I am not a fan of spreading. I do not believe that it has any place in Lincoln-Douglas debate and detracts from the style and purpose of LD.

With respect to PF, I question the value of spreading but simply ask that participants maintain a rate of speaking that can be understood. If a participant is speaking so fast that I cannot understand the participant, then I cannot credit the participant for those arguments.

Debated for and currently coach at Strake Jesuit

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Tech > Truth

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Do not read eval or give me 30 speaks I will not evaluate either

Additionally do not swear in round or use profanities it will effect speaker points.

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them but these are my preferences.

Tricks - 1

Larp - 3

Phil - 1

K - 4

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

In policy debate, I am a HEAVY stock issues judge with the exception of topicality. I usually feel people call T when they do not have anything else to call. Obviously sometimes there are topicality issues. Make it convincing if you call topicality.

I am definitely not a tabula rosa or kritiks judge. I am also not easily convinced by impact calculus. I am looking for who just has the best overall convincing arguments.

Spreading - not a fan. I am 50 years old and just cannot listen that fast. If I did not hear you say it, it did not happen. If you spread, I put my pen down and I will not listen.

I am not a fan of nukes.

Counterplans are okay.

Affiliation: Strake Jesuit

Treat me like a traditional judge with an emphasis on clear communication. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Please do not assume I know the jargon you use. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Signposting and crystallization are hugely helpful. Telling me where to start on the flow is a great idea. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend through every speech. I want to see lots of weighing: rounds without weighing are very difficult to adjudicate. Make it easy for me to vote for you.

I have been a Speech & Debate judge for just one year. In general, I'm looking for students who display professionalism in all aspects of Speech & Debate - this includes demeanor, language, and treatment of competitors. I'm also looking for students who carry themselves with confidence.

For debate events, I'm looking for an ability to clash with other debaters in a professional, respectful way. The way you treat your opponent will weight heavily.

Speech - For oratory and informative speaking, I'm looking for a unique perspective on the topic you chose, something that shows me how much thought you put into it. For extemp, I'm looking for a structured speech, solid evidence (with source and date), and a memorable vehicle.

Interp - For these events, I'm looking for someone who can draw me in and keep my interest throughout. In this, maybe more so than other events, I'm looking for something that really stands apart from the crowd.

Congress - For Congressional debate, I'm looking for a respectful discussion/questions and an ability to bring attention to the most important aspect of the topic being discussed. The ability to speak off-the-cuff instead of reading prepared speeches helps here. You are taking on the role of an elected representative/senator, so keep the discussion calm and on point, and avoid any digs, eye rolls, or snarky responses.

LD/PFD - For LD, I'm looking for an ability to stay on track with your points and those of your opponent. All responses and rebuttals should be given in a respectful way. The ability to disagree without being rude is a skill best learned early. Please do not spread!

Jimmy Smith has over 45 years of coaching and is a 5 Diamond Key along with a very proud member of the NSDA Hall of Fame. Over the 45 years he has been honored to 9 students on the Final Stage with one National Champion. After retiring in 2017 Jimmy re-entered the classroom because to quote him, "this isn't work, it's fun"

I am a Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate) judge. What I hear in the round is what I judge. I am open to Ts, DAs, CPs, and Ks, but make sure they are clearly explained and relevant to the debate. Speak clearly and articulately; if I cannot understand what you are saying I cannot evaluate the strength of your argument. I.e., if you spread, you lose.

Speech Events -For public speaking, including Extemp, Informative, & Oratory - I require clear organization and appreciate originality and creativity in both the spoken speech and the delivery. While extemp is limited to current events discussions - the speeches can still be interesting. For Interpretation events I want to see poise, polish, and I want to feel the emotion you are trying to convey. Draw me into the story/scene. You should consider me "traditional/old school/etc." - I'm not a fan of super racy literature. I am fine with talking about and considering controversy, marginalization, and going against the grain - but I do not want to watch high school kids in oversexualized roles. I just don't. Some people don't like Counterplans in Debate, I don't like Rated R in Interp. Having said that, I'm pretty lenient regarding language choices. You can use language to communicate resistance, defiance, frustration, word reclamation, etc., and I'm fine with that - it mirrors real life experience. If it's excessive and seems more like you just really want to say bad words in front of adults (think Joe Pesci), that's another issue.

Policy Debate - I'm open to both traditional and progressive styles, I enjoy all kinds of well-constructed, interesting, arguments that young students are learning and able to articulate well (including theory and kritikal arguments). Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with. Hyperspreading (giant gulps followed by high-pitched, rapid, stutter-inducing speech) is heavily discouraged due to my hearing impairment - depending on whether or not i can understand you, it won't necessarily cost you speaker points - but I'm a flow judge, and if I don't flow it then it didn't happen. Roadmapping, sign-posting, and internal organizational labels are heavily encouraged - and will be reflected in increased speaker points - and ensure that what you say makes it onto my flow. I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument but it's not required. If you have time it's a nice communication moment. Arguments should be fully articulated (in other words, include analysis on your T standards and voters, impact calculus, and solvency frontlines. The quality of your evidence and your demonstrated understanding of the evidence and how it impacts the arguments in the round are more important than the quantity of evidence that you read. Having said that, YES, you should have plenty of evidence supporting your case/positions, just remember, I am not judging your ability to read allowed, I'm judging your ability to understand and critically evaluate what is being read allowed. I've been judging CX Debate for 32 years, competed in CEDA and Parliamentary Debate in college, and have been a certified teacher/debate coach for 23 years. I enjoy Policy debate. Refutation should be well-organized and include sign-posting so that I know what arguments you are responding to.

LD Debate - I competed in LD Debate in High School in the early '90s. I have a Degree in Philosophy & Political Science from Texas Tech University (emphasis on political and social ethics). I have judged and/or coached LD Debate for 32 years. I enjoy a mix of philosophical and pragmatic argumentation in LD. Your framework (Value/Criteria) should include explanation of your Value and analysis of why I should prefer it as well as a clear, well-explained criteria for evaluating whether or not you have achieved/increased access to your value. In other words, don't just work on the contention-level debate, do the work on the value/criteria as well, if you want my ballot. Cross apply all organizational preferences from the CX debate paragraph here. (See what I did there?) :D

CONGRESS - Remember that you are operating as a member of the United States Congress and make arguments from that perspective. Arguments should be well-constructed and supported (like other debate formats) and should be responsive to the previous speeches on the item being debated (except for the author/sponsor, of course). There should be absolutely nothing even remotely resembling "spreading" in Congress. Speeches should be clear, passionate, and well-spoken. Your ethos in Congress includes your personality as a speaker, in addition to your preparation/research. I have been judging/coaching Congress for 23 years. Attach your refutation of previous arguments to the speaker who made the argument you are refuting, when possible. Show respect for your fellow congress persons when debating, avoid personal attacks.

Public Forum Debate - I prefer not to judge this event and I don't coach it. But if I am judging it, it shouldn't look like a policy debate round because then I will be annoyed at all of the tournaments struggling to make numbers in BOTH policy debate and public forum and the entire round I will be thinking about why we added another debate event that is just splitting the numbers and is looking more and more like the original debate event... So, no spreading, less evidence cards, more analysis and clash of arguments. Speak like an orator, not like an auctioneer. Thanks. And show some personality.

World Schools Debate - I enjoy this format, it's new (to me) and fun and emphasizes a holistic rhetorical strategy, including strong argumentation and persuasive speaking style. I also like that the topics change each round, it's a challenge event that really tests the students' ability to analyze a topic, work as a team, and effectively persuade an audience. I have coached NSDA teams at nationals, but I do NOT coach this event on my own team as a regular thing and I don't judge the event often. When I do, I like to see polite, organized, logical speaking and personality from the speakers. Humor is appreciated, where appropriate.

ALL DEBATES - ALWAYS BE HUMBLE AND KIND. Rolling the eyes, huffing, cutting people off rudely, yelling, etc., will not be tolerated and will be reflected in significantly lowered speaker points. Avoid villainizing, condescending to, or underestimating your opponent as a rule. Remember the rules of evidence governing this activity. Avoid asking "where did your evidence come from" when it's included in the speech or the case materials to which you have access. Flashing/file sharing should not take an inordinate amount of time and may be included in your prep time. If you can't get it shared by the time CX following your speech is over, it will cut into your prep. Stronger arguments look at the root of the opposing positions and attack there. Weaker arguments deal with dates of evidence. I have instructed in CX, LD, and Congress at camps in Texas over the past 18 years and have coached UIL State champions in Congress and LD and UIL quarterfinalists in CX; TFA finalists and NSDA semifinalists in Congress. If you have questions about my thoughts on anything and it's not covered here, just ask.