Maybe you have been told or think the judge is the dumbest person in the room in any debate. I am here to tell you now, that is a lie! At least ninety-nine percent of the time, you can expect your judge to be a reasonably intelligent, well informed member of society, now whether they are qualified to judge a debate round, we might throw fists. I am and have been for the majority of my teaching career a Speech and Debate coach from 1A-6A, a private hired consultant for PF, LD, and CX, and a 2nd Place State Qualifier in Extemp. Now my Interp skills, might be a little lacking currently, my major was theatre and communications in college...so you tell me. Who is the most qualified person in the round...the judge...notice I didn't say the smartest person in the round...I'll hand it to my students because they definitely know more of the ins and outs of the topics. I coach 6+ events each year.

I am a Games Player...let's have fun...but leashed fun.

Policy Debate – Judge Paradigms

Framework – Framework is one of the most important attributes in a Policy Debate Round. If you successfully frame the round toward your side Aff or Neg, it can help you win the round. My expectation is both teams must engage in each other’s interpretations fully instead of reading and extending…if neither team suggests a standard for evaluation…I ALWAYS DEFAULT to the POLICY MAKER! While I find stock issues extremely important in developing a solid case, for TFA/NSDA I lean to the most convincing side...Obviously there is a problem in the Status Quo...so How does your Plan rightfully solve for the greatest fix of the problem.

Case Debate – I believe smart analytics are preferable to SPEED (spread) reading Card after Card after Card. Specific on-case arguments can be very compelling. Show me what you got...solid case ALWAYS WINS DEBATES!

DA/CPs – AS SPECIFIC as POSSIBLE, but I’m willing to vote either way. I prefer link-specific analysis, but I’m willing to vote either way as long as there is a clear impact/net benefit to be preferred. My expectation is that CPs provide a direct opportunity for the Aff and Neg to create a clash within a topic. DAs should be answered in a form that utilizes the direct impact to the SQ.

Kritik Debate – I typically divert back to Case Debate when it comes to a debate that turns Kritik. It is important to me that the team evaluates why the K is the most important impact in the round, get out of the CARD READING, always be sure to extend them in later speeches…use your prep time…fully develop!! I think if the 2NC attempts to gain inroads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency can be persuasive and is a helpful way for me to evaluate the K against the Aff. I'm fine with kritik affirmatives so long as you explain what exactly I'm endorsing by voting affirmative/negative.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other stock argument. I’ll default to competing interpretations, but how I evaluate T should be the work done in the round by the NEG and then answered by the AFF and vice versa. Explain to me what the SQ looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative’s (or negative). That also means that proving in-round abuse isn’t necessary..and furthermore wastes my time. If you’re winning the standards debate, hold your ground, it does make it a lot easier to vote on T.

Theory – Theory becomes easier to evaluate when actual clash takes place instead of just reading blocks and not engaging with the other team’s argument. If you expect to solely win on theory you better give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits a rejection of the team and not just the argument. Careful...theory is a slippery slope. If you divert to theory you will lose the round. Fairness=The development of the Topic...Education=thats what this form of debate is about...Don't throw education in my face...the judge is at a clear disadvantage when you argue Education...90% of the judges are coaches...BLECK!!

Non-Traditional Debate – If I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that both teams can reasonably meet, I don’t care what you do have fun...you've prepared...now it is time to show off your skills.

Speed/Spread – As long as you’re clear, and not out of breath… I’m fine with speed. Breaking up your cadence and tone between tags/authors/analytics and warrants will help you make sure I don’t miss anything. My biggest philosophy...if I can't flow you, or you see me drop my pen...you are going to fast.

Speaker Points – 27.5 is average. I’ll add points for things like clarity and efficiency and subtract for messy debating or getting too harsh with your opponents/partner. I believe Policy Debate should be Policy…not ATTACK debate! I also believe and will add points for respect. EVEN if the Aff/Neg is clearly more prepared/seasoned, the opponent can score high based on RESPECT.

Case/evidence email: mrlandry0325@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas Debate - Judge Paradigm

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over almost 15 years. I simply have a passion for Speech and Debate. I love providing thoroughly written ballots that encourage growth...but sometimes I look the debaters dead in the eye and realize they have no idea what the difference between morals and real life application really is.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.) PLUS...this is LD. SLOW DOWN...be methodical and utilize the persuasive appeals.

Criteria: I want and value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... that can be taken as provide evidence that weighs the value co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I LOVE "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're thought of as a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem, but in our current state they are the philosophical underpinnings that do in fact guide our decision-making. This is not to say that conservative arguments are not as strong...in fact...I lean more philosophical, but that is based on personal bias of/against the topic.

I love the conflicts/clash that arises from "The Social Contract" and natural rights v. natural law...worded more succinctly "in the state of nature one may have the absolute right to do what is necessary to defend one's possessions but under the social contract, one relinquishes that right and gives it to the authority." In contrast, "people are born with certain 'natural rights' they cannot be infringed or taken away without some really, really good justification. Final words...Freedoms and Liberty are significantly different. Case in point January 6th...that is all.

As a judge I approach competition as clash in communication. Debate is a elevated level of both communication and critical thinking applied through logical application.

I will judge any argument -- not opposed to K, Aff K, theory etc. I have awarded wins on each. However, my feelings about K/Aff K are that this type of argument is basically a protest against the event or the alleged inherent bias or unfairness of the topic/framers/system or other foundational aspect of Policy Debate. If you are refusing to engage on the topic of the round, I must hear a clear alternative to the specific failures exposed by the K/K Aff, and you must give voters.

Clash is all important, but civility is paramount to applying your arguments to the round. Ad Hominem attacks will cost speaker points, even if they are somehow tied to an inherent bias argument. There are plenty of ways to question the fairness or bias of something without somehow crafting your CX opponent into the evil embodiment of such a bias.

Rapid delivery is tolerated insofar as I can keep up. If I stop typing and disengage from the ballot, you are going too fast. This relates back to my position that Debate is a communication event, it is not an audition to become the voice that reads fine print at the end of a Pharmaceutical or Car financing commercial.

I like CP, Stock Issues, DA, On Case, and Framework arguments equally. It is up to you to teach me why your arguments are superior to your opponents and how your positions have withstood any attacks from your opponents. A great impact Calc is a way to take me over to your side...I have changed my mind many times in judging a round when I am presented with an effective final rebuttal like this.

Have fun, be respectful, and great job for working this hard to get to this meet. I look forward to judging each team I will meet.

I have coached and judged L-D debate for many years, watching it change and evolve. I enjoy this format because I think it challenges students to be critical thinkers and not just critical "readers."

I need to hear credible evidence.

I like a balance between practical and philosophical arguments, especially when debating a topic that has clear positions on each side.

As far as presentation, I will choose substance over style if presented that choice. If I can't follow an argument because of circular reasoning or speed, I cannot vote on it.

I do my best to not debate students on the ballot. I try very hard to understand your position and vote on the round I see, not the round I would have debated.

Key things:

- As a UIL judge, I prefer people not to spread. I will give one clear call. After that I will stop flowing and I usually tune you out if you spread.

- I do not like hypotheticals. If you cannot link it in a logical way, I will not be persuaded by your argument.

- I am a TABS judge. I flow and base my decision on if you hit harms, topicality, etc.

- I value impact. When you debate, remember I look at impact calcs when making my decision.

I believe that first and foremost all debate should be based on communication. To that end be sure that you do not utilize forms of debate which leave the audience more bewildered than informed.

When it comes to speed, don' get a ticket. But, I will hang with you until about 350 words per minute. Exceeding that barrier will leave me with the impression that you are yet another lost narcissist with dreams of sugar TOC fairies dancing through your head.

Style, I consider myself a policymaker, although my wife seldom agrees. In argumentation, I like most arguments, however, I hate K debate when it turns totally ridiculous, i.e. time machines, comfort (keep your clothes on), pinkwashing, etc, I like theory arguments to be justified and tied to other arguments in the round that warrant their use. Humor is a plus when used appropriately.

I don't care about your WIKI. I won't ask you for your evidence after the round (Unless one of you is lying, then the liar loses). And, I don't care what your coach thinks. You're the one debating. Speak like your life depends on it.

In the end, I want to think, wow he/she would make a great president, not argh, ...another cute dog catcher. Represent the sport well.

Let the games begin.

For Policy, I am a stock issue judge, I prefer to see the neg directly clash with the plan by taking out Sig/Harm, Inherency, or Solvency and also discussing the workability of the plan. I don't tend to believe that Fiat inherently means every aspect of the plan just happens without planning or discussing the specifics. This means that if your plan costs money, prove that the USFG can afford it. Prove that the agency can accurately enforce the action and that no other oversight is needed. This is Policy Debate and I expect to have a well written policy to test. I enjoy Dis Advantages that directly link and have a clear link chain. They should not jump from China bad to Nuke war with no work up done in the IL chain. I tend to flow PIC Aff unless the Neg can prove that there is a substantial reason that the Aff cannot solve and the PIC is needed. Solvency for CP must be unique to CP. I do not like K's or K theory and will assume Aff can Perm a K unless there is a specific reason why they cannot. NO K AFF. Impact Calc is the most important here, guide me through the round, let me know what flows where, I do not like judge intervention so make me intervene as little as possible on the flow. For speed I say be communicative, be cordial, and be articulate. If I cannot hear or understand the evidence, I will not flow it.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is value debate. I do not like policy plans or K in LD. I want to see strong clash in the round and prefer the traditional style of should/would argumentation. Define the framework of the round, and do not assume I read your advocacy authors. SpReading is a quick way to lose a debate. If I am unable to understand what you are saying, I am unable to assess your arguments. Semantics are important (words mean things). Rhetoric is important. Strong, supported arguments presented with good speaking style (see Extemp below) are wonderful tools and will win many debates.

Extemporaneous Speaking should be a good representation of public speaking. Speakers' tone should be conversational and not condescending or intentionally inflammatory. I think movement should be limited to one or two steps. Gestures should have purpose without being too repetitive. As a judge, I want to be able to easily outline your speech. I do not want to guess what your body points are, or where you got your information. I think the month and year of publication along with the name of the publication is more than sufficient citation. The amount of evidence depends more on the topic. Cited evidence needs to be sufficient to justify the argument. Usually, five to seven sources is a good benchmark, but I am not willing to rate a speech lower based solely on number of cited sources. Filler words and distracting, repetitive movements are not the hallmarks of good public speaking.

Oratory and Informative should mirror Extemp in many ways. These speeches, however, should be more polished and contain better, more specific citations.

Blocking, gestures, and facial expressions need to reflect the intent of the HI, DI, or Duet pieces. Characterization should be varied enough that I do not have to wonder which of your characters is speaking or moving. Teasers are a wonderful way to get the audience's attention and should be used with that thought in mind. The introduction should tell me who is performing and what they want me to know about the piece, but, most importantly, should clearly articulate the title and author. In HI, DI, and Duet, I like to see acting range. HI is not standup comedy. I am not looking for "jokes per minute." HI needs to be funny overall but can include dark humor and/or serious moments. On the other hand, DI needs to have drama, but can be funny at times throughout the piece.

I believe "strong" language can be appropriate to a given piece. Considerations when using language include demographics of characters, period of setting, etc. However, language should never be used purely for shock value...there needs to be a reason.

The camera angle for a virtual performance of any event needs to be wide enough for the judge to see the entire performer (including the shoes), but tight enough for the judge to notice small gestures and facial expressions. In short, whatever I would see if I were sitting in the room with you, I should see on the screen during your performance.