I use She/Her pronouns. I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school, as well as Congress and duo interpretation, briefly. I have a decent amount of experience judging speech. I now compete in CX at Trinity University.

Add me to the email chain if there is one: mmalvarado04@gmail.com

Debate & Speaks:

-You will get good speaks and do well if you have comprehensive, clear overviews at the top of every flow and present your arguments with consistent organization.

-Indicate that you are switching from on-case to off-case arguments etc.

-Spreading is fine

-tech > truth but you need to explain why your arguments matter otherwise I’ll have a hard time voting for them

- dropped arguments are presumed to be true but do yourself a favor and explain what the original warrant was anyway and why it's important

PF Specifics

-blank slate when it comes to impact weighing in PF, so do not assume I will weigh anything unless you articulate it and defend it. A lot of debates always under-focus on impact weighing

-If you have similar impacts, like climate change and extinction, weigh probability or magnitude because I can't do anything if you just repeat your impacts.

-Both speakers need to take into account your summary and final focus. I pay the most attention and consider both speeches heavily as I think the summaries are the most important in the round.

-You do NOT need to address everything they dump on you, but summaries should address two or three major voting issues. I prefer that you address major voting issues and prove why they are important over spending 10-20 seconds on every single argument of the round.

More Specific Args relevant to CX/ potentially LD

T-It’s probably jurisdictional but you’d be more persuasive if you made that argument. Fairness can be a voter but try to show proven abuse in-round, otherwise, I feel more comfortable evaluating it as an internal link to education. Predictability is also important.

Theory/Procedurals can be very useful and fun when utilized properly. They can also be incredibly annoying. Disclosure is important, provided aff isn’t breaking new. Vagueness can get dicey but if you tell me why specifically you’re being harmed I’ll be able to evaluate. Condo is annoying, but again, if you tell me why it’s harmful in-round I’ll evaluate it.

DA/CP-I tend to be a little suspicious of the link on politics DAs just because they need to be frequently updated, but that won’t affect my ballot unless Aff brings it up. I think CPs are great and the perm is usually pretty competitive.

K-I love a good K debate and have a working familiarity with Cap, Security, Militarization, and SetCol. If you run something different, that's fine, just make sure you have good overviews and explain the moving parts. Link and impact debate are critical for me. For aff, perms are very competitive.

Tabula Rasa but certain issues lend themselves to the debate world better than the real world.  I find that debaters that hinge on the little petty things such as your framework doesn't meet the requirement and burden we set is bogus.  Stick to your burdens that are already implied, don't add any other burdens not necessary for refutation or clash in the round. I would actually welcome moral obligation kritiks on the affirmative it would be a nice, change of pace and it gives the Negative a dose of their own medicine so to speak. Tag your arguments, even if its repetitive it helps me locate them on my ballot. Just because you road map doesn't mean that alwasy translates to how the constructive or rebuttal is actually delivered so just tag as you go. This is non-negotiable. I am a tyrant in the room, if I can't flow you I will drop my pen because you are just speed reading and driving cards down your opponents throats when less is more. I believe in quality versus quantity.  Also, if I feel your tags don't match your warrants be prepared to show me cards in the round.  

Yes I'd like to be on the email chain: Sebbydebate@gmail.com

A bit about me: What up I'm Seb/Sebby pronouns They/She. I've been doing debate ever since Highschool, shoutout to my peeps at Brandeis. Currently I debate policy at UTSA and love it. In my time in hs I was primarily a policy debater, but over the years I've become much more K oriented, but that being said I'm not afraid to engage with policy from time to time.

My Judging Philosophy:I would def say I'm more of a big picture thinker, if by the end of the debate you can Identify the key args and explain why you win those you'll probably have my ballot. I think that debate is a space for us to learn about and practice persuasion, that being said I'm much less of a technical judge, meaning that trying to out speed your opponents probably won't work with me, and is very likely to result in arguments not being on my flow. a good rule of thumb is that if your goal is to out speed your opponents you'll probably out speed me. That's not to say I have slow ears or anything, talking fast is fine, I do it myself, just don't be the debater streotype and you're fine. Other than that I'll vote on anything as long as there's a clear articulation of why I'm voting for it.

For non policy:

I still know the fundamentals of the args and probably have a basic understanding of your event, but don't assume I do. I take judge instruction and impact calc to be the most important factors in weighing of these events, so you should take the time to do that if you want a clear ballot from me.

For policy:

Da's: I'm very skeptical of long Link chains that span 6 different cards each with different authors, that being said I'm not afraid to vote on a well explained Da, but you should be able to articulate the story of the da in a coherent way. Specific plan links are always better. I also think uniqueness args are underrated, I think it's maybe the best aff strategy to argue the da is already happening/going to happen.

Counter plans:TBH I'm not a big plan of counterplans, but it's something I'll still vote on. If you want a chance of me voting on the cp you need to prove that there's some net benefit or reason we can't perm it. I also think the CP should at least attempt to solve the aff. If your 2nr strat involves a cp you're probably gonna need a DA to go with it for me to weigh it.

Topicality:I'm pretty inclined towards reasonability on T, and I do think a lot of teams run it more as a time skew than anything else. That being said the way you get me to vote on T is you prove there has been abuse in the round, really impact out your standards. A TVA will do you wonders in that sense, but also just examples (like if this aff is allowed then what other unpredictable affs are gonna happen, or what specific args does either team loose out on). I also don't think an aff needs to be topical assuming you can give warrants as to why in relation to your affirmative. All that given if your 2nr strat is T you should probably signal that as early as possible.

K on neg: So I love a good K debate, and I'm generally familiar with the lit, but that being said don't assume I know everything or even your specific link/alt. That being said I think the most important things that should be on your mind when running k is fw and the link. for the link you should be able explain how either the plan action causes your impacts to become worse or how rhetoric links are important in debate and why those should be considered prior to plan itself. For framing/work you should be able to articulate why your K comes first and is a prerequisite to plan action. I think that the best aff strategy against the K is to engage with it (Link turn, perm, etc). I wont vote on a framework that says "you don't get to run the k".

K on aff: The aff should 1. at least be in the direction of the topic, and have a clear articulation of Solvency. The aff should especially have a clear solvency advocate

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery?

It's important that the extemp format is followed. I would prefer there be a min. of 2 sources per point. I prefer an AG that you can tie back to during each transition.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer?

Much like extemp at least 2-3 sources per point. I like the intro to be tied into the subject and your transitions link back to your AG.

Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events?

I love teasers! Make sure you intro truly introduce your piece and it isn't too long

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc.?

I prefer there to be lots of movement and blocking. Help me visualize where you are and who you are talking to.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)?

I'm not ok with vulgar pieces. I am ok with some profanity but not a lot.

WSD Judging

I'm looking for teams who can defend their case and attack their opponents. I expect you to use the proper terms (opp/prop/motions) You will lose points from me if you are rude in anyway. I'm looking for everyone to be good speakers and be able to explain their side in a way that makes sense and convinces me that you should win.

Congress:

Be Respectful- Do not deliberately attack a person or their identity in bad faith, however while some may have opinions and arguments that you disagree with personally that does not mean you are being attacked.

Be Logical- Make it make sense. Stay on topic and don't just throw in extra information we don't need, or you won't use. Diction, your word choice matters so make it count. Convince me that you are right.

Be Confident- Fluency, tone, expression, and pacing. This isn't a race, and it isn't a library.

Secret fourth paradigm- Add something new and relevant when you speak or challenge what has already been said.

LD:

Delivery-It is hard for me to listen if you speak really fast, so I prefer a slower delivery, if your speech is unintelligible then I have nothing to judge you on.

Criterion and Value-Judging your arguments will be based on this. If you want me to use yours over the opponent's convince me that your value and criterion is the proper one to use.

Evidence-Use evidence when making claims, but feel free to use rhetoric to make your arguments.

PF:

Don't make arguments or use evidence you don't understand.

IE Speech:

While I understand that you may be very passionate about a topic, please approach it in an age/school appropriate way. Unnecessary shock factor is just that, unnecessary. With that in mind, don't be afraid of sensitive topics that are naturally shocking. For example, DO NOT Reanact an active shooter event. However, you could do a protrayal of the thoughts or feelings of the event, not the actual event itself

For all events creativity is key just as well as relevance. This is your performance, make it unique to you.

I am a former LD debater with lots of experience under my belt on the state and national level. I am open to almost all arguments, it is really about how well you convey them, persuasion is key. I wont vote anyone down for my own bias, but if you are going for technical arguments, eloquence is essential to persuading my ballot. When it comes to spreading, speed is ok, but if you are unintelligible, it will be reflected on your ballot.

Have fun and do your thing!

Mitchellheartfield@gmail.com

For speaking events: you will score highly if you are confident, enunciative, and fluid. I mainly look for strength in speaking style and flair – make sure to showcase the best of your personality. If your speech is topical, moving, and sensible, you will receive higher points.

For Congress: do your best to remain active throughout the round, engage other speakers, and be respectful at all times.

rileydwing@gmail.com

Debate:

I am a firm believer that this is your debate not mine. As a result I view the round how the debaters ask me to.

The few things I request is professionalism, fairness, and politeness. This stops being an educational experience when you sacrifice any of those 3 things for a win. I ask that all debaters be polite and do not partake in any sort of shady behavior.

I am more than ok with spreading if I have the case in front of me.

Lastly write my ballot for me, tell me why you won. I can make connections mentally, but I vote off the flow so vocalize everything.

Speech:

Speech is equal parts argumentation as it is presentation, I believe that both are imperative to a high ranking. I will always prefer average speaking and great analysis to average analysis and fantastic speaking. If you have both expect a high ranking.

Reagan High School – 2021

ale35093@gmail.com

Top Level- was a k debater but open to anything non problematic

-only judged a handful of tournament on this topic so if your going to have a super techy policy debate help me out a little more to understand the arguments and dont just assume that I already know things specific to the topic and aff or neg specific terms

-if you any questions feel free to email me

Speaks- spreading is fine with me as long as it is coherent and able to be understood

K's-read alot of diverse k's so I should be familiar with most arguments but that doesnt mean I will do any work for you it just means I will understand the arguments as you are reading them

Framing-I value framing alot in debates and it will definately go a long way with me in winning my ballot

Topicality- atleast be related to the topic don't bring that foolishness around here and althought I would preffer for you to engage in k affs on a content level topicality is still a good strat in front of me

Disad's- again not super familiar with the DA's on this topic so work with me and make sure they are fleshed out enough for me to understand or it will be much harder for me to vote on it in any capacity

CP's- must have a cp exclusive net benefit in order for me to vote on it i know this is kind of a given but none the less

my bio

-was a 2N

-making me laugh equals +.1 speaks

-i enjoy debates alot more whenever both teams are respectful towards eaech other

--Congress--

Competitors should speak at a conversational rate, prioritizing analysis and development over number of arguments delivered. Students should use a variety of nonbiased evidenciary sources in their speeches. Industry publications and think tanks will be weighted over news sources and periodicals. Speehes should include roughly half new material demonstrating original thought and half in response to a previous speech or sentiment. Presiding officers should demonstrate mastery of parliamentary procedure and should be fair and transparent in their conduct.

--Speech--

Extemp: Competitors should speak at a conversational rate, prioritizing analysis and development of thoughts. Students should use a variety of nonbiased evidenciary sources in their speeches. Industry publications and think tanks will be weighted over news sources and periodicals. Speech should not be stilted or overly formal. Smooth transitions and incorporation of source material are key to seemless flow of the speech. Bonus points for incorporation of appropriate humor. I prefer speakers to stand. Speakers who are obviously reading from their screen will be penalized.

Prepared Speaking: Competitors should maintain credibility and professionalism while being engaging and entertaining. I prefer thorough explanation and analysis of a smaller number of sources over superficial exploration of many. Delivery should be done in a standing position if possible.

Interp: Pieces should domonstrate historic and contemporary relevence. Teasers and introductions should set up the piece and should tell me how the piece is unique to the performer, our time and all relevent stakeholders. Bonus points for carefully considered blocking and movement in the virtual world. Thorough character development and originality in blocking are appreciated.

Everyone’s paradigm is too long and this one is also too long sorry abt that y'all

-

-Vista Ridge ‘23 + TXST ‘27

-Congress 4 years, PF 3 years, oratory 3 years, extemp 2 years and LD a handful of times.

-Ask me about joining the TXST speech and debate team

PF / LD

See Jonathan Daugherty‘s paradigm it sums up how I vote in a round perfectly.

Only difference is I’ll vote off theory or a K (topical or not) if it’s well-warranted.

Keep your impacts realistic and educational.

-

WSD:

Please weigh. If you don’t weigh I have to intervene. I do not want to intervene. Simplify the round and I will be happy to vote for whatever the path of least resistance to the ballot is.

-

Congress:

Will rank someone who gave a mediocre speech but heavily participated in chamber higher than someone who gave one amazing speech but then didn’t participate in chamber. Congress is not just about speeches, it's about how you present yourself.

"I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a bill. My points for speeches tend down the more an argument goes on. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite"

If you need time to call a recess to prep a speech that is not good. You should come prepared or develop your impromptu skills. Volunteers that can speak on the spot rather than need in-round time to prep will rank higher, regardless of the quality of the speech.

-

Speech :

I don’t think this needs a paradigm but this is what I mainly judge so if you’re curious just do your event as you would normally.

-

email - smcstabs@gmail.com

reach out if you have questions

-

sometimes tabroom doesn’t save ballots, I always leave ballots no matter what. if you are not seeing a ballot tell your coach to email me and I will forward it to them. I pre-write and save all of my ballots in word.

background:

el campo high school - policy, congress, extemp, and worlds (state medalist, outrounds @ nats)

southeastern ok state - LD, parli, PF, IPDA, extemp (state champion, state runner up, 2x national top speaker & 2x national quarterfinalist)

texas state - LD, parli, ipda (3x state champion, 2x state runner up, 4x state top speaker, national top speaker)

misc:

email chains are cool but so is speechdrop

hannahmn99@gmail.com

pls unhighlight your evidence -> i'm colorblind and if i can't read it, i'm not flowing it

tell me like a really funny joke to show me that you read my paradigm (which doesn't happen enough) -> i'll add points to your speaker points

if online, i'll also add no more than 0.5 to your speaks if you see and acknowledge my cats :)

i do not care what you call me but PLEASE stop calling me judge -i think this creates a really weird dynamic and it makes debaters uncomfortable

pls don't have an attitude with me, it's really annoying and you'll get the minimum speaks for it (you also might get the L). if i know your coach, i'll probably let them know what happened, as well.

i love this activity and i want you to, as well. if there's anything i can do before the round to make the teams more comfy, pls let me know, even if that means we need to have a private convo beforehand. i will do it for you

policy:

i'll listen to most policy args but here's some specific info

1) don't be a racist, sexist, etc. -> idc i'll vote you down as a punishment

2) i love Ks and K affs, but don't run them if you don't really understand the lit or the argument behind them

3) i'm down for the multiple links on the K (even analytic links) but pls collapse in the rebuttals and give me a solid story

4) make sure you have all parts for all of your args -> if you're missing solvency in the 1ac, i'll vote neg on presumption and vice versa (tech over truth)

5) cp's are cool as long as they're mutually exclusive and also non-t

6) impact calcs should happen starting with the rebuttals

7) i HATE having to vote on args that are just dropped. make sure you tell me why this dropped or conceded arg is important in context to the round

8) to win t on the neg, you have to prove abuse and not just expect me to judge on potential abuse (this is def up for debate and if you win the theory for it, i'll give it to you)

8.5) hot take i literally do not care if your aff is non-topical as long as you can defend that this is a good idea and has some net benefit

9) I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue

10) literally do not lie in any aspect of the round.

11) overall -> i try and adapt to the debater so pls make it as easy for me as possible

ld:

1) not too big of a fan of this switch to policy in ld, but i'll listen to it. if this is you, read my policy paradigm

2) if you decide on traditional ld, aff must have a v/c

3) no clash = the other side gets a W on presumption

4) i'll vote you down every single time if you lose f/w (don't be shocked)

I am a coach and teach my kids the traditional formats of speech and debate for all events.

Congress: I am looking for an AGD and proper sign posting in the introduction. I want to see evidence for each point and clash unless you are the first speaker. I don't want to see you bring up a laptop. You should use a paper tablet. Make sure you leave time for a short conclusion. Make sure your pacing and verbiage are in a conversational manner. Answering questions are just as important, make sure you know the topic thoroughly. Activity in the chamber is also important, especially when I'm trying to break ties in my mind. Make sure your questions are well thought out before asking.

Lincoln-Douglas: As stated above, I teach the traditional format for LD Debate. I expect value, value criterion, contentions, warrants, and impacts. If you were taught policy jargon, make sure and convert it to LD Debate format. I do not want spreading. Make good sound arguments. The person who upholds their framework will win the round.

Speaking Events: I am much better at judging Extemp, Original Oratory, and Informative speaking events over the interp events. However, I have judged all interp events at local, state, and national levels.

IE: My priorities are presence, dynamism, clarity, eye contact (with any/all of the audience, not just me), and creativity. Watch your hands and avoid filler words.

Debate: My email address is pete.trevino@nisd.net . You can add me to your email chain at your discretion.

I'm not a fan of spreading. I will look at your case, but if you can't be understood without it, I will count it against you. We're not at a cattle auction.

Try to make claims that are verifiable, and have your evidence ready.

Speaker points are awarded according to rank; see my IE notes above.

Last updated: Spring 2023 -

I am currently in my second year of debate at Trinity University (Go Tigers!). I was in debate all 4 years in high school and competed primarily in Policy and LD; however, I have experience in most events.

I'm also currently an assistant coach at Basis Shavano in San Antonio.

Add me to the chain --- wwalker1@trinity.edu

Please create the subject in this format: "[Tournament Name] [Round number] [aff teamcode] v [neg teamcode]"

Send pet pictures/cute animal pictures in the 1AC/1NC I won't give speaks but it is kinda funny otherwise.

Tl:DR: I consider myself tabula rasa, and I like to think of myself as purely evaluating what is said in a debate and spitting out a decision, but I do have opinions and feelings like anyone else. However, I always make an effort to minimize the impact that has on my decisions. I do start from the position that the 1AC should establish some advocacy and mechanism to justify it, and the neg should forward some reason why the 1AC, 1ACs model of debate, etc. is undesirable. This view is certainly not set in stone; my decision is always based on what happens within the debate, but without an alternative way of viewing the debate, that is how I default. Winning offense in the last speech and weighing it against other offense in the round is really what is most important for me. LBL and warrant analysis is everything.

Please have the email chain and disclosure done before the round begins.

Speaker points - They are based on the strategic decisions made in a debate. Effectively collapsing, weighing, and making your line by line easy to follow is how you get good speaks in front of me. Please signpost, i find it hard to follow debates when there is minimal or subtle signposting. Please make it explicit so I know where to flow.

I don't Flow of the speech doc and won't even really look at it during the debate, I'm entirely listening to the words you say for my flow, This means I value clarity more than raw speed.

Speaker point note - I have noticed I'm not a speaker point fairy. I think what's really most important to get good speaker points from me is executing a well thought out strategy. I think this also needs to be supplemented with really good evidence. The people that get high speaks with me have a very solid strategy from the 1NC, and they executed it with cards that have highlighted warrants and good explanations and extensions in the latter speeches.

Topicality & Theory -I really love technical T debates. However, I think many teams don't execute it very well which makes it frustrating to judge. What's most important to me in these debates is judge instruction and warrant explanation. As in, I find these debates normally leave me with a lot of questions that could easily be resolved with better impact calc, as well as better line by line the teams actual warrants. Essentially, when these debates are super block heavy and/or aren't executed well, it can be frustrating to evaluate. When reading these positions, please just clean it up in the final speeches and articulate a clear interpretation of what debate should be like, how they violate it, and why it matters with impact calc that explains why your thing matters.

Disad & Counter plan - Not much to say here; I really like these strategies a lot. Well-executed policy strats make me very happy, and you shouldn’t be afraid of reading your process counter plan or disad + case strat with me in the back. As long as you can explain it, I should be able to hang. Ask specific questions pre-round or email me.

I think extending the counter plan into the 2NR does not automatically forfeit the ability for the judge to weigh the net benefit + status quo against the aff. Its a question of what the best policy option is that are being defended in the 2NR and 2AR. I think most of the weird ambiguity with when i should or shouldn't judge kick the counter plan can be resolved by more judge instruction, but as a default, I treat judge kicking the counter plan as a logical extension of conditionality and will default to it unless told otherwise.

The K - I enjoy well-executed critical debates, but I have found that I really dislike poorly executed Ks (aff and neg). I've spent most of my time in debate, reading, and learning about the K, and I really enjoy it. Rather than just listing off all the lit bases I've heard of or read, I'm just going to say that I am down for anything you can explain. Explain to me what debate is, why we should be here, and win offense. Technical debate does not disappear in K debates without some justification for why I should abandon the flow, but that would itself require the flow, so it's an uphill battle for me. K's as impact turns are really persuasive to me, I've found, more so than when the alt is just framework. Not that I am opposed to those flavors of Ks; I just tend to like Kritiks with large substantive components.

In K debates, I find that teams that don't establish a clear articulation of what my ballot does normally don't win in front of me. This looks different depending on what position you are going for; however, I think what it really boils down to for me is explaining what my job is, how I'm supposed to view an argument or debate, and a clear articulation of what I do with an argument if it is or is not won. This is really what makes the difference between a confident decision and an unsure or confused one.

T-FW/USfg - I don't think affs necessarily have to be instrumental defenses of policy to be topical. I really love these debates when done well and there is lots of clash on both sides. I don't have many specifc thoughts about framework, I have debated it and read it many times and familiar with both sides of the debate.

K affs in LD - I find teams often don't execute and/or allocate enough time to the fwk sheet to realistically win the debate by the 2AR. This does not mean that you should not read critical affirmatives in front of me; on the contrary, however, I think the 1AR should be much more offensive in most k aff debates that I judge.

Just for reference, I have defended both plans and planless affs throughout my career and love a good clash debate. I am absolutely willing to vote on framework against planless affs, and won’t hack one way or another.

Phil & Tricks - This is where i have spent the least amount of time thinking about in debate. I require a high level of warrant explanation for arguments like this because I think most tricks don't actually have warrants. Presumption and permissibility negates unless told otherwise. Tricks need to still be extended correctly with a claim warrant and impact; if there was not a sufficient level of explanation of the argument in the 1NC/AC and it was pointed out, then that would likely be sufficient to answer most tricks. I'm also likely to be extremely persuaded by any criticisms of trick debates or just some dump about why I reject them, which would likely be sufficient for me in most instances.

Note: I think it is almost impossible to win skep in front of me. I won't hack, but the 1AR uttering the words "pascals wager" and "morally repugnant" will always be wildly persuasive to me, and I don't think there is a skep debater that will be able to explain to me why it is not unethical.

None of this is to scare you away from reading your tricky 1NC; what the debate is about is always up to the debaters, but you should just be aware that I have a higher threshold for these types of strategies execution-wise than other judges might.

If you still have any questions, please email me or ask me before the round!

PF - All that is above applies here. I have no experience with 'progressive' PF. I am very familiar with kritikal arguments and theory arguments, and I am not opposed to these arguments existing in PF in principle. However, my expectations for a competently run kritik or theory argument are not different, and I will evaluate these arguments to the same standard as I would any other argument. I'm not well versed in any PF jargon or techne. I am also not convinced that PF can facilitate a quality K debate given just the structural time constraints unless teams are willing to completely forgo cards and have actually done the reading. Feel free to prove me wrong, but keep that in mind.