I am essentially a tab judge. I will vote on anything that you tell me to vote on, but I will not make arguments for you. In other words, I won’t intervene in the round unless the debate forces me to. You must do the work on extensions and any arguments that you want me to vote on. I will not buy unwarranted arguments unless it’s based on common knowledge. Reading cards to disprove arguments is fine, but not necessary for me. You can just stick with analytics, and that’s sufficient for me.

General stuff: I’m very competent at LD, I made third at state in 2022, so feel free to go ham on whatever you want. I can keep up with speed pretty well, just don’t spread on me. I won’t flow anything I can’t understand. I will give you speaks based on your actual performance, not just 30/30 for being in the room. This is an educational event, and you theoretically should learn something. I’m fine with any authors, just don’t take them out of context. If you start throwing racism around just because your opponent reads something by Ben Shapiro, that’s not going to fly with me. It’s a cop-out argument and shuts down any real debate that could happen. Power-tagging if it’s pointed out will kill any chance you have of me buying an argument related to the card in question. I won’t vote based on whether you’re wearing a suit or not. It doesn’t matter to me. Look like you just got out of bed for all I care, just give me good arguments.

Traditional: I like all levels of traditional debate. Framework is important, but it’s important to warrant framework. If you run blatantly abusive observations, I will vote you down even if your opponent doesn’t explicitly point out the abuse. Also note that just because you win framework, it does not mean you win the round. Accessing is an argument that I tend to give weight to as a debater, and it’s always fun to see lively access debate. That being said, if you don’t warrant the access with somewhat empirical evidence, you aren’t going to get the argument. Contention-level debate is often the key for me, and clash is key to the contention-level debate. Tell me where you have offense and defense in the round.

Progressive: I did not do much progressive debate, but I understand it. That being said, you likely need to do more work for me to buy an off-case position than a judge at a TFA tournament. I will absolutely vote on off-case, but it must be shown to be a clear voting issue. Also, if you don’t run an off-case argument correctly, I will vote you down. Don’t run a K on affirmative. If I see an inherent problem with the way you run off-case arguments, I will just ignore the off-case argument.

DA- totally fine with it, just show links and you need to win timeframe, magnitude, and accessibility(the likelihood of the impact occurring). This is basically the contention-level debate anyway.

CP- no clue why you would ever run this in LD, but if you do, make sure you actually link the harms to a plan that the aff gives. Make it make sense please.

Topicality/Theory- go ahead and run whatever, just show me why it’s important. If you run troll theory I quite possibly will vote on it. If you do it(troll theory) in a high-caliber round, you’re not likely to gain points with me. If you do it in a round that you’re clearly winning, it’s fine with me just because it’s funny and it has the potential to educate your opponent about off-case positions.

K- I despise K debate. However, if you do the proper work and actually link, I will vote on it. I will not vote on it if your opponent is clearly competent at debate but doesn’t understand off-case debate. If you run it to confuse your opponent so they can’t effectively respond to you, I’m going to ignore the K and possibly vote you down.

In summary, give me a fun debate, and try to learn something. I sure didn’t.

CX:

As a discerning adjudicator with a keen focus on substantive arguments, my preference in debates gravitates towards a solid grounding in concrete impacts, steering clear of vague assertions and embracing a robust articulation of concepts. Communicating complex topics in a straightforward manner is pivotal, especially when the subject matter might not be universally understood by the audience or the debaters themselves. Emphasizing the relevance and applicability of these topics becomes a cornerstone of effective debate discourse. Clarity and brevity form the bedrock of compelling communication, deterring tangential digressions that dilute the central argument's impact while fostering a more coherent and compelling narrative.

Regarding strategies employed in debates, while I do not perceive "sandbagging" as a prevalent concern, the principles of fairness and addressing arguments in a timely manner remain non-negotiable in my evaluation. Furthermore, I acknowledge the legitimacy and welcome the use of counterplans as a tactic within debates. When well-executed, counterplans can enrich the discussion, adding depth and perspective without convoluting the primary argument.

Engaging in discussions concerning racial matters or humanitarian issues does not resonate with my preferred approach. I lean toward arguments grounded in tangible impacts rather than appeals to emotion or humanitarian sentiment. Nonetheless, I am open to and value compelling arguments that maintain a focus on impactful reasoning while navigating away from emotional appeals.

Navigating the terrain of universal ideals and sensitivities in debates requires careful consideration. Assuming universal acceptance of certain ideals can be precarious. Therefore, debates should encompass a balanced approach that considers the diverse audience and respects varying perspectives. Employing persuasive techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos becomes instrumental in effectively conveying arguments.

Numerical data and statistics continue to hold a paramount position in shaping compelling arguments. The weight of personal sentiments diminishes in the absence of verifiable facts and credible evidence. Upholding consistent standards of evidence and argumentation becomes imperative for both the affirmative and negative teams. The negating team bears the responsibility of effectively disproving the affirmative, while the affirmative should present a robust case capable of swaying my vote.

In summary, my impartial stance towards strategies like counterplans persists, as I continue to prioritize impact-driven arguments. Fairness, clarity, and respect for diverse viewpoints remain the cornerstones of my evaluation. While respecting individuals remains paramount, the obligation to cater to specific ideologies or sensitivities is not mandated in my adjudication. If divergent opinions lead to offense, perhaps the nature of debate might not be congruent with their disposition, thereby calling for a reassessment of their engagement in such discourse.

If you're reading this and you're not a coach but a debater, it's imperative to arrive prepared to present an excellent argument. Effective preparation, meticulous research, and eloquent delivery become indispensable tools in constructing a persuasive and compelling case. Remember, the essence of debate lies not only in articulating ideas but also in substantiating them with sound reasoning and irrefutable evidence.

LD:

When serving as your adjudicator, my predilection gravitates towards the classical paradigm in Lincoln-Douglas debate, eschewing the proclivities of progressive methodologies. I ardently advocate for the meticulous delineation of a discernible Value and Criterion, appreciating the intellectual rigor inherent in a traditional approach.

In the realm of strategic maneuvering, while I harbor reservations about the employment of rhetorical tricks, I remain amenable to endorsing them if and only if you are adept at elucidating their nuanced intricacies. The terrain of philosophical discourse, albeit well within my grasp, necessitates a meticulous orchestration to forestall any encroachment upon speaker points – a delicate dance where the symphony of ideas must resonate with clarity and sagacity.

Paramount in our intellectual colloquy is the imperative pursuit of clash. The crux of success in my adjudicative purview lies in the dialectical interplay between opposing contentions. Should the negation fail to proffer substantive clash, it invariably confers an advantageous ascent upon the affirmative echelon. My notetaking diligence shall be unwavering, and I implore you to traverse the rhetorical landscape with a comprehensive flow, ensuring the seamless articulation of your cogent arguments and poignant rebuttals.

I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have coached some CX, and I married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.

LD Debate:

I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

PFD:

See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.

CX/Policy:

I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.

EXTEMP DEBATE

This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.

add me to the email chain: jennm.ochoa@gmail.com (please send as a word doc, thanks)

hi y’all! i’m jennifer | she/her

i did LD in the UIL/TFA circuit (qual) along with congress and extemp, now i consult for high schools.

paradigm is gonna be divided into sections, feel free to ask questions before round. take the time to read it.

SPEAKS

i have zero threshold for homophobic, racist, transphobic, xenophobic, and classist etc. comments, remarks, or evidence and I will tank speaks. i am NOT afraid to auto loss and have done in the past. do not make the debate space unsafe.

i give speaker points based on coherent speaking, organized speeches and effective signposting down the line by line. i do not tolerate excessive rudeness, demeaning others in round or offensive commentary. to me, speaks are also educational so there are also given based off of if i believe you belong in elims. i'll start at 28 and go up and down from there. (also don't ask for a 30 i'm not giving it to you)

speed is fine and spreading is fine just PLEASE send the doc. DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS and please please signpost. upload analytics if you feel like you’re going to spread through them. if I can’t understand you I’m going to miss things when flowing and I’m not gonna vote off of something that isn’t on my flow. also please just ask if your opponent is okay with it (don't spread out novices or be mean to them, i'll probably up your speaks if you're nicer in obvious power imbalance situations)

LD/CX

bold=tldr

1. construct the narrative for my ballot. don’t make me have to fill in internal links or assume what you’re trying to get at

2. i prefer evidence analysis as opposed to card dumps, i just don’t find them compelling and hate when it’s used in an abusive way. analytics can work just as good as cards. collapsing is okay.

3. j ust because you use a lot of policy lingo does not make you a better debater. dumping debate language on me is not an argument.

4. winning framework doesn’t win you the round. especially if you aren’t accessing your frame through offense, it isn't my job to weigh offense for you, so please show me how offense connects to frame.

5. please signpost. please. especially if you’re spreading. if you’re jumping from flow to flow I need indication of it, even if it’s just “next off”, i’ll get so lost if you don’t signpost. i’ll flow off the doc for constructive but i’m not gonna flow anything that i don’t understand as you speak.

6. i’m a stickler for warrants. i won’t do the work for you in extending your warrants across the flow, also no warrant arguments are VERY persuasive to me- i'll reread the card.

FRAMEWORK:

i honestly love framework debate if there is one, but i also don’t care if y’all collapse. please make sure you’re accessing at least some level of the framework debate tho.

DA/CP

love DA’s. just please make sure you can win all parts of the disad and please weigh impacts vs. aff. i personally prefer case-specific and UQ DA’s above the generics just explain to me why you’re running it. don’t just dump generic DA’s to waste opp’s time, it’s annoying and i buy aff time skew args.

cp’s are cool. please have a net benefit to the CP, if you don’t and i can’t figure it out you probablyy aren’t going to win the cp. i won’t judge kick, do it for me. condo as default works.

KRITIKS:

love!! i personally love love identity K’s, i think they provide really great discourse into the world of debate. PLEASE do NOT read an identity-based argument if you are NOT that identify, i’m gonna feel really skeptical and i’ll probably feel a little icky. when responding to identity K’s please be careful of how it comes out, if it isn’t a logical warranted argument it’ll probably sound racist, misogynistic, homophobic, ableist etc, if it makes me uncomfortable i will not evaluate it. edit: just because I'm a fan of identity k's doesn't mean you can just weigh the k and not engage with offense/shells, you have to actually win framework

K debate tends to have really high academic literature, please use it in an educational manner instead of an abusive one, especially as a tool to confuse your opponent. if you’re running a less familiar k or a new k, you should make sure you understand it, and also please make sure i understand it. i'm not the biggest fan of completely non-topical k's but go ahead

i’m pretty good with understanding most k lit!! if it’s something really niche just have great explanations pls. if I look lost, i promise it’ll show on my face lol

T

i'm pretty lenient when it comes to t. tbh, as long as aff has a decent enough link to the resolution, it isn’t that important of a voter for me unless you prove the link is just like non-existent. if aff is entirely non-topical it's a different story. usually i default to weighing in these debates. this doesn't mean i won't ever vote off t though lol

reasonability ---x------ competing interps

PHIL:

i like phil!! but i’d appreciate good explanations. i’m comfortable in pre-flat worlds. most familiar with authors/theory butler, ahmed, rawls, locke, maslow, kant, etc. spikes are fine.

THEORY:

shells are okay when warranted. i am the WRONG judge if you run frivolous theory. i’m probably not the best judge for hardcore shell debates. also please have clash if its shell v shell, just reading pre-scripted overview a2’s doesn’t really have specific and true clash. disclosure/contact theory, i don’t feel comfortable voting a particular way inside of a round based on something that happened outside of it, i never vote off of it, and it hurts small schools/programs. i'm not a fan of "new affs bad" or "must include round reports" and (friv) stuff like that either, especially if it's your idea of a round-winning strategy.

i try to give leeway for the 4 min 1ar, but i expect the 2ar to layer voters for me. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.

CONGRESS

please have sources and actual evidence. please just clash. please. i don’t find it aggressive to directly attack another representative in the chamber with clash regarding their speech, i actually find it extremely entertaining and it will get you good comments. aggressive cross is fine until your behavior gets annoying.

your presentation is a key part in your ranking.

ok. personally calling a recess to ask for splits will make me eye roll. just give your speeches, if you aren’t prepped, it’ll probably reflect on your ranking anyways. i would rather you call for previous question than hear rehash on a bill or three neg speeches in a row. yes i do agree people should get to give as many speeches as they can, but precedence is still a thing and at the end of the day it’s a competition. take the opportunity to give your speech. yes i rank you based off of your individual speeches but i also rank you off of how you interact in the chamber. i do not rank you based off of how nice you are in round (unless you’re being disrespectful).

i judge every event!! so if you have questions that aren't addressed on here, just ask :)

POLICY: I care about the stock issues. If done well, and related directly to the Aff. case, then I will accept Neg. Kritiks and counter-plans (CPs are expected in most arguments). If you spread incomprehensibly, you will lose points. Do not use theory based or alternate world cases. I will not allow open CX. Also, answering, "my partner will answer that" is not an acceptable response--know your case. Your analysis should be supported by “tangible” evidence. Substance is more important than quantity, and fallacies in your argument will cost points. No new in the 2!

LD: I am a traditional value/criterion judge. No value, no criterion, no good. If you mention a plan, solvency, start spreading, etc... you will lose the round. No new in the 2.

EVERYONE: Speaker clarity and pronunciation are valued highly. I appreciate passionate CX and rebuttals, but do not confuse passion for yelling and verbal abuse. Varying speech rate and tone/volume will score you points. Speak like you care.

CX (Cross-Examination): As a policymaker judge, my inclination is towards evaluating arguments based on their policy implications. However, I am open to various argument styles and will not dismiss them solely based on personal preference.

Topicality (T): Topicality arguments are acceptable if they are well-structured and avoid sloppiness. While I appreciate topicality, stacking multiple topicalities is not preferred as it may lead to confusion and a less effective debate.

Disadvantage (DA): Disadvantages play a crucial role in shaping the debate. I expect DAs to be specifically tailored to the affirmative they are addressing. A well-articulated DA can significantly impact the overall debate.

Kritik (K): I advise new debaters to approach Kritiks cautiously. However, I am open to well-founded K arguments that make sense and are presented efficiently. I am yet to see a strong K argument, so surprising me is encouraged.

Framing: While not a strong advocate of framing arguments, I am willing to consider them if presented coherently and effectively. Convincing framing can influence how I evaluate the entire debate.

Case: Case extension through each speaker is crucial. Lack of repetition may be interpreted as a dropped or unchallenged case. Thoroughly addressing and attacking the case is key to securing an advantage in the debate.

Counterplan (CP): Counterplans are welcomed, but execution is paramount. A well-run CP can enhance your position, while a poorly executed one may result in skepticism and reservations on my part.

Speaking: Speak at your desired pace, but clarity is essential. If your opponent struggles to understand you, it is their issue. However, if I, as the judge, cannot comprehend your arguments, it becomes a problem. Effective transitions, clear plan/case statements, and optional roadmaps contribute to a more favorable evaluation.

Sidenote: Fairness is fundamental. The UIL circuit allowing internet means diverse and unique cases are acceptable. However, more experienced debaters are likely to have an advantage, and adherence to rules, such as no side-coaching, is expected.

Flowing: Explicitly stating the flow and reasons for doing so is mandatory. Failure to do so may result in issues with my understanding of the debate. While roadmaps are not obligatory, they can significantly aid in maintaining a structured and organized debate.

Spreading: If you are a spreader, providing a copy of your case is preferred. Failing to comply upon request may impact your speaks. Keep in mind that I cannot effectively judge without access to the necessary materials.

Overall: My role as a policymaker means I prioritize arguments with tangible policy implications. Effectively highlighting the strengths of your case or demonstrating the counter-productivity of the opponent's case is crucial. While I consider various argument styles, proving the validity of your claims is imperative for a favorable decision.

LD:I've done LD for a year, but I am not as familiar with it as I am with Policy... That being said, everything I said above also applies to LD. If you run tricks, I will probably not enjoy it (99%), but feel free to surprise me. If you run philosophy, please just don't. Treat me as that policy judge who doesn't like LD. Give me mostly Clash pls and walk me through everything.