Hey dudes !

I am a rad debate dad. I’ve judged world schools pretty frequently and consider myself to be a pretty okay judge. I’ll vote you up on style content and strategy, but really try and sell what you’re saying to me.

truth> tech

signposting will help you a lot

im a proud speech dad:)

speech events for me:

info, OO :

am I being informed , am I being persuaded and am I being entertained? This all is important to me in these events

try your best to know your material back and forth so you are able to make the best presentation possible when it’s Go time ????

DI, HI:

Does your piece move me and bring emotion to the surface-is it thought provoking ?

Congress : this always is entertaining to me

a good mix of speech and worlds debate here-

Please know your bills and cases for them - I pay attention close to that as well as the cross fire of questions afterwards and how you respond or how you are asking the questions if you are in that case

PF/LD-

this is all about your cases being built very strong - so this is research and memory and able to be quick on your feet in the crossfire questioning

please no spreading

amen.

let’s have some fun!

Email- coledbranson@gmail.com

Competed in CX throughout the UIL circuit, Gig ‘em Aggies

Currently judging through UIL and TFA circuits

“Compete whether the outcome, from both you learn”

2023 - present. Judging in UIL and TFA Circuits

2021 - 2023 Seasons: Competed in CX debate on the UIL circuit

General: I am one million percent a stock issues judge (though, I am open to anything as long as you debate it well) Even though young, I have always been coached in a way where the stock issues of a round are the most important part of the round. This being said, debate in your style and I will adapt to it (yet, I do need to see a clearly presented flow). What I look for in particular is a clear concise idea/ plan that you can show me and put me under. I will look clearly for the stock issues and why they are important to the resolution. If you show me the proper framework under any argument, I will vote on it. You must have proper format and structure to your debate/arguments. I evaluate the weight of the issues at hand and am overall looking for a clear reason why one side should win. If you can’t debate the stock issues, you might as well take the loss and learn. Use the stock issues period.

Do Not: Be rude, unprofessional, or disrespectful ( I will take off speaker points) Do not try or attempt to cheat, it will get you nowhere in the contest. If you say “my partner will cover that in their next speech or my partner will get back to you on that… that is minus one speak. Have confidence, know your case.

Speaking:I am fine with speed as long as it is clear and concise. If too fast, I will call out for you to slow down(unless you don't want me to catch all of your evidence). I like to catch taglines, dates, authors so slow down there along with the stock issues and how they link.

T’s: In the round, I determine whether a T sticks based on its structure, If you don't describe the (interp, violation, standards, grounds, and voters) I will not vote or weigh the round on your T.

Disads: I have the same philosophy on these as T’s, show me how the argument links to the case at hand. When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Affs: Run whatever structure you want, just make sure to include a clear cut idea of the stock issues and READ TAGLINES. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

For anything else:

Ask.

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

Howdy!

I debated Public Forum for all four years of high school and dabbled in Lincoln Douglas and speech events. I went to Nationals in PF two years in a row. I'm a freshman studying education at Texas A&M.

I judge heavily on impact. I suggest making time in your speech for impact analysis, especially in the summary and final speech. In the final speech try to incorporate words such as timeframe, magnitude, and scope. Those weigh heavily in the round. I'm good on speed as I've encountered many different speeds, I just ask that you try not to spread.

Other than that just have fun! Debate as a whole is meant to be fun and to allow you to grow.

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2021-June 2023: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.

Framework:

I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.

T:

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.

Theory:

I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.

Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Ask questions.

I have competed in or coached various debate formats for over 20 years. Namely, I competed in policy debate for 7 years and competed and coached public debate for another 12 years. Ultimately, I value being a tabula rasa judge at the core.

For PF in particular, my desire is to see debate focus predominantly on persuasion and reasoning. Evidence should be a guide to the debate, not the debate itself. Impact calculations should be obvious, explained, and well defended by logic and reasoning. Debaters should not depend on evidence to speak for itself, nor should they be unable to explain basic warrants when prompted. Kritical argumentation and topicality should only be used if it is applicable, provides needed negative/con ground, and should not be used as a time suck. Finally, debaters should be well rehearsed with signposting and telling me where they want arguments on the flow; I shouldn’t have to make that judgment for them.

For email chains: jbagwell05@gmail.com