She/her

Coach at Plano East Senior High (2018 - current)

I like reading, quilting, and hockey (go Stars!) Also, I am learning Finnish (Minulla on oranssi kissa ja yksi poika ja pidän velhoista. Onnea!)

I enjoy judging IEs most.
In Extemp: I judge and coach extemp more than any other event. It is my favorite event. If speech 1 has amazing content but bad fluency, and speech 2 is beautifully fluent but all the content is made up, outdated, or wrong, I would rank Speech 1 higher. If you don't answer the ACTUAL question, you will not be ranked high, no matter what. I will be randomly source/fact checking 1 source per speech, plz don't make up your sources.

In Interp: you should be making an argument with your chosen piece. Explain that argument in the intro!! I do not like giving time signals in Interp, I will give them if you ask for them but I will be grumpy about it. The piece should be exactly the same every round, so the time should be about the same. Also giving time signals distracts me from fully evaluating and taking in your performance.

In OO/Info: be unique. Think outside the box. If you are using a traditional topic, put a spin on it. If I don't learn something new during your speech, I probably won't rank you high. Same as above about time signals.

Everything you do in round is judge-able!!! Be a good steward of this activity. Be quiet while judges are writing feedback between speakers. You should NOT be on your phone during round. Your commentary on or critiques of other competitors/performances are what we call "inside thoughts" and should not be uttered into existence.

In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.

-I generally do not like Kritiks in LD. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem - lazy debating. If you choose to run a K in an LD round I am judging, slow down and explain your arguments in your own words.

-On case attacks are important!

-Theory*** & CPs good.

-Do not read at me while giving voters.

-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.

-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.

In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.

In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit - you still should slow down probably and explain your args really really well. I have less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge. My favorite thing about policy debate is when we have fun - read an unexpected case or a crazy off.

***Theory is fine, except for disclosure theory. Not a fan. For almost a century, competitive high school debate has existed successfully and educationally without needing to read your opponent's case ahead of time.

In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible. Especially don't be rude or go ham when you have an obvious experience advantage (4yr debater vs 1yr).

FOR ALL EVENTS IN BOTH SPEECH AND DEBATE

Things you shouldn't say in a round in front of me (or really at all tbh): r*tarded (it's a slur), anything demeaning to or derogatory about teen moms (I was one)

When rounds finish, don't say how bad you did or how you "definitely lost" while your judges are sitting right there literally still making a decision. You never know, maybe we thought you won.

If you must have an email chain, include me: madison.gackenbach@pisd.edu (see above note about how I think you should be able to debate without reading your opponent's case)

I look forward to hearing you speak!

About Me:

I am a Texas-based professional working as a director for healthcare/benefits company. While I haven't coached (or obviously competed) in a while, I continue to actively judge at local tournaments and am an assistant director for the MBA Extemporaneous Round Robin each year in Nashville.

I’ve competed in various speech and debate events from middle school through college, including 4 years of debate from 2000-2004. I’ve competed at tournaments run by UIL, TFA, and the NSDA (NFL) in both LD and Policy (and Extemp, Congress, OO etc.) so am well-versed in the various styles of debate and argumentation.

At a tournament, I will try to judge mostly Extemporaneous or LD, but when I offer to adjudicate any event, most tournament directors often end up putting me in Policy (because of judge scarcity), Public Forum (because of competitor abundance) or Congress (because no one else wants the multi-hour ballot).

LD Paradigm:

I am open to any type of argument so long as it is clearly articulated, coherently presented, and relevant to the specific round. In general, I prefer to judge a round by evaluating (in order):

1) Are there any in-round performative voting issues: Some sort of harm that occurred in round that merits my ballot be used as a tool?

2) Are there any critical arguments that are well-presented that pre-suppose acceptance of debate on the resolution?

3) Are there well-reasoned topicality arguments with clear impacts presented to evaluate?

4) Are there any overall framework arguments that rise to be voting issues on face prior to evaluating argumentation?

5) Finally, based on the most clearly articulated and defended value and criterion presented in the round (yes, I’d love to see a resolved standard by the end of the round someday!) which side of the debate did a better job articulating and supporting unique arguments in favor of why their position meets that standard best.

a. In the event that there is no clear standard (it happens frequently), I weigh the presented impacts of voting issues/arguments still ‘standing’ on the flow against each other and vote for the debater with the best argumentation for why those impacts outweigh the other

b. In the event that there are no clearly defined voting issues or arguments, I apply my judgement as to which debater best performed best and had the most logical argumentation style and supporting evidence

I am hesitant to give you a license to speed because my flowing is not as good as it used to be, but I will not penalize you for speaking at your most comfortable speed. Clarity and coherence are important, and I will very much appreciate you helping me by slowing down for key tags.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Policy Paradigm:

I am open to any type of argument so long as it is clearly articulated, coherently presented, and relevant to the specific round. In general, I prefer to judge a round by evaluating (in order):

1) Are there any in-round performative voting issues: Some sort of harm that occurred in round that merits my ballot be used as a tool?

2) Are there any critical arguments that are well-presented that pre-suppose acceptance of debate on the resolution?

3) Are there well-reasoned topicality arguments with clear impacts presented to evaluate?

4) Are there any overall framework arguments that rise to be voting issues on face prior to evaluating argumentation?

5) Is there a counterplan to consider and has it been shown to be unique from the plan with access to the same benefits?

6) Finally, has the affirmative debate team advocated for a clear plan and proven it to be solvent, inherent, and without any disadvantages left to outweigh it.

a. In the event that there is no clear plan (it happens sometimes), I weigh the presented impacts still ‘standing’ on the flow against each other and vote for the debater with the best argumentation for why those impacts outweigh the other

b. In the event that there are no clearly defined voting issues or arguments, I apply my judgement as to which debaters best performed best and had the most logical argumentation style and supporting evidence.

I am hesitant to give you a license to speed because my flowing is not as good as it used to be, but I will not penalize you for speaking at your most comfortable speed. Clarity and coherence are important, and I will very much appreciate you helping me by slowing down for key tags.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Worlds School Debate Paradigm:

This section is still a work in progress, as to-date I've judged very few WSD rounds. I am excited to see how this format grows over time. Establishing a framework is key in this sort of round. With topics that are broad and open to multiple interpretations, I need to understand exactly what you think the topic means and how you are attacking or defending under that framework. If there is ambiguity or two competing interpretations that never get resolved, it makes all of our jobs more difficult.

Unlike LD or Policy, I do not have a pre-set method of evaluating these debates. I will listen to whatever sort of argumentation you present, whether that be a more detailed example-based approach or a more theoretical logic-based approach. I would like to see you debate the main thesis of the topic and not get stuck in extreme edge cases.

Once you get to the later speeches, I would love to start hearing resolution to the debate. Crystallize your position, explain how arguments interact, identify how those arguments relate to the framework and what their impacts are. I'm fine with you going line-by-line, but would be far more impressed with a few strong well-articulated arguments cross-applied well across the flow.

Points of Information: BE RESPECTFUL!

If you are asking a question: make sure you're asking something that matters. Don't continue to do it repeatedly for the sake of interruption. I generally expect to hear between 2-4 POIs per constructive.

If you are responding: Speakers should expect to take some of the POIs but are not required to take all. Please be both polite and definitive in accepting, delaying, or dismissing questions. Dismiss when the opponent's POI is become excessive or interrupting the flow of debate. Do not dismiss just because you're pretty sure they are making a good point.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Debate Pet Peeves:

I generally don't write a ballot because of these things, but if putting them here will prevent you from asking me about it in the round, then so be it.

1) If you are going to ask me for any advice or paradigms pre-round, please listen to what I have to say. Don't just ask it out of habit and then ignore what I tell you!

2) All time is either speech time or prep time. If you need to share materials, please coordinate and do it before the round, our you are welcome to to use prep time to do it. There is no stopping mid-round for a 5 minute break of transferring evidence or 'I'm not starting prep until I receive your evidence'. If no one is speaking then it is prep time!

3) Digital sharing is not a substitute for communication. While I am an advocate for flashing, using an online file share, or email thread to share digital content for education and fairness purposes, it should be done appropriately and with reason. You are under no obligation to disclose cases, and, as a judge, I will make my decision based off of what was clearly articulated in the round and not what was written on the piece of paper or laptop screen. I do not share my email for any direct chains in a round, but I will occasionally peruse files shared on speechdrop or the Tabroom file share. Either way, I am not reviewing the text to understand your arguments. You should be communicating them to me clearly!

4) Slow down and deliver taglines and author names clearly if you want to later refer to it by name only. I would highly prefer you give me the specific argument and impacts in extensions, but if you are insistent on saying things like 'Extend Smith 2004' then make sure I catch those author names the first time around!

Extemporaneous Paradigm:

First and foremost, make sure you are answering the question. Specific words always influence the exact framing of the question and if your speech in its entirety does not respond to that framing then I am not sure if you are giving me a fresh speech based off the topic you are given, or just regurgitating something you did in practice for a tangentially-related question.

I like to hear good research and a variety of sources. If you are going to cite a source, make sure you telling me something specific from the evidence.

My primary focus is that you have well-developed areas of analysis with a specific set of warrants and impacts to your position in response to the question. I do also evaluate having a nice conversational delivery, but I find that secondary in importance to analysis. With that said, in a competitive round, I will reward having a sense of humor and being personable as differentiator between two close speeches.

Congress Paradigm:

Under Construction

Participate. Ask thoughtful questions. Be consistent in your positions or explain why you changed. Be conversational and persuasive.

Platform Speaking Events Paradigm (OO, Info, CA etc.):

Under Construction

Please do not go overtime. This is a prepared speech. Move with a purpose. Be organized and clearly signpost. Explain to me why you care or why I should care.

Interpretation Paradigm (PR, PO, HI, DI, Duo/Duet, etc.):

If you are reading this, you must have had to scroll through all the other events I should have been judging before the tournament assigned me to your interpretation round. With a mind pre-disposed for debate, I look for an 'argument' in your interpretation. Argument in interpretation does not necessarily have to be persuasive, but rather just a purpose for why you make your decisions.

Your introduction should reveal to me that purpose and help me understand why it is relevant either to me or to you.

I want to see variety throughout the performance. Instead of it all being in a single voice, there should be inflections in tone, volume, pacing, and emotions all throughout. Conventionally, that may add up to a climactic moment near the end, but it doesn't have to. I just don't want to see a one-note performance that ends the same way it began.

I'd like to see crisp and clear characterization. If I can't figure out who you are while you are performing, that is a problem. Its okay with me if you be super subtle and realistic, or choose to be over the top and dramatized. I just want to make sure you make specific thoughtful choices that are best for your material.

Don't be overtime. In interpretation, I am assuming that this is your piece that you have been doing all year. Unlike extemporaneous or debate, you know what you are going to say, how people might react to it, and how much time you need. You should be delivering near the same times consistently and have cut the material to be the appropriate length.

I consider myself a "flow judge." The burden of rejoinder is on the Neg; otherwise, I tend to pick up the Aff on default if substantive clash is absent. LD is a V-C debate, but I am open to more modern case construction (ie, plans, counter-plans, etc.). I appreciate roadmaps after the 1AC and sign posting. I consider drops to be significant and floaters are critical in weighing the round. Blatant disrespect for the opponent will be reflected in speaker points.

My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after. Currently associated with Marcus HS and DFW S&D.

FOR NFA - MY LD PARADIGM BELOW IS ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL. In general, refer to my policy paradigm. Here are some key differences:

• NFA-LD is short and I have a lot less tolerance for exploding blippy arguments than you'd probably hope. Keep in mind that the neg only gets two speeches- make your arguments have warrants in both of them. This is true in HS too but I'm also a lot less sympathetic to affs that rely on blip extensions.
• No I do not vote on RVIs in NFA-LD
• No RVIs means I'm more interested in procedural debates

At some point I will add a NFA-LD section but for now if you've got a specific question just ask me.

Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.

Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at emilujackson@gmail.com

GENERAL/ALL
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.

Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and you should check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)

Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.

Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.

LD PARADIGM

Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.

I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.

Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.

On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.

Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.

Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.

Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.

Fairness is an internal link to education

AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate

Disclosure is good

1 condo advocacy fine

Nebel T is also silly

POLICY PARADIGM:

Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.

T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.

Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.

PF PARADIGM:

I don't have anything specific here except for the love of all that is good you need to have warrants. Please have warrants. Collapsing and having warrants is like 90% of my ballots here.

Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:

- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.

- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"

- Misgendering is also a paradigmatic issue. ESPECIALLY if you double down

I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps. Be clear when you speak -- enunciate.

In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.

In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

dmarshall36@gmail.com

copied from a former coach:
"I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so."


i love debate.


tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.


whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.


keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.


ihate"perm do the counterplan." unless there's some theoretical reason why the cp is aff ground (text comp good or something) i just won't vote on it.

if the debate is lopsided and you're winning by a mile against more novice debaters, you'll get a 30 and 29.9 by going slower, explaining the debate to the other team clearly during cross-ex, and making the round educational.


im familiar with all styles of 1ac's. i consider role of the ballot arguments as framing, and dont necessarily weigh traditional standards and f/w voters above other frameworks unless told to with warranted arguments. using specific cards of a k aff to impact turn framework is undervalued in high school debate, for some reason.


im looking for warrant comparison in the rebuttals. i like to directly quote the 2nr and 2ar in my rfd, so impact stories and reading warrants from important cards are winning strategies to get my ballot.


i have little sympathy for debaters answering cards that are in the doc but are not read in the speech. this is worse than missing a card on your flow, it shows that you're just not flowing. i want to be added to the doc so i can read your evidence throughout the debate, but i will not flow off the doc.


please slow down on tags and interps. you should stop "hiding" interps in the 1nc. slow down on your interps.


High School LD

see above. i try my best to give leeway to the four minutes 1ar, but that can be difficult to discern. i notice a lot of cultural norms around theory debates. to be extra clear: if there is k offense in the 2n and the 2ar goes for theory without addressing the k offense, im probably going to vote that the impacts of the k outweigh fairness or whatever. i simply expect the 2ar to layer the voters for me, extend an apriori issue, or something of the sort. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.


PFD

im somewhat familiar with pf. i will not evaluate advocacies in this event.


im bothered by the evidence norms of this event. i see debaters read authors and taglines as if that is sufficient, but debate should include analyzing evidence. that means reading warrants directly from the authors of the evidence. if your opponents are flying through taglines of evidence instead of reading parts of the studies/articles, i would be persuaded by an argument that told me to not evaluate taglines as evidence. if your style is name dropping as many authors as you can, im probably not the best judge for you.


here's some of NSDA Board Member Dave Huston's thoughts on this. i agree with what the paragraph below.

"The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. .........[redacted because im not Dave Huston]...
...If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up."

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

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

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

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.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

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?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

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?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their 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?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

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.

I am fairly new to the world of judging speech and debate. I have experience teaching elementary and middle school Korean students in an after-school EFL academy. In addition to evaluating essay writing, memorized speeches, and presentations in standard EFL classes of varying levels, I also taught higher level students in subjects including literature and test prep. I also have a long history as a trainer in various fields, which included assessment, feedback, and improvement plans for my trainees. As far as educational background, I have a masters in Library and Information Services, a masters in East Asian Studies, and a bachelors in Literature.

In my judging, I will be looking for a well-supported argument with evidence to support your view or a clear strong characterization of your story. I want you to persuade me and convey your point, which means I also want to be talked to in a way that's easy to understand. I prefer a conversational pace, and if you include any jargon make sure to explain it. Make sure to utilize your non-verbal communication skills, but don't force anything that would feel unnatural. I will be taking notes while you speak, though I'll also want to see that you are engaging with the audience as you go through your piece. Make sure you are answering the question or speaking to the prompt you've been given and that you follow any rules or guidance provided.

Above all, do your best and have fun!

I am open to all arguments. I really want debaters to explain why their specific argument is better than the other side. If you are arguing theory be sure to make sure I know where the abuse/ violation is and why it is more important than other arguments in the round. I am fine with speed in person but I have found that sound quality from mics and speakers are huge variables that can cause problems and although you might be clear in person it may not be coming across clear on my end and I will let you know and ask you to slow down.

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 coached at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: Policy debate, LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp.

I coached from 1999 through July 2019, when I retired from the classroom. Now I do consulting for students who want private coaching and for school districts as well as for UIL.

I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know.

My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts. Know the difference in a claim with a citation and a warrant. If nothing explains why it's true, I'm not likely to buy the argument.

I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round.

I'm pretty straightforward. I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate the round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. In LD and PF, the HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens, in policy debate, this is the link from the plan to the topic on aff or the CP or simply delinking on the neg. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W.

In LD and PF, I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own.

I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist.

I want to see clash from the negative.

I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.