hey my name is lauren!

i mainly judge debate. i did extemp for a while in hs but my speech judging beyond that is pretty basic i guess because i am really uninformed on the techniques that should be displayed.

cd: this is my main event. i competed mostly on nats and state circuit. that doesn't make me better, but it makes me more clash-loving. you can speak wonderfully but if you aren't attacking people in the room, i will probably be uninterested in what you are saying. i like good questions. don't just ask a bad question and then when someone can't answer it give them a bad look hahhaha. i don't like cheesy intros. make it smart and funny.

pf: i love judging pf. its so much more fun when the debater is speaking with a speed and volume that i can hear. I like attacking top down, im flowing the round too so i can tell when you're dropping points and impacts.

ld: i'm probably not the strongest ld judge. not great at buying theory. i like good links and evidence. i love clash. get passionate in the round and give me good real world links.

overall be engaged and prepared. debate can take you so far and can teach you so much. buy in as much as you can.

cheers!

I am conflicted with Cypress Park Hs.

Individual events: I look for strong characterization, rhetorical appeals, vocal variety and inflection, expressive facial/ body movements, clear enunciation, confidence, and creative delivery.

Debate events: I look for conversational tone of voice, clear and average paced speaking (No spreading), Rhetorical appeals, strong reasoning and logic, current and credible evidence, and impactful connections.

natalie crockett

mount pleasant '23 | utexas '27

she/her

-----

as a rule of thumb for all events, please do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. please try and be as inclusive as possible in general!

----

extemp: remember the little details along with your speech. eye contact, citing sources, pauses, etc. are also important aspects of the speech and could be the deciding factor in rankings if need be. i'm pretty particular about proper sources being provided when necessary so please keep that in mind. be sure that you are fully answering your question and providing thoughtful analysis on whatever answer you give. if you keep all these things in mind you shouldn't have many issues!

interp: the only comments I have to make about interp events is to look at the book as little as possible (if its an event with a book lol). A lot of times, the final rankings for a round end up coming down to little details like that so try to be as mindful as possible about memorization. interp is largely up to your interpretation (lol get it?) and i am aware of that as a judge. please use blocking :)

congress: speeches should have structure, adequate research, delivery, etc. make sure to remember proper parliamentary procedure as well in order to not devalue your position in the round.

pf: i'm pretty chill when it comes to pf, most of the time yall know how to run the round without the help of your judge and i'm 100% fine with that. off-time roadmaps are fine with me as well. calling out concessions does not indicate an auto-win, you have continue to extend your argument. try to speak as clearly as possible so i can catch what you're saying and please be professional.

----

make sure you are aware of what circuit you are competing in (tfa, uil, nsda, etc.), each one has slightly different rules for certain things so please keep that in mind.

overall, i'm pretty laid back. if you have any questions about me as a judge, i am happy to briefly answer before the round starts. i know y'all work really hard for these events and i want to facilitate a fair environment for all of you to succeed. best of luck!

Hello! I am Christy Cruz from Travis Bryan High School.

I am a parent/Lay judge and I usually judge in the novice divisions, but in case I have to judge varsity, here are my Preferences.

1= I know and comfortable judging.

2= A little confusing, but I can understand.

3= Very confusing, but I will try to understand.

4= Way to confusing and likely won't understand. (Strike)

Traditional/UIL style- 1

LARP/Policy- 2

K- 3

K/Performance Affs- 4

Topicality-3

Theory- 4

Philosophy- 1

Hello, I am Juan Cruz from Bryan High School.

I am a parent judge, but have judged on and off for about a year. I am, however, new to "progressive" styles of debating. So keep that in mind.

I prefer clear speech, some speed is ok but spreading is hard to flow and not desirable.

I understand traditional debate a lot more than progressive style debate.

I think that truth>tech but i agree that clash is important.

Summary:

I competed in speech and extemporaneous speaking for 3 years years in a 5A high school. I competed in the Texas College circuit for 1 year in CX and speech events. I've started teams/coached at a 5A school and have been judging for approximately 10 years. I try to answer questions before the round within reason. I have taught Science for approximately 3 years. I judge CX/LD/PF/Extemporaneous Speech regularly.

Round Preferences:

Stylistic Preference:

-Speed is fine -- Be clear on tags and citations.

-Road maps and sign posting is preferred.

-Don’t yell at me or your opponent; be mindful of your volume and aggression level as needed for the circumstance.

-Do have eye contact with me when possible. Lowest speaker points will be 26 unless your behavior and performance warrants something lower.

-Perform with professionalism. Try to refrain from flailing hands, pointing, "knife-handing"

Theory:

-I operate as the affirmative plan should/ought to be considered. It is the negative's job to have a justified alternative or find the holes in the affirmative's case.

-The affirmative can only fiat components that exist in the status quo (as in the should implies could and will work if it were to be adopted).

-I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting it without valid justification

Preferred Quality of Arguments:

- Quality over quantity of evidence is important.

- A variety of sources is smiled upon.

-Don’t waste time on evidence that will not come up again. If you want me to vote something up or down then spend the time to explain it.

-If you want me to call for evidence, flag it in the rebuttals. Complete warrants are NECESSARY for each argument. (abuse, education, permutation)

Topicality:

-The quality of a definition in context is important to me.

-An analogy or example is preferred for better limits.

-Be clear on standards if they are not provided I will default to reasonability.

Counter Plan:

-Topical CPs are accepted.

-Single agent of action is better than multi-agent.

-Plan inclusive counter plans are accepted.

-1NC must indicate conditional, non-conditional, or dispositional.

-A Net Benefit DA will make the CP more in your favor.

Disadvantage:

DAs will be weighed at the end of the round. I will vote for the team with the better impact calculus. I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts.

Kicking:

Do be clear about what you are kicking and remind me in 2AR and 2NR or I will count it as a drop. Don’t kick something unless it is necessary. I expect you to run arguments that you plan on keeping, not time wasters.

LD Debate:

Value and Criterion-Must be able to measure your value; while not my primary means of deciding the round, it is a factor depending on how it is used.

Hello Contestants! Your hard work and preparation will be appreciated by me as your Judge.

Claims w/o evidence carries little to no weight. Presenting your evidence in a clear way with a reasonable pace will assure a strong argument.

Watch your time and enjoy the journey!

Howdy, my name is Daniel Gardiner and I'm a political science major from Corpus Christi TX but most importantly I am the loudest and proudest member of the fighting Texas Aggie class of 2026. I competed in debate all four years of high school at the local state and national level having the privilege to attend some really great tournaments like Bluekey, University of Texas, TOC, and more. I have separate paradigms listed for each event I consider myself qualified to judge.

Congress: I did nats circuit congressional debate all across the country and man do I love the event. I think its important to remember that although the event allows for a lot of theatrics and really cool speaking styles it is a debate event. Presentation and argumentation are both extremely significant for my ballot. Present bad arguments that do not have a big impact on the round and I'll probably drop you. For early round speakers I expect you to frame the debate dive deep into the legislation and what it does and really outline the impact of an aff or neg vote. Late round speakers should have a lot of refutation with a mix of new points. Evidence and analysis work together to create solid claims and warrants I expect both in a point. Please be respectful to other speakers and address each other properly when bringing their name up in questions or speeches. With that being said I appreciate all types of AGDs in introductions as long as they are not canned. Never call me sir or Mr during a round I will not drop you for it but I much prefer Daniel or parli depending on my role in the round. For Po's you'll get a good rank from me as long as you do not mess up. If you speak off of a laptop the highest rank I will give you is 6. (unless the room is not super competitive)

Extemp: I competed in FX at the local level and DX at all levels. I try to keep up with significant news findings in both national and international news so do not BS or lie in round about a situation or crisis that is in your question chances are I'll catch it. With that being said things that lack objective truths such as "whether or not US impact in the Middle East has been positive" I will listen to multiple viewpoints as long as you have evidence backing your claims. Examples of good evidence for me include thinktanks, empirical studies, and experts regarding the field in question. Bad evidence includes opinion pages, encyclopedias, or highly controversial sites that generally misrepresent information because of bias. The most common ones I see presented too much are progon.org, Fox News, and CNN. Stick to neutral sources like NPR, Politico, or Carnegie. I am not afraid to vote people down for lying about sources if you forget an article do not BS and say some generic site like CNN I traditionally fact check all sources unless I miss the name of one. Dates, as long as you are close to the publishing date don't worry about it. I love great citations that explain author qualifications or how research is conducted.

LD: Lincoln Douglas debate is definitely one of the hardest events to find major success in so props to you guys for picking up the event. I competed in LD at the local and state level but nothing beyond that. First things first I expect to be on the email chain every time there is one if the competitors are both okay with not seeing the case that's fine with me just remember that if you choose to speak fast. I am okay with spreading it will not doc speaker points for me as long as you slow down for taglines and author names. If you are competing against someone that would prefer you not to spread please consider that before you start the round the last thing we wanna do is scare people away from the activity, prioritizing the ballot above someone's well-being is not cool and I will reflect that in your speaker points. I get that rounds can be frustrating but please be respectful in round do not swear unless it is specific to the literature you are using. Finally on the argumentation side I will evaluate any argument that is not offensive. Racism, sexism, homophobia I will instantly drop and not flow the rest of the debate. I hate K's that have no link to the topic or your opponents case. If your running a competing model of debate strategy I will try to fully consider it but no promises. I personally appreciate theory arguments like T and condo so feel free to run them. Framing is important but if you have no offense as long as your opponent does a decent job establishing that they will probably win my ballot. LARPing is fine. Performance aff is fine just explain the significance of it in the 1AC not the 1AR. I do not like music in the background while I am flowing it distracts me and I'll start dancing when I should be judging. Finally I would say this for all of you that see me my name before judging. I would much rather debate/judge a traditional round than a progressive round because I believe they are more fun and less stressful. That does not mean you have to go trad but I thought y'all would like the heads up. Have never voted for disclosure and do not plan on it.

OO: I have no competitive experience in OO but I have briefly coached the event and have had the privilege of being on a team with one of the best orators in the country. What I look for in a piece is something that has a very real impact and something that is relatable! That covers a significant number of topic areas so what will distance yourself from other speakers in the room for my ballot is presentation and analysis. I pay super close attention to tone, I love a speaker that can take me on an adventure using conversational tactics and then moving from conversational to funny, serious, compassionate, and other areas. I know this is not debate but I do expect at least some qualified evidence to back your claims. I do not think there is a 100% accurate formula in terms of speech structure but I tend to support speeches with a simple problem solution format as I think it makes the most sense for this type of event. Finally, I will always vote up the speaker that makes me think about the squo and what is wrong with it. If I have to question my actions or other people's actions as a result of the speech and the speech also gives me a way to solve those actions or lack of actions then you are in the right direction. OO's should not be interp pieces I do not like you pretending to be a character or having overly dramatic transitions.

Email: gardidk367@gmail.com

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

In policy debate, I am a HEAVY stock issues judge with the exception of topicality. I usually feel people call T when they do not have anything else to call. Obviously sometimes there are topicality issues. Make it convincing if you call topicality.

I am definitely not a tabula rosa or kritiks judge. I am also not easily convinced by impact calculus. I am looking for who just has the best overall convincing arguments.

Spreading - not a fan. I am 50 years old and just cannot listen that fast. If I did not hear you say it, it did not happen. If you spread, I put my pen down and I will not listen.

I am not a fan of nukes.

Counterplans are okay.

mount pleasant '23 | texas '27

email chain/questions: aoorellana535@gmail.com

*please ask your coach to reach out to me

- - -

TLDR - too long, didn't read

debate how you debate. be strategic and organized. judge instruction is very persuasive. don't make flowing your speech hard for me. have fun and treat people with kindness!

STOP SHADOW EXTENDING. good debaters extend arguments thoroughly.

i will try not to do any work for anyone. i try to be as transparent as possible in my flows and decisions. the more work you make me do, the lower your speaks go and the chances of getting my ballot. if you have any questions, feel free to ask me after the round or during the tournament.

- - -

CX – cross-examination or policy

do whatever you know best: traditional stock issues, contentions, etc.

2A's should STOP card dumping and start strategically using the 1AC to make creative responses.

the 1AR is not a constructive speech. just don't make it a constructive speech.

the 1NR should not be using prep time after the 2NC. instead, use the time prior to have enough time to strategize in the 2NR.

the 2NR should be condensed down to the main winning arguments. 5 off and case in the 2NR is not a flex.

framing is important but winning framing (structural violence, util, etc.) is not synonymous with auto-winning the round.

for k aff's:

prefer to have some sort of tie to the resolution ... i have a hard time envisioning why a model that rejects the resolution is good for debate.

go for a clear impact/model comparison debate and blow it up.

explain the impact of my ballot on any rob/performance claims. i can't weigh anything if i'm not told when and why.

don't make it messy for me. this only makes me not want to flow the round and i will be sad.

- - -

LD – lincoln douglas

everything above applies.

winning the value criterion/standard is not synonymous with auto-winning the round.

calling out concessions doesn't mean auto-win either. explain your well-developed arguments and go for what you know!

extend, explain, and weigh your impacts! i find impact weighing and comparison very persuasive.

please condense in the 1AR ... the speech is way too short and you'll spread yourself thin.

definitions frame the debate. if conceded, i will assume such definitions as limits within the debate.

don't read trixx. it's jargon to me. don't do it.

- - -

T – topicality/theory

i hate messy t/theory debates. make the flow as clean as possible.

i won't flow theory shells that have no applicability to the round.

i will more than likely default to competing interpretations unless instructed otherwise.

i love some good, warranted, definitions debate.

if there is no violation, i won't vote on t/theory.

- - -

T - FW – framework

i typically buy into the impact/models debate in these rounds.

again, i have a hard time voting for k aff's that have no connection to the topic because it's hard for me to envision why a model that isn't related to the "topic" is good for education, etc.

explaining why t-fw is bad, resolution is bad, etc. and proving another model that exports "x" education, etc. gives me another route to the ballot.

- - -

K – kritiks

i know the common literature (set col, cap, fem, abolition, etc.) but i'm not too familiar with complex literature.

i won't evaluate death good, or anything in relation to supporting the death of people.

try to answer the higher theory of power ... if i can't disprove ontology, how am i to weigh material implications against it?

explain the impact of my ballot on any rob/performance claims.

cool with generic. the more specific, the better. that's just better for nuanced debates.

aff probably gets to weigh the plan against the K or the K's framework.

2A's should determine whether a big case OW push or a link turn/perm/alt fails push works best.

explain the alternative. big fancy words aren't a substitute for an explanation. if i don't know what the alternative is, who resolves the links?

- - -

DA – disadvantages

da's should probably tell a story.

include case turns and impact weighing analysis.

cool with generic. the more specific, the better.

i think evidence comparison, especially in ptx debates is pretty important.

reading taglines and hyperlinks without proper cut evidence is NOT evidence ... i won't flow it.

- - -

CP - counterplans

explain how the CP is preferable. and there has to be some competition between the CP and the affirmative plan.

if using an internal/external net benefit, explain why the CP solves and outweighs.

explain the permutations to the CP in the 2AC, don't just say perm x.

intrinsic perms go crazy!

- - -

speech - CONG, EXT, PRO, POE, DI, HI

do whatever you want! i'm here to evaluate your performance and rank! just be yourself and everything else will get taken care of!

treat others with kindness ... talking over others, being rude and rolling your eyes is NOT persuasive or convincing whatsoever.

As a IE judge I look for a clean and polished performance. Good Analysis and Interpretation of characters and a powerful performance.

For Speaking events - Structure and Sources are important as well as a polished performance.

For Debate - LD I prefer a traditional format and value debate. PF I want to see clash, evidence and a clear job going down the flow to show rebuttals of arguments.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park High School

hi I'm so excited to be judging for you all. I use he/him pronouns. I think that speech and debate is such a big part on how we can grow intellectually and emotionally that being said please respect to space and be mindful of others at all times. Just a quick background for me I did speech and a bit of CX in high school and have competed on all UIL levels. I have also competed in TFA tournaments so I know the differences and little idiosyncrasies that go along with it.

here is just a quick run down on what I'll be expecting in events.

IE:There isn't much to say here as these are performance events so perform. I will more than likely be typing/writing comments as you go please don't take this as a sign of disinterest I want you to do your best. Its important you know your circuit i.e. UIL, TFA, NSDA and be familiar with the specific quirks each one has.

Extemp: there isn't a ton to say here either stick to the prompt be creative and keep your speech organized. Be clear have thought out ideas and evidence and you should place well. Again, I will more than likely be typing/writing comments as you go please don't take this as a sign of disinterest I want you to do your best.

LD: I don't like spreading i'm usually okay with a little speed though. I was brought up mostly in CX so keep that in mind. Stock Issues>> Tell me why you're winning what parts of the debate you are winning. I will be flowing the arguments keep in mind your Value and Value Criterion or whatever debate jargon you use in its place this is LD I will let it come down to that.

CX: I don't like spreading i'm usually okay with a little speed though. I'm way more of a traditional judge so watch your stock issues. Stock Issues>> Tell me why you're winning what parts of the debate you are winning. I will be flowing the arguments. Be respectful during CX this should go without saying debate is a safe space.

again super excited to be judging and I wish you luck on your speech and debate endeavors

I am a "traditional" UIL judge. I look at the Value/Criterion debate and select a winner based on who upholds their value best. If someone subsumes their opponent's Value, they win the debate by default. I do not like critical arguments and when debaters speak excessively fast. This is a speech event first.

Debate Paradigm:

I am a open book clean slate judge. I come into the round with a blank sheet of paper and it is your job to tell me what to vote at the end of the day and what it means when I sign my ballot. Impact analysis is key for me.

I am not a fan of:

-K Debate

I prefer:

- Organization is key for me If i don't know where you are in the speech or how to put it in the flow It wont end a factor in my decision

I tend to consider STOCK ISSUES (topicality, inherency, impacts, solvency, disadvantages, counterplan) when making a decision about whether the affirmative or negative side wins the debate. In general, I weigh the quality of the argument as more important than the quantity of the evidence supplied. In my view, the quality of an argument can be negatively affected by "spreading," especially when the rapid delivery of evidence interferes with civil discourse and effective communication.

Therefore, if the negative team wins one of the stock issues, then they will normally be declared the winner. Similarly, the affirmative team may lose minor arguments in a round, but if they win all the stock issues, they should win the debate.