Meghan Clark (she/her)

Experience:

–competed in LD on the Texas UIL circuit

–coached LD for 7 years, policy for 5, also on the Texas UIL circuit

–currently coach extemp/platform events at Plano West

LD & PF:

--I am a fairly typical flay judge.

--Truth over tech. I do not particularly like kritiks or other non-resolution based arguments (not a huge fan of progressive debate). Don’t run theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, etc. - I have zero interest in judging this. I strongly dislike frivolous theory arguments and tricks. Don’t run them.

--Make sure that you extend your arguments and signpost clearly. No sticky defense.

--I care a good deal about weighing impacts in the back half of the round. Make sure you do this. Don’t introduce new arguments in the second half of the round, and I don’t want arguments that consist of three blippy arguments with buzzwords. I would vastly prefer substantive weighing of impacts. I generally default to probability over magnitude.

--I care about quality rather than quantity of evidence. You must have clear taglines for your evidence. Don’t paraphrase.

--Make sure you are courteous to opponents and don’t speak over them during crossfire or cross-examination in LD. I expect professionalism, respect and civility towards me and towards your opponents. If you are verbally or non-verbally showing disrespect towards your opponents or me, expect to lose speaker points. It goes without saying that you should not be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/etc. in any way during the round.

--I do not like spreading. Debate should be accessible to a wide audience, and spreading makes that difficult. Speak at a normal rate of speed if you expect me to flow your argument. Extreme speed will most likely result in lower speaks. If I call “clear,” slow down.

--In final focus or the 2AR in LD, make the case for why you deserve my vote - don’t demand my vote.

--Strike me if you’re reading a meme or social experiment case.

--PF specific: Stick to the time structure - no skipping grand cross.

--If a card is heavily disputed during round, I will call for it.

Pronouns: He/Him

Email: john.everett.cooper2005@gmail.com add me to the chain, feel free to shoot any questions my way.

About me: I competed in speech and debate between 2017-2024 for Tuloso Midway Highschool, a 4A from Corpus Christi in south Texas. I specialized in extemp in which I was a multiple-time TFA and UIL state finalist, as well as quarterfinalist at the Harvard and National Tournaments. I also competed in LD debate for all 7 years and was a multiple time TFA and UIL state qualifier. Towards the end of my high school career, I dabbled in Congress and CX debate and was able to achieve TFA and UIL state qualifications in those as well.

TLDR: I was in debate forever and have seen everything in the book, done almost every event, but wouldn't consider myself an "expert" in anything other than maybe extemp/speaking.

HUGE NOTE - if you plan on spreading or leveling a large number of arguments on your opponent's case, put me on the email chain and PLEASE SIGNPOST. I have no issue with spreading as long as I have a doc to follow, and so does your opponent. Signposting is the key to a clean debate, if you fail to signpost you will lose me and I will probably struggle to follow your arguments.

Also, I'm generally tech over truth, doesn't matter to me if your argument is nonsense, if your opponent fails to effectively explain why it's nonsense, it will flow for me.

LD:

Framework is king for me, it is the outline that hold your case together, lose the FW debate and you are almost guaranteed to lose the round to me.

Quick Pref's

Trad:1

LARP:2

Tricks:3

Theory: 4

K: 5

Specifics -

Trad: I love philosophy and moral debates in LD. It's my firm believe that LD and CX are two different, distinct debate events and what makes LD unique and different from CX is the emphasis on the morality of the resolution. Because of this, my preferred debates fall under the 'trad' category but that doesn't mean I'm an old fart who can't keep up more complex arguments and case structures. I don't care what your case looks like or how it's formatted, as long as I can see where the warrants are, and what the philosophical ideas you're using are.

LARP: All of that being said I'm not completely opposed to policy in LD. I love a well explained DA, and certain CP's can be really interesting, but I'm not a fan of CP's that are merely a time-suck, in LD that is. If you decide to implement a plan however, I expect it to be EXTREMELY detailed and well explained, just as it would in policy. I still expect any policy arguments you run to link back to some kind of FW, even if it minor. No PIC's, they're abusive.

Tricks: There's a fine line between a tricks case that confuses your opponent to help you win, and one that bullies your opponent to help you win. Do not cross that line. If you're going to run tricks, do it right and know the ins and outs of your case. I do believe when done correctly, these are some of the most entertaining and interesting debate rounds.

T/Theory: I will buy T, but it has to be obvious the opponent is skirting the resolution. I will only tolerate theory if there is a true violation that has harmed education or fairness in the round. If at any point I feel you are running a theory shell merely to win the round and not because a violation of debate has occurred, you will lose that argument and possibly the round. I do not have any sympathy for debaters who use theory shells on inexperienced debaters who clearly are not harming education and fairness simply to get a cheap win.

K: In my opinion, K's need to have a really good alt to be worth voting for, but being tech over truth if your opponent fails to point why your alt sucks then you'll still win, I just won't like it. So, with that in mind I'm cool with pretty much every cap K. However, if you intend on running an identity K, it MUST be because you're actually arguing for the issues you discuss, rather than just to win the round. I have no respect for debaters who use identity K's to scrape out sympathy wins without actually caring about the minority group's struggles they're exploiting for the sake of a debate win. If you can't convince me that you earnestly care about the struggles you discuss I will not vote for you.

Policy:

Fair warning, I only did local south Texas CX and UIL CX in 4A, so my experience is pretty basic, slow, and trad.

Quick Pref's:

LARP: 1

T: 2

K: 3

Theory: 4

K aff: 5

Specifics:

DAs: always good, the more specific the link the better, have good uniqueness

T: I much prefer case specific T's but generic ones are fine if they are debated well, very versatile and useful part of CX.

CPs: I like CP's, they're useful as both substantial arguments and time-sucks in CX. However, if you run a small time-suck CP and then try to win the round with it, it's gonna take a lot of convincing.

Ks: See my above K thoughts in LD, they apply here too, but I generally like K's more in CX than LD because I feel you have more time to actually explain your lit and alt.

Theory: See my above thoughts about Theory in LD, basically the same.

K Affs: It will take a lot to win, you're fundamentally changing the debate, you better debate like whatever cause your K is about is life or death and you care about it more than anything else.

Congress:

This event doesn't need a paradigm. Speak well, argue thoroughly, don't be overly mean.

If I have angered the debate gods and been thrown into one of the other debate formats like big questions, world schools, or public forum, then just piece together a paradigm with the above information and ask questions prior to the round.

If you read the Winter and Leighton structural violence card, I will give you .1 speaks, it's my favorite card in debate :)

SPEECH: I look for confident, clear speakers who know how to sound and appear like they belong in the room. I love to see competitors that remind me how much I miss doing speech! Wow me with your content and keep my attention with your presentation.

INTERP: In addition to the above, I prefer performances that actually feel like performances, not just speeches. All interp events should create a cohesive story that slowly builds up to a memorable climax. Preference will also be given to pieces that have an important message, but I really dislike trauma porn and will rank you lower if I think you're abusing someone else's trauma.

DEBATE: I'm largely a speech judge, but I did do debate and am familiar with PF and WS. Treat me as a lay (and traditional) judge but know that I'll know if you're being abusive. The best way to win my ballot is through a clear comparative and even clearer speaking.

Please give trigger warnings when necessary—it's better to be safe than sorry.

Good luck! :)

*email: aud.fife@gmail.com