I'm a doctoral student, policy analyst, and freelance journalist. My focus is on education policy, but I have worked professionally in a number of fields, including history, political economy, IR, and sociology.

PF:

Vote mainly off of framework and understanding of concepts. I keep track of the round, but I'm not a flow-heavy judge. It's your responsibility to tell me what was dropped, the impact of what was dropped, and why it's a voting issue. I'm fine with speed, but please don't spread. Not a fan of theory, ks, or plans/counterplans. Shouting cards at me won't guarantee you a win.

LD:

I am as traditional of an LD judge as traditional gets. My interest is in seeing debate in which alternative viewpoints are presented on a philosophical basis. I'm fine with speed, but spreading will guarantee you minimum or close-to-minimum speaker points. I vote mainly off of the value-criteria debate. Not a fan at all of theory, Ks, or plans/counterplans. I'd rather you not use them, but if they're well-constructed, I'll at least listen. I vehemently oppose disclosure theory.

Congress:

Be nice to others please. I'm very much a traditionalist. I'm less interested in empty words and fluency than I am in real policy proposals. Tell me your ideas and why they're good. If you craft a well-constructed argument that makes sense, I don't really evaluate how many fluency breaks you had. "Gotcha" questions get old after a while (that's what clash in your speeches is for), further the debate with your questioning. I'm a fan of friendly questions.

INFO/OO:

While your speaking style is important, I'm much more interested in what you have to say. As such, I'm not going to give you the 6 just because you had more than two fluency breaks. Commonly-used topics and gimmicks become less interesting after a while. I like to hear topics that are unique, interesting, and thoughtfully-presented. Try to avoid subject matter that is too political, as you don't want to alienate me as your judge.

Extemp:

I used to be a journalist, so keep in mind that I'm generally aware of current events. If you say something that's factually incorrect, I will point it out and it will affect your overall score. I'm much more worried about your content than your speaking style. Focus on creating well-constructed arguments — as long as I can understand you, it's not important how many fluency breaks you have.

Other IEs:

Focus on telling a good story first and foremost. As long as the narrative, the characterization, and your blocking are crisp, you have little to worry about from me. If you're doing PO, PR, or POI, don't just read from your book — make sure you're keeping eye contact with me as your judge and the audience in general.

Disclosures: hensleyca@cfbisd.edu

Should Debaters use Rapid Delivery (spreading)?

No. I don’t like it. It isn’t good public speaking, and it certainly isn’t persuasive.

How Should Debaters Approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually.

How Should Debaters Approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters Approach Evidence?

Citations after article introduction are preferred.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical, but a highly persuasive philosophical approach can potentially work just as well.

Kritik (K) arguments:

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support: as in every criticism needs at least one "For example" or at the very least a thorough clarification with a credible, referenced source.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. Avoid paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person’s style or flaws of method.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. This is especially important for Policy and World Schools: teams will lose points for whispering audibly during their opponents' speeches; learn to communicate with your teammates by writing!

I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps. Be clear when you speak -- enunciate.

In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.

In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.

The first that I am concern with in all of the speech and debate events is this continued reference to the existence of an off time road map. The time requires are specific to each event and speakers should stop using that because I do not recognize or grace then an exception they are appropriating. I tend to view myself as conservative and traditional judge. When judging LD I taught this for twenty years and I tend to focus on intent of resolution and the burdens of each speaker. I don't favor critiques nor do I want the negative to present a counter plan. When I judge PFD, this event is not a mini-policy round and I have a hard time understanding why it is trending towards that. the design of this event was never about spreading it is about persuading a judge to listen to a political discussion and value the organization, substance and then evidence support the pro or con position. Jargon specific to Policy is not a value to me in this event. When judging Policy I do not just pay attention to stock issues, I also think that I occasionally view a round through the eyes of a policy maker. I truly enjoy teams that are organized and can articulate clearly the impacts of evidence and connect the evidence appropriately to their position. If you claim a comparative advantage, then be prepared to support it with evidence that actually links clearly back to a specific piece of evidence your opponent used. I do not mind voting on topicality, however the wording of the resolution is flexible and your analysis of terminology and application within the round can make even a topical case susceptible to a no vote if you neglect to properly articulate why you are significant or substantial with adequate evidence or proof. I prefer to hear arguments proving the disadvantages or why a counter-plan can solves and I don’t think that everything leads to total destruction. I am not overly fond of kritik’s but I will listen and I have voted on them when they are well presented and supported by evidence and understood by both team members. I flow fairly well but, if you use speed you must have clarity of speech. I think the spread is not really necessary if your research and understanding of the resolution is sufficient. When I am judging World School debate, I want both teams to responds to points of order or to request that they address them once they have completed their presentation.