Pronouns: HE/HIM

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

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

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

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

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD:

Please add me to the email chain: baxteremily22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for four years at Caddo Mills High School and am on the LD team at UNT. I'm familiar with policy and critical arguments, so run whatever you're comfortable with. I will vote on anything, so I'd be best considered a tab judge if you're doing the work and telling me why they matter.

Tech>Truth. I'll only vote on the dropped argument if you explain to me why the drop is significant.

Depth>Breadth. Self-explanatory - if you are running more than 6 off, there probably isn't much warranting going on. Evidence quality is also important, and comparing evidence is super useful in making decisions, but I won't do the work for you.

Affirmatives. I prefer plantexts, but I'll listen to anything, just be able to explain later on in T and FW debates why your method of education is best for debate. I'll listen to performance affs, too.

Counterplans/Disads. I'll easily vote on them. If AFF has impact framing and you don't, I will likely vote aff. I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the cases.

Kritiks. Just reading all of the blocks you've written for your K won't help you win the round. Do engage with the other team's arguments and actually contextualize your link to whatever they've read. Generic links can make it really easy for me to vote aff. I love specific links to the aff, and will heavily vote on them. I know some lit but don't assume I know what your kritik is about. Please explain and paint a story for me. That said, I expect there to be framework, a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making.

Theory/Topicality.I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. I will listen to Topicality arguments, and think when theyre are done right, I will vote on them. Please impact out your standards and voters! I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory/topicality, that tells me that it's a time suck, and I will not vote on it.

Speaks. Just don't be rude. If you say something offensive/homophobic/racist/etc, that will not be tolerated, and that will be reflected in your speaker points and possibly your ballot. I'm completely fine with speed just put me on the email chain and signpost.

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

David Coale

Please put me on the email chain at davidcoaledebate@gmail.com

tl;dr – I can't flow as well as I could in the George H.W. Bush Administration, but otherwise I'm reasonably sophisticated and open-minded. I love debate and want any round that I judge to be a fun exchange of smart ideas.

Personal:

I have an extensive, if dated, background in policy debate (1990 NDT and Copeland winner for Harvard College; 1986 TFA and UIL state champ in high school). I went to law school at the University of Texas where I coached some debate on the side - I was in the room when Bill Shanahan said "I think we should call it a 'kritik.'"

My son Camden is now a junior at Highland Park in Dallas. I've worked with him and the HP team for three years now. To my pleasant surprise and thanks to speech documents, I can still flow reasonably well and have judged consistently since 2022. You should see me as: (a) very knowledgeable about policy debate and how it works, (b) reasonably informed about this topic and the major K areas, and (c) a couple of steps slower in keeping up with high speed than I once was.

Substance:

1. How to win good debates. I sometimes call myself the "Rip Van Winkle" of policy debate after being away from the activity for many years. Many customs and terms have changed considerably. But the key to winning good debates hasn't changed: be good at identification, manipulation, and explanation of strategic interrelationships among arguments. That's what I'm listening for as a judge and is what you should strive to do as a debater as well as you possibly can.

2. You do you. When I was in college, the separation between NDT (policy) and CEDA (value) debate was at its greatest. But by dumb luck, I picked up a solid grounding in how kritiks work when they first appeared (the concept of the "alt," for example, is to me a modern innovation). And thirty years of law practice has made much better at theory and topicality debates than I ever was back in the day.

Absent other decision criteria, I will stay with my roots and apply an old-school legislative policymaker paradigm. But I will freely use other criteria if debaters say persuasively that I should and I have no particular prejudices or preferences in that regard. Please make the arguments you want to make, at the speed and in the style you want to use, without over-adapting by trying to guess what might tickle my fancy.

3. A spew is not a theory debate. Debate theory is an interesting subject for discussion. But a handful of pre-scripted analytics, read too quickly for mortal understanding without a speech document, does not qualify as a discussion. I am unlikely to be persuaded on a theory argument that is not (a) set up comprehensibly in the first instance, and (b) connected in some way to what's actually going on in the debate.

4. Arguments about law. My task as a debate judge is to judge the debate. I will not intervene on any argument about the law, the legal system, etc. That said, I'm not going to wipe my mind clean either. If you make arguments that ask me to draw upon my knowledge of the legal system, I will use that knowledge.

5. Speech docs. Many judges of my vintage grumble that "debate is an oral activity" and look down at speech docs. I've been around courtrooms for over thirty years and can assure you that human communication is both oral and visual. Quality speech docs are useful and enhance the overall credibility of your presentation.

6. Watch me.If I’m waving my hand at you to move on, you should take the hint. If I look like I'm lost, I'm lost and you should slow down a notch until I look un-lost. If I'm nodding "yes," whatever you're saying is working for me. In other words I have become Dallas Perkins in my old age.

Email Chain: noahcorb101@gmail.com

Former CX debater. I'll listen to (almost) anything (which includes well-run and warranted arguments as to why I shouldn't listen to something). I have a philosophy degree, so I'm quite into theory (which includes T) when it's developed and run well, and I *love* a good K-prior debate. Please make sure you don't shadow extend- I value warrants more than taglines. This is my first year back in the circuit after a multi-year absence, so it would probably behoove you to focus on depth over breadth in your spreading and/or neg strats.

For K and theory debate in particular, please do notsimply read down your 2A/2N blocks without regard for telling me where on the flow you want me to be putting things and what is addressing what part of the debate/the opponents. I prefer competing interpretations evaluations on a typical flow, but I believe that in most cases this is a framework either team can win.

Otherwise, good luck, and if you have additional questions feel free to ask!

Note for LD: As you can probably tell from my CX background/paradigms, I'm going to pay a lot of attention to who is winning the framework debate: i.e. who is better using it to amplify their 1A/N offense relative to the opponents'. This flow serves partially as a (meta-extended) form of impact weighing for me, so the more work you do for me there, the more likely it is that I'll frame the round the way your case wants me to. Just keep that in mind for me given my background is mostly CX.

I did LD for four years in high school. I really only competed in TFA and UIL. I am a traditional judge and I have basic knowledge of most events and I will do my best to give you detailed and beneficial feedback.

Don’t spread in LD. If I can’t understand you then I will not flow your arguments even if you bring them up in your next speech. I am fine with Jargon but make sure to explain the word or meaning at least once that way I can follow more clearly.

CX tell me how to judge the round. I know nothing about CX so I will be relying on you in order to know how to vote.

IEs I have basic knowledge of speeches and acting performances. I want to be engaged and I don’t want to see you just represent a character or individual I was to see you be that individual. For speeches as long as you sound confident I will be pretty lenient with any mistakes when judging but I will include them in the ballots.

I don't want to make my paradigm sheet a highly detailed account of my life so I will be brief in my background. I did CX debate all through HS and I have been helping teach debate since my graduation last year. A heads up for the people I am judging, I pick at my skin, wring my fingers, and occasionally make use of a fidget cube in order to stim, I promise that I am not doing that as a reaction to what you guys are saying in round. On to what you're here for:

I will be keeping track of prep in order to make sure someone isn't going over, but I expect all debaters to keep their time as well (keeping time on a phone is good with me). Email Chains or Speech Drops aren't required (unless it's CX), but if a chain is started, I would like to be included, me email is Ghammar2605@gmail.com. Feel free to email me after your round if you would like some more notes, advise, or anything really. Please don’t pack up until everyone is done speaking, even if it is the last speech and you are just waiting, that extra noise can be really distracting for both me and your opponent.

I am really sensitive to theory arguments, running shells should come in addition to another argument, it should not be a debaters sole point. Additionally, theory must be clearly explained; if an individual wants to prove their prowess as a debater, they at least need to prove that they know why. I will not give someone a win based off of a half baked T shell.

LD SPECIFIC: Because of my long time in CX land, I need a bit more clarity in LD rounds, messy arguments just make judging and flowing really hard. I am comfortable with spreading, listen to a CX round and you'll understand why, however I will not flow what I cannot clearly hear, so please use clear pronunciation. I'm good with progressive LD, but if one choses to run a CP, it must make sense in context to the debate.

CX SPECIFIC: I hate it when the neg team doesn't get through all of its positions in the 1NC and provides another DA or something in the 2NC. If the neg team choses to capitalize on the neg block, please inform me of that before you start the 2NC so I don't label something as a drop. Stocks are a huge part of how I judge, taking the time to go down the line of stock issues will grant teams a huge amount of brownie points when I am deciding.

Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk :)

I competed in Policy Debate and Extemp at the Varsity level in High School where I lettered and was awarded Distinguished in the NFL. I also competed in numerous public speaking events and contests both in an academic and business environment. Hosted a radio program, acted in legitimate theater, commercial stage productions, conducted commercial seminars nationwide, and acted in motion pictures and a member of SAG.

I look for developed, effective, public speaking delivery utilizing your personal style. I do not like spreading in any Debate. I reward logical arguments, persuasive rhetoric, solid evidence based on quality not quantity. You must be able to convince me to win the ballot. I reward those who can adapt their arguments as needed to make their point. Don't rely on reading a manuscript from a computer without fleshing out the information as appropriate. I reward debaters who are well informed on the topic and are able to apply evidence that supports their contention.

Decorum, respect, and courtesy, are required from all contestants. Bullies will not prevail or be tolerated. All students are respected regardless of their culture, background, or individual preferences.

Do NOT spread. If you choose to read quickly, you MUST be clear. Debate is about public speaking and developing skills that go beyond the debate round. Please do not yell, be mindful of the space in the room, you need to find the balance between being heard and yelling.

General: Signpost and Voters. I will diligently flow the round but, you must tell me where to put it. I debated in high school and college. Now I have been coaching and judging for over ten years.

CX: I am a policymaker who loves a good Topicality. You must demonstrate clear and concise links to accessing your impacts and provide an analysis of magnitude, timeline, and probability. I will flow, you just need to tell me where you want me to flow the arguments, so make sure you sign post. I will avoid judge intervention at all costs, so if you drop down to a single argument, that is what I am weighing regardless of my flow.

Don't run a K or theory argument unless you are out of other options. I will not buy any sort of disclosure theory.

LD: Value and Criteria. I am an old-school LD judge, I prefer to hear a traditional debate, not one person policy.

Congress: Speak often and early. I will score a P.O. well if they run an efficient round. I would rather hear multiple bills and good debate. If you are giving the 11th Aff on a bill, you probably won't score as well unless you can actually advance the debate.

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

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

For my general paradigm:

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

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

Please keep your own time.

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

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

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

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

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

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

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


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

I'm an old school policy/stock issues judge, who likes to see debate over the resolution, & prefers your speech speed to be slow enough to where you can pronounce every word clearly & I can understand you.