expect the student to explain a source's qualifications. A clear organizational structure is required. In terms of delivery, there should be an appropriate level of gesture and movement. But all movement should serve to reinforce the content of the speech. Clear diction and intonation are also important.

Extempers--The analysis in the speech should stem directly from the topic question. If the speech doesn't directly respond to the question asked, you will end up with a low rank from me, no matter the quality of the speech itself. My number 1 rule in extemp--answer the question.

When evaluating interpretation events, I tend to look first to characterization. Blocking and use of space are also an important considerations, but I expect all movement to be motivated. Random movement, or movement just for movement's sake, is distracting and confusing. I have no particular preference on the use of a teaser, but I do want to hear YOU in the intro (as a contrast to the character(s) you are creating). In prose/poetry, the rules of the event require the use of a binder, so I expect you to at least pretend to occasionally look at the pages.

I am not offended by the use of profanity as long as it is integral to the selection performed. I am not a fan of using it just for shock value. Along the same lines, I am not easily offended, and willing to give some latitude on content of the performance. However, I am uncomfortable with selections that are extremely graphic and/or vulgar, or bordering on, or completely pornographic. I realize that it is difficult to explain where that line falls, and I do take that into account. Shocking just to be shocking doesn't score lots of points with me. Basically, if the piece would get an X-rating in a movie theater, I don't want to watch it in an interp round.

Online competitors: I will always take into account limited space, technical issues, etc., when evaluating competitors online. I understand that some things are just out of the student's control when competing online and I do not count that against the student.

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.

Public Speaking:

Delivery matters, but so does content. Organization of ideas should be very apparent. Sources should be clearly stated and used as needed. In extemp, be sure to answer the question posed.

I am not fond of “interp oratories.”

Interp: Literary merit should be obvious. While the material may be entertaining, it should push the student beyond what is his/her comfort zone. Also, a good introduction does not hurt.

Debate:

I view debate as a communications event. So, present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. If I'm not flowing, you are not clear. You may speak at a pace a little faster than that used during normal conversation as long as you are not speaking in a monotone and normal breathing is not inhibited.

There is a reason the topic is being debated at this time. Take it seriously and don't waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers' intent. Debate topics reflect real concerns present in society. I'll consider most anything you present as long as it's done professionally and with thoughtful analysis and supporting evidence. I try hard not to debate you and to vote based on the arguments you and your opponent present.

World Schools Debate:

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? A group versus group debate with a focus on world views or global concerns. There is much more emphasis on analysis and logical reasoning than in other debate types where citing evidence is critical.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? I flow what each team member says and I make knows of the opponents' responses or lack of them.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. Not really. I listening for clear and logical explanations for each argument. Debaters should carry a basic thesis throughout the round.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? The "model" should be carried throughout the round. Clarity of strategy is important.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? Style

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? Clarity and reasonableness of the claim; relevance is important as well.

How do you resolve model quibbles? Whoever best carries the model throughout the round wins. Making connections and articulating relevance is important.

How do you evaluate models vs. counter-models? They need to be linked to the topic. The counter-model, if given, should clearly link to the topic and provide something that the model does not. Exposing the weaknesses of the model helps.

Speech Events: I first look for good structure within the speech. I look for attention given to the organization of claims and data. Proper citation of valid source material is essential to promote ethos of the speakers personal perspective. Additionally, smooth presentation of of all sources is a small technical detail I weigh. The tone of a speech should not be one note. There should be variation in style to drive the emotion and level of importance of the material presented.

Interp: I consider a structure where teaser, intro, piece is the standard flow of performance. The introduction must bridge the gap between the teaser and the primary presentation by unveiling the importance and merit of the literature. For me, this is key, even in HI i look for relevance and merit. To me, this is what sets interp apart from acting. This is also an important factor when considering the competitiveness of the selection. I expect the performer to have a deep understanding of the authors purpose and message. Blocking when needed must be creative. I put a heavy emphasis on the small technical details. For example, POI: binder blocking and smooth transitions between pieces in the program. The transitions should melt together, not shift abruptly. HI: popping and character differentiation are important. DI: Character depth and use of space. Duo: Coordination. characterization, and synchronization.

Debate Events: I evaluate each event differently. I tend to gravitate to what I interpret as the

purpose of the debate's intended style when evaluating the round. That is to say, I evaluate the events differently, as they each function differently and have different purposes/objectives.

I won't consider disclosure as a voter

I am a stickler for standing during speeches and in cross examination. This is the formal and professional part of this activity. Please do not take it for granted. The only time sitting is appropriate is during the grand cross in PF.

Policy: I evaluate all argument types when presented, so long as they are presented effectively.

LD- I lean more traditional, in that framework is an important part of LD. I am open to progressive arguments if they are presented well and properly. The structure of these arguments are important and you must signpost well.

PF: I evaluate more traditionally and put heavy emphasis on professionalism and personal character (i.e. Don’t be mean), especially in crossfire.

WSD: I stick to the governed norms you would see in most judge training sessions. Congressional Debate: I evaluate clash as well as speech structure heavily. I put weight into participation and leadership.

In general for debate, I am not a fan of spreading. It has always been a "thing" in debate. it was a "thing" when I was a student, it is still a "thing" now. Just because some"thing" is popular does not mean it is a good "thing".

If I cannot understand it or catch it, then I cannot flow it. If I cannot flow it, I cannot evaluate it.

In any debate event, try not to spread too much. Some speed is fine, but I can't vote based on arguments I can't understand.

If I'm judging you in congress, you have a few things to keep in mind. First, pay attention to what the other speakers are saying about the bill at hand. If you're considering giving a speech, make sure you are adding something new to the debate. If you're not, the speech will do more to hurt your rank in the room than help it. When it comes to questions, don't just ask to ask. If you don't use the information you gained in a speech, what was the point of asking? POs - if debate on a bill has gone on for more than 5 cycles, and you aren't encouraging the room to move on, I will have a less favorable view of your performance. I know that you can't control what the room wants to do, but you have to at least try to get them to move on. For my sake.

For interp events, I pay close attention to the flow of the cut, unique characterizations (including voice and body language), and transitions. Make sure those pantomimes are clean!

For speaking events, fluency is important. Make sure your ideas flow well from one point to the next. Make it very clear when you are transitioning from one point to the next - I should never be confused as to where you are in a speech.

In extemp, be sure to actually answer the question, and try to connect each point back your answer as a whole. Bonus points for smooth transitions, and an intro that connects back to the conclusion.

EDUCATION

B.A. in English Writing and Rhetoric,Specialization in Professional Writing
St. Edward’s University in Austin, Texas

EXPECTATIONS

I’m looking for presentations with a clear and impactful objective. They should be well-structured, smoothly paced, and delivered with passion. Strive to not only inform or persuade, but to truly inspire your audience.

“Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.” - Hubert H. Humphrey

PA/Speech:Structure/organization, confidence, personality, fluency, and topic uniqueness are what I value most in any PA event

Interp: Effective and purposeful blocking, emotion/range, vocal inflection, and personality in that order- exaggerate but more importantly be deliberate

**I have judged plenty of deep outrounds in nats level tournaments and coached students who have won or made it to deep outrounds at nats tourneys so I will GLADLY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE for the love of god or buddha or allah let me give you back a full ballot gushing over your work and give you feedback!! I do not slouch when giving feedback for speech and interp events and it will show!

Debate: trad line by line. Things I look for are strong voters, framework debate (tech > truth) for LD, winner is usually the person who does a better job defending their value/criterion and possibly even opponent's. For PF- consistent defense and weigh on voters. Not a fan of tricks or K and will prob rule against, sorry.

**Can handle 7/10 speed but please no spreading, or at least slow down when I ask for a clear. It won't affect speaker points or decision but if I look like I'd rather do poetry interp instead of flowing it's because it I do :)

I am a stickler for good presentation and civil debate. Respect and clear argumentation are important for me in all events. I will be very focused on the flow of argumentation and will judge off of what was presented and how.

Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.

CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid spreading.

LD: I prefer traditional LD. No spreading, civil clash, and a strong emphasis on philosophy over policy. I will tolerate progressive debate/Kritiks and policy, however, be careful and make sure your case is well crafted.

IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery and compelling storytelling!

PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.

WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is not encouraged.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

LD and CX:

If it'll make it simpler, consider me a relatively traditional/lay judge.

Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.

Not a fan of plans in LD - find a friend and do Policy instead.

PF:

Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.

Congress:

I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.

Speech Events:

I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).

Interp Events:

With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.

Background:

1st year assistant coach for the speech and debate team. I do not have experience as a speech and debate member, but I have over 20 years of experience as a public speaker. During the first 20 years of my adult life, I served in the United States Marine Corps and was expected to deliver effective and concise messages to a variety of troops, leaders, students, and public figures.

Expectations:

Although each platform has a very specific structure, there are things that I feel are universal when communicating a message. I expect the speaker to be clear and concise. I also feel that tone, vocal variety, and rate of speech are important.

For Debate: Knowing that I am a novice judge, I don't expect the speakers to speak at an exceptionally fast rate, as I am not as skilled at catching all of the points as more experienced judges. I expect the points to be easily identifiable. I expect all arguments to be addressed. I don't feel that bullying a competitor by being loud, overtalking, or being derogatory is an effective means of winning on a point.

For Speech: I look for movements to be purposeful, non-redundant, and only to be dramatic at the appropriate moments. Blocking should be well thought out and add to the scene. It is always a plus for the speakers to find a way to connect with the audience, whether it be with the choice of their verbiage, eye contact, or movement. I try to find interest in any topic, but if the speakers are not believable than I will have a hard time connecting with them and their piece.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

I would like to be on the email chain for documents in the round → rmassey3@kleinisd.net

My name is Ronnie Massey — I have 10 years of debating/coaching/judging experience in an
array of events.

I prefer Truth > Tech and should be treated as a lay judge.

You need to stay under 250 wpm. It's much more important that you are clear than slow. Either
way, I’m not especially accustomed to spreading.

I’m not particularly well-versed on the topic so keep excessive jargon to a minimum. On that
note, I do not feel comfortable evaluating progressive and/or “circuit” arguments.

I have zero tolerance for any “-isms” (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) that will get you an L25.
Speaks should average from 28.5 to 29.5.
Have fun debating!

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several mistakes, struggle with procedures and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

Debate

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points. I tend to flow arguments over card names. Be very clear with your signposting or I will get lost.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. Tricks are dumb. I will not vote for them except as a RVI against the trickster. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, in LD I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Policy Debate: I am a fairly traditional judge who naturally defaults towards a policymaker mindset. I do appreciate the stock issues and am willing to vote on Topicality. Spamming the affirmative with 18 off annoys me. Label your off case arguments. I am not well versed in a lot of policy theory or critical arguments. Explain what you are doing and tell me how arguments should work in the round.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

Education
Niceville High School - Class of 2001
University of West Florida - BA - Organizational Communication - Class of 2005
Lamar University - M. Ed. - Teacher Leadership - Class of 2025

Coaching Experience
Head Coach at Channelview High School 2009-Present

Competitive Experience
3 years of middle school (Prose, Poetry, Duo)
4 years of high school (Policy Debate, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Duet, Group Interp Florida State Champion 1999, Original Oratory Florida Blue Key Grand Champion 1998), Declamation)
4 year of college (Prose 6th Place NFA Nationals, Poetry, Duo 2nd Place NFA Nationals, After Dinner Speaking Nationals Semi-finalist, Oratory Speaking)

I coach all NSDA events - all debates and individual events.
My team competes on all circuits including TFA, NSDA, UIL, and NCFL.

10X UIL CX State qualifier
9X TFA State Qualifier
1 NSDA Nationals Appearance

Paradigms - Debate
I am mostly fine with everything a team can throw at me. Speed is fine if I can understand you, but it doesn't make you "look like a better debater." If anything, I prefer speed AFTER the 1AC and show me you know how to argue a lot of points and can give a solid line by line. If I have to depend on your SpeechDrop docs to flow then you will not get top speaks and could, ultimately, lose the round. I don't like T and I won't vote on it (ok, I'm lying, I will. BUT it'll be tough hill to climb). I love a good K but it needs to be connected really well to the aff. I'm a numbers person and impact calc is one of my main voters. Don't be cocky during CX unless your opponent deserves it. During the last 2 rebuttals I need both teams to clearly display to me that they know why "they won." Do not make me figure it out - you tell me. I prefer a world view analysis but a line-by-line is fine if you know you can win based off arguments.

Paradigms - Speech
I look for mechanics. I typically don't pay much attention to the actual story line of your selection so be prepared to have poise, quality hand gestures, eye contact, focal points, facial expressions, vocal inflection, and body position to the audience. Please enunciate well. If you are in a book required category I will pay special attention to your book technique, page turns, and usage of it as a prop and/or extension of your piece. Show me you know how to compete from the time you walk in to the time you leave. If you are on your phone during a round I will NOT place you first no matter how well you do.

For TAB: Prefer judging Speech/Interp/BQ

--Debate Paradigm--

--General--

1. Speeches build on top of each other. Arguments not responded to in the subsequent speech are conceded, arguments in later speeches must be present in earlier speeches to hold substantive weight.

2. No “evidence paraphrasing,” taglines can paraphrased but they have to have evidence.

3. No Theory/K/CP, acceptable arguments are Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality

4. My default framing is the burdens if none other is presented.

5. I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.

--Preferences--

1. Offtime Roadmaps

2. Signpost

3. Formality

--Style--

1. Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.

2. Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. No spreading.

--Notes--

1. Debate is an education place, do not run progressive arguments to exclude your opponent.

2. I am a lay judge, treat me as such.

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

TL;DR: Flow judge, policymaker, retired cx coach, speed 6 out of 10 for TFA

Disclaimer: I have not judged a ton of rounds on the 2024-25 topic.

I am not opposed to any particular types of arguments but the impacts (real world or existential) should be weighed clearly.

Please signpost clearly but briefly at the beginning of each speech and don't abuse prep time.

Happy to answer specific questions before the round so you can adapt better.

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain, President [2009-2010]
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
2017 Team USA: Collegiate - C squad lead Deputy/Member
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Head Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Head Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) February to August 2024 - Interim Head Director
Sugar Land SpiderSmart (Missouri City, TX) September 2024 to Present - Assistant Head Director
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Email chains: fbcdebatecollective@gmail.com
Iff you reside in Fort Bend County, you may also email with your school-assigned account for consultation inquiries. This is a business email, don't abuse it.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear. I use .1s often when available, so if your speaks look unusual, I probably told you why on the ballot.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what types of arguments qualify in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks (no substance arguments). You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate which is done on a theory level. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow; you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without topic-specific link(s) to any ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but there should be a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate; easiest way to explain this, in the words of other coaches, I "like weighing". That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or my threshold for what's inconsistent to your on-case gets a lot higher. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms nor will I care how many non-interactive voters you put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional, progressive debaters often make the mistake of thinking they automatically win my ballot when their opponent debates traditionally. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill what's inherent (burdens, stock issues); it's fine if it's not explicit, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive. Have a cogent storyline on-case with a consistent stance, doing otherwise will make my voting murky, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's usually not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep, it helps tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring when you just go through the motions and aren't making strategic decisions in how you play the game of the flow.

PF
This was the first format that started my debate journey in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate, look on how to make an analytical framers' intent argument. If your opponent(s) are abusing framer's intent, call and substantiate it devoid of jargon so it weighs how it's supposed to as a ballot issue; theory runs differently in PF because complaining isn't enough to win on norms. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. In order of frequency, crossfire activity/decorum/momentum are my most common ballot tiebreakers. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third; these do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers even though I way errors heavily, but have a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I have coached state finalists and a national finalist, I don't split hairs on arbitrary persuasive gimmicks like other judges might. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but parliamentary formats were by far what I was best at on the college level since it didn't exist when I was in high school. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win multinationally. This format is THE definitive way to debate in the world, so your rhetorical representation of the American perspective should be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate globally (however, that doesn't mean you must devoid all Americentricism in content). As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards big picture, I'm a tab judge through-and-through. Your strategy score is determined by the skill you apply content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and consistent storyline down the bench. Generally, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is crucial because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolution more than voting issues.

***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***

There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate even when American teams are winning, largely because we have Americentrist adjudicators in the back of rounds is what the success is indicative of. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want to frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. Subjectivity in this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally posits non-novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.

***rambling over***

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 01/15/2025

-- TOC-specific note

Congratulations on qualifying for the TOC. It's a tremendous accomplishment that you should be proud of. Make sure that you take some time during the weekend to enjoy yourself - because it's an experience you are going to remember.

Everyone at this tournament is technically proficient and can read a bunch of cards. I think that PF is at its best when teams consciously and intentionally decide to make the round smaller, faster. I am going to generally be better for you if you choose to control the direction of clash in the round, rather than going for everything and attempting to win based on what was dropped by your opponents.

If the summary and final focus are not substantively answering the other side's arguments and instead are just attempting to outweigh or win as a prerequisite, you'll have a harder time winning my ballot. I think that weighing claims are generally controlled by the strength of link for each side. Purely winning a uniqueness claim and screaming try or die for the rest of your speech ain't gonna cut it.

For this topic - the aff needs to win a link from funding to substantive improvements in nuclear energy, not just that "more funding means risk of solvency". The neg needs to identify disadvantages to increases in funding and not the status quo. Would still strongly prefer PF debates center topical research, but I understand that this is the TOC and I will not tell you that I flat-out won't listen to any argument.

There is not a dichotomy between truth and tech. I will vote for the team that does the better debating, but that's generally also the team making better, more true arguments.

If you are not graduating and want to come to camp, check out PFBC. Application is on our website.

-- Paradigm

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in the most recent and academically legitimate topical research of any kind, as opposed to theory or a recycled backfile. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

School Conflicts: St. Luke's (CT), Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)

Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit), Daniel Guo (Strake Jesuit)

I run PFBC with Christian Vasquez of the Blake School. I'll also be conflicting any current competitors not affiliated with the programs listed above that have been offered a staff position at PFBC this summer. You can find a current list of our staff at our website.

Experience: I've coached since 2016. I've been at Seven Lakes since 2020 and have been the Director of Speech and Debate there since 2021. Before that, I coached debate at Lakeville North/South (MN) and did NPDA-style parliamentary debate at Minnesota in college (think extemp policy). A long time ago I did PF and Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.

-- Misc

I'd love to have you at PFBC this summer. Application is on our website.

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

I am a more traditional LD judge. I listen for solid framework, outweighed value/criterion packages, strongly linked contentions, and sound line-by-line rebuttals. Speed that does not interfere with my understanding of your case and why it better upholds your side won't bother me, but if it does, and I'm lost, you've lost.

I also prize good sportsmanship in a round. Don't simply dominate your opponent; add value to the round with sound reasoning and crystallization in the final speech in a way that we all know who won the round at the end of it.

Regarding speech events, I prioritize a powerful, varied delivery; effective organization; and compelling ideas presented with relevant and persuasive evidence.

Interp events should be able to impactfully execute the same characteristics but through believably authentic characterization and blocking.

I have over 22 years in speech and debate. I have experience judging every style of debate on both the state and national level.

I have not judged many debate rounds this year, so I prefer a moderate speed of speaking. In my opinion, speaking rate should be motivated by how much you have to say/cover (so if you need to speed it up...go for it!).

I don't usually flow cross examination, but will make notes of concessions and new critical points.

Just because you use a certain term does not mean that I believe your argument.

I am impressed by the use of argumentation skill not jargon.

I like when a debater is organized and signpost.

I expect for debaters to behave respectfully.

Rude, profane, and silly behavior will result in a loss.

This is a debate event, where you speak. Your speech and rhetoric must be at the forefront of your competition.

"There are no new waves, only the sea" - Claude Chabrol

Your arguments must be concise and CLEAR. These are not practice rounds. Every round is a test that you face against yourself before you even begin responding to your opponents claims. Do you understand your arguments?

I will flow the round, but I will not flow for you, as in I will not make extensions unless stated, and I will not place arguments on the flow, you must tell me where to apply them.

SPEED: I can generally follow along as long as things are clear, but on a 1/10 scale, I'm at like a 5.

I am a policy maker at heart, I like to evaluate the arguments you make and then from there, I will look at your metrics. So please define your metrics for winning the round and tell me why your arguments are more substantial.Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

On the speech side: I want to see speeches that give a thesis and tell me what's happening in the larger topic area. Idc about sources as much as I care about logical arguments.

On the IE side: technique, efficiency of physical movements and blocking are important. Tone, volume, and timber are important things that your voice has to use to make me feel your performance.

Hi :) If you have any questions about my paradigms don't hesitate to ask!

Debate:

- Big fan of weighing, framing, and structure!

- Please do NOT spread ( if you are taking that fast loud deep breath you're probably spreading )

- Truth > Tech

- I value cx and poi's focus on strategic questions rather than evidence clash

- I do flow the round mostly on my paper so I'm sorry if my flow is not included in the comments

- (worlds aka the best event!) Make sure to have international examples and extra content points for being funny!

Speech:

- Be confident and comfortable with your speech

- A big fan of structure!

Interp:

- Be comfortable and confident with your speech

- make sure to properly distinguish characters and have a cohesively cut piece

- Big fan of blocking and dynamics!

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.

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 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.

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.

ASK ME ABOUT THE TEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE AND/OR THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP

EMAILS - yes, “at the google messaging service” means @gmail.com

All rounds - esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy - dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD - dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TOC PF Update: Congratulations on qualifying. This is a huge accomplishment, of which you should be proud. Since my paradigm is mostly in the context of Policy and LD, I want to lay out some Topic/PF specific thoughts. First, sending evidence that will be read in a speech via email before the speech is best practice for high quality debates and avoids the awfulness of deadtime while you read over each other's shoulders. Second, this is a policy style topic, which has two major implications for how you should approach debating in front of me 1.) Neg gets presumption because the resolutional statement is a departure from the status quo, 2.) I will be much happier if you treat this like a traditional style policy debate over central topic controversies rather than running to the margins, as you and your opponents have not had a full year to think and prepare materials over all aspects of the topic like you would in policy debate. This is not a prohibition on content. Feel free to read your kritik, just know I am generally skeptical of their strategic viability in PF given the lack of time you have to develop, explain, and contextualize the argument. Finally, defense is not sticky. You must extend an argument in summary if you plan to extend it in final focus.

QUICK GUIDE- My preferences/self-assessment. You are free to decide that I am great/terrible for any given form of argument.

Policy - 1

Kritiks - 1

Topicality/Framework - 1

Philosophy - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks - Strike

ABOUT ME

I am currently the program director at Dulles High School, where I also teach AP Psychology and AP Research. I primarily judge Policy and LD. I've been in debate since 2007 and have judged at every level from TOC finals to the novice divisions at locals; you are not likely to surprise me. I have no significant preferences about the content of your arguments, except that they are not exclusionary in nature. I like research dense, content heavy strategies. As such, I am best for Policy v Policy, KvK, substantive phil debates, and Clash Debates. Quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence for me. I believe that Aff teams, regardless of style choice, must identify a problem with the status quo (this can be the state of the world, the state of thought, the state of debate, or something else) and propose some method of solving that problem. I believe that Neg teams, regardless of style choice, must disagree with the viability, desirability, and/or topicality of that method. If you are a graduating senior and do not wish to sit through the RFD/comments after your last round, let me know.

DECISION MAKING

I am deciding between competing ballot stories in the 2NR and 2AR, evaluating their veracity and quality using my flow. Tech > Truth, but blatantly untrue things are harder to win. Spin control > me reading a card doc, but I will read evidence if the spin is roughly equal in quality. Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate. Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. 30s should be rare, it is unlikely you earned it. Don't ask for one.

THINGS I CARE ABOUT

1. Respect for Others - Don't be a jerk. Use people’s preferred pronouns, provide accommodations when they are requested, be prompt and ready to go at start time, and be mindful of the power dynamics in the room. I will defer to how the aggrieved party wants to handle the situation should an issue arise. If I’m not picking up on something, let me know.

2. Investment - Apathy sucks. Caring about stuff is cool. Whether you’re more invested in saying stuff that matters or chasing competitive success, I just want to see that you care about some aspect of the thing you are giving up a significant amount of time to do. Take notes during feedback and ask questions.

3. Transparency - I believe that disclosure is generally good, as it enables people to read, think and prepare better (obvious exception for when it raises safety issues). Don't be a jerk about it with people who don't know better. Shiftiness and lying are bad. If you are reading arguments that implicate the desirability of transparency, that is perfectly fine. This is just a starting point.

4. Flowing - Do it. Preferably on paper. Definitely not in your opponent's speech document. If you answer a position that was in the doc but was not read, your speaks will be capped at 26.5. There is no flow clarification period. If you're asking questions, it's CX or prep time.

5. Clash - Compare warrants and weigh. Rehighlights are fine, but your speech should explain why it matters. I am not sympathetic to strategies that attempt to dodge clash, like tricks. Specific links, counterplans, topicality interps, etc. are way better than generics. K links should quote the aff.

6. Line by Line Organization - The negative team sets the order for arguments on the case page. The affirmative team sets the order on off case positions. Number or label your arguments as you go down the flow. Overviews are fine, but your whole speech should not be a blocked out overview with no attempt at line by line argument/evidence comparison. Jumping around between pages is extremely annoying and will impact speaker points.

7. Debating the Case - Both the affirmative and negative teams should center the case. If you’re aff, the case should go first. If you’re neg, don’t treat the case page like an afterthought, and certainly don’t focus solely on the impact level. Contest uniqueness, link, internal link, and solvency claims. Making the case page K 2.0 with nothing but cross-applications is both boring and unstrategic.

8. Judge Instruction - The top of the 2NR/2AR should be what you want my ballot to say. Tell me how I should be thinking about arguments and their interactions. Tell me what matters most. When Neg, anticipate 2AR arguments, prime me for skepticism, and tell me which lines to hold. When Aff, assume I'm voting Neg, figure out why I would vote Neg, and beat that ballot.

9. Complete Arguments - Arguments have a claim, warrant, and implication. I will evaluate arguments, not isolated claims. If you make a warranted claim without explaining the implication for the debate, you invite intervention.

10. Projection and Enunciation - I like fast debates, but if you are unclear I am not going to pretend like I understood you and flow it.

Other than these 10 things, don’t overadapt. Do your thing, do it well. Feel free to ask any questions you have before we start, and I'll do my best to answer.

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," for ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows me to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, and time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level.

With Congress, I look for proper parliamentary procedures and clarity of delivery through rigor, focused on democracy and clarity of ideas, seriousness in demeanor, and effective empowerment in speaking extemporaneously about the topic. Authenticity with clear speaking points such as sentence structure, eye contact, transitions, and word choice. The standard of decorum must be met.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Congress:

Looking for speeches that have good fluency and arguments. Rhetoric is appreciated but mainly focused on impact and statistics/analytics.

Early speeches should be constructive and lay out the major topics/arguments that will be discussed throughout the debate.

(Sponsors/Authors): Should be explaining everything the legislation is doing and how the legislation will change the problem.

Later speeches should have A LOT of clash, not as focused on what the bill is doing as earlier speeches would already explain that. Looking for late speakers who can properly weigh other debater arguments as well.

if you have any questions email me: maxta5310333@gmail.com

LD:

I prefer debates that have framing, weighing/magnitude, timeframe/probability

Trad > Tech

Spreading consent: Don't spread

I highly value cross examination so I prefer you spend most of cross asking meaningful questions and not trying to evidence challenge

LD Debate:

I believe debate is a communication event, so clarity and persuasion matter. I’m okay with both progressive and traditional debate, but I dislike frivolous theory—theory should only be run if there’s actual in-round abuse. I evaluate rounds based on framework first, then contention-level weighing. Kritiks are fine if they are well-explained and clearly linked to the topic. I’m comfortable with both big-picture and line-by-line analysis. Speed is fine at a 6/10–7/10 level, but if I can’t understand you, I won’t flow it. Weighing and crystallization in the final speeches are key to winning my ballot.

PF Debate:

I judge PF traditionally—I won’t evaluate progressive arguments like Ks, tricks, or friv theory. Debate should be clear, structured, and persuasive. I prioritize logical warranting, real-world impacts, and good comparative weighing. I prefer a big-picture approach but expect some structured refutation. Second rebuttal should frontline key responses, summary should extend and weigh arguments, and Final Focus should clearly tell me why you win. I won’t evaluate new arguments after rebuttal, and I’ll only call for evidence if necessary. Be persuasive, clear, and respectful.

Extemp:

I value analysis over an information dump. Having well-researched evidence is important, but what really sets speakers apart is their ability to connect ideas, explain relevance, and present a compelling perspective. Structure is key—strong introductions, well-organized main points, and clear conclusions will make your speech more effective. Delivery should be confident, well-paced, and engaging. A professional tone works best.

Oratory & Informative:

I prioritize engagement, clarity, and originality. Your speech should feel natural, passionate, and impactful. A well-crafted argument, backed by strong rhetoric and storytelling, is more persuasive than a generic take on a common issue. In Informative, visual aids should complement the speech rather than distract from it. If I remember your message after the round, that’s a good sign.

Interp Events (DI, HI, POI, Duo):

Interp is all about emotional connection, authenticity, and strong characterization. I look for performances that feel genuine rather than exaggerated. Blocking and movement should feel natural and purposeful, not excessive. In Duo, chemistry between partners is crucial—overacting or forced reactions can weaken the performance. POI should have clear thematic cohesion and strong transitions between pieces.

Congress Debate:

I judge Congress as a communication event, where persuasion, engagement, and well-developed argumentation are key. Speeches should be structured, responsive, and impactful. I reward debaters who engage with the flow of debate rather than delivering pre-written, generic speeches. Clash and direct refutation of previous arguments are essential—if your speech doesn’t add anything new to the discussion, it won’t stand out.

Speech & Argumentation:

A strong speech should have a clear introduction, well-warranted arguments, and a compelling conclusion. Simply restating evidence or repeating previous points won’t persuade me. Direct comparisons and weighing impacts make the difference. I prioritize logical reasoning, real-world application, and engagement with previous speakers. Strong speakers adapt to the round rather than relying solely on prepared content.

Questioning & Engagement:

Questioning matters. I value concise, pointed questions that challenge arguments and advance the discussion. If you dodge questions or give vague responses, it weakens your credibility. Debate isn’t just about your speech—it’s about your engagement with the chamber. If you actively contribute throughout the session, I will take that into account.

Presiding Officers & Chamber Conduct:

If you are presiding, I expect fairness, efficiency, and strong control over the chamber. A good PO ensures equitable participation and keeps the round running smoothly. Professionalism is important. The best debaters balance assertiveness with respect, making the round more productive for everyone.

Hi, I'm Kate Tyler and I’m a senior at Sam Houston State University. In high school, I debated PF, but I'm very familiar with every event except CX and World Schools.

Email: kate.tyler24@gmail.com

Paradigms

PF: I strongly believe that the purpose of PF debate isn't to win a line-by-line argument, but to present a compelling big-picture case that supports your position within the context of the resolution. That being said, you should fully engage with your opponent to make that big-picture case, so making sure you have a reasonable amount of clash on the flow is important. I will be flowing during rounds and will often make my decisions based on impact calculus, so make sure you are extending and emphasizing the importance of your impacts. If you don't bring up an impact again in the round after reading your case, then I will flow it as if you dropped it and it will not factor into my final impact calculus. Additionally, when it comes to impacts I find that debaters often state an impact but never explain why its good or bad. To eliminate my own bias, I judge a round as if the information presented to me in the round is the only information I know about the topic, so you need to tell me how to weigh your impacts. For example, if you are arguing that something will cause bees to go extict, then you need to tell me why that's important by giving me empirics on how much crop yields will decrease and explain the domino effect of ecological collapse that can happen. Throughout the debate you should paint me a picture of your world and why it's better than your opponent's. Feel free to ask me for clarifications before round if you have any questions.

LD: You need to be able to win your case under the value and criterion you advocate for in the debate. If you concede your opponent's framework, then win under that framework, and if there is not an agreement on framework, then either convince me that your framework is better, or that you win under both frameworks.I will be flowing during rounds and will often make my decisions based on impact calculus, so make sure you are extending and emphasizing the importance of your impacts. If you don't bring up an impact again in the round after reading your case, then I will flow it as if you dropped it and it will not factor into my final impact calculus. Additionally, when it comes to impacts I find that debaters often state an impact but never explain why its good or bad. To eliminate my own bias, I judge a round as if the information presented to me in the round is the only information I know about the topic, so you need to tell me how to weigh your impacts. For example, if you are arguing that something will cause bees to go extict, then you need to tell me why that's important by giving me empirics on how much crop yields will decrease and explain the domino effect of ecological collapse that can happen. Throughout the debate you should paint me a picture of your world and why it's upholds a given framework better than your opponent. If you are running a super progressive case like a pure Kritik or pure theory, please emphasize why it is topical and try not to run something that puts your opponent in an unfair position. Feel free to ask me for clarifications before round if you have any questions.

Congress: I really appreciate those who take up the opportunity to PO because I understand that you have to give up the opportunity to speak. If a round has no stand out speakers, but it has a good PO, I'll often rank the PO highly in that round. Speakers get my attention by having a well organized and factual speech, by answering questions knowledgeably and by asking challenging questions to other speakers. You don't need to speak the most, but you do need to speak well.

Extemp: I want you to impress me, but don't give me a canned speech you can do well. I want you to fully engage with the topic you chose during draw. I'll ask you what time signals you'd prefer when you enter the room.

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy. Exchanging cases and arguments should not slow down the round. I think you look more impressive if you stand during CX and when you speak.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense and should be motivated by the script. . Dramatic characters are more impressive when they are real and vulnerable rather than melodramatic. Material should challenge the performer, but not be offensive. Intro needs to give context to the story and explain the importance of the literature. Take risks that are grounded in reality.

All students should be respectful of the other performers or debaters. You should not be on your phone during rounds except to keep time.

I love this activity. I appreciate your work and efforts. I will try to include a variety of comments to let you know how I viewed and evaluated the round.

Jimmy Wolf / Last Reviewed 04/05/2025 for the King Round Robin

Note: Besides some edits over the years, I wrote this paradigm when I finished competitive debate (four years of PF, qualified to NSDA twice) five years ago so I am more lay than I used to be. You can still follow this my paradigms below though and do not need to treat me as a lay judge, just go easy on speed so I can track/flow. As said below, if you spread, use a doc but I do not flow off doc. I am still okay with progressive arguments but I will not know how the K/Theory you are running works so slow down, explain it, and tell me how it weighs in the round.

I'm a former debater from Texas, so I competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA. Because of this, I have experience with both traditional and progressive debate and am comfortable with either as long as you communicate well. I primarily participated in Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I studied economics in undergrad and am now in grad school for it. I also stay up to date on current events, but I won’t know the ins and outs of every resolution. So if your topic is niche, be sure to clearly explain what you're talking about.

I prefer email chains. I probably don't need your case, but still add me to the chain if you start one. Email: jimmyjimwolf@gmail.com

*TLDR in bold

--PF Paradigms--

--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.

1. No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.

2. No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.

3. If your strategy involves reading more than three off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.

4. If you cut cards mid-speech or do not read any cards that are in doc, you need to send a tagged doc.

--Preferences--

1. Offtime Roadmaps

2. Signpost

3. Formality

4. Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents’ advocacy).

--General--

1. All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)

2. My default framing is cost benefit analysis (CBA).

3. Absent offense (reasons to vote for your advocacy) by PRO in any policy or "on balance" round and I will default CON on the ballot.

4. Given the times in PF I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impacts. I would prefer quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.).

5. I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.

6. I am okay with flex prep, cutting GC for prep, and tag-teaming cross.
7. Common Tiebreakers In Order: Momentum, Decorum, CX Activity

--Non Negotiables--

1. The second rebuttal must respond to turns.

2. Summary should consolidate.

1. Extensions must include warrants.

2. Final Focus should be voters and weighing, most rebuttals in FF will be dropped. Arguments in final focus should also be presented in the summary to weigh. My RFD is heavily based on consolidation and the arguments presented in the FF.

--Style--

1. Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.

2. Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give both the other team and me the doc if spreading. I do not flow off doc.

3. If you are giving a doc for rebuttal then analytics should be typed on there, in the order they are read. Not just carded replies.

--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.

1. Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.

2. Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended.

3. Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality

--LD Paradigms--

--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.

1. No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.

2. No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.

3. If your strategy involves reading more than four off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.

--Preferences--

1. Offtime Roadmaps

2. Signpost

3. Formality

4. Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents advocacy).

5. Given the times in LD I usually prefer line-by-line voters in LD. However if both teams have consolidated I am perfectly okay with crystallization.

--General--

1. All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)

2. My default framing for LD is utilitarianism.

3. For policy based resolutions, absent offense (reasons to vote for your advocacy) by PRO in the round and I will default CON on the ballot.

4. Given the times in LD I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impacts. I would prefer quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.).

5. I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.

--Non Negotiables--

1. The 1AR must respond to turns.

2. The back-half of the NR and the 2AR should be voters and weighing. Most blocks in these speeches will be dropped, frontlines will flow through though.

--Style--

1. Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.

2. Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give both me and the other team the doc if spreading.

--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.

1. Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.

2. Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended.

3. Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality

--CX Paradigms--

--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.

1. No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.

2. No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.

3. If your strategy involves reading more than four off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.

--Preferences--

1. Offtime Roadmaps

2. Signpost

3. Formality

4. Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents advocacy).

1. Final focus should be line-by-line voters on framing and weighing. Weighing can be easily done on impact calculus. Please only do crystallization if you and your opponent are ignoring framing. Rebuttals in final focus will most likely be dropped.

--General--

1. All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)

2. My default framing is stock issues.

3. I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.

--Non Negotiables--

1. The second rebuttal (1R) must respond to turns.

2. Summary should consolidate.

3. Extensions must include warrants.

4. Counterplans must be competitive/unique

1. Given the times in CX I want quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.). There is more than enough time to extend these from poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. impacts.

--Style--

1. Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.

2. Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give me (and the other team if they request) the doc if spreading.

--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.

1. Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.

2. Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended to vote on.

3. Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality

--Congressional Debate--

1. Speaking is important in this event for me. It depends on the skill level of the overall chamber, but I judge close to 60/40 on speaking vs clash, respectively. As a note, I do judge based on opening arguments, but find clash to be much more important, especially after the first-to-second AFF/NEG cycle.

2. This is a mock Congress. Debate as such. Do not forget that you are a Representative/Senator.

3. I also take participation in the chamber into account. Ask questions, call motions, vote, etc.

4. Please present clash if you aren’t giving the authorship/sponsorship. Simply saying the name of another student and claiming they are wrong does not count.

5. I try to stay pretty educated on politics, but I won’t know the ins and outs of every bill/resolution in the country. Make sure you are clearly explaining what you are talking about

6. I do not like when debaters repeatedly break the AFF/NEG cycle. If you give the third-plus AFF/NEG speech in a row I will not judge you favorably for that speech.