About Me:

I am a Texas-based professional working as a director for healthcare/benefits company. While I haven't coached (or obviously competed) in a while, I continue to actively judge at local tournaments and am an assistant director for the MBA Extemporaneous Round Robin each year in Nashville.

I’ve competed in various speech and debate events from middle school through college, including 4 years of debate from 2000-2004. I’ve competed at tournaments run by UIL, TFA, and the NSDA (NFL) in both LD and Policy (and Extemp, Congress, OO etc.) so am well-versed in the various styles of debate and argumentation.

At a tournament, I will try to judge mostly Extemporaneous or LD, but when I offer to adjudicate any event, most tournament directors often end up putting me in Policy (because of judge scarcity), Public Forum (because of competitor abundance) or Congress (because no one else wants the multi-hour ballot).

LD Paradigm:

I am open to any type of argument so long as it is clearly articulated, coherently presented, and relevant to the specific round. In general, I prefer to judge a round by evaluating (in order):

1) Are there any in-round performative voting issues: Some sort of harm that occurred in round that merits my ballot be used as a tool?

2) Are there any critical arguments that are well-presented that pre-suppose acceptance of debate on the resolution?

3) Are there well-reasoned topicality arguments with clear impacts presented to evaluate?

4) Are there any overall framework arguments that rise to be voting issues on face prior to evaluating argumentation?

5) Finally, based on the most clearly articulated and defended value and criterion presented in the round (yes, I’d love to see a resolved standard by the end of the round someday!) which side of the debate did a better job articulating and supporting unique arguments in favor of why their position meets that standard best.

a. In the event that there is no clear standard (it happens frequently), I weigh the presented impacts of voting issues/arguments still ‘standing’ on the flow against each other and vote for the debater with the best argumentation for why those impacts outweigh the other

b. In the event that there are no clearly defined voting issues or arguments, I apply my judgement as to which debater best performed best and had the most logical argumentation style and supporting evidence

I am hesitant to give you a license to speed because my flowing is not as good as it used to be, but I will not penalize you for speaking at your most comfortable speed. Clarity and coherence are important, and I will very much appreciate you helping me by slowing down for key tags.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Policy Paradigm:

I am open to any type of argument so long as it is clearly articulated, coherently presented, and relevant to the specific round. In general, I prefer to judge a round by evaluating (in order):

1) Are there any in-round performative voting issues: Some sort of harm that occurred in round that merits my ballot be used as a tool?

2) Are there any critical arguments that are well-presented that pre-suppose acceptance of debate on the resolution?

3) Are there well-reasoned topicality arguments with clear impacts presented to evaluate?

4) Are there any overall framework arguments that rise to be voting issues on face prior to evaluating argumentation?

5) Is there a counterplan to consider and has it been shown to be unique from the plan with access to the same benefits?

6) Finally, has the affirmative debate team advocated for a clear plan and proven it to be solvent, inherent, and without any disadvantages left to outweigh it.

a. In the event that there is no clear plan (it happens sometimes), I weigh the presented impacts still ‘standing’ on the flow against each other and vote for the debater with the best argumentation for why those impacts outweigh the other

b. In the event that there are no clearly defined voting issues or arguments, I apply my judgement as to which debaters best performed best and had the most logical argumentation style and supporting evidence.

I am hesitant to give you a license to speed because my flowing is not as good as it used to be, but I will not penalize you for speaking at your most comfortable speed. Clarity and coherence are important, and I will very much appreciate you helping me by slowing down for key tags.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Worlds School Debate Paradigm:

This section is still a work in progress, as to-date I've judged very few WSD rounds. I am excited to see how this format grows over time. Establishing a framework is key in this sort of round. With topics that are broad and open to multiple interpretations, I need to understand exactly what you think the topic means and how you are attacking or defending under that framework. If there is ambiguity or two competing interpretations that never get resolved, it makes all of our jobs more difficult.

Unlike LD or Policy, I do not have a pre-set method of evaluating these debates. I will listen to whatever sort of argumentation you present, whether that be a more detailed example-based approach or a more theoretical logic-based approach. I would like to see you debate the main thesis of the topic and not get stuck in extreme edge cases.

Once you get to the later speeches, I would love to start hearing resolution to the debate. Crystallize your position, explain how arguments interact, identify how those arguments relate to the framework and what their impacts are. I'm fine with you going line-by-line, but would be far more impressed with a few strong well-articulated arguments cross-applied well across the flow.

Points of Information: BE RESPECTFUL!

If you are asking a question: make sure you're asking something that matters. Don't continue to do it repeatedly for the sake of interruption. I generally expect to hear between 2-4 POIs per constructive.

If you are responding: Speakers should expect to take some of the POIs but are not required to take all. Please be both polite and definitive in accepting, delaying, or dismissing questions. Dismiss when the opponent's POI is become excessive or interrupting the flow of debate. Do not dismiss just because you're pretty sure they are making a good point.

(Scroll down for debate pet peeves)

Debate Pet Peeves:

I generally don't write a ballot because of these things, but if putting them here will prevent you from asking me about it in the round, then so be it.

1) If you are going to ask me for any advice or paradigms pre-round, please listen to what I have to say. Don't just ask it out of habit and then ignore what I tell you!

2) All time is either speech time or prep time. If you need to share materials, please coordinate and do it before the round, our you are welcome to to use prep time to do it. There is no stopping mid-round for a 5 minute break of transferring evidence or 'I'm not starting prep until I receive your evidence'. If no one is speaking then it is prep time!

3) Digital sharing is not a substitute for communication. While I am an advocate for flashing, using an online file share, or email thread to share digital content for education and fairness purposes, it should be done appropriately and with reason. You are under no obligation to disclose cases, and, as a judge, I will make my decision based off of what was clearly articulated in the round and not what was written on the piece of paper or laptop screen. I do not share my email for any direct chains in a round, but I will occasionally peruse files shared on speechdrop or the Tabroom file share. Either way, I am not reviewing the text to understand your arguments. You should be communicating them to me clearly!

4) Slow down and deliver taglines and author names clearly if you want to later refer to it by name only. I would highly prefer you give me the specific argument and impacts in extensions, but if you are insistent on saying things like 'Extend Smith 2004' then make sure I catch those author names the first time around!

Extemporaneous Paradigm:

First and foremost, make sure you are answering the question. Specific words always influence the exact framing of the question and if your speech in its entirety does not respond to that framing then I am not sure if you are giving me a fresh speech based off the topic you are given, or just regurgitating something you did in practice for a tangentially-related question.

I like to hear good research and a variety of sources. If you are going to cite a source, make sure you telling me something specific from the evidence.

My primary focus is that you have well-developed areas of analysis with a specific set of warrants and impacts to your position in response to the question. I do also evaluate having a nice conversational delivery, but I find that secondary in importance to analysis. With that said, in a competitive round, I will reward having a sense of humor and being personable as differentiator between two close speeches.

Congress Paradigm:

Under Construction

Participate. Ask thoughtful questions. Be consistent in your positions or explain why you changed. Be conversational and persuasive.

Platform Speaking Events Paradigm (OO, Info, CA etc.):

Under Construction

Please do not go overtime. This is a prepared speech. Move with a purpose. Be organized and clearly signpost. Explain to me why you care or why I should care.

Interpretation Paradigm (PR, PO, HI, DI, Duo/Duet, etc.):

If you are reading this, you must have had to scroll through all the other events I should have been judging before the tournament assigned me to your interpretation round. With a mind pre-disposed for debate, I look for an 'argument' in your interpretation. Argument in interpretation does not necessarily have to be persuasive, but rather just a purpose for why you make your decisions.

Your introduction should reveal to me that purpose and help me understand why it is relevant either to me or to you.

I want to see variety throughout the performance. Instead of it all being in a single voice, there should be inflections in tone, volume, pacing, and emotions all throughout. Conventionally, that may add up to a climactic moment near the end, but it doesn't have to. I just don't want to see a one-note performance that ends the same way it began.

I'd like to see crisp and clear characterization. If I can't figure out who you are while you are performing, that is a problem. Its okay with me if you be super subtle and realistic, or choose to be over the top and dramatized. I just want to make sure you make specific thoughtful choices that are best for your material.

Don't be overtime. In interpretation, I am assuming that this is your piece that you have been doing all year. Unlike extemporaneous or debate, you know what you are going to say, how people might react to it, and how much time you need. You should be delivering near the same times consistently and have cut the material to be the appropriate length.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.

Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.

Style/Delivery Preference:

Spreading is fine

You must be clear and articulate.

Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.

Signpost!!

Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.

Have Fun :)

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

dmarshall36@gmail.com

copied from a former coach:
"I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so."


i love debate.


tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.


whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.


keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.


ihate"perm do the counterplan." unless there's some theoretical reason why the cp is aff ground (text comp good or something) i just won't vote on it.

if the debate is lopsided and you're winning by a mile against more novice debaters, you'll get a 30 and 29.9 by going slower, explaining the debate to the other team clearly during cross-ex, and making the round educational.


im familiar with all styles of 1ac's. i consider role of the ballot arguments as framing, and dont necessarily weigh traditional standards and f/w voters above other frameworks unless told to with warranted arguments. using specific cards of a k aff to impact turn framework is undervalued in high school debate, for some reason.


im looking for warrant comparison in the rebuttals. i like to directly quote the 2nr and 2ar in my rfd, so impact stories and reading warrants from important cards are winning strategies to get my ballot.


i have little sympathy for debaters answering cards that are in the doc but are not read in the speech. this is worse than missing a card on your flow, it shows that you're just not flowing. i want to be added to the doc so i can read your evidence throughout the debate, but i will not flow off the doc.


please slow down on tags and interps. you should stop "hiding" interps in the 1nc. slow down on your interps.


High School LD

see above. i try my best to give leeway to the four minutes 1ar, but that can be difficult to discern. i notice a lot of cultural norms around theory debates. to be extra clear: if there is k offense in the 2n and the 2ar goes for theory without addressing the k offense, im probably going to vote that the impacts of the k outweigh fairness or whatever. i simply expect the 2ar to layer the voters for me, extend an apriori issue, or something of the sort. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.


PFD

im somewhat familiar with pf. i will not evaluate advocacies in this event.


im bothered by the evidence norms of this event. i see debaters read authors and taglines as if that is sufficient, but debate should include analyzing evidence. that means reading warrants directly from the authors of the evidence. if your opponents are flying through taglines of evidence instead of reading parts of the studies/articles, i would be persuaded by an argument that told me to not evaluate taglines as evidence. if your style is name dropping as many authors as you can, im probably not the best judge for you.


here's some of NSDA Board Member Dave Huston's thoughts on this. i agree with what the paragraph below.

"The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. .........[redacted because im not Dave Huston]...
...If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up."

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

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing special. I judge Congress/PF/LD regularly. Keep arguments germane to the topic. Watch speed.

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

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.

Typically the biggest issue I face as a judge is teams refuse to actually respond to or weigh arguments/impacts. Other than basic things like topicality, etc. I'm likely to vote for whichever team is able to resolve conflicting arguments related to links or impacts by addressing and dismantling or outweighing their opponent's (rather than simply re-reading evidence/extending through the ink)

I am open to all arguments. I really want debaters to explain why their specific argument is better than the other side. If you are arguing theory be sure to make sure I know where the abuse/ violation is and why it is more important than other arguments in the round. I am fine with speed in person but I have found that sound quality from mics and speakers are huge variables that can cause problems and although you might be clear in person it may not be coming across clear on my end and I will let you know and ask you to slow down.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Email: joshbutdebate@gmail.com

College: UT Tyler 21-24

High School: Lindale 17-21

General philosophy: Feel free to read whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for critical arguments almost every debate my senior year, but the previous three years I spent reading exclusively policy arguments and I read a mix of the two in college. You know what is and is not appropriate to say within rounds and if you don't adhere to that, your points and ballot will reflect it. If you have any questions about your argument and whether or not I'd be receptive to it, it's better to ask than be bothered by my ballot.

Comments:

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Tech>truth. A dropped argument isn't assumed true without an extended and weighable warrant.

Depth>breadth. I'm not the best judge for more than 6 or 7 off, but if you feel like you need 13 pages to win a debate, I'll just be sad.

I prefer you to not read 30 cards in a speech. Evidence quality is really important and if you throw that out of the window just to throw the other team off, your speaks will reflect it. Comparing evidence quality is a great way to turn the tide in your favor in debates in front of me, as I will do my absolute best to evaluate only what was said in the round.

If it gives you better context, the most influential people to how I view debate are Cody Gustafson, Quaram Robinson, Yao Yao Chen and Nico Juarez.

Disads

-Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is.

-Zero risk is possible

Counterplans

-Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs

-This is one place I am very up for a theory debate, whack counterplans that wipe out much of the aff lit base are probably bad for everyone, but the amount of times I've gone for counterplans that definitely cheat on some level puts me in the middle here.

-Doesn't really bother me if they're specific or not, but even if you don't have specific cards you should be able to explain why the counterplan solves the specific harms of the aff with a risk of a net benefit

-Generally for judge-kick, you just need to actually say it. This doesn't mean I can't be dissuaded by the other team in the final speech though.

Kritiks

-Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates.

-Framework isn't as important to win on negative in a lot of these debates, but if winning a research method through framework is what your critique is all about, of course you must win it.

-Most familiar with critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism and various areas of literature involving anti-blackness. Have read a bit of PoMo, but it is probably the argument you will need to spend the most time explaining. Regardless of my familiarity with your argument, you should be doing the work as if I've never heard your argument before.

-Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are really important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to get better speaks. The inverse is true as well.

-Impact and alt debates are often very muddy. Explaining your impact in a way that it can result from the links and be resolved by the alternative is something that is important. Alt explanation doesn't have to be hard, you just need to do it. History is your greatest resource in these debates, don't forget about it. Examples and explanations are great ways not just to get better speaks, but to win my ballot.

Framework

-Do your thing here and go for the impacts you are most comfortable going for. These debates often get lost in the internal links and fall short in the impact debate, be very careful there.

-Topical versions are important, but you need to make inroads outside of them to implicate why they're important within the debate. Don't just shallowly extend it or acknowledge it and move on, these can shred most of your offense on either side, but are very important to win when aff.

-Impact turns and impact defense are important here, but fleshing these arguments out is something a lot of teams don't do.

Topicality

-I have a higher threshold for voting for this against policy affs, some of these T interps are getting out of hand. That being said, T and advantage counterplans were my favorite arguments to go for, so feel free to read it if you think you can win it. Sometimes you might need to take these debates a little more slowly, it will benefit my comprehension given there are generally fewer pieces of evidence in these debates.

-Having good definitions (that define words in the resolution) is important.

-Please don't refer to a sheet by the authors name, instead refer to it by the word/phrase that the author intends to define.

Theory

-Please no tricks, they're bad for everyone

-Reasons to reject require warrants and weighable impacts

-Counterplan theory is probably a good idea, look above.

-IVIs/RVIs are cool, but not every sheet is an IVI. For example, if the negative reads a topicality shell in the 1NC and then choose not to go for it, that isn't a reason to vote affirmative.

I coached at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: Policy debate, LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp.

I coached from 1999 through July 2019, when I retired from the classroom. Now I do consulting for students who want private coaching and for school districts as well as for UIL.

I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know.

My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts. Know the difference in a claim with a citation and a warrant. If nothing explains why it's true, I'm not likely to buy the argument.

I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round.

I'm pretty straightforward. I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate the round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. In LD and PF, the HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens, in policy debate, this is the link from the plan to the topic on aff or the CP or simply delinking on the neg. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W.

In LD and PF, I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own.

I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist.

I want to see clash from the negative.

I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.

I am not a fan of spreading...if I can't understand you how can I make an informed decision on your position? If you are for or against the status quo then state that and be convincing and compelling. Don't forget the importance of definitions but just because the other side concedes to your definitions don't assume that is enough to win the round.

Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and an impact.

Tell me what you want me to vote on...give me a road map and sign post along the way. I am a fan of impacts and if you see a turn...go for it with all you have.

PF- has the feel of a "town" meeting so your argument should be kept simple..not to the point of being insulting. In this case...be sure you are factual/truthful with "commonly" known information. I am an educated, tax paying, home owning person.

I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you that any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA (you get the gist) I have a zero tolerance policy for...let's not test me on this issue please...I'd like to keep my hopes that we will continue to evolve into a society that is tolerant of how everyone wants to live their lives.

Congress: I am looking for full participation in the round. I am watching to see how active you are in questioning. I want to hear you give your argument for or against that is compelling and not a rehash of what's already been said throughout the round. I do not like watching speaks being given for the sake of giving a speech when we've already heard the same point stated in 3 previous speeches. Be clever and when you give your speech...I am stoked when you point out something said by the opposing side previously stated.