I am a debate coach, but please consider me more of a lay judge because I have limited experience.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I tend to value truth over technique if both are equally matched (so long as no fundamental errors are made).

Please do not neglect your framework, as it is a fundamental part of LD debate.

I'm not a tabula rasa judge when it comes to your framework: I will use what I know about philosophy and logic to evaluate if your value and criterion are sound.

That said, I tend to evaluate all contentions, evidence, and/or observations from a place of non-judgement. So be sure to call out drops and/or any misinformation in your opponent's case or it will stand.

If two opponents are well-matched, I will rely on overall clash and/or voters to make my decision. Be sure to tell me what you believe the arguments boil down to and what you believe I should use to make my decision.

I have actively involved in Speech and Debate for the past two years. It was only this year that I took over as head coach after being assistant coach last year. I have judge rounds in Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Prose, Poetry, Extemp and Congress. With the understanding that each competitor is at different level and that we all have differing levels of knowledge using technical jargon is not high on my list of requirements. Sometimes its easier to say the simple way. Having said that if you are familiar with technical wording then please use it as you would. When it comes to your speed of delivery, please try to keep it at a conversational speed. I have been in rounds where the speaker was talking so fast that what was being said was lost. While I understand this is a good way to keep your opponent from keeping up, I think that in an event that is based around debating you need to speak where your opponent and judge can understand you. I have found that the best signal for me is to put my pen on the table. If I'm not holding it, I'm not flowing. My note taking can be moderate to detailed depending on the arguments. I tend to flow in detail and in addition to recording your arguments I will stop and add comments on why I think it doesn't work or if I have any suggestions to make it better. I will also leave notes on how well you spoke and ways to improve. I value both style and argument but I believe that the focus of the debate should be on proving your case - which is argument. However, you need to be organized and able to think on the fly to do this successfully.

Policy- I am a policymaker I am looking for one of two things either the best plan available from either team or if the neg does not have a CP from them to prove while the aff's plan will not succeed. I do not think that nuclear war is the most imminent bad thing. Is it bad yes - am I going to automatically say neg wins they pulled the nuclear card - no. Because sometimes the aff's harms are more immediate and need to be addressed first.

LD- As far as argumentation goes I lean progressive.

In round I expect debaters to handle themselves in a professional manner. I understand that things can get heated and that is okay as long as it does not devolve into arguing, name calling and a refusal to listen to each other. You may attack, and are expected to, each others case, you may not launch a personal attack against your opponent.

Rachel Brooks

Teaching Experience: Pre-K, Kindergarten; College: Certification Examination Preparation; Middle School: Language Arts, Reading; High School: English 1, English 4, Debate 1-4, Yearbook 1-4, Archery

Education: B.A. English, B.S.E. Secondary Education, M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction, Cert. in Women and Gender Studies, Cert. in Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies

Judging Expectations: I coach and compete in the UIL circuit so I mostly adhere to UIL guidelines and UIL handbooks. That means I will be looking at time limits, speaking abilities, sources and documentation, dress/appearance/nonverbals/posture, and topic/prompt/category representation/adherence.

All speech events: Speech is an art. I will notice and judge pronunciation, enunciation, pacing, projection, breath control, inflection, affectation, tone, etc.

Extemp: My background is English, so I like standard formats. I love road maps and theses, topic sentences and transitions. You should include an introduction which states topic/purpose/claim, a body which presents points/contentions and research/sources/citations, and a conclusion. I do not like the extemp triangle - I find movement distracting.

Interp: My background is English, so I will recognize tone shifts and semantic choices. I expect you to have identified these things and use vocal cues and variations to emphasize them and enhance your reading. You must connect the piece to the prompt and explain that connection. Please consult UIL expectations regarding binders.

All debate events: Your job is to convince the judge and attack the problem, not to convince or attack your opponent. Stay on topic, stay on message, stay on goal. Be kind, be respectful, and be civil. There had better be some solid research with reliable sources, that is non-negotiable. Aggression is not inherently a problem, but if it's personal or rude, I will deduct. Speed reading is not inherently a problem, but if it sacrifices clarity, I will deduct. Jargon is not inherently a problem, but if I do not understand, I will deduct.

LD: I better hear some philosophy and you had better explain it.

CX: I better hear some good questions and you had better use your time appropriately.

My preference is the stock issues model though I am open to all models. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals. I think impacts are important.

Ronald Carnes

I would consider myself a traditional-style LD judge. Argumentation on Value and Criterion: I will judge hard on those. The team that shows me the most substantial arguments will get my vote. I also seek the best speaker who gives me good eye contact, tone, etc.

For other events, the best speaker will typically get my vote as long as they follow the criteria for said event.

I did speech and debate all four years of high school and went to state. I have judged for local meets UIL speech and debate. As well as at the district and regional levels for LD, exempt, and poetry.

LD - I lean towards a more traditional LD Value/Criterion debate. I'll listen to progressive argumentation, but I feel that you'll have to do more work for me to go for it. I think voters are essential.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

I competed in mock trial in high school and college- I love an argument backed by clear evidence rather than philosophical examples, and well done counter-arguments/cross-examinations are favored when I am scoring. I am working on a master's degree in Mental Health Counseling, so I prefer arguments that display empathy.

I prefer confident, clear speech- I am not opposed to fast paced debates but I need to be able to understand you. I prefer you use all of the time allotted to you- I may take off points if you complete your argument but still have a minute of time you could have utilized.

Time yourselves, but I will also time you for consistency.

Always ask if the judge is ready before beginning your argument each time you speak.

Any argument that forms a coherent syllogism is "fair play" in the round. I will have no qualms about voting for a policy that vaporizes the moon, disbands the U.S. government, or any other policy action that would normally be considered "absurd" as long as one of the teams can prove that the aforementioned action is the most advantageous choice in the round. If one team has an absurd argument but the other team cannot disprove what they are saying, or cannot counter that argument, then the absurd argument will win.

Stock Issues

– Topicality

– Significance of Harm

– Inherency

– Solvency

– Advantage Over Disadvantage

POLICY DEBATE--Policy Maker with a Stock Issues background. This judge weighs Advantages and Disadvantages. Counterplans okay but not a fan of Kritiks. Clash is important. Documentation is a must. Neg, state if you plan to split the block. Comparative arguments are okay but must be presented well and well-documented. Spreading is fine IF I can understand you. Be cautious because online you want to be sure the judge understands you! Be reminded of public speaking skills. Courtesy is of the utmost importance. Use eye contact with the camera.

LD DEBATE--Courtesy in the round is of utmost importance. Because LD is based on philosophy, whoever has the strongest arguments has the advantage. References must be documented in the speech. Spreading doesn't belong in LD. Use eye contact with the camera.

EXTEMP--Catchy introduction. State the question. List points. Explain points. Document evidence for each point. Refer to introduction in closing. Eye contact with camera is important. This judge prefers no notecard but understands if needed. Remember enunciation and public speaking skills.