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!

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!

Simply put, speak so that I may understand you clearly.

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.