Interp:

I will be the most picky in this event just because it's my favorite and I usually have a lot of feedback to provide.

The intro in interp should always have a strong argument, preferably backed up by sources or studies that support the theme of the performance (and yes, even in HI).

Dramatic/Prose: I am looking for a well developed character. Additionally, it's nice to have a set environment that the audience is able to observe.

Although this event tends to be more dramatic (haha), I also want to see levels throughout. A piece that only has one tone and mood is boring, give me more! Add the humor, the doubt, the regret, the hesitance, the anger, and so much more that makes your character a real person.

Programs: Having a clear argument is imperative. Your literature can be anything as long as it connects with your main theme.

Characters need to be unique. I should not be able to confuse characters, so make them stand out. Things like changes in tone, accents (if appropriate), mannerisms, etc.

Humorous: Although the main point of this event is to be funny, i'd rather see it be clean and easy to follow. HI can tend to focus too much on the humor and ignore the plot of the script. Make sure you don't.

Characters need to be unique but also BIG. The entire point of HI is to be exaggerated and to have no boundaries or limitations (as long as it makes sense and adds to the story rather than distracts from it).

Overall, I am looking for people that are having fun! The amazing thing about interp is that you are given a platform to completely personify a character, an argument, and a story.

Last but not least- CONFIDENCE. If there's something that I've learned from competing in speech for eight years is that confidence is key. As long as you think of yourself as a winner, you will perform as a winner, and the audience will see you as a winner.

.

Oratory/Info:

I want a solid structure of the speech. The audience (and I as a judge) must be able to follow along with ease. This means previewing in your intro.

Be sure to use your space, especially between transitions and with hand gestures. This adds another layer to the delivery of the speech and it makes an enormous difference.

For OO- solutions need to be tangible, meaning things that I as an audience member can take up and do. If the solutions are abstract, you are not fulfilling your role as an orator.

For Info- implications are the man thing that make the speech. They need to be out of the box, and make the audience think of something we would not have otherwise.

IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery! Also I am a stickler for effective movement and blocking.

PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.

WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is discouraged.

Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.

CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid Kritiks and spreading.

Keep in mind I am a traditional judge! However I am open minded to new ideas presented/performed!

CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

PF 1. obviously clash is a must. I prefer all debaters take part in grand cross fire, but will judge on case by case. Clear impacts and weighing mechanism.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

• Civility

• Experience

• “Spreading”

• “Clash”

Civility - Ad hominem will not be tolerated. Speak and critique with respect to your peers and competitors.

Experience - BA in Rhetoric from Pepperdine University + MA Lit & Rhetoric UMass

Please engage with your compeitors when possible.

Participants should remain respectful, avoid speaking over one another and avidly support their arguments with facts but include a level of emotion when necessary/appropriate. I hope to see passion in the participant's dialogue that includes challenging thought-provoking comments and questions.

Spreading: Dialogue can be fast paced but not to the extent that it becomes incomprehensible.

Experience: 13 years of teaching experience, AP teacher and AP Collegeboard AP World History Exam Scorer

• Logical arguments -- I look for participants to avoid making emotionally based arguments, passion is encouraged but should be rooted in logical fact patterns and reason as much as possible.

• Civility - Participants should avoid talking over one another. An occasional interruption can be tolerated but directly talking over top of one another for multiple sentences would appear as grandstanding and inappropriate.

• Experience - I'm a first-time judge but have 18 years of commercial B2B sales & marketing experience with an extensive background in corporate office & virtual meeting settings where business decisions are debated & ultimately made. I'm also trained on influencing customer purchase decisions.

• Clash - I encourage participants to directly engage with the opponent's arguments

PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.

LD/CX: Tabula Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.

WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to "force the hand" of the other team.

While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created (clash). Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give the reason(s) why.

Tabula rasa within the limits established here. Speed as fine as long as (1) your volume is loud enough for me to hear you and (2) know that I usually give high speaks but will deduct points if you're talking into your laptop. No tricks.

Clash is good. I like creativity and will reward that in the round. A creative case is better than one I'm going to hear every round. Open to theory but I hate tricks.

I like an efficient round - please have speech doc sharing etc completed before the round begins. I will deduct speaker points if you delay the debate over a speech doc is not ready before the round.

Debate- I look for good clash. I don't mind spreading but I am getting older and if I miss something I feel that's on you. You should know what your cards are saying beyond just reading them. Yes, reference and use them, but also know them. Extensions are good. For Policy- K's, Topicality, Theory should be well framed and explained, when used well I will hold value to them.

IE's-

Speech Events- Organization and use of evidence is key. I look at movements and hand gestures matching the piece and being purposeful. You pacing should be understandable

Interp Events- Emotions should match the piece as well as movements. I also enjoy when they sound natural. It should flow smoothly and make sense. Time is important but not a deal breaker if the piece is more solid than the rest, but being too short in time could make it harder to advance you in later rounds when everyone is so solid. Your vocal variety and pacing should make sense with the piece.

Judging Philosophy:I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily ongoodextensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T:I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points:I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed:I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed;slow down on tag lines/author names.I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous:I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

I am a retired coach and teacher, I coached for 31 years, I coached all events successfully, my philosophy for speech events rewards students who are knowledgeable, informed, and prepared, I focus on speaking style, organization, and creativity, For Interp events, I look for creativity and style, I do not like extreme profanity or sexual material, in all debate, no speed, any arguments are acceptable, I lean towards organized, factual arguments, I do not like debates that “kick” arguments

I did policy debate in high school, so I am experienced with that style of debate.

For policy, I judge first whether the affirmative has met their burden (on stock issues, such as Topicality). Provided that's the case, I look at Impact Calc, looking at magnitude, probability, and timeframe. I'm not a fan of Kritiks, though I'm fine with them being run. I'm fine with some speed, just make sure to get your tags in clearly.

OVERVIEW: Respect is more important than anything, keep speech and debate a safe space for all. Ad hominem isn't tolerated, direct or implied bigotry of any kind will come back to bite you on the ballot.

My background is mainly WSD, though I've competed in PF, CX, BQ, IMP, and extemp.

IEs: Passion, meaningful blocking, make sure movement and verbal pauses are purposeful! Character transitions should be clear, and characters themselves should have uniqueness, whether that comes from blocking or oration.

WSD: Although content is weighed more than anything, I love to see style and passion down the bench. If you extend an argument through ink I'll consider it dropped, so make sure your clash is proper and well thought-out. Semantical arguments have little impacts in my mind, so avoid focusing too heavily on characterization. Worlds comparisons are KEY in every non constructive speech. if you introduce a new argument in the reply you might see me roll my eyes lol. Models NEED TO BE PRAGMATIC more than anything. I'm completely tabula rasa, I'm not going to justify any arguments for you. If you aren't giving and/or taking POIs, that tells me you probably aren't prepared or confident on the topic. I acknowledge that WSD is based somewhat on Parli debate, so I think some attitude/sass is fine and makes debate a little more fun, just keep it light.

PF: Excessive speed could easily result in an L, I can't judge arguments I can't properly hear or understand. impacts are more important than heavy statistics, but I need to hear good sourcing. crystallization is important!

Congress: Make sure you have good use of sourcing. Adhere to Parliamentary procedure, and make sure to clash as much as you can. Deliver your speech in a persuasive manner, get creative!

CX:I usually find Condo and PICs to be abusive, but I'm not going to vote on that unless 'condo bad' or 'PIC bad' is read. I'll vote on T every once in a while, but I'm not going to consider it if you run it after the 1NC. I'll evaluate Ks, but keep in mind I'm a WSD debater so link back to the res. I probably won't vote for a K/non-T aff. I do not flow CX, read new developments in your speech if you want me to evaluate them.

DEBATE: I'm a traditional judge, I'm not going to justify arguments for you or use outside knowledge to connect any impacts. Tell me what you want me to hear, don't expect me to intervene on the ballot.

Hello, my name is Darren Frazee. I debated (policy debate) at McNeil HS (TX) went to the University of Kansas for college. I currently help coach debate at Klein HS.

CX/Policy

Please include me on the email chain -dfrazee1@kleinisd.net- just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.

Overview

I have no problem with K's, theory, or speed. I ran all types of arguments myself as a debater. I evaluate a round based on impacts in the 2NR and 2AR. An argument without an impact gets you nowhere. Weigh your impacts for me. If you can paint me a clear picture of the debate round and why you won, I am much more likely to vote for you. Be kind.

Kritiks

I love Kritiks, but you need to put in the work. I do not like vague links and warrantless claims.

Counterplans

I think counterplans are best when they are unique and creative, but I will consider pretty much any counterplan. Its up to the AFF to tell me why a certain type of counterplan should not be allowed.

Speed

I have no problem with speed, but you must be clear. If I can't understand you, I will yell clear. I will not flow arguments that I could not hear. I will not evaluate arguments that I did not flow.

Demeanor

Be kind and respectful. If your opponent is being abusive, tell me why its a voting issue.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

What I look for in a speech depends upon the type of speech presented. If the speaker has created the speech--whether informative, persuasive, or original oratory--I judge the content of the speech, the logic presented, and the language used to communicate its ideas. Secondly I look at the effectiveness of the presentation. Those standards get flipped a bit in an interpretation category where the speaker has a choice of material written by masters of their trade. Presentation is judged more highly in this case. Although, I have a fairly liberal bias, when it comes to using other people's material, I like to honor the writer and their words by keeping their intent sincere.

Introduction:

As judges, our role is to foster an environment that encourages thoughtful discourse. In this paradigm, I aim to create a space where open-mindedness prevails, and participants are empowered to push the boundaries of conventional thinking.

Civility:

• Civility is the cornerstone of productive debate. Participants are expected to engage in respectful and constructive dialogue, fostering an atmosphere that values diverse perspectives. As a judge I prioritize debaters who demonstrate a commitment to active listening, empathy, and a willingness to engage with opposing views without resorting to personal attacks.

Experience:

• Experience is a valuable asset in any debate. This is my first time judging and I am eager to witness the skills of all the student participants.

Spreading:

• While speed is often used as a strategic tool in debates, judges should assess spreading with a discerning eye. Debaters are encouraged to maintain a balance between speed and clarity. As a judge I recognize the importance of clear articulation and effective communication. I want to ensure the substance of arguments is not sacrificed for the sake of rapid delivery.

Clash:

• Debate is about the dynamic interaction of ideas. Judges should prioritize debaters who engage in back-and-forth exchanges, addressing the core arguments of their opponents. Debaters will be rewarded for their ability to identify key points of contention and develop responses that contribute meaningfully to the ongoing conversation.

Conclusion:

As we navigate the intellectual terrain together, we can celebrate diversity of thought and encourage participants to push the boundaries of what is possible. May this paradigm inspire a new era of open-minded, inclusive, and transformative debates.

Be respectful to your opponents, no personal attacks, stay on topic.

Please no spreading, I need to be able to comprehend your argument, speech, interpretation, etc.

I hope to see passion in the participant's dialogue that includes challenging thought-provoking comments and questions.

I want to see clashing.

I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next. In Informative, I also look for an overall theme that is informational (thus the name) rather than persuasive.

In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.

No spreading. Please and thank you.

I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD at NSDA Nationals.
In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery. In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon. Contentions/substantives must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to link back to the main argument / claim. I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present. Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic. I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible. I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important. Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.

Any other questions may be asked in the room.

In L-D:

I am a traditional judge. Value & Criteria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.

L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.

I am an opponent of speed.

In Congressional Debate:

As a traditional judge, I am a huge proponent of effective persuasive speaking; no speed. I look for the fundamentals of speech structure. A speech must include, but not be limited too: An attention getter, signposting of main points, a logical and organized sequence, a summary and effective closing. Within the content of a speech, clash on previous speeches is necessary, while extending arguments. Participation in the chamber is essential. I frown on unprofessional behavior in the chamber during cross. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other.

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Civility is key- no personal attacks, be respectful at all times.

No spreading- I want to be sure to comprehend your argument, speech, interpretation.

Appropriate clashing please.

For WSD:

I have 4 years of experience in competing in WSD, however when weighing arguments at the end of the round, walk me through it as if I don't know what I'm doing. Essentially, try to write my ballot for me. Do not assume that I am educated on the topic. It is YOUR JOB to deliver me the information necessary for making my decision. As far as speaking and stylistic preferences, just maintain a pace at which the judge can keep up and display good debating etiquette (not making faces on the bench, tapping too loudly, or anything that could be seen as distracting or disrespectful.) Avoid U.S. centric arguments unless specified by the motion. Do not run from the motion, any arguments based in semantics or trying to alter the motion will not be weighed. Try to clash the the opponent as much as possible and communicate to me what areas of clash your side has won/lost. It is not enough for you to tell me simply why your team won, you must also explain why the other team has lost.

Experienced speech and debate parent judge.

PF/LD:
I will take notes of arguments and extensions, but be sure to make these clear down the bench. I’ll be looking for strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions. Failing to respond to an opponent's argument will require me to flow that over to your opponent. Weighing contributes significantly to my decision. Prove to me that you win through your impacts.

Speaking:

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. If you are spreading, make sure your articulation is clear. Mumbling and speaking fast is never good. Throughout the duration of the round, especially in cross, please ensure you are professional and respectful of your opponents and those in attendance. Rudeness and arrogance is not appreciated, and will be reflected particularly in the speaker's points.

• Often, crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate and it can definitely have a large impact on the momentum of the round so I will be following along. Do be sure to still raise an important rebuttal or turn from cross in second following speeches.

• Make sure to extend offense and defense in all speeches to the end, this means case, turns, responses, etc-nothing is sticky. Evidence extensions should extend both the card tag and the warrant (eg. simply saying "extend Jones 20" is not a sufficient evidence extension)

Progressive Arguments:

I will not typically vote on progressive arguments. It would not be in your best interest to run kritiks or theory as I’m not very familiar with the style.

Win the ballot:

The teams who have routinely received my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

WSD:

With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level. Show the logic, weigh the impacts, think about effective delivery. I prefer arguments that are rooted in reality more so than hyperbole. Structure and logic matter a lot- stay organized, hold my hand, walk me down the flow. I like a good line by line debate, but make sure you're linking into the bigger story your team is trying to sell. For POI’s POI, make sure you're asking something that matters and answer the question you were asked. Quality over quantity rules the day in this regard.

Speech:

Speeches that flow well from point A to B, which means ensuring you transition well and organize your ideas well.

I value your ability to create a speech that's informative, flows well/is organized well, and has an abundance and variety of sources over your ability to speak - but good speech should be written and performed well. If I have a preference then it's: well-written speech > well-performed speech, because the first shows me depth and substance that the latter doesn't.

• In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the piece and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

• In prose and poetry I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

• In duo interp, I always look at both performers. I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

Email: colton.reese@icloud.com

My name is Colton Reese, my preferred pronounds are He/Him. Below is my paradigm for Lincoln Douglas debate adjudication.

Format: I am most experienced with and have a preference for judging Lincoln-Douglas debate. My paradigms and expectations are primarily shaped by this format. Therefore, it's essential for debaters to understand that my evaluation criteria are based on the specific dynamics and conventions of Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Argumentation Style: While I commit to impartially analyzing every argument presented, I do have a preference for debaters to utilize a value-criterion structure in their case. This structure allows for a clear and organized presentation of arguments, making it easier for me to follow the debate. I appreciate more intricate styles of debating, such as theory arguments, but I acknowledge that presenting them effectively can be challenging. Consequently, I tend to be more critical when assessing such arguments. However, I firmly believe that well-executed theory arguments can significantly enhance a debate round and welcome them when they are presented effectively.

Speed and Delivery: Clarity and comprehension of your arguments are paramount in my evaluation. While I understand that time constraints can be challenging, I strongly discourage speaking so rapidly that I must constantly refer back to my notes to decipher your points. If your argumentation is delivered at an excessively fast pace, it may detract from the overall quality of your presentation.

Framework and Content: While I appreciate a clear framework, I ultimately base my decision on who presents the more compelling argument in the round, rather than who devised the better argument in advance. Although I prefer the value-criterion format, I am open to other formats, especially when debaters are less experienced. What matters most to me is the strength and persuasiveness of the arguments made during the actual debate.

Clash and Refutation/Argumentation: I prefer a structured approach to refutation, where arguments and points are addressed in the order they were presented. This line-by-line or theory refutation should be direct and concise. I also value theory arguments that pinpoint crucial aspects of the opponent's case. If a case hinges on a single critical point, successfully refuting that point can significantly impact my decision. I am familiar with debates involving comparative worlds, advocacy, and truth-testing, but it is imperative that these concepts are clearly defined during the debate for me to properly evaluate them.

Speaker Behavior: While I don't insist on excessive politeness or flowery language, I expect debaters to engage in respectful and reasonable interactions. Avoid personal attacks (ad hominems) and refrain from targeting your opponents personally. A healthy, competitive spirit is encouraged, but personal attacks or rudeness will not be well-received in my assessments.

Bias Disclosure: I commit to evaluating debates impartially. However, I will disclose any personal biases or predispositions I may have related to the debate topic to maintain transparency and ensure that both debaters are aware of any potential influences on my judgment.

Paradigms: The main paradigm I have is pertaining to case debate is using "big picture" , meaning primarily main arguments along with supporting evidence without going too much into the technicalities of the subject at hand. In addition to this, spreading is fine, however if the competitor spreads to the point where what is being said is not understood by the judge and the competitors, it ultimately does not help the competitor in the debate. What helps me is slowing down once they are on the main arguments and as the competitor gets into the supporting evidence and arguments, they can speed up a bit. Other than this, there are no other specific paradigms.

I'm looking for a well organized speech. If your event requires that you support your argument against a counter, how well you support your argument often makes the difference between a win and a loss.

Confidence speaks louder than volume itself! I need to be able to understand what you are saying in order to understand your message.

Connection with the audience is important. Ways to achieve this are making eye contact, facing the judge, and making your argument relevant.

If your event contains a dramatic component, please warn me of any possible triggers. I appreciate warnings for: screaming, death, and assault. If you think I should know, speak up.

My reason for decision is based on effectiveness. The above details are part of what helps me make each decision.

Be respectful to your opponents, no personal attacks, stay on topic.

Please no spreading, I need to be able to comprehend your argument, speech, interpretation, etc.

Speak to your opponent, NOT me.

Experience - 22 years teaching, UIL Academics Coordinator, AP teacher and grader.

Speakers should speak clearly. I am not okay with spreading. I need to be able to understand your framework and I cannot do that if you spread!

In terms of LD, I will reward creativity in argument as opposed to one that I hear every round. Persuasion and clash are necessary. I will not evaluate non topical arguments. I expect all debaters to treat their opponents with respect.

Anna Webster (she/they)

To preface: my competitive background consists of almost entirely WSD, some CX, some Extemp, and minimal IE experience. That being said, this organization is one of my passions and I'll give 100% to judging your event, regardless of my personal experience.

• NOTE: all content (debate OR speech) that reeks of any kind of homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, etc....I have absolutely zero tolerance for, and I WILL judge accordingly.

• For the sake of tournament scheduling, I can give individualized feedback if you reach out to me via instagram (@annawxbster) or by email (annawebster12@yahoo.com). I'm happy to answer any and all questions!

WORLD SCHOOLS

STYLE - No spreading. I totally understand a little speed, but you shouldn't be monotonous and gasping for breath after every sentence. Have a meaningful cadence, emphasize the right words to get your point across, and above all, please try to be respectful. Jokes and puns are good! I'm totally okay with being a little snarky or having some sass (honestly, I prefer it sometimes. it makes it more entertaining for me), just don't cross any lines. If your comments cross the line into disrespect for the sake of being funny, you WILL get points docked). REPLY SPEECH: use past tense. It just sounds more sophisticated.

CONTENT - I won't be too picky on how you've formatted your cases (I like roadmaps,signposting is encouraged). I think a two-sub case can be just as affective as a three-sub case; you just need to prove to me why your impacts weigh more. I like a fair amount of rebuttal in the 2 if you can help it. Now the 3 on the other hand, I'm fairly open minded; during my time competing I gave the 3, and my speeches relied heavily on a line-by-line analysis. While some judges prefer you to focus more on one or two key issues of the round, I believe that a line-by-line, when done right, can be just as effective, as long as youCRYSTALIZE!!! Give me WHY your world is better STILL; a worlds comparison is a MUST!!!!

NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 4!!!!!!! This is a huge pet peeve of mine....might be the ONLY thing I'll factor in without mention from either side. But please, pay attention and call out new arguments in the 4 if your opponent makes any.

Make sure your linkage is clear; connect the dots for me.

I don't have a preference for practical versus principle args, just make sure each is extended thru ink. I think that principle args CAN be really effective given the resolution, so don't be afraid of them!

I'm ok with models, when applicable. If you're going to run a model/countermodel, it HAS to be pragmatic and it should not be vague.

Try to aim forat least 2 POI's in every speech. Obviously I would prefer more, but I sympathize with the time constraint, so as I see it, 2 is the minimum before I start deducting points.

POLICY

Right off the bat, NO SPREADING. I view it as unfair and futile, and it is one of the few things I WILL vote on without mention from either side, as I cannot possibly judge arguments I cannot hear. While I understand SOME speed is occasionally necessary (trust me, effectively condensing WS cases was not an easy task), there's absolutely no reason you should be gasping for breath in every speech.

I'll be honest, as a WS debater, I find the way policy cases are formatted ("cutting" cards) to be incredibly odd....but as long as I can understand what you're arguing and flow it properly, we're good. PLEASE roadmap, it will make my job much easier.

Try not to rely too heavily on statistics....this isn't a competition of who has the most cards or the most numbers. Impacts weigh more than stats, so make sure to link back to those strong impacts. I want to see genuine advocacy.

Not a fan of Condo or PICs, I think they're pretty abusive. That being said, I probably won't vote on that unless "condo bad" or "PIC bad" is read. I'll occasionally vote on Topicality. Some judges won't consider it If read after the 1NC, but I won't be too picky unless it's obviously a last ditch effort in one of the final speeches. K's are fine, just link it back to the res.

I've had judges get upset when I don't face them during cross....I could not care less, just maintain professionalism and don't be aggressive with any gestures toward your opponent.

Speechdrop or email chain is perfectly ok, I'm not picky.

SPEECH + INTERP

While I LOVE spectating these events, I have extremely minimal experience competing in both (UIL Extemp and Poetry, was filler for POI once......never again lol).