IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly. New on case arguments are ok in 2NC, but not off case.

I am a parent judge. I prefer slow and clear speech. Make common sense arguments. Don't make far-fetched arguments (like education reform will lead to nuclear war).

You have to debate the resolution. Don't go off-topic.

If you plan to use progressive argumentation, please explain everything clearly.

Put me on the email chain. My email is ashish1agarwal@yahoo.com

I usually don't disclose results after a round. It takes me time to write the comments.

Good luck!

I am an old school traditional judge.

In Congress - If you ask for an in house recess to pad a speech or to address the chamber because no one is speaking - DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK! Nothing annoys congress judges more than 15 minutes of caucusing and getting splits, only for no one to be ready. The PO should be running the round and is perfectly capable of admonishing those who are not ready to speak. Otherwise, I like a good intro with a 2 pt preview and good, creative arguments that show critical thinking. Be active in the round and ask good questions.

PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.

LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.

I'm your typical flow judge and I will evaluate any argument you put on the flow unless it's racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. I did PF for 4 years at Colleyville Heritage so I understand jargon and whatnot but please don't spread. Treat me like a lay judge to the best of your ability. I usually don't know anything about the topic, but I do understand how debate works so adapt.

A few things to remember...

1. Sign post. If you do not then your arguments wont be flowed, wont be flowed where you want it to be or not at all.

2. Extensions. Please extend key things like framework/overviews in all your speeches. If it's not in summary I wont evaluate it in final focus unless the round is so muddled that I'm forced to; dont make me do that. Also, if something important is dropped, extend it because I wont do that for you.

3. If it's a panel and there are lay judges please adapt to them but make sure to still weigh in the round so my ballot comes just as simply as theirs.

4. I will evaluate any argument, but with that being said I will not make my own analysis for you and I cannot read your flow or your mind so make sure you and I are on the same track or that will only hurt you. Moreover, if there is not a clear warrant for me to extend, I will be forced to default to whatever makes the most sense no matter how much you weigh the arguments.

5. I dont understand spreading so please don't spread or I will just sit there extremely confused. I also seriously despise topicality and theory debates and I just don't think they belong in PF.

6. I love framework and I think it can make the round way easier to weigh but if you stray from it, then I will be forced to as well and with the way your case is framed that might honestly hurt you so do so at your own risk.

I debated PF and Extemp for Grapevine. I graduated in 2018.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed but don't mumble or lose clarity I'll just stop flowing.. it's PF for a reason.

FRAMEWORK/VOTERS: I like a framework debate. Numbering your voters helps.

LINKS/IMPACTS: I vote off of impacts and links. I'm not going to make the link or impact calculus for you so make it clear in the round.

EXTEND: I'm not going to extend something across your speeches if you don't bring it up. I don't expect the first speaker to extend their own case in rebuttal since there's no offense on it. If something isn't extended to the last speech I'm not voting on it. For the sake of all things PF, extend!

CROSSFIRE: I pay attention during cross, use this time wisely.

OVERALL: Don't be snarky in order to make a point. I was second speaker so I understand that it gets feisty but honestly, if you can't make your point by being respectful to the event and your opponent, then you can't really debate it at all. I will dock speaker points if you're rude.

Have fun! Debate rocks. Here's to a good round! Good luck and see you in the room.

I am a parent judge. I have experience with IEs but I am new to PF. I am okay with conversational speed, but please use minimal jargon. I will take notes and not intervene with the flow, just make clear logical reasons that you win, and that will win the round. Also please time yourself.

I am a very traditional judge. I do not tolerate spreading and prefer arguments to be broken down and argued logically and realistically.

My pronouns are they/them/theirs. Please do not call me ma’am. I know it's a southern respect thing but it's icky to me. If you need a title for me, I unironically like being called judge, Judge Contreras is fine, just Contreras works too. My students call me Coach, and that's also fine. Teens, please don't call me El (that's one southernism I stand by!)

Affiliations:

Head Coach and social studies teacher at L.C. Anderson High School in Austin, TX since 2022.

San Marcos High School- I competed all four years in high school, I did extemp, congress, and UIL Policy.

Speech people!!!!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. I just won’t do that. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. Also, normalize giving content and trigger warnings before your performance!! Give people a chance to take care of themselves. If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!! I'm in a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

Debate comments (PF, LD, CX, World Schools)

Just disclose. I know LD's norm is sending 30 minutes before round, I think that's a great norm.

In PF, send case docs. Don't be secretive with your cards. Your opponents should not have to disclose a disability in order to get you to send docs. I also think sending a speech doc for rebuttal and summary is a good norm. This is not (necessarily) something I'll down you for but it could be, if you're intentionally being harmful.

I will evaluate anything as long as it's warranted and extended. I won't make arguments for you, tell me why and how you're winning. I'll vote tech over truth unless the truth overwhelms the tech. Sticky defense is so fake, extend your arguments if you want to win them. Unextended = dropped. Proper extensions, tag and cite, claim, warrant, impact!!

Both partners need to participate in grand cross. PF is a partner event! No, you can't skip grand cross. I'm listening to cross and waiting to hear the questions from cross brought into round.

Please do a www.speechdrop.net room, it is a fantastic site, and I will definitely pop in and read cards and cases if you have the speechdrop room set up. Always send case, always send speech docs. I am #notsponsored, just a fan! My email is down below.

Spell out all the abbreviations you use in round. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. People know what the UN is, the EU, etc, people may not know BRI, any random trade agreement, etc.

speed: You don't have to go at a conversational pace but nobody should be full-on-spreading in PF. When you're off the doc, you have to go slower. I try not to flow off the doc but I will use it as support if you're faster than I can follow. I'm not in a debate round to read off your case doc, I'm in round to hear YOU. Slow down on taglines, analytics, authors- basically anything you think is vital to my decision.

PF-specific comments:

• I'll vote on anything, not a huge fan of theory, not the best judge to evaluate theory
• i love frameworks! they should be well-developed. blippy frameworks don't win framework debates
• extensions are not just saying "Extend my contention 2", you must extend the card tag/cite and the claim, warrant, and impact! Let me hear the link chain again!!
• speaker points- these national tournaments keep giving me a rubric to use and I'm trying to apply that to all the realms I judge in. Points start at 28 and I adjust from there. Points will only be below a 27 if you did something harmful or rules/norms were horribly broken.
• PFers, please read cards with actual taglines. "furthermore", "and", are not taglines. A tag is the thesis of the card, it is the summary of the content. I've been seeing a lot of that lately- it's lazy and bad practice.

LD-specific:

• I don't judge LD often, not as comfortable with LD speeds but I'll use the doc
• I will evaluate k's, as long as they're well-developed and defended. i know theory is normative in LD and I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly and wisely. probably not the best judge for your theory debates
• consider me pretty lay, generally pretty trad. Read me a standard, read me a value, slow it down!!
• I know this event is generally more technical but again, don't assume I know what you're talking about!! spell out all your abbreviations, provide definitions (especially if you're reading a K), do your best to make the round and the space more accessible!
• pref me slightly better than a lay judge
• I come from pf so arguments such as kritiks and theory will make less sense to me butI’lltry my best to evaluate them

email- theedebatecoach@gmail.com

and

docs.anderson@gmail.com

please <3

This message is specifically for competitors in debate events; I value respect in the round. Please don’t be rude in front of me. It doesn’t make me laugh, it reminds me of uncomfortable/unpleasant rounds where my competitors were rude to me or my partner. That has no business in a debate space, please don’t bring that energy into a round. This goes double for people in privileged positions who make women and gender/racial minorities uncomfortable or unsafe in the debate space. Not only will I chew you out and tank your speaks, but I will also let your coach know about the harmful practices. it's on all of us to make the debate space inclusive and equitable.

TLDR- be nice, be kind, and be self-aware.

Congress comments:

I did congressional debate all four years I competed in high school, I really enjoyed it and love watching a good Congress round. I have a lot of respect for a strong PO and usually reward that with a higher ranking. POs that struggle with precedence, maintaining decorum, and Robert's rules of order will have that reflected in their rank.

Clash, clash, clash! Put the debate into congressional debate.

There's a line between sassy and rude. Tread it carefully.

General comments:

something that I genuinely appreciate in every event is a trigger warning before potentially triggering performances and speeches. controversially, I care about all of your experiences in a round and would like to give everyone an opportunity to opt out. If you’re a spectator or a competitor in a speech room, you deserve the opportunity to step out. If you’re competing in a debate round, you have every right to ask your competitors to read a version of their case that excludes the triggering material. As a judge, I reserve the right to step out/turn off my camera for a moment before you give your performance.

In a debate round, I’d appreciate that triggering material cut out. I don’t think intense/graphic depictions of human suffering add much to your overall case anyway, I’d rather you extend cards in that time or frontline or do anything besides exploit human suffering.

If I correct your pronunciation of a word in my ballot, it’s genuinely to educate you. It’s hard to know how to pronounce a word you’ve never heard aloud, just read (looking at you, Reuters!)

I have a degree in history, with a focus on Latin American history. Keep that in mind when discussing issues focused on Latin America. Feel free to ask me for a reading list to better understand conflicts, revolutions, and government suppression (including US intervention) in Guatemala, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, and more.

If you are spectating an event and are fully texting in front of me or attempting to talk to/distract a competitor, I’m going to ask you to leave. I will not warn you once, I have a zero-tolerance policy for disrespecting competitors or interfering with competition in that way.

Email chain: lauren.cooney@austinisd.org

I coach Speech & Debate @ Austin High

I prefer to judge PF and traditional LD case-debate and framework. ***See Speech pref's below***

Want perfect speaks? I like an educational demeanor --even better, have fun! be deliberate, not aggressive.

Spreading is OK, but you should be able to slow down and paraphrase your cards every time you make an extension-- don't assume the provision of evidence alone will suffice... "I have a card for that" doesn't equal an automatic win.

I don't usually flow CX and expect you to impact concessions throughout your speeches. For example, just because your opponent dropped an argument doesn't mean I bought it-- you must still impact why its so critical. I love an "even if" critique.

I don't love hearing the same case again and again so if your team is sharing a case you need to personalize it. In fact, I prefer more radical interpretations than canonical arguments.

SIGN POSTING IS IMPORTANT. IF YOU DON'T TELL ME WHERE TO FLOW YOUR ARGUMENTS, OR WHERE TO CROSS-APPLY EVIDENCE, in the time it takes me to find it on the flow, I've probably already missed your point. Tell me where to look on the flow.

You should be able to break arguments down to their smallest components, just because you yell esoteric debate jargon I am not impressed.

I try to keep a poker face during the round so that you're not affected by any reaction, but I am listening and you should always be engaging with me first (respect the invisible wall between you and your opponent).

**** For Speech events:

Intro's are important to me. I think a good intro that creatively INTERPS the piece is what sets our events apart from traditional theater. Your intro should contextualize the piece (this is very important considering we won't have necessarily read or be familiar with your script already, so tell us what we need to know to follow along!), draw any important relevance of the piece into our own lives or your own interest, and explain what we should take away from the piece. Your answer can be anything, it might just be for pleasure, entertainment etc. but even then I expect you to translate your expectations into your intro.

Generally my feedback is to slow-down, so don't be afraid to take a pause.

I do prefer pieces/topics that are lesser explored. There has been a trend in Speech events towards the more dramatic/triggering topic areas, and I have to say that when judging 10+ rounds each with an extremely sensitive topic, it's not so much that it is triggering or offensive but rather that it is a bit emotionally exhausting, and can feel borderline exploitive... as well, often due to the time constraints, performances can oversimplify certain experiences. I don't want students to limit their interests, but rather, explore one specific part of their topic that makes it more distinct and nuanced. You should be thinking "what hasn't been said about this subject, and how can I add to the conversation?".

Blocking/movement should be purposeful

Articulation is key

Characters should be distinct, and I prefer a more subtle character vs. a stereotype being played out (for example, when playing different women, try not to just heighten your pitch! or, when you're angry, it doesn't always mean to just get louder. Try a smoldering anger, try talking through your teeth, etc.)

Sound effects are cool when they're done right

Mostly I just hope to see you enjoying this medium and being yourself. I already think y'all are so brave for performing and especially on-camera, I'm already proud of the work you're doing!!

I debated PF at Westlake High School.

Constructive

- if your going to use a framework it must be warranted, and you'll need to extend the framework in every speech along with its warrant if I'm going to evaluate the round using it.

Rebuttal

- second rebuttal must frontline turns, but doesn't have to rebuild case (you should still be getting to the important parts of your case obviously, but I'm not going to drop your case if you don't get to every piece of defense).

- I love when a weighing mechanism is set up in rebuttal (if it's applicable to the round so far)

Summary

- if it's not said in summary, it's off my flow except for defense from rebuttal that was not responded to (sticky defense)

- in my opinion it's never too late in the round to call out misconstrued evidence, but indicts and evidence specific responses to need to come before first summary just like any other new response.

Final Focus

- collapse and weigh

- still need warranting, even if it's brief

General

- PLEASE WEIGH

- I'm not going to vote for you if you just tell me you win on timeframe or probability etc. Your weighing needs to be warranted, and it will help you even more if it's consistent (same weighing used in summary and FF).

- develop a narrative, if you and your partner appear to be on the same page it makes my choice a lot easier.

- Theory was not very big when I debated, but I understand the need for it when something offensive has happened in the round. If theory is conducive and topical to what has occured in the round I'm all for it and I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability (if you get up and spread disclosure theory against an obviously way less experienced team your best case scenario is a low point win. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory especially when ran by big schools; in my experience judging and debating I've only ever seen big schools run it who a. have the resources to prep out disclosed cases and b. are typically just using the fact that not all PF debaters know theory well enough to stand a chance, and I dislike that.)

- I'll do my best to evaluate more progressive arguments but I'd prefer that they're topical (plans, CPs, Ks, etc) but you need to do a good job of explaining/warranting them since I never debated them. Again, it should be topical to the round/topic.

Hi, I am a debate parent volunteer judge. Please

1. Articulate in an organized way

2. Talk slower and clearly

3. Judge based on all components including crossfire

4. Weight on impacts

5. I don't flow or take notes. So please explain clearly why I should vote for your side and why not for the other side

Thank you! Good luck and have fun!

i did pf for westlake high school for four years

i was a tech Debater, pls feel free to read theory, Ks, etc (progressive arguments are good for pf)

east coast <

Have a 2 year background in competing in speech and debate. Fine with speed, just have a good framework that the case is built off. Have clear impacts coming of the case arguments and explain those in a logical and structured manner.

Core Judging Philosophy:

As a Public Forum judge I am partial to tech debate, therefore what happens or doesn't happen on the flow is the preferred basis for my decision. I find the query of my being “tech over truth” or “truth over tech” to be a reductionist question. I will vote on a clean argument on the flow before I vote on a more realistic yet poorly extended argument. Proper signposting can be a valuable tool in this endeavor.

I will avoid using prior my knowledge or experience on a topic, or from previous rounds, to come to a decision. My decisions are derived from the information provided in the round I am judging only. A consistent and clear narrative will help you when the flow is muddled.

Speed:
I am fine with speed if you have good enunciation and volume. If you are capable of “varsity LD level” spreading then let me know that pre-round. If you are concerned about being too fast or unclear to be understood by me then you are also welcome to add me to an email chain for me to follow/understand you using your documents (if you choose to do this you must also include your opponent).

Weighing:Weighing in the final speeches is extremely important. I want a clear, quantifiable, and comparative weighing of impacts. If I have to calculate for myself which impact is more significant then you may not find the result you are looking for and making a judge do the work of weighing is not something that most judges want to be burdened with. Organizing the final focus speech by voters is not required but can be very helpful to a judge.

Opinions:
I like to see well-warranted evidence comparison (evidence weighing if you will). I also will vote on evidence over analytics without exception. If you find yourself stating opinions and analysis that are your own without evidence, then you are at risk of losing the round, no matter how logical your statement may be.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points range from 25-30. Only speeches I deem to be highly offensive or abusive will be given less than 27. In my four years of judging this has yet to happen, don’t be my first. I do not deduct for more aggressive debate styles, so long as teams are evenly matched opponents and there is nothing overtly abusive about the exchanges.

Other Notations: Time yourselves and your opponents, I want my focus to be on the round. Timing exception being if I am judging a Novice team who would like me to assist.

Concise road maps before the speeches following constructive are appreciated.

I will not flow crossfire/CX. If you get an important concession in cross bring it up in your next speech if you want me to consider it.

Framework and impact framing is preferred, and when well executed will often be an important consideration in my final decision. If no framing is present then I will evaluate the round using a cost-benefit analysis of comparative worlds, as is standard.

My pronouns are she/her.

Email: olivia.hardage3@gmail.com

I did PF at Westlake and I currently coach there.

You only need to extend defense in first summary if it has been frontlined otherwise, it sticks.

I think 2nd rebuttal needs to at least frontline offense and preferably defense as well. I won't automatically down you if you don't do this but I prefer it and I think it's more strategic.

If you want to concede a de-link to kick out of a turn you can't just say that phrase, you need to explain why the particular arguments allow you to do that. If you only say "we concede the de-link so we kick out of the turn" and move on and your opponent extends the turn, I will grant them the turn.

I will vote on the least mitigated link chain leading to the most weighed impact. I will vote for a team with a fleshed-out link chain and a poorly extended impact over a team that does the opposite.

I give speaks mainly based on presentation or if I think a team should be in out rounds. However, if you want a 30 from me focus on speaking clearly and having good round etiquette.

I'll evaluate any arguments like theory/Ks but I don't have pervasive knowledge of how they traditionally function in rounds so make sure everything is explained thoroughly.

I'm good with speed to an extent, anything getting close to spreading I probably can't follow.

The most important thing in debate is weighing! If you don't weigh, I am forced to decide what I think is the most important argument.

If you want more specifics, feel free to ask me questions!

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

LD should remain value based. Although some recent LD resolutions cry out for the debaters to present a plan, please don't neglect the value framework tradition.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score. I strongly dislike rehashed arguments. Clash is important, but it needs to have actual refutation and not just mentioning the names of previous speakers. I object to the recent trend toward doing all prep work in-round and the abuse of in-house recesses to allow this.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

Hi! I am a parent judge from Westlake High School.

My expectations include:

Slow speed, if you read fast I will not evaluate it.

No progressive argumentation. Stick with substance ONLY.

Be respectful, I will probably dock speaker points if you are overly-aggressive in crossfire

Sticky Defense does not apply.

I am not ok with debate jargon, explain to me what your responses MEAN.

In order to win, you must:

Extend Case in Final Focus, (FRONTLINING DOES NOT COUNT AS EXTENSIONS)

If you drop an argument please let me know, so i'm not evaluating it at the end of the round.

I like argument interaction, but please clarify and signpost clearly so I know what you are talking about.

Written by: Grant Hess

I did PF at Westlake (Austin) for 4 years.

Presentation:

I don't like speed. Other than that just don't be bad and I'll give you good speaks.

I will be on my phone during cross. That time is for you to better understand arguments, not make an extra speech to me.

Argumentation:

I won't vote on theory unless your opponents are obviously bigoted or abusive. I'll buy what you tell me on face unless it's very obviously false. I won't call for evidence if you don't tell me to. I don't necessarily require you to frontline in second rebuttal, but it's definitely a good strategic choice. If there's new offense in second summary I won't evaluate it. Extend link chains as well as impacts in summary and final focus.

Please weigh in later speeches.

PS

For every Kanye reference you make in constructive I'll give you +1 speaker points

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

I debated in PF for Colleyville Heritage for 4 years. I have pretty basic preferences:

-I don't care about speed but if you're unclear or speed seems unnecessary, I'll dock speaks (remember quality over quantity)

-Don't bring up new evidence in summary or new arguments in final focus

-Framework and overviews need to be extended (and responded to) in order for me to evaluate them

-You should be weighing throughout the round but I prefer a big picture final focus that tells me why I should vote for you. Voters are greatly appreciated since they make the round so much easier.

-Short off-time roadmaps are appreciated, but please signpost in your speeches if you're moving around a lot!

--> Most importantly, be respectful and have fun! Feel free to ask me specific questions before your round.

I competed in PF for 3 years in high school and have some background in LD and primarily Extemp. I graduated from Lake Travis in 2018.

General:

In rounds I am looking for clear, quality debates. You need cards and warrants and effective communication skills in order for me to be able to accurately. I look for quality arguments that are warranted in cards, that does not mean you should card dump or throw credentials at me with cards that aren't really saying anything (think quality over quantity).

Weigh your arguments so I can evaluate the round. I will always let the flow determine the winner of the round so be clear and extend arguments if you want to have success.

Signposting super helpful if you want me to keep pace with where you are, again refer above, I judge on the flow so if I am lost your arguments/responses will not make it on the paper.

Speaks are gonna be 27 on the low end and 30 if I am impressed, tend to keep it in between those numbers though. I do not intend on handing out free 30s but I also do not plan on holding on to them. Good args and limited fluency breaks will get you there. Speaks only stray from this range if you get abusive or begin saying things that are toxic to the debate space (no -isms).

Im cool with jargon and I will try and have a little bit of foundational understanding of the months topic. Speed is cool but it better be within the scope of pf (keep it lay).

Crossfire: DO NOT take individual crossfire as an opportunity to prompt your partner with questions and answers, I will notice and I will def dock points if I see fit.

Typing is lame, any questions you have about specifics can be addressed in round! Have fun and take the time to learn!

Hello! My name is Xiu!

My son does public forum debate. I on the other hand, never had experience with debate before. I prefer slower speaking and clear arguments as English isn't my first language. I prefer logical arguments that make sense to me over random pieces of evidence. I also have no idea on what the topic is about so a explanation would be greatly appreciated. I also believe that people should be nice in round. I look forward to judging at this tournament

--Congress--

Competitors should speak at a conversational rate, prioritizing analysis and development over number of arguments delivered. Students should use a variety of nonbiased evidenciary sources in their speeches. Industry publications and think tanks will be weighted over news sources and periodicals. Speehes should include roughly half new material demonstrating original thought and half in response to a previous speech or sentiment. Presiding officers should demonstrate mastery of parliamentary procedure and should be fair and transparent in their conduct.

--Speech--

Extemp: Competitors should speak at a conversational rate, prioritizing analysis and development of thoughts. Students should use a variety of nonbiased evidenciary sources in their speeches. Industry publications and think tanks will be weighted over news sources and periodicals. Speech should not be stilted or overly formal. Smooth transitions and incorporation of source material are key to seemless flow of the speech. Bonus points for incorporation of appropriate humor. I prefer speakers to stand. Speakers who are obviously reading from their screen will be penalized.

Prepared Speaking: Competitors should maintain credibility and professionalism while being engaging and entertaining. I prefer thorough explanation and analysis of a smaller number of sources over superficial exploration of many. Delivery should be done in a standing position if possible.

Interp: Pieces should domonstrate historic and contemporary relevence. Teasers and introductions should set up the piece and should tell me how the piece is unique to the performer, our time and all relevent stakeholders. Bonus points for carefully considered blocking and movement in the virtual world. Thorough character development and originality in blocking are appreciated.

i am lay judge

I am a Westlake Parent with little to no debate experience. I prefer that you do not go too fast in round and I will make it very clear if I cannot follow what you're saying. Also, no new arguments after rebuttal, and no new evidence or responses in final focus. I will listen to crossfire, but I will not weigh points made in it unless brought up in speech time. Also, as I am lay, please don't read progressive arguments and be sure to explain the warrant of your arguments that you're extending.

Be nice in round and have fun.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

I am a novice PF judge yet understand that a debate should display solid logic, use clear reasoning and display some depth of analysis. Evidence should be presented, but not "drive" the debate.

I am looking for clear communication of ideas, cogent argument delivered eloquently with professional decorum. Tempo of speech and clarity of ideas earn points. Enthusiasm and respect go a long way.

I am a PF-only judge. I prefer PF debate to be PF debate - in other words, it should be accessible and persuasive to a lay judge. Speed or unexplained jargon that would befuddle a well-educated but inexperienced judge will result in low speaks and possibly won't be flowed at all. That said, I do not attempt to be a pure "tabula rasa." Instead, I will judge from the perspective of a well-informed (i.e. someone who keeps up with national/international news) and well-educated (i.e. someone who remembers what they were taught in their high school and core college classes) layperson.

Beyond that, I expect teams to clearly layout a framework for the round and impact to that framework. I am fine with a "framework debate" if the central point of contention between teams is their framework. I flow, but primarily as a memory aid.

I will call for evidence, but only if one of the teams in round challenges their opponents' use of that evidence. Unnecessary or frivolous evidentiary challenges are not appreciated and will be penalized.

I value logical and coherent arguments above all, as this is a debate event. I value the ability to look into an issue, come up with unique solutions, and define what the most important questions of a debate are and answer how your case wins on those issues. Weighing arguments is important to me, a good case is able to not only win arguments but also demonstrate why its arguments are more important compared to arguments the opponent might be winning. I am ok with spreading but I need to be able to understand you, if speed comes at the cost of clarity I'd rather you speak slower and be understood. But if you can spread without compromising on your fluency and pronunciation of words then by all means do so, just be aware that it is your responsibility to communicate clearly and remain coherent. Sources and evidence are extremely important, but to what extent depends on the claim. Obvious facts (ie the sky is blue type stuff) or purely theoretical arguments can be discussed with few or no sources. But anything that is controversial (or likely to be so), or that has some sort of practical aspect (such as statistics) NEEDS to be proven with evidence. Evidence is helpful in all cases obviously but the more controversial a particular point is and the more real-world its implications the more I will weigh evidence in deciding whether to flow something in your favor. You need to be able to disprove claims logically, political correctness and whether a point is "offensive" dont matter unless you can explain to me why that is important to the debate. Obviously there are some things that will be unacceptable, but for me those are mostly things like ad hominem (attacking the person) fallacies, racial slurs, name calling, and the like. Simply advocating for an offensive or non-mainstream position is ok so long as it is not attacking the opponent's person, racial characteristics, etc.

My judging philosophy is fairly traditional as I don’t judge CX. PF is about evidence and demonstrating why your argument is smarter and better than your opponent’s. It’s all about the final focus for me and how you access the arguments you have been making in the debate. In terms of non-traditional arguments i.e. projects, poems, rap, music etc— I think this is unnecessary but if you do run it make sure you emphasize how it links to and is relevant to the topic.

I don’t care for “T.” Overall, keep the big picture in mind. Spending your time tipping through a “T” violation doesn’t help me as the judge at all.

Being a traditional debater and now judge, I don’t care for Kritiks/Critiques since this I am not judging CX. Obviously, if you run a K, I will examine it but as the debater you need to weigh the arguments out for me.

As for style, I don’t prefer spreading but if you do and are unclear, I will tell you to be more clear.

Keep the round fun, just remember to extend your arguments and make flowing easy for the judge.

I did PF debate for two years at Westlake High School.

-In order to make it easier for you to win my ballot, you must WEIGH. I prefer that this weighing starts in summary and then is fleshed out in final focus.

-The second rebuttal does not need to frontline the entire first rebuttal, but at the very least it should respond to turns.

-If an argument is dropped in summary then it cannot be brought back up in final focus and is off my flow.

-Summary and Final Focus must collapse. You should not go for every argument on your flow even if you feel like you are winning most of them. I prefer a fleshed out link chain over multiple badly extended arguments.

-I will not vote off of any theory/K's/plans/counterplans.

-Warrant out your arguments, and do not extend through ink.

-Lastly, be nice to your partner and opponents during round otherwise I will dock your speaks.

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round.

I did PF for three years at Geneva School of Boerne in Boerne, TX and debated one year on the National Circuit.

These are simply guidelines, I'll adapt to the round:

Persuasion is most important to me. I judge persuasion on Aristotle's rhetorical triangle: Pathos, Logos, Ethos.

1. Pathos- the debate should be emotionally influential. Arguments should have real-world impact and relevance. Difficult subjects should be handled with proper gravity. Speech should be clear.

2. Ethos- Debaters should be credible. Evidence should be readily available. The debate should be respectful.

3. Logos- Arguments should be logically sound, well evidenced, and well organized. Debaters should engage opposing arguments fully and the overall story of each argument should be clear throughout the round. Quality and clarity are better than quantity.

All that said:

I do flow

I do take note of drops (drops aren't good logos or ethos)

Extensions are always a good idea (debate rounds are long and I won't remember or write down everything so tell me what's important).

Summary speeches are difficult. You don't have to defend all the rebuttal, but if it's major, you should probably respond. Failing to extend isn't a drop but your story should carry through all the speeches.

Weigh throughout the round.

In the end, overall persuasion, not just the flow, will have a greater impact on my decision. Usually, the two are inseparable. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Hello,

I'm a lay judge so please keep these things in mind:

1. Don't speak fast

2. Don't interrupt each other

3. Cross is important

Have fun and make it an interesting round! I will not be disclosing at the end of the round.

Hi there,

I did PF for 4 years in high school at Clements High School in Sugar Land, Texas, with exposure to TFA State, NSDA Nationals, and Gold TOC.

I would say I’m pretty flow, so the best way to win my ballot is to win the flow.

How to Win My Ballot:

1. PF is research based, so I expect all args to be well substantiated and warranted

2. Second rebuttal MUST respond to 1st rebuttal offense (mainly turns) if you are not kicking out of it, but how you manage that attack/defend time split is up to you. I find 3-1 to be the most useful.

3. I do think that Crossfire is an important part of debate, so use it wisely to gain concessions, lock in double binds, etc.

4. Extensions should include the link and impact

5. Signposting is critical, if I don’t know where to flow something I won’t flow it

6. I was a first speaker, so I heavily evaluate the summary. Summaries should crystallize, possibly introduce voters, frontline critical offense, extend turns, terminal D, etc.

7. I am a line by line judge, but I also expect some big picture implications, especially in FF

8. WEIGHING IS SUPER IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE DONE IN MOST SPEECHES otherwise I will have to intervene, which is usually a bad thing

General Stuff:

1. Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic, just use common sense

2. No new evidence is allowed to be read in FF or Second Summary

3. Each speech should feed off the previous one, so all collapsible offense in the FF should be in Summary, but only go for the issues that will win you the round

4. I trust you to time yourselves, but please be honest

5. I have a high threshold for theory/K acceptance, unless the abuse is clear and of high degree

6. DA’s, CP’s, Plans are fine, I think they encourage more direct clash

7. Offensive OV’s are fine in 1st Rebuttal, just don’t make them insanely long/abusive

8. Speed is fine, but I will only yell clear ONCE: continued lack of clarity will result is speaker point drops. Don't gut spread

9. I do not believe in case disclosure, so I will not incentivize teams to disclose

10. Teams should be ready to go as soon as possible; that especially means PREFLOWING BEFORE ROUND

11. Flex prep is fine

12. If you run FW, you must link back into it, otherwise its a waste of speech time. Competing FW's are fine, but keep it consistent

Evidence:

1. Severely miscut evidence/fake evidence = severely penalized

2. Paraphrasing evidence is fine, but it should not be power tagged

3. All cut cards must be present and easily accessible to your opponents and me. For each minute you take to find a cut card you will lose 1/2 a speaker point

4. I generally will not call for cards unless it seems to be blatantly miscut or your opponents tell me to call for it during their speeches

Speaker Points:

1. I start at a 28 and move up/down in increments of 0.5, primarily based on your fluency and argument execution

2. The funnier you are, the more reward you will see

3. Being rude will cause you to lose speaks

4. The occasional cuss word is fine, as long as it is not derogatory

5. This will not affect speaker points, but I enjoy witty taglines

End Notes:

1. I’m a very chill/easy going judge, so don’t hesitate to ask me questions

2. I will usually disclose at the end of round and give verbal feedback. If not, it will be on the ballot

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, even though debate is a competitive activity, it should be FUN, so if you are not enjoying debate, something is wrong

Contact Info:

If you have any questions outside the round, don't hesitate to reach out to me at ani.thakur@utexas.edu or message me on Facebook

I'm a lay judge and a mother to a second year public forum debater.

I have basic knowledge on how rounds work. I have judged before, but not often.

I will flow but only because my son taught me how, treat me like a lay judge still. I flow to help understand where the arguments are and which responses work with each argument. With that in mind, please signpost (onto their first argument about ...) or I won't know what you are responding to. Read reasonably slow, it allows me to understand the arguments and increases the chance of me voting for it. It also allows me to understand each response better.

Time yourselves. I don't take into account cross fire. Don't treat me like a moron, but I have general knowledge on the topic. Even so, you arguments need to be cohesive and explained to me clearly. If you 'drop' and argument that's fine, at some points it would be easier so the round is cleaner.

You will win if by the end of the round I understand your argument, you have told me why to vote for you, and why your responses make it so I cannot vote for your opponents.

I debated PF for 3 years at Westlake High School in Austin, Texas. I competed on the national circuit for 2 years.

Tech > Truth

1. 'Progressive' Argumentation. I am willing to evaluate essentially all arguments and am somewhat comfortable evaluating most args. I am most familiar with framework and meta-weighing. I am not as familiar with kritiks, theory, and tricks but am able to evaluate those args If I must—run them at your own risk. Run what you want to run because that's what I did when I debated. I think that limiting different/"progressive" forms of argumentation in any debate space is bad.

2. Extensions. Extensions are really really important. I see too many talented teams lose because they don't extend or don't extend fully. All dropped responses are conceded—100%. I don't agree with 'sticky defense', I think it's a dated practice. If there is a conceded substance argument my threshold for extensions is low—but it does still exist. Extend your link(s), warrant(s), and impact(s) if you want the argument(s) to be evaluated, especially if it's contested. If the argument is not correctly extended entirely through final focus and summary it cannot be evaluated. With that in mind, please extent what you want to win on in every speech. My threshold for extensions on K, theory, etc. is higher than it is for substance, please explain every part of the arg in every speech so I can follow.

3. Speed. Speed is fine as long as I can understand/follow. I am very comfortable letting you know if I can't keep up. I will say 'clear' two times before I dock your speaks if you don't slow down. Ask for my email before round/speech and send me a speech doc if necessary.

4. Weigh. You should weigh, it will likely help you win. Like most args, conceded weighing is true weighing. Use it to your advantage. If there are two args I default to ANY weighing that is present. If there is no weighing I will be forced to make the decision on my own.

5. Read me. If I look confused I'm doing that on purpose; it's because I'm confused. If I am nodding, it means I agree with you. I tend to be pretty expressive and I will when I am judging too.

6. Presumption. If I am forced to I will presume NEG unless there are presumption arguments present and extended. I am much more comfortable presuming NEG than trying to weasel out some offense for a team that didn't actually extent their arg(s) properly.

7. Evidence. To be completely honest I have not decided where I stand on evidence yet. I do not see myself calling for evidence after round to help make my decision. However, if you believe your opponents are misrepresenting their evidence please ask me to review it.

8. Don't be (too) mean. Please be a decent human being. I understand the pressure of debate and have seen how rounds can get heated. I enjoy the competitive aspects of debate because I think it makes the rounds harder. I will, however, dock your speaks if you are clearly extremely rude. I will give you an L with 25s if you are blatantly offensive by using targeted rhetoric.

9. I disclose. I will always disclose. If time allows, I will always give oral RFDs. I prefer oral feedback because it allows for questioning. Post round me if you want to, I do not care. I think post rounding is good to some extent and it won't change the way I think about you or your team in the future. I will stand by every decision I've made and will ever make. I keep a decent flow and am comfortable explaining my decision. Post rounding will obviously not change my decision but instead should help you and I both learn.

I debated for Barbers Hill HS for four years, a year and a half in LD and two and half years in CX. (CX is my one true love, tbh.) I qualified for TFA State my junior and senior year in CX. I now attend the University of Texas at Austin, but I do not debate for them. :-)

CONTACT INFO:

Facebook: Lauren Elizabeth Willingham

Phone: 713-204-7097 (texting is probably the easiest way to contact me)

Email: lauren72200@gmail.com (feel free to add me to the email chain)

OR ask before the round

TLDR (1 = best):
LARP/Stock: 1
K: 2-3
Framework: 2
Theory: 2
Tricks: 5
Generic: 1

IMPORTANT STUFF:

1. Extend!!!! Extend the warrants. If you don’t extend, it will be considered a dropped arg and I will definitely take note of that if your opponent points it out.

2. Tech > truth :-)

3. EXPLAIN

4. If your card is powertagged and your opponent points it out, that is not good for you. Especially if the card is key to your arg. Ur claims need warrants.

5. Be reciprocal with flashing

6. Flash isn’t prep but don’t be cray w it

7. I always went for a line-by-line debate and I will be flowing the round

8. I'm honestly pretty chill w/ anything and my goal is to be as tab as possible. These are just some tips for those who want to read on.

General:

You do you. Debate in the style you feel most comfortable in. I feel that it’s my job as judge to adapt to the best of my ability and provide a fair evaluation, free from own preferences. (aka I’ll try to be tab lol). I think the most important thing is to create clash in the round.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed. I will say clear twice before I stop flowing. Try to slow down for tags and author names, especially if I don’t have your case in front of me (!!). Make sure your speed is at least somewhat comprehensible, or else this will negatively affect your speaker points and my ability to understand everything you need me to.

LARP:

I think extinction impacts are cool. The point of debate isn’t if I personally believe it will happen or not, but how you present the argument in the round and your opponent's ability to answer it. With that being said, sound link chains are important as well.

Counterplans: I love counterplans. I definitely read them all the time. They can be as specific or generic as you would like. I think PICs are fine as well. You also must specifically say in one of your speeches “I’m kicking the CP” in order for me not to evaluate it on my ballot (or it will considered a dropped arg on your part). Also, I’ll buy a successful perm.

Disadvantages: Specific DA’s are so good and usually hard for the AC to answer. Just make sure your DA is unique and has a sound link chain (and links to the aff obvi). Extend the link chain (!!!!) in order for me to be voting off the impact at the end of the round.

K’s:

I definitely was a more traditional debater, but I think K’s are cool; however, I feel that many people try to misrepresent them or refuse to explain them in layman’s terms for the sake of confusing their opponents as an easy way to “win.” That’s not cool. You should be able to let your opponents and myself know that you understand the material you’re reading so they can appropriately answer it and I can appropriately judge it. Assume that I have no idea what you’re reading. Additionally, make sure you have a solid link. Don’t read it just to read something.

Taken from Cameron McConway's paradigm- “I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks, though."

T/Theory:

T is a voter, unless your opponent sufficiently proves otherwise. I love theory. I know a lot of people hate it, but theory and its implications are important. Just give me reasons why I should vote on it and EXTEND THEM.

Phil/Framework:

Make sure to spend sufficient time on these args and flesh them out. It’s a lot harder to catch when you’re spreading through it, especially if you’re adding analytics (which I feel that you should be in rebuttal speeches). I feel framework is the default way the judge should evaluate the round. If you decide to argue that you meet your opponents framework better, go for it. If you want to read a competing framework, also go for it. Just try not to leave it unanswered because it is definitely the lens I will view the round through unless I’m told otherwise.

Tricks:

I’ll keep it short and sweet- I think the purpose of an argument should be clear from the time it is read, leaving other speeches to expand on it. If you’re a tricks debater and it’s what you do best, go ahead but I’ve never been a fan. But that’s not to say I will vote you down for doing it.

Speaks:

I will give anywhere from a 25-30. If you get a 25, it probably means you were rude in round, rather than just being a poor speaker. If you get a 30, that means you did a great job, with style, presentation, and content. I would say I average a 28-28.5. If I feel you did well, I don’t want your speaks to prevent you from breaking and I will keep that in mind.

***Taken from Alyssa Hooks’s Paradiagm***

Things that will kill your chance at my ballot (AND lower your speaks):
-Racism, sexism or anything that is offensive to anyone
-Belittling someone in round-- also called ad hominems
-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable
-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe

-Not reading a trigger warning on something that *clearly* needs one (if you’re iffy about it, just ask your opponent and judge before the round to be safe)
Please always remember: debate is a safe space and should be treated as one!!

YOU DO YOU

• Debate is supposed to be fun, let’s leave it that way

BE KIND

• It makes the round more enjoyable for everyone

Westlake 21, Wharton 25

Debated for five years. Currently coach for Potomac Debate Academy. I like warrants and implications a lot.

- If you go a regular pace and win the round, I will award you with fantastic speaks. Don't go fast for the sake of going fast.

- I will vote for the easiest path to the ballot. Do extend and do weigh. If you don't, don't expect to get >27.5 speaks.

- Time yourself and your opponents. No one does and it is annoying.

- Preflow before round. If you show up to round not preflowed, I will dock speaks heavily.

- Can and will evaluate prog. I am best at evaluating theory, and then more basic Ks. If you're gonna run anything be very clear about how it functions in the round. I am now three years out from my last K debate. I have forgotten a lot. Please run things well.

- Docking speaks a lot if it takes a long time to pull up evidence.

- If you disclose, lmk and I'll add 0.5 speaks.

You can email me at xyz85678@gmail.com or FB message me. Sometimes I don't see message requests though.

I competed all 4 years in PF and graduated from Plano West in 2018.

UPDATE: I am old and semi-rusty. I have not judged in forever because college...life...this pandemic...take your pick. Therefore, if I'm not up to speed on the new trend in debate, bear with me.

General:

Tech over truth, but please don't take this as an indication to card dump. Cards without warrants hold little weight in my mind. My favorite saying is quality over quantity. My second favorite saying is "be like a whale and not a bunny." Bunnies are fluffy. Whales weigh a ton. In short, please, PLEASE, PLEASE WEIGH. It makes my job as a judge soooooo much easier if you weigh your arguments, and then I won't have to intervene and make everyone unhappy.

Note: I probably won't have done extensive research on the topics on hand so make sure to explain your arguments clearly, especially if you're not running stock arguments.

Signposting

SIGNPOSTING IS CRUCIAL!!! I am sleep deprived from doing debate and college hasn't really helped with this situation. This doesn't mean that I'm going to fall asleep on you, but it's a warning that if you go too fast without signposting I will get lost on the flow especially if there's a lot on it. If you're not going the conventional top down approach signposting is even more crucial. You don't want me wasting time trying to find where you are on the flow and miss an argument that you place. That being said, if you're going the traditional top down line-by-line approach, please DO NOT give an off time road map. It's an unnecessary waste of time.

Framework

It would be nice if a framework appears and is warranted in constructive. It will help with the weighing later on in the round, granted if it get's extended in the latter half of the round. Simply stating that "our opponents didn't state a framework meaning that our's is the default" does not mean I buy it. Frameworks must also be WARRANTED, otherwise I default cost-benefit analysis and that might not be so great for you.

Rebuttals

Line-by-line is preferable. I don't require 2nd rebuttals to completely respond to 1st rebuttals. However, you might find that you have a much greater chance of winning if you respond to turns that your opponents place. I think it's pretty abusive if opposing turns are responded to in 2nd summary. 2nd rebuttals don't have to respond to defense but if you have the time then by all means please do. In general please don't card dump. If you can place multi-warranted arguments instead that would be great! If you manage to weigh at the end that's even better!!

Summary/FF

WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH! If different weighing mechanisms are given, then WEIGH the WEIGHING MECHANISMS. Defense sticks unless the opponents have already responded to it. Summary is where you collapse, COLLAPSE, COLLAPSE! Remember what my favorite saying is. Any arguments you want me to evaluate must be extended and appear in both speeches. And saying "extend contention one across the flow" is not extending. Some form of warrant and impact must be explained in order for arguments to be considered to be extended. Also don't extend through ink. If you try to, you just wasted part of your precious 2 minutes because I'm not going to consider it at the end of the round. Final focus should mainly be big picture voters. At the end of the day, why is your narrative ultimately the one I should vote for.

Evidence:

I'll call for evidence if it's contested in the round, the other team explicitly tells me to, or I think it's super sketchy. I HIGHLY prefer if the pdf of the evidence. Do not show me the paraphrased version of the evidence you read. If you can't produce the evidence or I think that you're blatantly misconstruing the evidence then I will drop it from the round. That means check your evidence before rounds start. It would suck if I had to drop you guys because of bad evidence.

Speaks:

My range is 28-30 unless you are straight up rude, racist, homophobic, etc. in round. Then I won't hesitate to tank your speaks. Otherwise, it's generally high speaks especially if you have a really good round narrative.

General Courtesies:

Don't be rude in crossfire, especially GCX. Don't scream at each other. Don't ramble during crossfire either. No one likes the person who decides that crossfire is just another 3 minute speech. If crossfire ends early then it ends early. There's no need to prolong it if no one has anymore questions. I expect you guys to hold each other accountable with prep time because I definitely won't be keeping track of it for you. If evidence is called for between teams, don't take forever to pull it up. Make sure to have it saved in some accessible way. LET'S TRY TO END ON TIME, OR EVEN BETTER YET EARLY because no one wants to be stuck here longer than necessary and no one will thank us for pushing back the tournament.

Progressive Debate

I'll evaluate these same as any other argument in the round, but if you get too technical then I will get considerably lost. This is PF, let's try to stick to what's generally considered PF.

Feel free to ask me any SPECIFIC questions before the round starts, and if you have questions about the rfd/ballot afterwards feel free to come find me! Otherwise, I look forward to the round!