Tab judge so run anything you’d like as long as its nothing offensive ie impact turns to oppression. I don’t default to anything so all arguments must be communicated clearly in the round including the implications of those arguments. Spreading is fine but slow down and be extra clear on tag lines and author names. If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round.

NO SPREADING!!!!!!!!! I cannot emphasize this point enough! Debate should be about how well you know your case, can support your case with evidence, use logic to link your case and evidence together, and use logic and evidence to counter your opponents arguments. Speaking so fast that the judge or your opponent can't understand you doesn't mean you are a good debater, it just means you can talk really fast (and maybe not even say anything). I don't like winning on technicalities. Spreading is a means to winning on technicalities. Speaking fast so you can get lots of arguments in that your opponent will drop is my definition of winning on technicalities. I realize this is a game and you are trying to play that game but I also believe this should benefit you in life. There is no use for spreading in life, period!

I am a traditional LD/PFD judge. I don't want to hear K's, counter plans, or theory. If you want to do that you should be in CX/Policy not LD or PFD. You were either assigned a side or flipped a coin for a side. A good debater can debate both sides. Please tell me what you are going to do then do that. Also, please use logical reasoning to link your argument together as well as with your evidence. Don't skip steps. Don't use reasoning such as If A then B therefore Z. In doing this you have skipped lots of steps. I'm not saying the conclusion of Z is wrong just that you haven't proved that Z is correct. Don't make me skip steps to get to your conclusion because I won't, that is your job. An example of this is the nuclear war argument. You can't say things like if a particular political party wins an election then nuclear war is imminent. This is complete non-sense and shows me that you have no idea how to reason. Solving for nuclear war is hard and requires lots of steps and evidence to get there. Don't use that argument unless you are prepared to do the work to get me there.

I really dislike it when the debtor just reads their case. I'm not expecting you to have it memorized but know it well enough that you can talk to me about it. If you just read it that doesn't show me that you know anything about your case, just that you can read. You should be able to present your case in a way that shows me either you wrote your own case or that you know it well enough to be able to speak without having to rely on your computer for everything. Obviously if you are a Novice then I don't expect so much from you. However, both Novice and Varsity should be able to pronounce correctly all the words you use.

Your summary/final focus speeches should tie everything back together for me. Tell me what arguments your opponent dropped. Give me voters. I realize this is a game and you are throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks but lets pretend that is not what is going on. So please don't say things like "Judge, if you don't believe that then how about..." You better believe, or at least act like you believe, your whole case or I'm not going to.

Director of Forensics @ Athens HS (2023 - Present)

DoD at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - 2023)

Texas Tech Debate 2019-2021 (Graduated)

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.

TFA STATE 2024 UPDATE: I feel like at this point in the season, judges should outline specific preferences that align with the topic, given they've judged a considerable amount thus far. I have developed a few of those preferences. First, because this is an economy centric topic, I need you to isolate a market indicator that should frame the direction of the economy. Whether is the CPI, Stock Market Projections, BizCon surveys, etc. Absent this specification, it makes it hard to judge econ uniqueness in debates. Second, the central T debate is Taxes v Deficit Spending. A lot more time needs to be allocated to the predictability standard when going for "you must tax". There are tons of taxes the aff could choose, only one way to deficit spend. Finally, is evidence recency. Though I believe dates on cards matter less than the warrants themselves, when debating the ever-changing economy, the most recent analysis is more likely to sway me. The same can be said for politics scenarios. We are deep into an election cycle, Super Tuesday is 2 days before tfa state. Please update your evidence.

TLDR: My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Policy -

MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.

Affs - Read one..... Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round education lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are in an election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me. Please make sure your evidence is up to date.

CP - I like counterplan debate. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event.

PF

My Experience is in judging TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.

I am a parent judge. I want a traditional debate with NO SPREADING! Please present your arguments clearly and make sure to tell me why you should win the round. If you are abusive towards your opponent or towards your judge, I will vote you down. No flex prep that's why you have cross examination time and make sure to use that time wisely. Please time yourselves. I won't consider anything you say after the allotted time.

You win me when you are able to present your case and win the cross examinations. If you use too much of technical jargon, I will be looking at you but not understand much - so it will be a flip of the coin who wins! I am very fair and base the judgement only on the performance and the perspectives so help me make the right decision.

I will ensure I give good spks if you perform well, as I see too many times people are affected by speaker points!

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

i have a lot of experience and do a lot of tings ‼️ just do whatever you do best and tell me how to evaluate.

LD/PFD - Can handle fast-talking, just not spreading. I use the flow to help determine a win or lose, especially if the emotional appeals are there on both sides. Important for direct clash and evidence to be pertinent to contention claims. Massive experience in debating, coaching, and judging.

CX - not too big into spreading. Prefer an organized debate with attacks following the flow. Significance, harms, inherency, topicality, solvency. Not a huge fan of kritiks.

Experience: I am new parent judge.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. 

Update for the TOC 2023: I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. The same can be said about theory, I mostly judge small town tournaments in Texas, so I am not at all familiar with advanced theory that you may run at your national circuit/bid tournaments. I am a tab judge, so I will still try to evaluate theory/k's as fairly as possible, but if your case relies on my knowledge of these things you are likely putting yourself at a disadvantage. Aside from that, read whatever DA's, CP's, K's, or Theory you want as fast as you want. Will not vote off of racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other ignorant arguments you make just to win the round. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics

Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him)

Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. For some more about me, I am an Astronomer studying low-mass galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope and received my B.S. in Astronomy at UT Austin.

K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them and if they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything

CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it.

DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX.

Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument).

FW: Util unless otherwise told

Speaker Points:

30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job.

28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example)

27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most

26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down

25-26:arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this).

20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements

All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

My paradigm is mostly tab, if you tell me why I'm voting for you in a persuasive way I will listen.

I really enjoy narrative and kritikal cases that have in-round impacts and question the realm of debate as long as the language is understandable.

When it comes to policy cases I place a lot of emphasis on impact calculus. If there is any chance of a link, I will typically refer to the impact debate for my decision.

I have a pretty high threshold for T and framework, if you go for it I want it to be solid and I want you to really go for it otherwise I won't usually put much stock into it.

Hi,

Update for St. Mary's. Do not spread. Do not read progressive arguments.

My name is Evan Ortiz, I debated for 4 years in Texas, and was ok. I now compete for the University of Texas at Austin and help coach for NSU in Florida (Speech only tho because I live for extemp). Feel free to reach out to me if something in my paradigm confuses you.

Please add me to the email chain evanortiz64@gmail.com

Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safer or better experience for you. I love debate and I want to make sure rounds are a place that you can love, too.

Judging Philosophy:

- I won't look at a card unless you tell me to do so!

- I am not a super big fan of paraphrasing. I feel like this is a big ethical dilemma in PF and I am just not a fan, please just read cut cards.

- Impact calc is the easiest way to win and the most important part of PF. Just please explain your impact clearly with a fully supported link chain to it and weigh and you will the round. I expect clear weighing in the round and it is beneficial for y'all to do so, if you don't weigh I may default to my own mechanisms and you may not like that. ---> you final focus should just write my ballot for me

- 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st in some sort of way... if not? Go off I guess the summary better do work then.

- Summary needs to extend defense - you have time now :(

- summary and final focus should mirror each other ALWAYS. Please don't make me play a game of I SPY on the ballot, it will much easier for you to win if you as a team know exactly what you are going for and mirror each other

- I would really prefer clear full extensions. I don't simply want just "extend Jones 12" because that doesn't really tell me much. Instead, extend Jones, the warrant, and any necessary offense from it. Explain to me why Jones is important.

- warranted responses >>> blippy card dumps

Miscellaneous Nonsense

- Have fun!!! Debate after all is an activity first, competition second. Please have fun in the round.

- Be nice to each other. Sass is sometimes cool, but know your lane and stay in it.

- Run whatever you want, you do you!

*Regarding the notion from above. Honestly, do not read theory in front of me. The only interaction I have had with Theory in PF is larger schools reading disclosure theory on relatively small and or inexperienced schools. I don't want to see it. Regardless of my debate background with a small school, frivolous disclosure theory is not educational for the round nor fun for me to judge. If you choose to run theory, it better not be disclosure theory. If it is, and you are from a large school with the institutional knowledge to engage with theory and you choose to read it against a small school or inexperienced opponents, you will not like the outcome. It is mind-boggling to me that this is a norm and will not vote for it. If you want to read other theory, I would prefer it not to be in shell form - just give me the jist. I don't like voting off of theory technicalities, so make it at least accessible. (Paraphrase theory is meh but if you can prove a violation then sure why not)

School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None

Hired - yes

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas

College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate

Years Judging/Coaching - 4

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots

Check all that apply

_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments

Rounds judged in other events this year

xx_ PF

xx__ LD

xx__ Extemp/OO/Info

xx__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

Have you chaired a WS round before? yes

What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.

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

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.

How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

*updated 10/17/20*

Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

Now onto the stuff about me...

NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.

***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.

In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.

Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

email: vandanpatel202@gmail.com

tldr: I will evaluate every argument and attempt to be as impartial as possible. I am fine with speed, theory, Kritiks(although I haven't read much lit other than antiblackness/afropess), and virtually any other argument. I am a firm believer that debate is a game so if an argument brought by your opponent is morally repugnant you will have to prove why this is the case as I will not intervene.

T: I love good T debates, don't go for blip T args please. If your gonna read T explain why the definitions are important to the context of the round and give me reasons to prefer. I also evaluate T before K but can change if you tell me why.

Util: read a lot of this in high school. am cool with util and LARP args, will default to extinction outweighs unless told otherwise.

Theory: went for this a lot in high school. I will vote on pretty much any theory arg as long as it is well warranted. I am a firm believer in disclosure, but will vote against disclosure theory if provided with reason to do so.

RVIs - default to RVIs

Default to CIs, can do reasonability if convinced otherwise.

Ks - am fine with them, although the only Ks I'm really familiar with are cap and antiblackness/afropess. Please explain what the alt means and how it solves the aff if it does, often times debaters through buzzwords and hope that I know what the alt means. I am fine with alts that require a rejection of the aff as long as there is a pedagogical reason to do so.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Hello Competitors, Coaches, and Tournament Directors,

I hold a Master's in Communication from Wichita State University. I have been coaching speech and debate since 2002 at the high school and college levels. I am presently coaching for Trinity High School in Euless, Texas.

General Preferences for all forms of Debate: 

*Know Your Case-Don't read me something you do not understand.  I can usually tell pretty fast.  Purchased cases GREATLY  annoy me.  I am on the circuit and I usually can spot them within the second or third week in a season if not the first tournament out..  Use them as a reference if you want but do your own writing/work either individually or as a school team.

*Know Your Cards-Understand the evidence you are using.  How does it matter?  What is the context in which that evidence was derived,   Know it well enough for it stand up under cross-examination/questioning.   

*Don't play games. I am only interested in theory if something in the round is really serious enough to provoke a theory argument. Don't try to win by confusing your opponent or throwing so much out there that they simply can't flow your case.  (There is a bit more leeway in policy for this but your case still must stand on its own merits and not just be built to be hard to flow).  

*Keep spreading to Policy/CX Debate - I can tell pretty quickly, especially during CX and rebuttal rounds, if you really understand what you are putting forward.  In LD, I much prefer fewer cards that are understood well to a large quantity of evidence that you barely understand or that is taken out of context. Some cases are won and lost in the CX potion of the round because one opponent is able to demonstrate that the other either doesn't understand their evidence or that they are using cards out of context. 

*Spreading in ALL other events:  I do not mind a slightly faster than average rate of speech.  However, your case should be able to be understood clearly to anyone listening to you.   If I can't understand you due to your rate of speed, I will stop flowing.  I will also dismiss the point you are making and deduct speaker points. You will know when you have lost me because I will stop writing and stare directly at you or the camera. If you see me doing this, slow down.  I believe that it is important to read your audience and your judge and to maintain some level of eye contact.  For that reason, I do not believe that it is up to me to stop you and tell you to slow down.  When is it spreading?  IMO, you are going too fast if you are having to gasp for air drastically to keep up your speaking rate if you sound like an auctioneer or the side effects voiceover on prescription drug advertisement. 

*I welcome both traditional and progressive case writing.  However, be logical and realistic in the arguments you raise.  Extinction impacts should account for time frames for example.  Ks , DAs,  PERMS and CPs are welcome.  Make them make sense.. I prefer impacts that are realistic over ones that exaggerate and/or over-catastrophize. Time frame usually factors into this directly. (I. E., climate change-based extinction impacts are not going to occur in the next five years so they would not outweigh an urgent matter that has a smaller impact but in a more immediate time frame).  

*Listen and Respond to the arguments that are made in rounds.  If you can clearly respond to your opponent with logic and argumentation based on what they are saying in round and not simply with what you have come within your constructive arguments, I will pay careful attention to your arguments. 

How I Typically Weigh:   Framework > Evidence > Impact  *imho solvency potentially factors in at all of these levels)

Specific Debate Style Preferences

SC:  Bring on those well-prepared speeches but also make sure you are listening specifically and responding in round to what is happening.  Extemporaneous speeches are very well received by me when they are responsive to the moment. I much prefer you SPEAK to me rather than READ to me.  There is a difference between congressional/diplomatic/legislative debate speaking and case writing for other clash events.  Show diplomacy, show interest in the round, and embrace those who differ from you in their opinions with a sense of inquiry and curiosity.  Passion and aggression are two different things.  Make sure you are treating your opponents with respect and dignity.   We model what we hope to see in real life.  The goal is not see manipulative parliamentary techniques and the minimalization of others.  It is to see solid, in depth dialogue that seeks to resolve real issues facing the people you represent. Senators and Representatives who model this well will rank highly with me. 

LD Specifics - I appreciate the connection that LD makes between current issues and the values that drive them. It is very important to me that competitors really understand their own cases well. As this is LD and not CX, make sure all of your arguments link clearly to your value.

Progressive, policy-driven arguments are welcome, provided the links to the value and framework are very clear in the case presentation.

I am well versed in a variety of philosophies including post-structuralism. I expect your case to line up with your theoretical framework. The clash of values is what makes LD unique. Progressive cases are fine but make the links clear to your value and framework.

For LD, I strongly prefer cases to take a little and plant it well.  I can and will keep up with a slightly rapid speech rate but I have a very low tolerance for spreading in this event. (I believe it has a time and place in CX/Policy).   My personal opinion is that the main reason that competitors spread in LD is out of a lack of the ability/self-discipline to consolidate their cases into the time frame given or in an attempt to simply overwhelm their opponent. My opinion is that self-disciplined, well-researched competitors should win on the value of their arguments and not on these tactics.

If I can't understand you due to your rate of speed, I will stop flowing.  I will also dismiss the point you are making and deduct speaker points. You will know when you have lost me because I will stop writing and stare directly at you or the camera. If you see me doing this, slow down.  it is not up to me to stop you and tell you to slow down.  IMO, you are going too fast if you are having to gasp for air drastically to keep up your speaking rate if you sound like an auctioneer, and if you can not look up and make eye contact enough that you are able to read your audience. 

Unless you are going to maintain a very conversational pace,  I do recommend sharing your case with your opponent and judge.

In LD specifically, I give higher speaker points to debaters who make an effort to use solid elocution skills (varied tone, enunciation, volume, eye contact, etc.) Your arguments do not matter if you can not make them in a manner that they can be heard and understood by an audience.

WSD:  In general my LD paradigm would apply here.  Value/Criterion is less important than it is in LD but a solid cohesive case that is tied to a consistent framework or "World" is important.    These events, in particular, were designed to reach a broader debate audience. Solid speaker skills matter. Speaker points obviously rate higher in WSD as that is how the event is scored and judged.  

BQ:  This event gives you considerable freedom and leeway to combine aspects of other events in designing your argument.  Employ the added layers of logic and reasoning that tie into philosophy, theology, and psychology as the topics require in this event. I am looking for cohesive cases that make sense and provoke deeper layers of thought and intellectual reasoning. 

CX/Policy:  I do not judge this event as often but I am willing to do so when needed.  

I am far more lenient with policy debaters on rate of speech (spreading actually belongs in this event IMHO).  I believe this is the event where developing new ideas and policies creatively can and should be a major focus.  I am interested in seeing new ideas about the topic emerge and in hearing how your evidence links to them.  

Make Disads/Impacts realistic.  The quantity of evidence must balance with the quality of evidence and make sure you understand your evidence.  

I will entertain theory arguments went they are truly necessary and not a gimmick to go off-topic.

I get annoyed by "store-bought cases"  Use them as a reference but bring something you or your team worked on and it will likely be favored over the case I have heard several times already from several schools because they also purchased it from the same place you did. 

Timeframe factors in for me greatly when considering Impacts and Disads.  Make your arguments realistic.  Not every single policy leads us to an extinction impact. 

Individual Events:  

Oratory: I am looking for speeches that bring forward your unique voice and ideas. Your story, your ideas, and your thoughts will connect to those who have inspired you but what I am looking for most is for you to inspire me. My paradigm here is less specific because this event allows you to be yourself more than any other event. That is what I am looking for. I want to see you. I want to see your thoughts, hear about your hopes, and get a glimpse of the world as you see it and/or as you would like for it to be. You do You!!! I want to see you shine!

Extemp: Be aware of current events and know the research that you chose to quote well. I stay informed on most of these events as a coach. I am going to rate someone higher if they use a few select pieces of research well and combine them into a very thoughtful and articulate presentation. I don't need to see a ridiculous number of sources, I need to see you thinking about your topic and delivering your speech confidently. Do not make up research. I will usually figure that out fast. I coach this.

Poetry/Prose, HI/DI, Duet/Duo, Program of Interp:  I love the impact that we can make with narrative presentations and I enjoy these rounds tremendously. I am not someone who thinks that you should be limited by your age, gender, or race in what selections you chose. I think Interp gives us the freedom to play with some of these ideas in ways that we might not be able to on film or in theatre. I love blended/woven pieces because I like to see what you put together. Your cuttings should tell a clear story with a beginning and middle and end. Your characters should be believable. If you are working with gender, age or race find a way to do create those characters with authenticity and respect. Act but do not overact. Make your characterizations and voicing seem real. Don't be afraid to use silence. Don't scream/shout unless there is a really good motivation to do so for your character. And, most of all, please pick me for these rounds :)

Paradigm: Im a basic judge I don't do anything crazy, just tell me why your argument matters and just explain it throughly I flow your case through which means it is important to have clear warrants and links disbursed through your speeches. I want my job to be easy so let me know what I need to vote on and what's important throughout the round, If not done I would have to flow impacts that may not have been a primary focus in the round. The summary and final focus should reflect each other, which means no new information should be presented in the FF (in which case I won't flow through) and arguments should be extended and fleshed out as well. Remember to not bring up dropped or dead arguments in the Final focus its just a waste of time, extend what's important not irrelevant. When extending arguments remember to include the warrants, links, and impacts.

Speed: I am indifferent to speed, I can deal with relatively fast speed but there needs to be clarity within the speech. You need to slow down on tag lines as well as warrants so I understand where you are at, please don't try to run through the speeches there has to be a good amount of understanding of what's being spoken.

Speak Points: I tend to give 28-30s but I won't hesitate to give much lower scores depending on your interactions with your opponents (i.e. racist, rude, sexist etc.)

Just a few more general things:

I would prefer for y'all to keep your own time but if need be I will definitely do so.

I would prefer to have a email chain going at the beginning of the round to generally make it efficient exchanging cards but if uncomfortable with that just have cards ready to be shown

Be respectful in CX. Usually, the first speaker should have the first question

If I haven't addressed anything I should have feel free to ask me before the round starts

I consider myself a tab judge (but lets be real tho, it's 95% based on offense/defense).

Preface: I am still adjusting to online judging/debating, so I encourage you ask questions, more than anything. Also, my email is JoseSanchezCerrillo@gmail.com if you have questions or creating an email chain.

I debated policy for 4 years on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits and I have been debating for UNT for 3 years now. I have experience with a variety of arguments, but don't assume I know what you're talking about.

Generally, I am fine with most arguments - unless it's something explicitly violent/exclusive whether it be racist, homophobic, etc. Nonetheless, your "round-winning" argument needs a voter. Why is the argument (DA, theory, advantages etc.) you have presented a reason why I should vote aff/neg at the end of the round.

I am also not a fan of speed when used to exclude your opponent, and thus am lenient - though still need to be persuaded - towards some 'speed bad' arguments. In other words, every debater should be on the same page; it is a problem when, for an intentional reason, they are not. Personally, I do not have a problem with speed so long as it is clear and articulate.

K v FW - I am most familiar and prefer arguments based in critical race theory and performance. I find these debates tend to be more educational and engaging. However, that is not to say I can't be swayed by policy-focused arguments (refer back to offense/defense). On FW v K debates, like with T, are almost always based off the "standard" debate. Explain to me what are the benefits of your discourse and/or performance and why it should be preferred.

T/Theory - I defer to competing interps esp if no other framing is presented. I find that a lot of these debates are muddled at the top-level. Just like winning other T/Theory args, you need to convince me that your model/definition of debate is best - this should be your standards debate.

K - I'm not as knowledgable on the white boy goo that is Baudrillard, DnG, Agamben, etc. but will definitely vote on them if you convince me otherwise. Also, make sure to contextualize the critique to the affirmative. The difference between a good v. bad K debate is that the latter lacks contrast to the affirmative. Tell me why the alternative produces a preferable option to the world of the affirmative.

I'm fine with CPs and allat, you need to have a net benefit and mutual exclusivity. DAs, case turns, etc. - any offense - can win rounds, but, just as with other arguments, make sure to impact them out as to why they win you the round (like some impact weighing/framing).

Lake Travis ‘20

Baylor ‘24

He/Him

Put me on the email chain: scheffe.stephen@gmail.com

Top level: be nice!!!!!! I think we often forget that debaters and judges alike are here because we enjoy and find merit in this activity. With that in mind, debate should be fun and enriching. I will do my best to make our debate round as fun, open, welcoming and enjoyable as possible, and I ask that you do the same for your competitor and I.

About me: Call me whatever. For some reason that I can't remember, people in the debate community tend to call me 'stove,' so that works I guess. Otherwise 'lee,' 'stephen,' 'scheffe,' or 'judge' will do fine. I did LD for four years at Lake Travis High School. As a debater I mostly larped, but also read some philosophical and kritikal arguments. I saw mild competitive success, clearing at the TFA state tournament for three consecutive years and clearing to late elims at most bid tournaments I attended my senior year. I don’t think about philosophy or kritikal literature much anymore. I’ve had a lot of time during the past month to collect my thoughts about debate, so this is long and I apologize in advance.

Tldr: I enjoy good debates. Most of the time, that means that my experience as a judge will be enhanced by you reading arguments that you like and are good at making. Although I do have certain preferences and views about debate, almost none of these views are strong enough to preclude your ability to change them, and so I encourage you to make the arguments and run the positions which you want to run. In order to adjudicate a round, I need some weighing mechanism and offense which weighs under it, and the rest is up to you. What I have no tolerance for, however, are arguments which make others in debate feel unsafe. That includes all of the -isms and -phobias, but also ad homs and arguments directed at the school or squad a debater belongs to.

Influential people / judges that I tend to agree with: Katya Ehresman, Blake Ochoa, Miguel Harvey, Steele Musgrove, Cameron McConway.

Prefs shortcut

1 - larp

2 - t / theory

3 - k / high theory

4 - philosophy / dense fw

5 - tricks

Online debate: Please slow down and focus on being clear. 70% speed is probably a good rule of thumb. I'll try and be sympathetic to debating in this weird format, but the onus is on you to figure out tech issues prior to the start of the round. Also I very much prefer email to whatever doc-drop system the tournament hosting service uses. Try to get the email chain setup before the start of the round.

Big note: I am a first-year judge. I’ve tried to organize my thoughts about debate here, but over the years my thoughts about debate are bound to change. I will update this sheet as necessary, but please know that, just as your debating skills are being refined and honed over the course of your debate career, my judging will shift form and improve as time goes on. Be patient with me, I am learning just like you, and please ask questions before the round if you have any.

PF: Most of the technical bits in this paradigm use LD / CX jargon and speech names, but the spirit of my preferences pertains to PF as well. Tech > truth, speed is cool if you're clear, and I'm fine listening to non-traditional arguments. I find that a lot of PFers who are just now beginning to read progressive arguments do so very poorly, and you should know that I have no problem voting for a traditional team in a traditional vs. progressive round if the traditional team has done the better debating. Please, please, please give me some way to weigh the offense in the round and give me a coherent ballot story to vote from. Other than that, do what you're good at and we'll be cool.

Thoughts about debate

[1] speed: for whatever reason, this seems to be the #1 concern for debaters when evaluating a judge, so it's at the top. I flow on a laptop but I won’t look at the speech doc during the speech so I need to be able to hear / understand you. I’m new to judging, so my ear might not be able to catch your 100% speed if you are very fast. In that case, I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if I can’t understand you. In any event, slow down a little bit on tags and analytics and slow down a lot on advocacies and interps. Signposting is also an absolute must: that entails indicating when you are moving between off-case positions, cards, and analytical arguments. For the purposes of pre-round prep, expect that I can flow at 75% of your top speed.

[2] tech vs truth: 95% tech. I vote from my flow and don't gut check arguments unless asked. As an educator, I think I have a responsibility to reward smart arguments. Therefore, the more developed and persuasive I find an argument to be, the more credence I will give it when evaluating the round. What that means for you, practically, is that if you decide to read an un-intuitive argument, my threshold for an adequate response will be much lower. This really only applies you sketchy debaters who like to go for ridiculous interps or egregious claims like death good. My threshold for answering arguments like these is not very high. That being said, the onus is on the debater who is answering un-intuitive arguments to put ink on the flow, I will not do it for you.

[2] disads: I’ve always loved creative disads and well-developed link chains. I am unpersuaded by blippy two-card extinction scenario disads, and my threshold for responding to these arguments is fairly low. Weighing is key here: I’ll happily vote on a 2n that collapses to one disad if there are clear and persuasive arguments made as to why the impact of the disad is comparatively worse than the impacts that the aff resolves.

[3] counterplans: great! Pics are fine too. I tend to think that competitive pics are good for testing an advocacy, but I’m receptive to arguments which tell me otherwise. I will vote on a counterplan if and only if I am convinced that the world of the counterplan is net better than the world of the aff, so it is in your interest to spend time in the 2n doing macro-level weighing.

[3.5] quick note on permutations: ‘Do both’ is not a perm. Perms need a clear and warranted explanation of how they function and what the net benefit is. Answering a perm means more than just saying ‘it's illogical,’ you should treat perms like plans and make the appropriate theoretical and substantive answers that these types of arguments require.

[4] kritiks: The team that I competed on tended to run these kinds of arguments very often, so although this was not the kind of debate I specialized in, I have some experience debating and talking about kritikal literature. I very much enjoy *good* k debate. To me, good k debate occurs when the debater who reads the argument is invested in and understands the literature they are reading. Please, please, please be familiar with the branch of literature that your kritik draws upon. I also believe that debaters should not read identity based positions about identity categories which they do not belong to. Be an ally, but don’t commodify violence.

[4.5] k-affs / performance: I enjoy these rounds! I find myself compelled by persuasive performance and forms of engagement that break the norms we’ve adjusted to. Your advocacy should still support something outside of the status quo, and you should indicate why the model of debate that the aff endorses is good. I do not think that affirmative debaters should be obligated to affirm the resolution. As always, these are only preferences, and I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

[5] t / theory: I am fine with these types of arguments being used as strategic tools. Refer to the tech v truth section above for my thoughts on the level of frivolity I find acceptable. I will vote for t / theory when there is a warranted abuse story that justifies a terminal impact. For whatever reason, these debates are often the messiest, so slow down on t / theory flows and give me a clear ballot story. When there are multiple shells in play, weighing between them is especially important.

[6] tricks: please don’t. This is my least favorite trend in debate, ever. I will vote on these arguments, albeit rarely, but your speaks will drop. My threshold for answering tricks is very low.

[7] philosophy: When done right, I find these debates incredibly interesting and thought-provoking. I enjoy an in-depth and accessible conversation about contrasting ethical theories. I also enjoy technical responses to well-developed normative frameworks. Unfortunately, these debates mostly devolve into, more or less, tricks debates. I am unpersuaded by blippy 15-pointed framework justifications and underviews that spike out of every conceivable response. That is not to say that I won’t vote for these affs, but my threshold for what I consider an adequate response to be will lower and your speaks will probably drop.

[8] evidence ethics / clipping / cheating: please don’t make me adjudicate a round on cheating claims. If needed, I will use the nsda guidelines (https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf) to reach a decision. If you have specific questions about specific scenarios not addressed in this document, ask me before the round to clarify.

[9] strategy: this is just kind of a miscellaneous section, so bear with me.

• A persuasive 2n MUST collapse, preferably to 1 or 2 off-case positions and a handful of case arguments.
• I do not like the trend of reading enormous case overviews and claiming that clash / extensions were embedded in the overview; just do it on the line-by-line.
• Evidence quality matters. I will grant an argument more credence if the quality of evidence which sustains it is high.
• Spending 30 seconds at the end of a speech giving voting issues is a waste of time, just make these claims on the line-by-line.
• In a round where two contrasting ethical theories are read, I am very persuaded by arguments that claim they provide offense which weighs under both frameworks.

[10] speaks: my speaks average will change based on the caliber of tournament I am judging at, but will generally follow these guidelines.

• 30 - one of the best debates I’ve ever heard, I can offer little advice on how to improve.
• 29.5-29.9 - you should win this tournament.
• 29-29.5 - you’ll be in late elims.
• 28.5-29 - you’ll probably break, but can definitely improve.
• 27.5-28 - you won’t break, there were obvious issues with your presentation and argumentation.
• Lower - either there were serious issues with your debating or there was something morally egregious done.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

I like creative arguments, you can run almost anything. I am fine with speed, I will say clear once and then put my pen down and stop flowing you. Remember to signpost, and make sure to list clear voters at the end of your last speech. DO NOT RUN DISCLOSURE THEORY unless absolutely necessary, its boring, overdone, and a waste of everyone’s time, I will not vote off of it unless there is literally nothing else to vote off of in the round. Yes, I want to be on the email chain Hannah.Len.smith@gmail.com

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

I debated for two years at Strake Jesuit High school in Houston, Tx. I've competed at TFA, Nationals, and the TOC. I worked five weeks over the summer with NSD and coach a handful of kids independently. I agree with my old coach Chris Castillo on most things so I'm just going to paste his paradigm below (Matthew Chen's paradigm is another good jumping off point). My email is thorbura@bc.edu, feel free to email me any questions and include me on the email chain.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments. D

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Paradigm Update:

I haven’t judged in a while. Going slightly slower than usual and over-emphasizing will be appreciated.

School Affiliation: Centennial High School, Frisco, TX

Background: I am a librarian and English professor, and I hold a doctorate in educational technology. As such, I do expect quality research from all competitors. I pay close attention to the legitimacy of all research sources and information referenced during rounds.

Experience: This is my first time judging, and I have never coached debate. However, I am not new to the program. I am the UIL Academic Coordinator at my school, and I have attended several UIL Speech and Debate events. I am a vocal advocate for speech and debate and try to be as supportive as possible to our school's team due to the crucial skill set a strong Speech and Debate program offers for students.

Speed: I ask that there is no spreading. I have to be able to understand you and flow in order to score you well, and with the added factor of the event being hosted online, spreading can result in missed arguments you present, which is to your detriment. I especially prefer you slow down when presenting theory arguments and rebuttals.

Arguments: I prefer a clear framework, clash throughout the round, and coherent crystallization in the final rebuttal. I vote on the topicality of arguments, solid whole resolution cases, and net benefits presented by counterplans. Some theory arguments and kritiks will be voted on. Theory arguments must demonstrate the impact of the abuse or potential abuse by your opponent and that it outweighs your opponent's plan or counterplan. Additionally, I am a traditionalist, so the kritiks must be clearly explained and grounded in the resolution as opposed to tangential.

Speaks: Unprofessional, rude, derogatory language or personal attacks will negatively impact your speaker points and my decision.

Tricks: No tricks, please.