I have vast experience coaching and judging in the WSDC format. In 2019 I was a coach in the Mexican debate camp, in 2020 I was hired as the co-coach for the Mexican development team, in 2021 I was hired as the co-coach for the Team Mexico 2021 national team and for the 2022 edition of WSDC I am once again a co-coach for the Team Mexico 2022. In total I have judged and coached for the WSDC circuit for 3 years now. I also have diverse experience in the BP circuit in Latinamerica, I have debated, coached and judged in the circuit for 5 years now, I have coached two different universities that include the Universidad de Guadalajara and Instituto Autónomo de México.

School Affiliation/s:

I am currently not affiliated with any schools or institutions outside of Mexico.

I graduated in 2018 from the American School Foundation of Guadalajara, currently I study economics in Tecnológico de Monterrey.

Debate experience:

Most of my debate experience has been developed in the spanish language Latinamerican BP circuit, but I have also participated in the Mexican WSDC english debate circuit for 3 years. My experiences include:

Coaching:

Debate Coaching at Universidad de Guadalajara:

-Assistant coach 2018-2019

-Part of the academic committee during 2019

Debate Coaching at ITAM:

-Academic director for the 2019 spring and autumn semesters

-Co-coach during the 2019 spring and autumn semesters

-Co-coach during the 2020 spring semester

-Head coach during the 2020 autumn semester

Coaching at Debate Camp:

-Debate Camp 2019 junior coach

Development Team Mexico Coaching:

-Hired by the Asociación Mexicana de Debate to be co-coach of the 2020 Development Team Mexico for over 150 hours

Tec de Santa Fé Debate Coaching:

-Coach of the Tec de Santa Fé school’s debate team 2020

ASDC CDMX Debate Coaching:

-Coach of the CDMX American Spaces Debate Club 2020

Team Mexico 2021 coaching:

-Co-coach of the Mexican national team for WSDC 2021

-Break 8th in Hegel Division

Team Mexico 2022 coaching:

-Co-coach of the Mexican national team for WSDC 2022

Various debate lectures regarding argumentation, rebuttal and debate strategy.

Debate:

2016:

-Mexican Universities Debating Championship (MUDC) 2016

-Open break: 3rd place

-Open tournament semifinalist

2017:

-Campeonato Nacional de Debate (CND) 2017

-Open break: 6th place

-Novice break: 1st place

-Open tournament quarterfinalist

-Novice runner-up finalist

-3rd best novice speaker

-Torneo Interuniversitario Invernal de Debate (TIID) 2017

-Open break: 2nd place

-Runner-up finalist

-6th best speaker

2018:

-CND 2018

-Open break: 2nd place

-Open tournament semifinalist

-4th best speaker

-TIID 2018

-Open break: 1st place

-Tournament runner-up finalist

-2nd best speaker

-Torneo Metropolitano de Debate (TMD) 2018

-Open break: 4th place

-Open tournament semifinalist

-Torneo Rosarista de Debate (TRD) 2018

-Open break: 1st place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-4th best speaker

-Campeonato Mundial Universitario de Debate en Español (CMUDE) Chile 2018

-Open break: 24th place

-Open tournament quarterfinalist

-Copa Leones de Debate (CLD) 2018

-Open break: 6th place

-Open tournament semifinalist

-LIBRE OPEN

-Open break: 3rd place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

2019:

-CND 2019

-Open break: 6th place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-6th best speaker

-CMUDE 2019

-Open break: 30th place

-Open tournament octofinalist

-PanAms UDC 2019

-Open break: 7th place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-Torneo Relámpago de la Megalópolis Toluca

-Open break: 1st place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-2nd best speaker

-CLD 2019

-Open break: 4th place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-9th best speaker

-LIBRE OPEN

-Open break: 2nd place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-5th best speaker

2020:

-MX Debate Virtual 2020

-Open break: 1st place

-Open tournament second place

-2nd best speaker

-TORRE 2020

-Open break 5th place

-3rd best speaker

-Open tournament semifinalist

-TMD 2020

-Open break: 3rd place

-Open tournament semifinalist

-Top speaker averages in the tournament

-E-CND 2020

-Open break: 1st place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

-3rd best speaker

2021:

-TODI 2021

-Open break: 15th place

-Open tournament runner-up finalist

Judging:

2017:

-Torneo Abierto de Debate Occasio 2017

2018:

-Campeonato Hispanohablante Internacional de de Debate y Oratoria 2018

-Break as adjudicator

-Three Torneo Interno de Debate UdeG

2019:

-ASOMEX 2019

-Break as adjudicator

-Middle school semifinal chair

-High school final chair

-Debate Camp Judging

2020:

-Torneo Colegial PT Colombiano

-Break as adjudicator

-Best judge of the competition

-AZOOMEX

-Torneo Internacional UNED Madrid

-Break as adjudicator

-Top 10 judges of the competition

-Semifinal and final panel judge for the novice division

-Torneo MX Debate Virtual

-Break as adjudicator

-Recognized within the top 3 adjudicators in the competition

-Quarter finals chair judge

2021:

-UPenn WSDC Tournament

I have NO experience with the following formats:

__x__ Congress

__x__ PF

__x__ LD

__x__ Policy

__x__ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

I have chaired several WS rounds before. Chairing a WS round involves the calling of speakers to present their speeches and considering all of the points that were explicitly brought out in the debate, not what I personally believe or what I think should have happened in the round. As a chair, I always make sure that every panelist votes and justifies their decision to include it as a part of the verbal feedback team receive. I also make sure that panelists send their ballots on time so as to not delay the tournament. As a panelist, I always deliver with the rest of the panel the points that I always found critical for the debate to help the creation of a strong feedback and reason for decision. As a judge I am always open for personal feedback and questions regarding the debate.

A World Schools round is made up of two teams: proposition and opposition. Proposition has to defend the motion and opposition goes against it. Both teams are built of 3 speakers from which we will listen to 8 minute speeches and a 4 minute reply. The reply speaker is either the 1st or 2nd speaker of the round, ensuring that only one speaker from each team will speak twice during the debate. Points of information are allowed between the first and seventh minute of the 8 minute speeches, however, they are not allowed during the 4 minute reply speech.

I am usually flowing the debate on my computer or my iPad, taking thorough notes on every speaker’s remarks, POIs and answers to the POIs.

Personally, I find both principle and practical arguments to be as valuable in the round as long as speakers explain the importance of these arguments and weigh them against each other. I don’t like taking arguments at face value, I like hearing constructive analysis as to why an argument is true/untrue and a proper explanation of the comparative between cases. I usually find it easier to follow a debate case when teams present metrics/burdens for the round and when their style is ordered and logical. I personally don’t mind fast speakers, I ponder strategy and content over style but the points need to be crystal clear.

In terms of strategy, I always take into consideration contradictions in the cases and the weighing that each team gives an argument. I also ponder heavily the proper development of arguments, this means that speakers should be spending a reasonable time developing arguments, not leaving a full on argument for the last minute. I find persuasiveness to be key in the presentation of the arguments, it is important to balance analysis/mechanization and rhetoric.

I do not think that evidence is necessary to prove an argument so long as it is proven through persuasive analysis and realistic characterizations. I also believe that teams should respect the fiat the motion gives each side of the house, meaning that teams can actually do or think they can do whatever the motion is asking from them. Despite this, it is important for teams to also characterize and analyse why their model is likely to happen/be accepted, why it would solve issues they are trying to fix and how they will carry this out.

Hello! My name is Jazzmin Huerta and I have a background in English Language Arts, Science of Teaching Reading, and I am also a teacher in training at Texas Woman's University. All I am looking for in a competitor is that they speak clearly, concisely, and respectfully. I also want you to give strong and valid points in your argument. Other than that, do your best and good luck!

Name: Vanessa Lee

Current Affiliation: Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet

Hi there! I’ll cut right to the chase - I am new to the debate game. I am the debate coach at Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet in Dallas ISD. While I’m new TFA, I’ve had such an enriching experience learning how to competently judge World Schools by participating in tournaments hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Association.

I look forward to a day of engaged and informative debates. I expect debaters to remain professional and cordial despite the passionate positions they may be asked to take. I will listen carefully to your arguments and maintain objectivity and check my personal opinions and unconscious bias regarding the topic at the door.

Style: DO NOT SPEED READ (spreading). You do not have to read at a snail's pace either. Clear communication with the intention to HEAR your opponent is, in my opinion, the best way to ensure that we’re getting the most out of World School debate.

Content: Try to to take 1-2 POIs for 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.

Strategy: Be sure not to drop arguments. Strive to analyze your case as well as your opponent’s arguments, provide fleshed-out examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side while making comparative claims about the superiority of your position.

Know that I am listening intently to the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!

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.

Most of my experience has been judging and coaching LD. Below are my guiding principles for judging, how I view the activity, and my role as a judge.

LD:

1. The Affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution true and the Negative must prove the resolution false. Each side must establish how they interpret the resolution and which framework is the best for evaluating the round. From this, I judge on the impacts that are relevant under the winning framework. In theory, this could mean that a debater could be losing the framework debate, but as long as they have offensive arguments under the winning framework, and they clearly link their impacts to this framework, then they could still win the round.

2. I can only consider arguments that are presented in the round. It is my view that it is the debater’s responsibility to adequately communicate and warrant their arguments and why those arguments matter for that particular round. When competing claims occur, I will weigh the arguments/evidence/impacts presented in the round and through the “instructions'' students have given me. Ideally, debaters will make clear comparisons, lay out the order of operations, provide even/if statements, and tell me how to weigh. This makes my job a lot easier and requires less intervention on my end. Please do not assume that your argument speaks for itself. Even if I understand the aim of your argument, I cannot vote on it if you do not clearly extend it, and its impact on the round, through your speeches. If neither debater has met their burdens, then I will vote for the side that requires the least intervention on my end.

1. For arguments that ask me to use my ballot in some other way, the burden is on the debater to explain why my ballot ought to be used in this alternative way and why this matters for the round.

2. I am fine with a number of communication and speaking styles. I am generally fine with fast rates of speech, but if you are speaking so fast your arguments are blurred together, it will be highly difficult for me to flow. Clarity is the larger issue here. If I cannot flow your argument, I cannot vote on it.

3. Good sportsmanship and strategic CX questions are a part of the things I take into consideration when determining speaker points.

Lastly, it is my personal belief that LD not only coaches students to think critically, but is also a place for students to contemplate their own morals and relation to the world. It is a space for debaters to think through the implications of actions, including their own. As such, I believe that debate ought to always be an inclusive space. Things like kindness, respect, humility, a genuine interest in learning, and a desire for growth, are all things I expect from debaters. Please be sure you are engaging in these types of behaviors and actions during the round.

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.

I will be unbiased, I have judged before. 

I am a traditional judge (don’t spread). I encourage you to use Value clash and weighing frequently. Stats and evidence is needed to support your arguments (my coach taught stats)- don’t just state them in your constructive. Your arguments that are extreme (war, extinction,racist, etc) need to be legitimatized. I don’t just buy the extreme arguments unless you prove they’re probable. Philosophical arguments aren’t as compelling without data. Use pathos too, it helps. Furthermore, my decision is made based on the Rebuttal. That’s what the focus of the debate should be. If you want me to focus on a point, say it in the rebuttal for it to factor into my decision. The Neg constructive is also the first neg rebuttal. Also, extend evidence. I admire weighing. Don’t just say your argument is better. Place your argument and your opponent’s on a scale, show me how your are comparatively better. Watch hot words in resolution like “on balance” or “just”. Advance the debate, evolve arguments to respond to what’s being said. Speaker points and speaking ability is a big help and your speaker points will be given accurately. Also, be polite! Use your cx to clarify, poke holes, and expose. Finally, keep your time and remember your prep. JUST BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION SAYS OUGHT DOESN’T, IN THE SLIGHTEST, MEAN YOUR VALUE NEEDS TO BE MORALITY!! Your value needs to match the content of your case.

I competed in World Schools Debate in Mexico City for 3 years, currently I coach BP for my university Instituto Autónomo de México (ITAM) and I am co-coach of Team Mexico for WSDC 2021, alongside Ilhui Bravo Rosas.

School affiliation/s:

I am currently not affiliated with any schools or institutions outside of Mexico.

I am a hired judge for this tournament. I graduated in 2017 from The Churchill College in Mexico City. Currently I am enrolled at the Instituto Autónomo de México in Mexico City, I study economics :)

College debate experience:

I participate mostly in the spanish language BP circuit, events competed in include:

• TMD 2018 Open Broke 9th (Quarterfinals)

• Libre Open 208 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)

• 5th Best Speaker

• Copa UNAM 2019 Open Broke 3rd (Finalist)

• 7th Best Speaker

• Relámpago 2019 Open Broke to Final

• Panam UDC 2019 Open Broke 9th (Semifinalist)

• 7th Best Speaker

• CLD 2019 Open Broke 7th (Finalist)

• 9th Best Speaker

• CND 2019 Open Broke 17th (Semifinalist)

• 9th Best Speaker

• CMUDE 2019 Open Broke 7th (Octos)

• 5th best Speaker

• Libre Open 2019 Open Broke 2nd (Finalist)

• Best Speaker

• TIID 2019 Open Broke as a judge (Quarters)

• ADMM 2020 Open Broke 8th (Semifinalist)

• 4th Best Speaker

• Round Robin 2020 -

• Torneo INE 2020 Open Broke 1st (Finalist)

• 2nd Best Speaker

• UNED 2020 Open Broke 16th

• Torre 2020 Open Broke 4th (Finalist)

• TMD 2020 Open Broke 3rd (Quarterfinals)

• Best Speaker

• E-CND Open Broke 1st (Finalist)

• Best Speaker

Tournaments as Adj Team in BP tournaments:

• Torneo INE Categoría menor 2020

• CMUDE trailer 2020

• CNDI Perú 2021

World Schools debate coaching experience:

- Team Mexico WSDC 2021 co-coach.

- Team Mexico’s Development Team Coach 2020

- Mexican Debate Summer Camp from 2017-2019

I have judged World Schools debate for 4 years now. TFA state will be the first World Schools tournament of 2021 that I judge. I judge regularly for the Mexican World Schools circuit, since 2020 I have judged on two occasions on USA tournaments and at the Winter Holiday Open tournament as a hired judge.

I have NO experience in the following formats:

__x__ Congress

__x__ PF

__x__ LD

__x__ Policy

__x__ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

- I have chaired a WS round before. Chairing a WS round involves calling on speakers to present their speeches, considering each and every speaker's remark, judging based on what happened during the round , not what could've happened, or what I personally would have liked to hear, pondering each argument made by each speaker, and making sure the panelists fill their ballot and send them on time.

A WS debate is made up of two teams, proposition and opposition, proposition is for the motion of the debate, opposition is against. Both teams are made up of three speakers that participate in a particular role, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the reply speeches. The first three speeches are sustantive speeches, the last speech is the reply speech, which will be delivered by the first speaker or the second speaker of the round. This means a single speaker from both teams will do two speeches. Sustantive speeches are 8 minutes long, reply speeches are 4 minutes long. Points of information are allowed between the first and the seventh minute of the sustantive speeches, POI's may not be given during the reply speech.

I take thorough notes with many colour pens and markers :) every speaker's speech is noted, along with POI's and each speaker's response,

I believe practical and principled are equally valuable in a round, I don't prefer one over another. I evaluate the analysis delivered in order for the argument to be proven true, I evaluate the impact of each argument and the construction and justification for the given impact. I also refer back to the metrics or burden of proof presented at the beginning of the debate to evaluate the arguments.

I evaluate strategy through the POI's given in a round, through the congruency of a team (for example if there is a clear contradiction between speakers, that tells me there's a lack of strategy), and sometimes time management of a speaker in their speech (if the second argument in a 1st speech is given past 7 minutes, for example, that's a lack of strategy).

if a speaker is going too fast I would deduct points from the style section of their speech. I do want to clarify, I speak English fluently and there is no need to speak extra slowly for me, please speak as you would normally.

Evidence isn't necessary in order for an argument to be true, an argument without evidence should be sustained through analysis and mechanization of that argument. Models can be criticized, however, proposition can claim fiat in carrying out what the motion is asking them to do. Models and countermodels should respond to; who is going to carry out the model (what institution for example), how are they going to carry it out? When... etc.

World Schools Debate is a format that emphasizes not only individual speaking skills but also teamwork, collaboration, and a comprehensive understanding of global issues.

Here's my judging paradigm:

Judging Paradigm for World School Debate 1. Teamwork and Collaboration, I will:

• Evaluate the extent to which team members collaborate effectively.
• Consider how well they build on each other's arguments and contribute to the overall team strategy.
• Reward teams that demonstrate unity and a shared vision.

2. Individual Speaking Skills, I will:

• Assess the clarity, fluency, and persuasiveness of each debater's speeches.
• Consider the ability to engage the judge, use effective rhetoric, and maintain composure under pressure.
• Reward debaters who demonstrate versatility in their speaking styles.

3. Content and Argumentation, I will:

• Evaluate the strength and relevance of arguments presented by each team.
• Consider the depth of analysis, quality of evidence, and logical reasoning.
• Reward teams that exhibit a nuanced understanding of the motion and provide innovative perspectives.

4. Clash and Rebuttal, I will:

• Assess the team's ability to engage with opposing arguments effectively.
• Consider the quality of rebuttals, counterarguments, and the ability to exploit weaknesses in the opponent's case.
• Reward debaters who actively contribute to the clash in a constructive and strategic manner.

5. Use of POIs, I will:

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the POI in extracting relevant information and challenging the opponent's case.
• Consider the ability to remain composed and focused during cross-examination the POI.
• Reward debaters who utilize POIs as a strategic tool.

6. Global Awareness, I will:

• Assess the depth of knowledge and understanding of global issues.
• Consider how well debaters integrate global perspectives into their arguments.
• Reward teams that demonstrate a comprehensive awareness of international affairs.

7. Etiquette and Sportsmanship, I will:

• Evaluate the professionalism, courtesy, and respect exhibited by the debaters.
• Consider adherence to time limits and rules, as well as respectful engagement with opponents.
• Deduct points for any conduct that goes against the spirit of fair competition.

Additional Notes:

• Time Management: Deduct points for exceeding allotted speaking times.
• Presentation: Consider the use of hand gestures, eye contact, and the overall professionalism of the presentation.
• Adaptability: Reward debaters who demonstrate flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments or shifts in the debate.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

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

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___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 (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

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

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

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. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

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? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

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? (required)

I do that in the style section.

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? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

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.