Online Adaptions: CONGRESS- If you do not have a webcam at all I understand entirely and will not penalize you. However, if you do have a webcam and it is not on during the round I will assume that you are no longer in the round i.e. gone to the restroom, went to go grab a snack, face-timing a friend, etc.. You do not need to move for point of personal privilege please just turn your camera off and go do what you need to do.

Online Adaptions: SPEECH- It is to my understanding that many speech rounds will be asynchronous this semester so my only online request would be to double-check your prerecording before you submit it to make sure that your video didn't cut off before you were finished performing and that your audio is clear enough for me to understand.

Congress- I have no preference when it comes to arguments because of the fact that Congressional debaters aren't able to pref judges the same way other events can. As long as your arguments are structured in a way that is cohesive and clear I will be happy. I do prefer that debaters give roadmaps at the beginning of their speeches because of the fact that transitions can be less clear over zoom. I love clash if you aren't addressing things other speakers have said that contradicts what you have said you are doing congress wrong. Congress isn't just about the speeches that you give that is usually only 10 min of the 3 hour long round it is also about your presence in the round. I will largely take into account how involved you were throughout the round and how much you contributed to the quality of the debate.

Hey! I competed in Congressional Debate and FX for 4 years on the local, state, and national level. I went to Lamar High School.

I believe that clash is extremely significant in different debate events, including Congressional debate. While I do value clash, it should not be rude or degrading, and should be based on evidence/warrants.

In PF/LD, I don’t mind spreading, but make sure that the arguments are clear and that you are speaking coherently and not insanely fast. I would also say that I’m tech over truth when it comes to arguments. Last, please give a roadmap before speeches so that I can properly flow.

I competed in Congress and FX at Seven Lakes for four years. Pretty flay judge- don't run absurd arguments in PF/LD, don't spread to the point where I can't comprehend you.

For speech, I'm mainly just looking at presentation.

My experience as a competitor spanned my 4 years at The Woodlands High School where I regularly competed in Congressional Debate and Extemp Speaking. Throughout my time there, I also spent over a year competing in both PF and Info so would also consider myself adept in those events.

When judging Congress, I try to equally weigh all aspects of the round but unlike some judges, I will listen to your claims, warrants and impacts and expect to see clear linkages. Furthermore, I also place an emphasis on clash as this is still a debate event. I like to see competitors directly clashing with others' claims, both during their speeches and during CX.

As for extemp, I will equally weigh your presentation and analysis, but since extemp speaking is the one IE that is a bit different than the others, I try to pay close attention to the analysis and like to see how your points support your overarching answer to the question.

Coach at THE Atascocita High School

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: John.Rogers@humbleisd.net

I debated for New Caney High School for three years and have completed my seventh year as a high school coach. My program competes primarily throughout the Houston TFA circuit and has a heavy focus on Congressional Debate, Original Oratory, and Dramatic Interpretation. I judge as needed at local invitational TFA tournaments and have experience judging all debate events, with the exception of World Schools.

CONGRESS:

Presiding Officer Philosophy- If the PO runs a flawless chamber, it is almost certain that they will advance to the next round, especially if they were the only one volunteering to do so.

I like to see all of the normal things we look for within a speech (arguments, evidence, responses to arguments from previous speakers, etc.). Offense is key.

Pet Peeves- (1) Do not tell the PO you have a speech when gathering splits and then not have a speech for the chamber. This makes for bad debate. (2) Faux outrage in order to gain a ballot is annoying. Refrain from shouting and pretending to be angry about something that you don't have a personal stake/connection in/to. (3) Questioning should not be a competition of who can scream over who. It's not a shouting match. (4) Gotcha questions and questions that you already know the answer to are annoying.

CX Shortcuts (1-YES; 5-STRIKE):

T/Theory: 3
DA: 1
CP:1
Conditionality: 4
K: 4

General CX:

· From the 1AR of one of my favorite former Kingwood HS debaters, “You’re a policymaker. You vote on one of three things: (1) a policy option, (2) a competing policy option, or (3) the Status Quo.” I think that this debater did a great job of describing pathways to win my ballot.

· I don’t like intervening in debate rounds. However, I have to write a ballot. My suggestion for all debaters is to use your rebuttal speeches to write my RFD for me. I’m very fond of “even if” strategies when it comes to ordering arguments of importance (Ex: “You vote NEG because of _____. Even if you don’t buy that, you vote NEG because of ___.”)

· Tech > Truth (Please note that I’m reevaluating this idea each time I hear a terrible argument. I don’t recommend counting on me dismissing an argument on a truth standard. I DO recommend going line-by-line.)

· PREP TIME ends when your flash drive leaves your computer. If we’re on an email chain, which I prefer, you will see me get frustrated if I feel you’re stealing prep.

· Line-by-line is important. This is where clash should happen. When you read a long overview, and even though most of y’all tell me to flow it on a separate sheet of paper, those arguments don’t ever cross over to my flow. This is where arguments are missed and, possibly, rediscovered post RFD.

· I will presume NEG in policy rounds due to unlimited prep for the AC. I will, from time to time, depending on the quality of the argument, go for the “any risk of [impact solvency] you vote AFF” in the absence of any negative offense. I will NOT presume NEG for a counter advocacy other than the status quo.

· NEG STRAT: Not a fan of negative teams that go more than 4-5 off.

Speaks:

· In really good rounds, I don’t have a problem giving more than one speaker a 29.5. I don’t tend to give tenths of points other than halves. My speaks in these rounds usually averages somewhere around 28.5.

· I will tank your speaks if you use arguments to attack debaters personally. You should be responding to the argument itself, not assuming that the argument represents the debater that is making it. Same goes to being rude and/or disrespectful to other debaters.

o With that said, I love aggressive debate. If your level of aggressive toes the line of aggressive and disrespectful, I’ll err on aggressive when it comes to my ballot and just make a comment to you at the end of the round.

o Anything overboard that deserves more than just a warning, I’ll stop the round and give you a loss (this hasn’t happened yet throughout my career).

Speed:

· I’m about a 6/10. I can give you a little room to go faster if I have your doc in front of me on my computer.

· Please slow down on your tag lines so as to help me flow. I don’t tend to flow authors unless they’re addressed in the round, so please let me know what the author said (the tag), let me find it on the appropriate flow, and THEN give me your analysis.

-If you try to read at a 10/10 pace and mumble over half of your evidence, that is grounds for 25 speaks. This is almost the same thing as clipping to me.

Disadvantages:

· Go for it.

· Full, 4-card DAs are best for a 1NC.

· Case-specific links are best. As debates get better, I like to see more unique DAs that are more specific to the AFF. Then again, I’m probably more familiar with the generic DAs, so you do you.

Counterplans:

· Go for it.

· Not a fan of multiple CPs as a neg strat.

Impact Calc:

· Please be sure to evaluate risk of impacts instead of making the round about how a nuclear war is definitely going to happen. Appropriately evaluating impacts improves quality of debates tremendously.

K Debate:

· This is probably not the best way to my ballot, but I’d love for a good K team to help me change this mindset.

· While I understand real-life impacts are present in our society (structural violence, racism, sexism), I’d prefer to have some kind of policy solution to these problems rather than just talk about them. I will roll my eyes if the word "reimagine" is in the text of your ALT.

· I have not read any of your literature. I am not familiar with any of your literature. Please make appropriate adjustments if you choose this strategy.

· Not at all a fan of non-topical affirmatives. 1AC should always have a plan text.

Ethical Challenges/Cheating:

· If there is an accusation of cheating, the round will stop, and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the accused cheated. If cheating is proven, the round will be awarded to the accuser, if cheating is not proven the round will be awarded to the accused. 30 speaks for winning team; 20 speaks for losing team. The purpose of this is to discourage false accusations, but at the same time encourage teams to challenge if they have solid evidence that cheating has occurred.

· Debaters are accountable for the evidence that they read. I will be a little more lenient if the card is from a camp file, but that does not excuse blatant misrepresentation/academic dishonesty.