Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

Debate, Public Speaking and Interp Coach

In debate I like organized speeches, direct clash, weighing of arguments, strong practical and principle arguments. Style is important, so don’t spread…if I can’t flow, it makes it difficult to judge those arguments. Be respectful of your opponents and enjoy the opportunity to compete!

Background: I debated at Memorial High School in Houston for 3 years, graduating in 2018. I mainly competed in extemp in high school, and I qualified for TFA State in FX and the TOC in Extemp and Informative. I also qualified for Nationals in World Schools debate twice and reached the quarterfinals of World Schools in 2018. My main debate events were Public Forum and Congress, which I did on and off for the most part. I graduated from Harvard in 2022 with a degree in History, and I currently work for a LGBTQ rights nonprofit in Boston, MA.

I have judged on the TFA circuit in Texas since I graduated high school in 2018, judging disproportionately many tournaments in 2020-21 and then nearly every weekend in the 2022-23 school year. I consider myself most proficient at judging World Schools Debate and public speaking events, although I have of course judged many a round of LD or PF.

My email for any email chains is knfjudges@gmail.com.

WSD: Remember that WSD is not LD or PF, and I will not be "voting on the flow" the way that LD and PF judges do. I will generally try to stick to the 68-72 range for each speaker, although I've found myself going under that range more often than I've gone over. Of course, this means that you might not like my decision at the end of the day. To lessen the odds of that happening, here are some tips to maximize the chances of winning my ballot:

• For content: "The House" is understood to be the whole world unless specified otherwise. Therefore, your content score will not go above 28 unless you bring solid international examples to the table. Generally, the more empirical and the less hypothetical evidence you bring to the table, the better you'll tend to do.
• For style: I would say the easiest way to improve style points on my ballot is with speeches that have personality. Obviously, this will differ from speaker to speaker, but I have rewarded speakers who depart somewhat from the "clean speech without fluency errors" kind of model and bring humor, personal connections to the topic, anecdotes, etc. to the table.
• For strategy: Teams that are consistent down the bench, especially teams that have a consistent team line, will tend to do better in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here; generally, teams should take 2 POIs, usually at the transition between points that were elaborated on during the roadmap.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is the prevailing international style of debate, where the debate changes every round, concerns issues on a global rather than a national scale, and invites teams to clash on the central set of issues presented at conversational pace rather than trying to win with tricks or arcane points.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I generally prefer to flow on paper with different colors of pens representing the two teams, although in a pinch, I will flow on Excel on my computer.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I would say that, generally, a principled argument would carry my ballot - at the end of the day, if the team argues that I should care about the principle regardless of the practical effects, then I will probably buy that argument. That being said, I do not have any trouble discarding a principle argument where this type of framing is not employed. If a team advances a principle argument through the reply, but impacts it out to a practical impact, then I probably would not prefer the principle argument just because it is labeled a principled argument. If both teams advance principle arguments through to the reply, I would tend to evaluate the competing principle arguments first.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Essentially, the question of strategy is whether the debater addressed the main arguments in the round. If they focus too much on dropped or irrelevant arguments, they would have a deduction in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here - if there is a lack of engagement in POIs, this category would be negatively impacted, whereas if a debater does particularly well with POIs, they might have this category bolstered. Finally, the team line also figures in my calculation here - a team with a consistent bench will do well in strategy, whereas a team with three speakers who feel like they're making separate and distinct speeches would not do well in strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

Style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

I tend to rely heavily on warrants and examples; a warranted argument will outweigh an unwarranted argument, and I will generally prefer advocacy with solid international examples rather than merely hypothetical points. Of course, the examples must support the point, rather than just being examples for their own sake.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

I tend to adopt a broad view - did the OPP's quibbles with the PROP's model successfully challenge their advocacy of the motion as a whole, or did the Prop's use of the model nonetheless prove the truth of the resolution despite the OPP quibbling with it? Frankly, I see a "quibble" as seeing the forest for the trees - in my mind, OPP teams should play hardball with the model proposed by the PROP.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I would take a comparative worlds approach, but ultimately, look to whether either side either upholds or defeats the motion as a whole. The model vs. countermodel debate is not supposed to end up about the models - all models should be in service of each team's broader burden.

PF Debate: I want to see a clear claim/warrant/impact structure with clear weighing at the end of the day; I've frequently found myself wanting some brief framing analysis or meta-weighing throughout the round as well (especially on evidence quality and strength of link). I am not receptive to theory or kritikal arguments in PF (this includes disclosure theory, etc.). The more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you. Defense is not sticky (please carry it through the flow). Finally, please remember that this is public forum debate, not "shorter policy," so please avoid spreading, and touches of rhetoric are always welcome (and will be reflected in your speaker points).

LD Debate: I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (I do not consider myself a traditional LD judge), but I simply ask that you explain your arguments well. If I cannot explain your argument in the RFD on the ballot, I will not vote for that argument. For Ks, make sure that the link is specific to the case and that the alt makes sense. I will warn you that I have heard many bad Ks in my life, and while I have voted for Ks in the past, that doesn't mean I automatically like every K that I hear. In addition, it's really no fun for anyone to hear rounds where the AFF has never heard of the K, and their only response is "the NEG doesn't have a value and a criterion so we should win." So try to remain respectful of your opponents as well.

Repeated from PF but... I really appreciate good meta-weighing (especially on evidence quality and strength of link), and the more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you.

Congress: I would say that I prefer content over presentation. When evaluating content, I look to the type of speech being given (constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization) and my expectations for each type of speech... Unfortunately, I have found that there are many constructive speeches given later and later in the chamber, and many so-called rebuttal or crystallization speeches that neither rebut nor crystallize. Please, please, please remember that this is congressional DEBATE and not congressional soapbox. I love clash and I hate repetitious arguments.

Relatedly, I really detest when chambers need to take in-house recesses at the beginning of items because nobody is prepared to debate. I believe that I have somewhat contributed to this problem by stating that I prefer well elucidated speeches over speeches that were extemped in the chamber. To be fair, I don't want to hear these speeches for the sake of giving a speech, but I am now of the belief that I should reward the representatives who are actually prepared to debate in my rankings. So do with that what you will.

Public Speaking: In extemp, make sure you answer the question in a well structured manner. Sources are also important to me; I read both foreign and domestic news on a regular basis, and BSing a speech is not the way to win my ballot. (For the record: I have checked sources that sounded fishy, and I have tanked speakers who have egregiously misrepresented sources. Misremembered the date or the publication for a source? Fine, I've done that before, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt! Told me that Boko Haram has attacked Egypt or that a New York Times editorial praised El Salvador's Bitcoin experiment when, in fact, it panned it? Not OK!)

For all events, I enjoy humor; for the two platform events, I also like to hear a personal connection to the topic throughout the speech, as well as unique takes on common topics. Please elucidate the stakes for your speech so we know why it's important that we listen to you for 10 minutes about a given topic.

Interp: Contestants should not try to change their pieces for my ballot, but here are a few things. For all events: Does the introduction adequately contextualize the piece, and does it lay out the societal critique the piece brings to the table? Does the cutting have a clear narrative arc? Does the teaser adequately tease the piece? For DI: Do you have a range of emotions (positive)? Do you yell as a substitute for other emotions (negative)? For HI: Is the piece funny? Does the piece add to a societal conversation about its topic, or is it just comedy? For POI: Does the program's narrative make sense? Are the characters adequately distinguished from each other, and do the transitions make sense?

Please add me to the email chain: gutierrv@southwestern.edu. I'd prefer an email chain over speech drop.

I recently graduated with a BA in political science and Latin American and border studies. As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments in policy and LD. I currently coach for Irma Rangel YWLS.

TLDR:

I will evaluate any argument in the round, meaning you should take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, instead of it limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs.

General notes:

• Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probably won't know what you mean.

• I’m very persuaded by an overview or a story of the link chain.

• Simply saying they dropped something without explaining the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw.

Logistics:

Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand.

Timing- if you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness.

In case you have questions about a specific type of argument:

Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, (aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates in policy and LD) I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework.

Policy- if you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact.

Criticisms - know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me. Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism.

Performance - The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, especially how it functions under a rob/fw. If you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech.

Theory/ T - I am least comfortable judging a theory/T round. With that being said, if you run theory you should have a complete shell (interp, violation, standards and voters), a clear violation and abuse story. I am not compelled by frivolous theory and I usually tend to lean towards a reasonability claim if made.

Mostly an IE judge so be sure to speak confidently because I will be taking note of that, even though it won't be a huge factor in my decision it will be a factor. I am somewhat familiar with debate but not an expert. I have competed a few times in college Parliamentary tournaments, and this is my only debate experience. I am not familiar enough with Ks to feel comfortable judging them, so try to avoid those as much as possible. No spreading and no running disclosure theory, we’re trying to make this as fair and accessible as possible. Stand up while speaking, unless obviously you have a disability that prevents that. Overall, be nice because if you're especially rude to your opponents I will down you just on that.

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None

Hired - yes

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas

College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate

Years Judging/Coaching - 4

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots

Check all that apply

_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments

Rounds judged in other events this year

xx_ PF

xx__ LD

xx__ Extemp/OO/Info

xx__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

Have you chaired a WS round before? yes

What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? style

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.

How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

*updated 10/17/20*

Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

Now onto the stuff about me...

NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.

***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.

In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.

Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

Hello!

I am a parent judge. I have completed cultural competency training.

Speaking Preferences:
Please speak clearly and be sure to enunciate. Speed is fine, but no spreading please.

Debate Preferences:
Outline your arguments clearly and in a way that is easy to follow along with. Be sure to frame the round and give voters during your last speech.

Please provide a roadmap at the start of your rebuttal speeches. Do impact weighing.

Please be respectful during the debate and most importantly, have fun! Feel free to ask any clarification questions before the round.

Good luck :)

Daniela Paul (She/Her/Hers)|University of Houston '27|danielasarapaul@gmail.com

include me in the email chain :), If i dont address something that youre specifically looking for in my paradigm ask me in round! i tried to include everything i could think of! also email me post round if i didn't cover something in rfd!

Okay, so at the top, regardless of the event you participate in, I expect respect. Idon't think I should have to stress this because it should be a matter of common respect, but please avoid being ableist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or sexist. I take a strong stance against any form of disrespect towards others' identities, both in and out of the round. Respect also means respect for yourself (be kind to yourself—debate and speech are designed to empower you as an individual and to showcase your talents and uniqueness), respect for the tournament and the people who are hosting/working on, and, most importantly, respect for your fellow competitors (don't be mean to the person you're competing against; it doesn't sit well with anyone).

Who is She?

Not that this matters much to the debate, but Hello! I’m Daniela! My pronouns are she/her/hers. I am a former debater for Clear Brook High School in Friendswood, Texas. I debated throughout all four years of high school and participated in various events. Some of my achievements include:

• 2023 Nationals outrounds (Worlds)
• 2023 UIL District 24 6-A CX champion and state qualifier
• 2022 UIL region qualifier (persuasive extemporaneous speaking)
• TFA state qualifier (Worlds)

I am currently studying at UH , majoring in political science, and I love for debate and speech. It's truly amazing to witness so many talented individuals dedicated to this! I respect your time and effort, and I will judge you fairly!

DEBATE

LD:

Signposting, Spreading, and All That Jazz: Signpost. Let me know where you are, what you're doing, and what you're extending. I aim to judge this debate as fairly and cleanly as possible, and signposting greatly facilitates that.As for spreading, I don't have a strong preference on level of speed. include me in speech drop or the email chain, whichever works best for you. email on the top of paradigm.

now the rest of the stuff:

1. Clear Value and Value Criterion: I expect both sides to establish a clear Value and Value Criterion and bring them down the bench.

2. Warrants: Dont do something stupid, if opponent stakes ev ethics, i will stop round, look through it, if the claim is proven true w30 for challenger

3. I love judge instruction
4. cx will be flowed, what u say in cx is true for the rest of round, Cx is just another speech to me
5. i try to stay out of round as much as possible, I will keep to my flow as much as possible, basically saying im gonna avoid judge intervention(as much as one possible can in a round) and dogmatism.

pref sheet: 1 being most comfortable and 5 being least comfortable

1- K ( not a cp, so explain and illustrate the alt. line by line >overview)

1- Plans/counterplans/disads (lmk if u need me to judge kick) (but also like lowk I also kinda ev this in a worlds way so i dont mind no cards for this stuff)

1- trad (Fairly simple, dont think i need to explain, but just cz ur trad does not mean you should not engage with opponent because of different db8 style)

2- Phil (but like in a political sci major that reads it for class sense not so much a debate sense? so extend this stuff throughly )

3- Theory (lowk this i can understand, I just dont like this, strike me if this ur main strategy)

5- trick (pls dont run this, idk how to even comprehend this stuff, strike me if ur planning on reading tricks)

tech>truth

PF:

Tech>Truth

defense is not sticky

ev analysis>

see pref sheet above!

Worlds:My bread and butter at a tournament :)

I largely agree with what is said in Eb's , Jon-carlo's, and Andy Stubbs's paradigms, so take a look at that as well if you want to!

General Guidelines and some other stuff: I am a very expressive person. PLEASE do not regard my expressions as an indicator of how I am eveluating your arguments. Its not indicative of my thought process, its literally just my expressions. That being said, Worlds is a relatively new form of debate compared to others, so organization and structure in your speeches are essential for me as a judge to follow and flow the debate clearly. I appreciate knowing where you are in your speech, which arguments you're extending, and which arguments you're refuting or disproving. Remember, Worlds is meant to be a conversational debate, so please avoid spreading. When it comes to Points of Information (POIs), they should be concise,not longer than 15 seconds, and presented respectfully without badgering or requesting follow-ups.

Structure and Fair Play: I believe in maintaining a fair playing ground for both sides. Abusive definitions or interpretations won't incentivize me to vote for a side, assuming we operate under reasonable terms. It's important to identify the stakeholders, the groups affected by the motion, and explain how your stance benefits or affects them. This clarity makes it easier for me to assess and vote on burdens. burdens should be presented, and if the opposing team presents a burden, you should be able to defend your burden as the better criteria for my vote or win on both burdens. I tend to to give more on my ballot to those who address the motions intended debate and do not become conditional with stance (i.e. Embracing the motion in full opp or in full prop). Furthermore I think this debate focus on the verb in the motion itself (i.e. prefers, regrets, believes, would, etc, etc) and so your debate and arguements intentions are heavily dependent on this factor. otherwise put(or like an example if you will), if its a would motion I expect to see policy and etc etc.

Model/Countermodels or Factuals/Counterfactuals: I appreciate well-done model/countermodel or factual/counterfactual arguments when they are presented correctly. If you introduce one, be prepared to extend, explain, and defend it. I need to understand how it benefits the real world, how it mechanizes into the real world, and how it relates to the motion. Characterization is essential - explain why an actor is the way they are, what they will do, and why it's crucial. Simply establishing it is not enough for me.

Arguments: I value principled arguments that are well-explained and topical to the motion. These are great arguments to extend and can win you the debate. BUT they need good analysis, simply establishing its a principle is not assured path to ballot if it ends up becoming principle v practical, They need to exist morally INDEPENDENT of the motions practical, or in other words this moral argument is existing even if the worst practical happens on the opponent case! if its not like that, then its likely you dont have a principle argument. Practical arguments need to be supported by evidence or emperics, or they should be logically sound and explained thoroughly that leaves no room for doubt regarding the implications of the practical argument. No matter what argument you present, it should be extended and explained well, leaving no room for otherwise interpretation. On the rebuttal, it's a solid strategy to acknowledge empirical truths and focus on showing why the benefits or harms on your side outweigh or is preferable to the world where the empirical truth still exists (basically just bite the bullet, but this does NOT mean all bullets should be bitten). Dont waste time to avoid the empirics basically. then I love to see mech weighing or warrant weighing, i feel like under both sides of the motion impacts can be grouped together, so I love it when teams are able to prove why their mech is comparatively better than the opponents. that being said, give me the comparative under literally every argument you make, worlds is a comparitive debate at heart.

Weighing: When it comes to weighing, consider the following

1. Clash: Did you properly address the opponent's arguments with line-by-line rebuttal and meta-analysis ? Explain, weigh, and clarify the role of the arguments. Make sure youre not avoiding the big picture arguements either, some clash is better than NONE at all.
2. World-by-world comparison: Ensure both worlds are clearly established. Describe what the opponent's world looks like and how it compares to your world. Explain why your world is superior. I should feel confident in voting for your world because I understand it and am comfortable with it. remember this is a comparative debate at its very core, simply taking a defesnsive stance and proving your opponents world is bad, without showing me the comparative and proving to me that your world is better than opponents is not going to win my ballot. This means engaging on this idea with EVERY arguement or point of clash you have.

Speech:

Info and OO: I appreciate creativity and prefer specific topics. Speeches should be well-memorized. I enjoy engaging speeches that cover intresting topics, and good visuals and movement during the speech.

POI, Prose, Poetry, DI, and DUO: I believe that each piece should have its unique personality, and I judge based on how well that personality is depicted. It's important to address the heart of each piece and the emotions it conveys.

Extemp: I expect organization, sources, and, most importantly, that the topic is thoroughly addressed.

English teacher at Clear Springs HS. New Assistant Coach this year.

Please don't spread. I have to be able to understand what your argument is in order to process it.

WSD: If you're not speaking, you don't hand anything to the one who is.

I can judge trad debate and prefer it; any other form besides LARP I probably won't understand.

Think of me as a good flay judge.

I'm a first time Parent Judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and assume I have no knowledge on the topic. Please clearly articulate your arguments and tell me why you are winning the round. Focus on the best information and not the amount of information. Be concise and to the point. Keep your own times. Be respectful of your opponent and and have fun!

LD BACKGROUND

Background: I did national and local circuit LD for 2 years before I graduated in 2019. I was a progressive debater but primarily focused on stock and policy arguments. I understand fem arguments and focused on plans and counter-plans.

I have judged many tournaments for Worlds School Debate and LD. A couple of notes on my judging preferences:

1. Be kind during round.

2. Do not make blippy arguments.

3. Extend arguments. I will not extend arguments that you drop and there needs to be weighing between arguments on both sides.

4. Give voters and tell me why you win the round.

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: marlygrogers@gmail.com

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions 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. Make sure to explain your arguments well, especially if they are more nuanced. DO NOT READ A FLOATING PIC/PIK. I don't like abuse. I think abuse is unhelpful to the debate space. Do it, I probably will not vote for you.

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments.

Speed: 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. You can consider me a 8 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 think permissibility and skep. arguments are defense and don't prefer to see them in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad and probably won't vote how you want when making a decision (aka 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, this a great learning experience!

WS DEBATE PARADIGM-----

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

World School debate is a team debate that talks about relevant topics. It is done through conversational speed and is highly integrated into the practicality of life.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I use Excel to take notes.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other?

I do not have a preference. I like to see comparative worlds arguments, so if you win on the principle/practical tell me why and how your world is net better.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I evaluate a speaker’s strategy based on fluency, articulation of arguments, and relevance. If it hits both the principle and practical levels, I evaluate it higher.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

If I have to say “slow” you will have points deducted.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

I look to see what how the evidence is relevant and if it is engaged with and articulated well in a round.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

I look to see how the practical influences the principle to resolve quibbles.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I accept them. I want to hear why your model/countermodel works better than the status quo and the impact analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

Hey, I'm a freshman at Rice, and I've done Speech and Debate all four years of high school, primarily competing in Congress, Worlds, PF, and Extemp. I'm always looking forward to judging spirited and respectful debates and speeches.

Congress:

I strongly believe in the "debate" part of the Congressional Debate, so speeches should have either direct or indirect clashes, with the exception of the sponsorship speech. About that speech, I strongly value a proper sponsorship speech (i.e., explaining the legislation and the foundations for the debate). I will "give more points" to someone who gives the speech when the chamber struggles to produce a sponsorship speaker. For POs, I would like to see effective and efficient round control.

Worlds:

Worlds is pretty unique compared to other forms of debate and rather grounded in reality, so debaters shouldn't be spreading or link-chaining to crazy arguments. Interpreting the motion is a very important component in a World's round. I expect competitors to understand how the motion's verb wording (ex., would, believes, regrets, etc.) affects the focus of the debate and to effectively argue for their interpretation of the motion throughout the round. I also think consistency is important between speakers. At the very least, the team's best ideas need to be argued by each speaker.

If you say you're making a principle argument, it better be a principle argument.

Debate:

I have competed in most debate events, so I understand how the round will proceed from start to finish. However, you may need to explain jargon before you use it. I am new to Theory and Ks; use them at your own risk. I can flow decently well, but I cannot flow spreading. If you see me stop writing to lift my pencil up, you are speaking too fast for me.

Speech:

When done right, speech rounds are some of the most interesting to listen to. I'll value speeches highly when they show the speaker's personality or attempt to be entertaining. I'll also be looking at the content intensely. The speech should be well-informed by credible sources and make strong logical arguments from evidence. Lastly, I appreciate speakers who try to have clarity, with a clear organization for the full speech and a line of reasoning for specific points.

Interp

I'll rank speakers based on overall enjoyment and originality.

My paradigm is simple: topicality, inherency and harm. While debating, present good, relevant information and cards that uplift your resolution. As a debater, you should aim to create "good" clash and discourse between you and your opponent, but at the end of the day proving why your affirmative/negative position is ultimately better is what gets the vote. Your delivery, responses, and material is what makes up your speaker points.

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.