Pronouns: HE/HIM

if you want to address me call me judge or Robert I'm cool with either

I have been doing policy debate and extemp as well as congress for 3 years I am a very chill judge and there is not much you can do to make me mad or upset you can see how I feel about certain arguments under this

speed: go as fast as you want if I have the doc so send it to me BUT DO NOT SPREAD ON ANALYTICS OR EXTENSIONS

I will not extend anything for you so if you don't extend your case and the neg says this I will vote neg if it doesn't get extended and that gets called out so flow well so you can catch drops

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

da's: I want disads to have good links. I'm cool if it is generic but I will be more lenient to the aff on delinking from the argument. explain the link story really well and internal link as well. I want a lot of impact calc from the aff and neg and impact calc is something I use heavily when deciding which impact to go for. I don't have a preferred impact. I can be persuaded on any impact

cp's: I want them to have a very clear net benefit. I am open to the aff reading cp abusive if they want but will have a very high threshold on abuse

Topicality: If you run this as a time suck I honestly don't care but if you do I will hold you to a higher threshold on abuse I want abuse to be proved in round and I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously, the most important thing in these debates is the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization, but that is your time, not mine. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the Kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine but you need to give me a good explanation on how my voting aff does anything without an alt.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

Speaks: I know what it is like to go 3-1 and then not break because the judge gave you 25 speaks so I won't the lowest I will go is 27 normally but I will go to the lowest I can if you say anything RACIST HOMOPHOBIC TRANSPHOIBIC XENOPHOBIC SEXIST (don't be an incel) OR IF YOU ARE JUST GROSSLY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(treat them like humans)

LD:

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

I am the Speech/Debate teacher and coach at The Colony High School in Texas and although I've judged quite a few tournaments over the past two and a half years, I consider myself still learning about coaching and judging debate and interp events. I pledge to do my best to judge events fairly and accurately. I appreciate articulate and easy to understand speakers and do not like spreading. I may ask you to slow down if you are speaking too fast so that I may adequately judge your speech. I may disclose results to you after your performance or may choose for you to review my comments on Tabroom. I consider myself a coach first and judge second - so if you ask how you did after a round/performance, you will hear words of encouragement or gentle critique. I want a judge to do the same for my students.

Know that I am listening intently to your performance or for the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!

“As a coach member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence.”

Debate

I have a more traditional background in debate. However, I evaluate what is presented in the round. I like to hear in rebuttals why you believe you're winning the round (how there's a path to vote for you). Explain how you access impacts and weigh those for me.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

I have judged debate on and off the past 22 years. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school.

I don’t mind spread, but it has to be done well. If it is not done well, I stop flowing.

LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting and weighing a value with a criterion instead of a second value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments and extend their cases. I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case

CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly.

I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. I am good with most things in a round.

Hi, all!

I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.

Debate Events

I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.

LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.

I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.

WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

LD Debate

Aff has the convince me to support the resolution. Neg has an obligation to provide clash, and if either fail in their respective roles, then the win falls to the one that does it correctly.

Presenting arguments/speeches should be in an easy, digestible way.

PF Debate

Basically the same as above; theory is cool with me. Also, this is PFD, not CX--we don't really need to be spreading

I am a lay judge. Please speak clearly so that I can understand your speaking points. I do not disclose.

I am a parent judge.

Please time yourself.

Be courteous and respectful.

Enjoy yourself.

Thank you.

Hello Speakers and Debaters,

As of writing this, I expect to be judging several debate events and speech. A few general statements across all events to start with.

1. I will vote down any actively discriminatory arguments based on race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. Be good human beings within the space and outside of it
2. Clarity of speaking is important across speech AND debate events. I view this activity as a form of communication if you are going to spread cases do so intentionally and well practiced.
3. Show good sportsmanship to your competitors in and out of the round. If I see or hear any contestants badmouthing or being rude to other contestants I will mark it on ballots and let coaches know. We're all here to learn and make an environment where everyone is comfortable to do so.

Debate events

CX- I debated CX as a trad debater. I primarily did it on the TFA circuit and not NSDA. I understand more complex argumentation styles (Ks, theory, etc) and am willing to hear them in rounds. SPREAD WITH INTENTION.

PF- PF is an event meant to be judged by anyone off the street. I will use that as a metric when judging, but won't base ballots on that alone. Don't spread in PF :(. I'm fine if you're going to do more progressive arguments (make it CX), but it will still be judged as a PUBLIC forum.

Congress- Don't be rude to your peers. Make questioning intentional. I love to see students taking action when it comes to setting the docket in rounds and communicating effectively with each other to make the rounds run smoother. While this is a debate event, I do judge it very similar to speech.

Speech Events

If you're reading paradigms for speech, good on you I never remembered to check for it. I expect clean clear tags on all evidence. A well-thought structure no matter how complex is an important aspect. In all speeches, you should have variations in tone. For each event, I am willing to give time signals that can be discussed before starting the speech. I will allow you to time yourselves but will be keeping my own time that will go on the ballots. Yes, you can ask for your time after speaking :).

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.

I am primarily an LD, Congressional, and Individual Events judge (though I do have some experience in CX and PF, as well).

As a former competitor, I am pretty traditional in my approach to all forms of debate.

I view LD Debate as value/philosophy debate. Make sure that you address the value and criterion debate, as I will consider those central to the round and voting issues. If an opponent drops arguments, I will expect that you mention the drop and explain the relevance of the dropped argument to the round. It is necessary that you stay centered on the resolution and don't spend time getting bogged down in argument tangents (and, frankly, lengthy definition & author credibility debates).

I am more focused on the quality of argumentation and logic than on sheer quantity of evidence. Even though I can flow you when you spread in a debate round, in LD it will impact your speaking points for me. If you insist on spreading, you must make sure that you are very clear. I will also expect you to slow down on the taglines when spreading. I will vote based on what I flow in the round, not on what you email or flash to me. In fact, I will usually decline to be on the email chain and will prefer to flow the actual round (rather than just read your evidence and analytics emailed to me on a document).

Professionalism does matter to me. Of course, in cross examination you might wind up interrupting each other occasionally, that is to be expected. However, somebody who does not allow their opponent to speak or proceeds to be rude or lack professional demeanor in CX or during a speech may see a loss of speaker points. I also am not a fan of open CX and do not believe that opponents should be speaking to each other during prep time in an LD round. Also, even though I am certainly capable of timing you, I would prefer that you time yourselves (allowing me to focus on the flow and the ballot). It should go without saying, but please make sure that you are clearly signposting as you go down the flow.

I am a parent judge. While I've never participated in the high school debate, I bring over 15 years of experience in cancer research and a career as a seasoned biology professor at a premier college. My familiarity with presenting and evaluating complex arguments has given me a keen sense of logic and reason. What I am looking for in your debate are 1. Methodical Approach: Your piece should be a well-drafted "story". Present your arguments in a well-thought-out manner. I prefer a structured layout with layers of evidence that build upon each other. 2. Clear Thought Process: It’s not just about the conclusion you reach, but the journey you take to get there. Ensure your line of reasoning is clear, concise, and easy to follow - "less is more". 3. Organization: The way you structure your arguments matters. A cohesive flow will always score higher in my book.

In terms of style, I value the following: 1. Calmness Over Aggressiveness: An argument’s strength isn’t in its volume. I find that a loud and aggressive style detracts from the content. Instead, a calm, composed delivery with instances of passion is what catches my attention. 2. Evidence-driven: A loud voice without strong evidence will only weaken your argument in my eyes. Back your points with solid evidence.

Debate is a form of art of communication. You are communicating not only with your opponents but more importantly with your audience. In my view, the debate is not about being right (because there is no right or wrong answer for any debate topic), but about persuading effectively. Your ability to articulate your argument, communicate clear logic, and substantiate it with evidence is the key. I look forward to evaluating your performance and connecting with you based on the principles of clarity, organization, and logical reasoning.

I am a parent judge with 10 years history. Normal conversation speed will help me get your points and write them down.