Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

** side notes from judge

DEBATE:

Speed

I do not like speed I do prefer a pace where all judges and contestants can understand as well, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you it did not make it to the ballot, however I will still try to keep up. Therefore, keep in mind mumbling the word is NOT saying the word so if I say CLEAR -> it means that make sure that each word is being pronounced correctly. The word LOUD means speech a bit louder to hear you.

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. 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. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win.

Speaker Points

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

29-30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies. 30 usually goes to the contestant that kept it professional from the beginning to the end of the round

**Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally un-responded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad. While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

No preference...just do your best, and always be respectful to others.

I am a former policy debater for Barbers Hill High School

I have not looked at this years topic lit at all so just explain the IP jargon bc odds are I won't know it.

I'm was flex debater so run whatever you want it's your round I just decide who win's (unless it's racist, sexist, ableist, etc.). Because like obviously

Skip down to the ld section for my pref thing but most of the policy stuff still applies

Overall having a fun debate experience is the ultimate goal so strive to do so, and good luck!

For email chains, my email is nbdebate06@gmail.com

If I feel as though you are stealing prep, I will warn you first and then penalize you if it continues. Please don't steal prep, it's pretty annoying.

IDC abt being post rounded I get it just don't be dumb abt it

Also speed, go as fast as you want just put me on the chain - When i say go as fast as you want just make it to where you are still clear odds are i'll understand you but i mean you'll probably sound better if you aren't mumbling every word in your speech I'll also say clear i doubt i'll need to but i will- Just maybe slow down a wee bit in rebuttals and online

Pref short cut --- (IK this prolly doesn't apply but just use this as you will:))

Policy ---1

K (cap/security)--- 1

K (identity)---2-3

K aff --- 2-3

K (pomo) --- 4-5

Phil & tricks --- lol

Don't make me intervene (i only forgot an 'e' bryce it wasn't horrible) in the round if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize or touch on it and loses anyways, why wouldn't I punish the 2AR for fumbling? and etc.

--- Online Debate

I'm fine with your camera being off when you speak just turn it on at the beginning.

Slow down a bit no need to run a dozen or so off

I would prefer we do email chain at all times but if it is imperative that we need to do file share then so be it this goes for in person too

T/FW

Explain to me what abuse has occurred or explain why I should vote against a non-t aff

I really like these debates i feel like the aff should be built around T/FW

I believe the aff should have really good impact turns to procedural fairness and topic education if you want to win my ballot on the aff in these rounds have good DA’s on T/FW

For the neg odds are they aren’t T so go for procedural fairness & topic education and why it matters so much.

I lean more neg when it comes to TVA’s so if you want to win a T/FW debate in front of me a TVA would be much appreciated

T
Try and have a definition contextual to the aff

Answer extra T or fx T because i'll vote on it if you drop it and have competing interps but i'm not going to do the work for you so call it out in the block

DA's

I love good disad debates but the thing I look for most in a debate is the link debate and the disad turns case. Don't be afraid to run generic disadvantages; however, your success with those arguments is entirely dependent on your ability to contextualize the link for me. After the link is clear, provide me with a tool for comparing your impacts to the affirmative's impacts. I'm not picky about how impact calculus is done, but it needs to have a turns case arg if you want to win the ballot because I feel like the turns case argument is really underrated.

Please have all parts of the DA it would really suck if you have no internal link :(

Have good uniqueness that's up to date

I don't know how strong the links are for IP but if there are string links please use them over generics

Counter plans

While case-specific counter plans are more interesting for me to listen to, I don't evaluate them more favorable than generic counter plans. Just contextualize your generic solvency evidence if you choose that route.

Don't assume I kick the CP (or anything for that matter) from the flow unless you instruct me to. My flow will look exactly how you tell me for it to look.

If you are running a PIC, be prepared for a theory debate and the perm debate. I don't default a certain way most of the time, but I think both of those arguments are important barriers for you to overcome if you want to win my ballot. I do however err aff when it comes to obscure pics of the aff because I feel like it’s just unfair and impossible to predict.

If I didn't cover anything feel free to ask me before the round! I don't have much to say, because I feel like CP's shouldn't really be controversial.

Also go to the theory section for how I look at that on CP's

K

Run'em

just paint a picture for me to understand what the world of the alt looks like

links of omissions/thesis links are cool just say how the alt changes it, i prefer you also have links descriptive to the aff and pull lines from there cards that's how you'll win me on the link debate.

Also don't be afraid to kick an alt and go for link turns case because if you're having alt solvency deficits your best way out of it is to just go for link turns case.

Also I know for novice rounds you probably won't be running Baudrillard but if you running high theory K just let me know what it is and what it means i more a traditional K judge(Cap, Security, AfroPess/Wilderson, Imperialism, And so on)

Please say why the alt solves the link their is never enough work done on this for most of the time.

Theory

I'll evaluate any flow you put on the page besides ASPEC/OSPEC unless it's to get a link to a DA but if it's something abscure that you are trying to win on i will audiby yawn at you

I lean aff on process cp's, consult cp's, 50 states, and multi actor fiat. I lean Neg on international fiat & condo

As I said above I think condo's not really a great argument but i mean if the neg his running like 8 conditional advocates Then i would have no problem giving an aff ballot if they don't fumble

Case

I'm always ready for a good case debate and I'm cool with any case turns etc.

I love case debate where the 2NR goes for a case turn, I feel like a case turn debate goes really underutilized it would be cool if we have a lot of offense on case to go for in the 2NR

But if you want to win my ballot easily you need to be doing internal link debate on the aff. If you win that odds are you’re getting my ballot.

Have new case defense or at least up to date stuff

In debate now i feel like we don't spend enough time on case like the 2nr only doing 30 seconds of it i get how if you are winning it you feel like you should go for more offense but i mean make sure you get to all the key points on the case flow

Misc.

I don't care if you cuss etc.

I start at 28.5 speaks and I'll go up or down depending on strategy, speaking, and argument development.

I have been told I am rude in debate and where I feel some of that is right I feel like some of it is misinterpreted let's just try to have a fun round where we don't get a heated round

Please be more than a debate robot I want people to engage in the activity and inject it with their personality unless you're boring then just stick to be a robot.

LD:

I don't necessarily like trad debate but i'm cool with wtv you run just

Most of the policy stuff from above still applies just do you tho

don't run tricks though because i'll most likely sit in the back laughing and then vote you down because i hate tricks, but they're funny

PF:

lol

Please just clash like it's one of the only things i care about and want in a PF debate

Also have good offense and defense

I really don't judge PF that often so just try and have judge instruction for the love of god (or wtv you believe in)

Email:bakerzachary0@gmail.com

INTERP Specific: DO NOT SCREAM in your performance. I understand being loud for emotional reasons, but you do not need to scream at the top of your lungs. I hear a fair bit of screaming my day to day and it genuinely bothers me more than any uncomfortable social issue/topic. I will rank you lower for screaming as a tie breaker.

Truth over tech: I don't think abusing link chains makes you a good debater. I'm willing to buy more abstract arguments to an extent I have solid general knowledge of most things political. The more complicated your argument the more clear your link chain should be. That being said as long as your argument isn't based around a lie or fatal mistake on your part I still require the other team to do the work and refute it.

Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.

Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've yet to vote on a theory argument. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win. I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)

In LD: Value criterion is extremely important to me. I need to understand how different contentions/cards tie into your value criterion and why your VC outweighs.

In PF: I value more of a big picture voters speech than a line by line, the speech is 2 minutes so if you drop unimportant parts of the debate here you can win. With that said in PF I really prefer slower speaking even more than LD

Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't. I really like it when you understand why an extemp question is an extemp question. A good extemp question is about a bigger picture and if your analysis reflects great topic knowledge and I am typically going to be more interested/engaged and rank you higher.

Platform/Interp: Delivery is critical especially for jokes, practice practice practice. If your unsure of how you are saying a joke ask someone before giving it to me as a judge. Moreover in Interp please don't scream/yell super loud especially if you are standing right next to me.

In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.

In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.

In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.

In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.

1. I was a K debater in high-school, mainly PoMo (Deleuze, Baudrillard), but I have read my fair share of literature otherwise as well
2. Comfortable judging any sort of round
3. Tell me what to vote on and why, lay out the round for me in terms of voters, framing, and the lens through which I should frame arguments :)
4. On that note, I prefer a cohesive analysis in the final rebuttals of the round - messy rebuttal flows make judge intervention likely - how am I supposed to piece together a fragmented speech?
5. I vote on what's on my flow, what was said in the speech. You have to do the work in your speech bringing everything together, because I will not do it for you
6. I give everyone 30 speaks, so please don't read speaker point theory in front of me. Speaks are arbitrary and screw breaks. I don't care how pretty you sound, I care about the flow.

7. Email chain is preferred: yajbhargava@gmail.com

My name is Mark Bishop. I’m open to questions before and after the round via my email.

MarkABishopjr@gmail.com

The easiest path to my ballot

Clear final speeches. Voters that link back into the way I should frame the round, be that through theory, a ROB, criterion, etc.

Not extending case fully can lead to a presumption ballot if content isn’t extended or permissibility if a way to frame the round isn’t extended.

Judge adaptations and predispositions

I am a computer and will vote off anything. I do not need to fully understand something to vote on it, I just need to have a reason why.

Here’s an example: AC/1AR/2AR: “Always affirm for simplicity which o/w to make the judge’s life easier”. If the 1N concedes this argument, I will vote off it. If the 1N makes any kind of a decent response, I’m likely to not evaluate it. I do not have any favor or disfavor for any type of argument on the flow.

Due to resolvability concerns, I have a few ‘default settings'. If these even get brought up in round, I become a blank slate and give no favor based on these defaults.

a. Presumption negates, permissibility affirms.

b. If an argument is conceded in the following speech, it will be treated as objectively true.

c. CX is binding.

d. Every argument is permitted.

e. If an argument is not extended, it is no longer on the flow. I do not shadow-extend.

Accommodations

If there’s a specific request given to me for anything pertaining to disability or comfort, I will do my best to comply.

If both debaters agree in wanting me to change my paradigm to fit their debate preferences, I will. My paradigm is not a set of my beliefs, but just my best attempt at being a blank slate that gives every argument a fair trial. Sometimes, even I do not like my paradigm, which is why I include this bit.

Speaks

Starting at a 29 at locals, and a 28.5 at bids. I judge speaks off strategy. I am prone to boosting speaks to debaters that can make me laugh (I have a pretty crude sense of humor; my mind is a deep dark and cryptic place). If you send analytics for all speeches, I’ll give you a 29.0 minimum no matter what, no matter where.

Post-rounding

Do it, but please keep it to under 5 minutes per person. Everything else can be handled via email. I will ‘match your energy’. Private coaches count as part of the “person” of their debater, lol.

I think it’s good to have these conversations to make sure debaters can truly learn and get better after a round with me. I’m also more than happy to give a brief analysis of how I would have done things (differently), and why.

Comfortability/Experience

1 - K (All, from non-t k aff to idpol to cap or psycho. I used to debate non-t k affs and k negs a lot.)

1 - Trad (Every judge can judge trad, it's just a little boring.)

1 - T/Th (Comfortable, did it a bit, fan of judging it.)

1 - LARP (I LARP'd mostly for the first half of my debate career... then debated Ks...)

1 - Kant/Korsgaard/etc. and Butler (been judging it a lot, kind of a fan.)

2 - POMO (judged it a lot in late 2023 and early 2024.)

2 - Tricks (I have a good amount of experience with 'em. They're objectively dumb, but I don't really care.)

3 - Other Phil (Deleuze, Derrida, Locke, whomever. I have little experience with these.)

For traditional/lay rounds

For LD, any arguments made after the 1AR, if new, will not be evaluated.

For PF, any completely new arguments made after both sides give their rebuttal will not be evaluated.

For CX, any new arguments made after the 1AR will not be evaluated.

Speech

Make me laugh, make me cry. I would much rather laugh, but those are the reactions I most value in a speech round of any kind. I care a lot less about proper form or movements or the little triangle dance thingy.

Congress

I should not be here. If I am here, refer to my speech paradigm. I'm sorry for myself and you, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability. I value engagement and should be treated like a parent judge.

*my email is babbonnete@gmail.com*

LD- I'm fine with speed. run whatever you want.

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy-

Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms from the WSD mandatory judge training.

have fun and learn (ignore that but not really - ill tell yall in round)

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

-NO EMAIL CHAINS AT ALL.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk into the room. Pre-flows, bathrooms, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to ensure integrity in the round. If someone asks for cards, please be quick about it because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

- I will not disclose decisions unless I say I will. After the round is done I will let you know if everything is on the ballot or if I will be giving general comments.

LD: Old school traditional: Framework debates are paramount. Conceding framework, to me, undermines the validity of LD debate.Be specific with impacts and why they weigh over the opposing sides impacts. Absolutely NO SPREADING, speech score will be dropped. I don't understand progressive debates like K's, shells, etc. Adapt or strike me.

PF: Truth > Tech. I will vote for a moral argument and whether it is reasonable and cohesive. Again, NO SPREADING. Second rebuttal Must respond to first rebuttal.

***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***

For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org

Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.

Judge intervention - My role as a critic in a debate round is different than my role as an educator as a teacher in a classroom. I think the debate round should be understood as a brave space, where creative perspectives are presented with the expectation of student-centered competitive rejoinder. If there are arguments that your opponent makes that you believe have racist/sexist/heterosexist assumptions, I would encourage you to interrogate those assumptions within your debate speeches. I am far more hesitant to intervene and stop the debate than I would be to stop micro-aggressions between students in my classroom.

Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.

Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.

Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)

Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).

Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.

I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.

Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.

Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)

If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.

Ultimately, the most important thing to know about my judging is that debate is a communication event. If you are not communicating effectively, you cannot win the round. If you are going to speak fast, you have to speak clearly. Do not spread. I do not want to be included on a doc chain. If I cannot follow your case/what you are saying without reading along with you, you are not communicating.

Congress Paradigms:

Your speech should be thoughtful and touch on one to three key issues related to the legislation. Your time should be well balanced between all points. If you are spending significantly less time on one point than on your others, cut it. You aren't spending enough time developing it if your other points are significantly longer.

Your delivery should be slow and deliberate. It should be a conversational, extemporaneous style. If you bring a laptop up to speak from, you will be docked points. You should be communicating and speaking to the chamber and judges, not speaking at them. You cannot accomplish this if you are reading from a laptop.

You should have one to three reliable pieces of evidence per point. I don't believe you need to cite everything in your speech, but you should be able to name the source if asked/challenged.

If you are not the sponsor/author for a piece of legislation, you need to incorporate some element of clash or engagement with earlier speakers. Do not come up and give a completely pre-written speech that doesn't engage with the debate that has already been established. This isn't mini-extemp. You need to be engaged with the debate. If there have been more than 3 cycles of debate on a piece of legislation or the debate is heavily one-sided, someone in the chamber needs to motion for previous question or motion to table to allow competitors to write speeches to allow for a more even debate I shouldn't hear the same speech over and over with nothing new being presented.

What can/should PO's do to earn high ranks? A PO can earn high ranks by running an efficient and error-free chamber. One of the biggest issues I find with POs is their lack of active engagement with the chamber. It is the PO's job to keep the chamber running as quickly and efficiently as possible. If debate is getting repetitive, suggest motions. If there seems to be a confusion about procedure, don't wait for the chamber to figure it out. Suggest motions and keep the chamber moving. Have a strong knowledge/practice with your gaveling or time-signal procedures and precedence tracking. Explain them clearly and then stick to them.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. I will attend only to the arguments presented in the debate when making my decision. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room.

My email is pxd2010@gmail.com

I am a physician with neuroradiology and public health training and have been judging debate since last year. I assign 28.5 as average performance. Ballots with results will be sent to you. At the end of debate, please feel free to excuse yourself if you need. I often read my notes again before making the final decision. You can refer to me as Judge during the debate, my pronouns are her/she. Good luck!

Debate:

LD:

Moderate speed is fine. If I can't flow you, I'll just stare at you. I don't know why debaters assume I understand spreading. Whatever is your fastest, slash it by half or go 60% of that. I don’t flow from the doc or really want to look at it (unless you tell me to –> calling out evidence/ev ethics) but if your opponent does, then set up the email chain/speechdrop

Please line by line and signpost. It only hurts you if I have to think where to put ink down and miss whatever arguments you're making. Saying "on the econ disad" and then reading a big block isn't doing the lbl.

I was a trad debater, so trad and larp are my pref. Anything else, proceed at your own risk or ask before the round.

I dislike rebuttals that solely rely on card dumps and don't contextualize the evidence. Of course, read cards when you need to, but not every argument needs one. I highly value your ability to pick apart a link chain logically rather than read a 5-point block that partially relates to the adv/da. Also, if you're neg debate the case and don't just read an extra off (that's probably going to be a 28 max). Please engage with the actual warrants of the case.

Please weigh, makes my job 100x easier

I think CX is so underutilized, so good cx = higher speaks

Be nice to novices and to your opponents, your speaks will reflect your actions

WSD:

Content over style, but style is still important. Being overly stylistic is not going to get you very far if the other team is on the offensive

Please signpost during your speeches, even in the 3's

Weigh/Be comparative. Tell me why your world is good AND why it is better than your opponent's

Principle vs. Practical Debates: clearly establish the principle in the first speeches and make sure to extend offense under the framing. Weigh the principle against the practical

Models/Counterfactuals/Countermodels:theseare not always needed, but they make sense for some motions. I do think on some topics it's valid for the opp to argue that the prop needs one. If you have them, fully explain them in your first speeches. I don't want to hear at the end of the opp 2 that there suddenly is a countermodel.

This is debate, so clash.

IEs:

Extemp: The biggest thing for me is whether or not you answered the question. Your points should be distinct enough from each other and have in-depth reasoning. I value your ability to take a complex topic and articulate it in a way that is relatable or easy for the audience to understand.

OO/Info: Your speech should have energy and personality. Sounding passionate about your topic makes my experience more enjoyable and = higher ranks

I am a lay judge supporting local high school debate tournaments. Here are a few things I am based my vote on:

- Overall strength of the arguments and logics behind them.

- It's not helping to over exaggerate an argument. e.g. crossing a red traffic light somehow leads to nuclear war.

- Presentation and speaking skills.

- Team members balance if it's PF.

- Appreciate if you don't speak too fast.

Hello!

I'm Pablo (pablo.debateuh@gmail.com), a freshman at the University of Houston who competed in extemp in HS. Qualified for NIETOC, TFA, and the National Tournament. And currently a policy debate at the University of Houston. Go Coogs!

Speech

Extemp

I don't value any one thing over the other, and in fact appreciate when people don't deviate to a "style" of an extemper. However, some key points are ensuring articulation and analysis. I am still a heavy news consumer so I love to feel as if I'm listening to NPR.

Interp

Above all else, creativity and cohesion. For DI and POI, I love to see the emotional variety and connection to the topic. If I can see a range of emotions (even minute changes) that are intentionally done, you'll get my one. For HI and Duo, I appreciate the natural, unfettered performance that keeps the room hooked.

Info & OO

Your primary goal as an orator should be to teach me. For OO, I hope to see a clear explanation of the topic, and just as clear of a solution. It's frustrating to see orators give fantastic background but fall short with a muddled or implausible solution. For info I judge off a combination creativeness and expertise. Firstly, I love niche topics that are impossibly complicated and under-reported yet carry a mighty impact. Second, although there is a balance to strike between jargon and technical language I adore seeing genuine understanding and an emphasis on the complexity of your topic.

Debate
Tech>Truth

PF/BIG QUESTIONS

I expect consistent signposting. I'm cool with spreading, but it needs to be at an audible level for both parties. Please enunciate the tag lines of your card/arguments. In the crossfire, I'm okay with people being aggressive, butmake sure you let your opponent speak. I'm okay with you linking back your case into the question, but crossfire is NOT rebuttal time.

In summary, I expect to collapse!

LD

No more than 500 WPM. This way, no side can blame the other for not being able to understand arguments.

I'm okay with CPs, DAs, Ks, and T. I will have a hard time evaluating tricks but I'm open to seeing them at work. That said, when you are reading like OFFs I expect you to doc share with me and your opponent. Lastly, I'm familiar with CapK, Security K, Skep, Disclosure, and some Latin procedures. I love new Ks but I know I haven't experienced everything.

Lastly, I do believe in framework exploitation. So basically, if someone reads Locke and says that their side defends property better. I'll vote on the framework.

Congress

presentation > content

(once the minimum threshold of sound logic, evidence, & argumentation are met)

make your speech engaging with humor, pathos, or powerful rhetoric (depending on the bill obviously - e.g. don't run a joke agd for saudi arms). polished presentation is paramount for anyone listening to and caring about the content of your speech (especially in the real world)
the best way to stand out argumentatively is to have clear, insightful, novel, and unique analysis that both synthesizes your evidence and interacts with the best points of the other side in a compelling way
please have a polished and original intro that has comedic, emotional, narrative or rhetorical appeal. bonus points if you extend the device throughout your speech. please please please please please have a good intro. pretty please. with a cherry on top.
asking and answering CX questions well (i.e. asking succinct and direct questions and answering in a cool, concise, & collected manner) is extremely important for securing a high rank - you want to showcase that you are the most knowledgeable in the room
with that in mind, here are WORST types of CX questions that will kill your ranks: "Here is some outside piece of data/evidence. How does your argument still stand?", "[not even asking a question, just arguing at them and asking them to respond]", questions that last for more than 10-12 seconds, and any same-side questioning that isn't explicitly critical and strategic (a.k.a. no softball questions)
unless you are the sponsor, you must have substantive clash in your speech
warrant your claims clearly. everyone has evidence for their arguments and a lot of the time it will directly conflict with each other - show me why yours is the best by explaining it cogently and intuitively
canned/stolen rhetoric or agd = 9
weigh!!! oftentimes, every argument made in a round is factually true, which is why you simply have to explain why yours are more important
this should go without saying, but rehash will be marked down
your goal is to prove a net harm or benefit of the legislation. speeches without offense will be marked down
too much pad reliance (i.e. for anything other than evidence or a brief glance for ref) will negatively influence your performance quality, and thus your ranking
simplify your arguments and humanize your impacts - this is an event about persuasion
I generally dislike when students break character. leaning into the roleplay will usually get you upped.
speeches should have a real conclusion (that will usually tie back to your intro). ending with pass or fail will be marked down
you don't need your pad for cx. put it down after your speech.
I will usually reward you for flipping but it's not a get out of jail free card
round adaption is really cool and good and you should do it. bounce off of others' intros and rhetoric; make the round fun!

PO: minimum break unless you make mistakes in which case you will be dropped. can move up in ranks by being funny, efficient, charismatic, etc. please use a google sheet for transparency.

Hello I debated for 4 years in High school and have been judging for 7 years, I am in my second year an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School

Debaters: If your opponent clearly is less experienced than you and you exploit that to stroke your ego I will drop your speaks to the lowest number I can and i will down you even if you won the round on the flow and I will contact your coach. Practices like that are unethical and takes away the educational aspect of debate. Also I don't like these progressive things that have been ran at recent tournaments, I have no problem with progressive arguments that are ran well however most of the time they are not done well.

Do not ask me to pre flow you should know your case already, I like big picture or line by line I'll judge the round on either, impact calculus, make sure you weigh for me, I HATE FRIVOLOUS THEORY, and also don't run anything you don't understand. Be respectful and have fun

I want an educational round over a competitive round. If you spread the other team out of the room, are intentionally vague and unwilling to explain your vocab, or are generally rude and dismissive, especially against a novice team, I'm giving you an L and giving you the minimum number of speaks. My view of debate is as an educational activity first and competitive second. Local tournaments are to foster critical thinking skills and create more nuanced, educated high schoolers.

First: this is a communication event it does not matter if I can understand speed DO NOT SPREAD, I cannot flow what I cannot understand and it is not my job to read off of a doc. You can send me the doc, but I will only refer to it if there is a problem with evidence.

Second: be respectful the easiest way to get me to drop your speaks (and you'll likely loose the round too) is if you are being rude

Third:DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I will fact check you and I will get in touch with your coach and the tournament director, you CAN use the internet in rounds now

Fourth: Debaters I DO NOT DISCLOSE Do not ask me to disclose and all comments will be on the ballot

Congress Kids: do not wait until the round has started to take splits do that before the round. and I HATE in house recesses to take splits especially when y'all just started. another thing, when y'all take splits and you need to write a speech in round go with the least popular side of the debate as it increases your chances at getting the speech. CLASH IS ESSENTIAL FOR CONGRESS TO BE A DEBATE EVENT!!!!!! When y'all take in house recesses it makes you look unprepared. When you get up to give a speech make sure you are actually adding something to the debate rehashing old arguments does nothing for the debate. When you clash with past arguments make sure you mention specific arguments brought up and the speaker who said it.

Extemp: I like to see a well organized and structured speech. You need a good hook to capture the audiences attention. DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I can tell when a source is made up and if I think you are making up a source I will fact check you. I hate being lied to in extemp. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! That is the quickest way to get me to drop you in rank if you don't answer the question, you could have excellent analysis but you must answer the question

Interp: I'm not gonna lie this is probably the event I am least equipped to judge, but I like to see good blocking, clear character transitions and distinctions between characters. In POI make sure you have a variety of pieces in your program. Bring the emotion out in your piece, that does not mean you need to scream to convey emotions

OO:I like to listen to a good oratory. I love the speeches where I learn something and maybe make me feel inspired. Speech should have a catchy agd/hook that transitions naturally into your background information. Make sure you have a solution for your problem. When choosing a topic try to make it unique there are several topics that are commonly used so make your speech unique. I like to see acronyms for your solution. Make sure you have a call to action

Info: Informative is a different event from OO so don't give an OO in info. One of the main differences is that in Info you do not offer a solution you offer societal implications. I love to see infos that actually teach me something I didn't know before I came to judge the round, so be creative I love to see unique info visuals and topics

PF

LD

Congress

Policy

Extemp

Conflicts: Blanson CTE, Avalos P-TECH

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

Debate Judging Paradigm

1. Speed (Spread):

• I prefer a moderate pace. Excessive speed detracts from the clarity and depth of the arguments, making it difficult to capture the nuances. If you choose to go fast, ensure your arguments are still clear and easy to follow.

2. Critical Arguments:

• I value critical arguments, but they need to be explained thoroughly. I am less persuaded by dense jargon without clear explanations. Focus on the depth and clarity of your analysis.

3. Topicality:

• Topicality is a prima facie issue for me only if there is demonstrated in-round abuse. Merely claiming non-topicality is insufficient; you must show how the case is unfair or disruptive to the round.

4. Argument Strategy:

• Avoid making time-suck arguments that you plan to drop later. This wastes time and detracts from the quality of the debate. If you bring up an argument, be prepared to defend it.

5. Organization:

• I pay close attention to my flow. Please clearly signpost your arguments and keep your refutation organized. This helps me track the debate and evaluate your arguments effectively.

6. LD Debate Specifics (Value and Criterion):

• In Lincoln-Douglas debate, emphasize your value and criterion. These are central to your case, and I expect you to tie your arguments back to them consistently. Make it clear how your arguments uphold your value and criterion better than your opponent’s.

7. Congressional Debate:

• Speeches in Congressional debate should be extemporaneous in nature, showing clear evidence of preparation while allowing flexibility and responsiveness to the debate as it unfolds.
• Make sure to include clash; engage directly with the arguments made by other speakers.
• Strong research is essential, but avoid excessive rehash of points that have already been made. Originality and depth of analysis are key to standing out.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

Hello, I'm Lauren!!

I competed in policy debate for two years in high school, and am now majoring in public policy at UH! Go Coogs!! I am open to all arguments, just as long as you're having fun running them!! - harming your competitors should go without saying. Make sure to emphasize your framework. I love a K and I'm good with speed so long as you CLEARLY SIGNPOST!! - if speech gets too slurred then I'll say clear.

Most importantly:

• Don’t be mean or I will dock speaks.
• + speaks if you make me laugh
• IMPACT WEIGH!!!!
• live laugh love clash :)

*lauren.debates21@gmail.com if you have any questions or concerns!*

Mostly a speech judge so be sure to speak confidently because I will be taking note of that, even though it won't be a huge factor in my decision it will be a factor. I am somewhat familiar with debate but not an expert. I have competed a few times in college Parliamentary tournaments, and this is my only debate experience. I am not familiar enough with Ks to feel comfortable judging them, so try to avoid those as much as possible. No spreading and no running disclosure theory, we’re trying to make this as fair and accessible as possible. I would consider myself a truth judge, refrain from making wild claims. Stand up while speaking, unless obviously you have a disability that prevents that. Overall, be nice because if you're especially rude to your opponents I will down you just on that.

jobbysneha@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Sneha, and I'm excited to be your judge! I loved speech and debate in high school (LV Hightower) and served as my team’s Speech Captain for my junior and senior year. I qualified for TFA & NSDA in 2022, 2023, and 2024, and NIETOC in 2024. I was the 2023 TFA Impromptu Speaking State Champion. While I primarily competed in Original Oratory, Extemp, and Impromptu, I have also tried LD, Expository, Poetry, and Prose. Additionally, I am a private coach.

LD: I enjoy a well-structured framework debate and consider myself a fairly traditional judge. I like Yale's Speaker Points Guide:

• 29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament.
• 29.1 to 29.4 - NICE! You should be in late elims.
• 28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD! You should be in elim rounds.
• 28.3 to 28.7 - OK! You might or might not break.
• 27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little.
• 27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot.
• 27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do.
• 26.0 to 26.9 - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong.

Speech Events: Limited Prep (Extemp/Impromptu): Your speech should sound planned, not canned. One of the most important aspects of extemp, which students often struggle with, is actually answering the question. Your response should specifically address the question being asked, rather than focusing solely on the "general topic." Research is a crucial part of Extemp, so don't fabricate sources. For Impromptu, I don't mind if you use your topic as a springboard for a broader speech, as I understand you may not be familiar with every single topic you receive. However, you’ll need a much stronger link and clearer preview than someone who directly addresses the given topic. It is essential that your speech relates to your topic—if you're off-topic, I cannot rank you well, even if your speech sounds great.

OO/Info: I love a good AGD! Tying your AGD or anecdote into your transitions is impressive. Pay attention to the mechanics of speech, such as platform movement, blocking, structure, and rhetoric. For OO, incorporating a personal connection or appealing to pathos can be powerful and will make you stand out among your fellow competitors. For Info, remember that visual aids should complement your speech, not distract from it. Overall, ensure that your speech is fluid and supported by solid evidence.

Interp Events: Characterization and blocking are key in interp events. Additionally, be mindful of the rules in binder events.

Be civil to your fellow competitors, and know that I am rooting for you! If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. Good luck!

-Please go slow I can't keep up and I cant flow off docs so please go slow I need time to process and understand the complexities of the round

-I don't flow traditionally I take note of the big picture and who has presented more persuasively

LD and CX:

TRUTH OVER TECH.

Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.

PF:

Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.

Congress:

I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.

Speech Events:

I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).

Interp Events:

With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Highlighted Qualifications:

I graduated high school in the spring of 2020. Throughout my 4 years, I was heavily involved in my school’s speech and debate organization. My competitive experience is in interpretation events, though I made sure to become as well-rounded as possible in order to try to keep my school’s team alive while I was a student there. I was also very involved in the school’s theatre program as an actor, participating in 10 school productions.

Moving into college, I participated in the Lone Star College Honors Research program and a Chancellor’s fellow, taking honors level speech & English courses, taking part in LSC-UP Honors National Model UN, alongside taking acting courses and acting in UP Drama Department productions.

I have been judging local high school debate tournaments since 2022.

General Paradigms:

Presentation is generally very important to me across the board, I think catering your presentation of pieces and information to be as affective as possible in your given setting is a very important skill. I also value the creation and maintenance of interest in any given presentation. Regarding content, I want it to be recent, relevant, consistent, and well summarized when needed.

Regarding debate events:

I’m not a fan of spreading or excessive speed in debate rounds because it does not show mastery of many communication skills that are applicable outside of a competitive debate context. I think part of the challenge of these debate events is being able to curate your research to the point where what you are bringing to the round is the most relevant and effective subjects on the given topic. The superior debate student is articulate enough to need only the given time in order to sway judges to their side and present detrimental information in a clear and concise manner, while maintaining good presentation practices, without the need to speak too fast to be understood.

I am also always on the look out of solid logic, lines of reasoning, and contradictions within a case.

Progressive debate strategy is fine by me, as long as it is not presented in an overly- abusive manner.

Regarding speech/ interp events:

In performance events I look for intentional choices and character building that contributes to an overarching meaning or theme of a piece. I strongly value variation of voice, emotion, and other performative elements in order to show progression throughout a piece and to keep the audiences attention.

I mainly judge Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I've coached a small team for about 5 years. I have strong beliefs: 1) Debate should be resolutional. Making up ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with the resolution will count against you. 2) Your case should have good organization. It should be easy for me as a judge that flows to follow your logic and argumentation. 3) Any good argumentation will have not only logic, but 2 or 3 solid pieces of evidence to back up your position. 4) You should be able to have solvency under both your framework and your opponents. Finally, and most importantly, 5) You should show your opponent respect. At no time should you use language intended to intimidate, insult or disrespect your opponent. I have no issue with speed. However, there is a difference between spreading and speaking quickly.

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of the debate. I have debated in both PF and CX, and I feel that the event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so you really shouldn't be spreading but I don't mind if you do. If you spread, make sure to send the docs through speech drop or email chain so the other team can flow. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in PF and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default to a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed but require some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running Kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant to extend those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer cut cards and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). The first Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

I recommend extending throughout the round and keeping track of your own time for prep and 1AC/1NC speeches.

I prefer speech drop, but email chains work too.

My email is katlyn.nguyen06@gmail.com

30+ speaks if you bring me food or soda

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

My name is Jose Ortuno and I am a political science major at the Univerisity of Houston. I am happy to be a part of UH's debate team and hope to compete in many rounds for them in my final year of undergrad. I am a novice debater who had no prior experience with debate until the fall semester of 2021, but I am looking forward to being able to apply my knowledge to future tournaments as both a judge and a competitor.

My email is j133ortuno5c@gmail.com for e-mail chains, document forwarding, etc.

As previously stated, I have limited experience, but I a fan of organized, well-structured arguments that are able to leave me with a strong impact. Conciseness is key to me. Thank you.

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) February to August 2024 - Interim Head Coach
Sugar Land SpiderSmart (Missouri City, TX) September 2024 to Present - Assistant Coach
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Email chains: fbcdebatecollective@gmail.com
Iff you reside in Fort Bend County, you may also email with your school-assigned account for consultation inquiries. This is a business email, don't abuse it.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear. I use .1s often when available, so if your speaks look unusual, I probably told you why on the ballot.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what things are in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks. You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow, so you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without finding how you link to any of the ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on-case. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline on-case that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF
This was the very first format that started me on my debate journey way back in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it devoid of jargon so you can make it a ballot issue. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. In order of frequency, crossfire activity/decorum/momentum are my most common ballot tiebreakers. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically go: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third. These do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers if they know what they're doing but a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I have coached state finalists and a national finalist, I don't split hairs on arbitrary persuasive gimmicks like other judges might. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but this event, as well as other parliamentary formats, were by far what I was best at on the college level. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win on international stages. This format is THE definitive way to debate outside of the United States, so I expect your rhetorical representation of the American perspective to be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate anywhere else in the world. As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards the big picture in every style, I'm a tab judge through-and-through, even in this style. Your strategy score is determined by the skill in which you apply your content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model is something I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come in with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of a social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and a consistent storyline down the bench. Generally speaking, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is great because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and will let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolution more than voting issues.

***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***

There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate even when American teams are winning, largely because we have Americentrist adjudicators in the back of rounds is what the success is indicative of. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want to frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. The subjectivity of this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. My recognition and criticism of this factor ought to secure I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally posits non-novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives on this debate manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't actually able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.

***rambling over***

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 10/18/2024

Hello!

I am a parent judge. I have completed cultural competency training.

Speaking Preferences:
Please speak clearly and be sure to enunciate. Speed is fine, but no spreading please.

Debate Preferences:
Outline your arguments clearly and in a way that is easy to follow along with. Be sure to frame the round and give voters during your last speech.

Please provide a roadmap at the start of your rebuttal speeches. Do impact weighing.

Please be respectful during the debate and most importantly, have fun! Feel free to ask any clarification questions before the round.

Good luck :)

English teacher at Clear Springs HS.; second year Assistant Coach.

I've judged PF, LD, WSD, and various speech events in over 15 tournaments, including at the State and National levels.

Please don't spread. I have to be able to understand what your argument is in order to process it.

WSD: If you're not speaking, you don't hand anything to the one who is.

I can judge trad debate and prefer it; any other form besides LARP I probably won't understand.

Think of me as a good flay judge.

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic.

My paradigm is geared more towards national circuit style Public Forum, because that's what I'm judging most often. I have notes on other events towards the bottom, but everything in my paradigm generally applies to everything I judge.

--

General Information:

he/him

I am conflicted against the following schools: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI). I am separately conflicted against Jason Zhao from Strake Jesuit - he is a former Seven Lakes competitor.

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I now coach and judge every event throughout the season across tournaments that align with UIL, TFA, TOC and NSDA norms and expectations. I occasionally go back to NPDA, too. I have great respect for all formats and styles of speech and debate across the ideological and stylistic spectrum. I try to meet competitors where they are when I judge.

I spend more time every year in tab rooms and doing administrative work rather than judging and coaching. I stay as active as I can, but I can feel myself slowly becoming a dinosaur.

--

Email Chains:

Yes.

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail.com.

Add one of the following emails to the chain if you're in an event where email chains are expected:

sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com -- PF

sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com -- LD

sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com -- Policy

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/etc, that's also fine, just tell me when I get to the round.

--

How I decide rounds:

I am not ideologically opposed to any position you want to stake out, provided that you have a) put in work before the tournament to research your position and b) embrace clash with your opponents, regardless of what your position is.

I would prefer to judge a small but deep debate about the resolution or desirability of a topical plan.

My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. There is no grace period of any length. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". The sooner that you realize that they are two sides of the same coin, the faster you’ll get better at debate. Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed and technical skill. I have voted for patently false arguments before and no doubt will again. However, you will have a more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. Between two evenly matched teams on a technical level, I am far more likely to vote for the team that has done better research and has more “true” arguments than a team reading arguments that are poorly researched and constructed. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot, because debaters are more persuasive when they make good arguments.

I will not vote for arguments that I cannot explain back to both teams during my RFD – whether that be because a) they did not make sense when presented in the round, b) they were not clearly signposted or articulated by the team introducing that argument, or (often) c) both.

Most debate rounds are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, or a couple of sentences that one debater said. Spending more time identifying and comparing the most significant arguments in the debate will probably improve your odds of winning my ballot.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5. My speaker points are roughly normally distributed but slightly skewed left from that mean between 26 and 30.

Critical arguments:

Theoretically, I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter.

Practically, however, especially in PF or LD, I often think these arguments struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of the short speech times of these events. If you don’t care much either way, I’d lean towards you picking strategies that lean more towards the policy than the K side of the spectrum, especially in PF or LD.

Additionally, I find that many teams (particularly in PF) choose to employ these strategies as an attempt to avoid clash or obfuscate the debate to the point of unintelligibility. These debaters generally rely on use of jargon and a pompous air of superiority rather than warrants and impacts to win the debate. I dislike this practice. If you cannot explain a link or how voting for you resolves the impact that you have identified, I'm not going to vote for you regardless of how strenuously you said "epistemology first" or "they drop that we're the root cause of violence" or "fiat isn't real" - these are claims, not complete arguments.

I am not a good judge for strategies that ignore the topic entirely. I am an even worse judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense, and a terrible judge for arguments that debate is unequivocally bad. I generally do not think that these strategies solve an impact or outweigh disadvantages to their method. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

It's boring.

I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad. Good is good enough - I don't want to hear disclosure theory if your opponents forgot to disclose last round after disclosing the past 60 in a row. Similarly, I don't want to hear paraphrasing theory or a "clipping IVI" if your opponents miss a sentence in the middle of a card. Presume that your opponents are operating in good faith and that we're all here to have a good time.

If you’re reading some kind of procedural that is specific to the current topic (e.g., Topicality, specification shells with carded evidence, etc.), I’ll probably be more interested in evaluating your position. In PF, zero teams have ever read such a position in front of me.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory (defined as procedural arguments with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution), trigger warning/content warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position, assuming the abuse story is as silly as I think many of them are.

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

LD/Policy:

I don't judge these events as often as PF and I am very rarely in the judge pool at a TOC bid tournament in these events. Please don't read PF as "this man is an idiot". Everything from above applies. I am agnostic on almost all theoretical claims made in LD/CX rounds (e.g., 1AR theory in LD, conditionality, etc.). Frivolous theory and tricks are still silly.

You'll probably want to start and stay slower than the average national circuit judge. I need a little bit to get warmed up to your speed, and I'm out of practice enough that I probably can't get to your top speed. I won't look at the document to fill in my flow - only to evaluate disagreements over what evidence says that are initiated by the debaters in the round.

I'm going to be most comfortable in the back of a round where the aff reads a topical plan. I'm not ideologically against any style of debate, but I will have less experience evaluating these arguments in this context compared to somebody judging these events more frequently, which will likely harm the affirmative more than the negative in rounds where the aff does not defend the topic in a reasonably predictable way. Fine to vote on topicality, T-FW, or other similar positions.

I find rounds between two criticisms often difficult to resolve - isolating an impact external to your opponents' or explaining how you solve an impact(s) better than your opponents goes a long way.

Read good evidence. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. Read more parts of good evidence rather than blips of lots of bad evidence. The more specific you are when warranting arguments and doing impact calculus, the more likely I am to vote for you.

I generally think about debates in terms of which side solves the most significant impact - so when making a decision, I start on the impact/weighing/framework level of the debate and generally work backwards from there.

Topicality is generally a question of limits/ground as an internal link to fairness and education.

The further you get from a clear in-round abuse story on theory, the less likely I am to vote on theory. This is especially true in LD.

Congress:

Actively participate and use good evidence to engage in the most clash that you possibly can. Where in the cycle you speak does not matter to me nearly as much as whether you advanced debate on the item on the floor - though, in my experience, most competitors in Congress are best at giving speeches that are earlier rather than later, because most competitors seem more uncomfortable or less skilled engaging in direct refutation during the round and grouping arguments later on in the debate. The PO will start as my 5 and go up or down depending on how effectively they facilitate debate and how good or bad debaters in the chamber are. Competitors that ask more questions tend to be more engaged in the debate, and therefore are more likely to rank well (though pure quantity of questions asked does not matter to me). Compared to other judges, prioritize content over delivery, though both matter.

Speech/Interp:

You do you. If you've put in a lot of work to get your piece ready for competition, you'll probably do well in front of me. I tend to look more at technical execution and how well-practiced you are rather than big picture things like how your piece made me feel. I come from a debate background, which means I'm less concerned in finding your truth, telling your story, or authenticity than I am excellent technical execution, especially compared to people who more regularly judge (and are more qualified to judge) these events or an average parent.

Extemp:

Everything above, but you really do need to answer the question that is written. You aren't giving a speech about the idea of the question, or the topic area of the question: you need to answer the question. I probably want you to give me more context around the question in the introduction compared to other judges, and each body point should link back to your thesis statement. Compared to other judges, prioritize content over delivery, though both matter.

Other/Misc:

I am Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota with Christian Vasquez, Assistant Director at the Blake School. If you do high school PF and you want to come to PFBC, let me know. Last year, we were able to offer ~$50,000 in financial assistance to make sure that everyone that wanted to attend PFBC could.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

I strongly believe that every debater and coach is partially a product of their environment. If you're at the bottom of this paradigm, please make sure that you take some time to express gratitude to anybody who has shaped your career.

Speak slowly and be respectful of each other.

I did debate a long time ago and just getting back into judging.

ASK ME ABOUT THE TEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE AND/OR THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP

EMAILS - yes, “at the google messaging service” means @gmail.com

All rounds - esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy - dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD - dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

QUICK GUIDE

Policy - 1

Kritiks - 1

Topicality/Framework - 1

Philosophy - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks - Strike

ABOUT ME

I am currently the program director at Dulles High School, where I also teach AP Psychology and AP Research. I primarily judge Policy and LD. I've been in debate since 2007 and have judged at every level from TOC finals to the novice divisions at locals; you are not likely to surprise me. I have no significant preferences about the content of your arguments, except that they are not exclusionary in nature. I like research dense, content heavy strategies. As such, I am best for Policy v Policy, KvK and Clash Debates. Philosophy arguments are also welcome, but I have a bit less experience judging these debates. I believe that Aff teams, regardless of style choice, must identify a problem with the status quo and propose some method of solving that problem. I believe that Neg teams, regardless of style choice, must disagree with the viability, desirability, and/or topicality of that method.

DECISION MAKING

I am deciding between competing ballot stories in the 2NR and 2AR, evaluating their veracity and quality using my flow. Tech > Truth, but blatantly untrue things are harder to win. Spin control > me reading a card doc, but I will read evidence if the spin from both sides is really good. Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate. Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. 30s should be rare, it is unlikely you earned it. Don't ask for one.

THINGS I CARE ABOUT

1. Respect for Others - Use people’s preferred pronouns, provide accommodations when they are requested, be prompt and ready to go at start time, and be mindful of the power dynamics in the room. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism are reasons to stop the debate. I will defer to how the aggrieved party wants to handle the situation. If I’m not picking up on something, let me know.

2. Investment - Apathy sucks. Caring about stuff is cool. Whether you’re more invested in saying stuff that matters or chasing competitive success, I just want to see that you care about some aspect of what you are giving up a significant amount of time to do. Take notes during feedback and ask questions.

3. Transparency - I believe that disclosure is generally good, as it enables people to read, think and prepare better (obvious exception for when it raises safety issues). Don't be a jerk about it with people who don't know better. Shiftiness and lying are bad.

4. Flowing - Do it. Preferably on paper. Definitely not in your opponent's speech document. If you answer a position that was in the doc but was not read, your speaks will be capped at 26.5.

5. Clash - Compare warrants and weigh. Rehighlights are fine, but your speech should explain why it matters. I am not sympathetic to strategies that attempt to dodge clash, like tricks. Specific links, counterplans, topicality interps, etc. are way better than generics. K links should quote the aff.

6. Line by Line Organization - The negative team sets the order for arguments on the case page. The affirmative team sets the order on off case positions. Number or label your arguments. Overviews are fine, but your whole speech should not be a blocked out overview with no attempt at line by line argument/evidence comparison.

7. Debating the Case - Both the affirmative and negative teams should center the case. If you’re aff, the case should go first. If you’re neg, don’t treat the case page like an afterthought, and certainly don’t focus solely on the impact level. Contest uniqueness, link, internal link, and solvency claims.

8. Judge Instruction - The top of the 2NR/2AR should be what you want my ballot to say. Tell me how I should be thinking about arguments and their interactions. Tell me what matters most. When Neg, anticipate 2AR arguments, prime me for skepticism, and tell me where which lines to hold. When Aff, assume I've voting Neg and beat that ballot.

9. Complete Arguments - Arguments have a claim, warrant, and implication. I will evaluate arguments, not isolated claims. If you make a warranted claim without explaining the implication for the debate, you invite intervention.

10. Projection and Enunciation - I like fast debates, but if you are unclear I am not going to pretend like I understood you and flow it.

Other than these 10 things, don’t overadapt. Do your thing, do it well. Feel free to ask any questions you have before we start, and I'll do my best to answer.

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Congress:

Looking for speeches that have good fluency and arguments. Rhetoric is appreciated but mainly focused on impact and statistics/analytics.

Early speeches should be constructive and lay out the major topics/arguments that will be discussed throughout the debate.

(Sponsors/Authors): Should be explaining everything the legislation is doing and how the legislation will change the problem.

Later speeches should have A LOT of clash, not as focused on what the bill is doing as earlier speeches would already explain that. Looking for late speakers who can properly weigh other debater arguments as well.

if you have any questions email me: maxta5310333@gmail.com

LD:

I prefer debates that have framing, weighing/magnitude, and well as timeframe.

Spreading consent: Spreading is not preferred but if you do need to spread the maximum speed I can understand is about the speed of Crash Course: John Green, 1.5x speed

I highly value cx so I prefer you spend most of cross asking meaningful questions and not trying to evidence challenge

My name is Zainab Tafish (she/her).

I competed primarily in speech and policy debate, with some experience in LD. I prioritize clarity over speed; while spreading is acceptable if necessary, please slow down for key points and focus on thorough explanations rather than just reading evidence. I value direct engagement with your opponent’s case, with clear weighing of arguments, including considerations of magnitude and time frame, and reasoning for why your position should prevail.

Cross-examination should be substantial and strategic

My email is tafishzainab@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have.

I am a new assistant coach at Jordan High School. This is my second year coaching in Speech and Debate. I competed in high school all 4 years and judged some tournaments in college.

I like to judge oratory, domestic and international extemporaneous, and prose events. I like to judge Congress as well.

I believe a well-delivered speech is organized, and concise. State your arguments clearly and defend them with analysis. Making general comments and not backing them up does not earn points with me. I look for a clear thesis or introduction and entertainment value. I also like to see changes in tone, volume variation and facial expressions that will engage the audience. The use of hand gestures and movement is also helpful in your presentation.

Congress: I like a clear road map of what you will cover for each speech. It is important that you argue your opponent's case and explain how your case is stronger. If your speech is earlier in the session, you should emphasize your key points in your speech. If your speech is later in the session, spend more time explaining how your case is stronger than the opposing side. Emphasize how your key points clearly outweigh the opponents. I'm always looking for good rhetoric as you prove your position and reinforce with analysis.

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

Conditioned on the biases delineated below, I will decide the debate based on the arguments on my flow at the end of the round.

The AFF should read a plan that is topical and the NEG should demonstrate that either the consequences of the plan are undesirable or the plan is not topical.

Alternative frames for evaluating the debate are a hard sell.

Award your opponent basic courtesy. Do not be rude or a bigot. If you find either of those things difficult, debate is not for you.

Callouts, character assassinations, etc., are an auto loss. Personal anecdotes, evidence written by competitors, or arguments about your opponent's identity will not be evaluated.

Be clear, especially during cards. I should be able to hear every word. You get two warnings - after that, I will immediately stop flowing.

Ugly speech docs get ugly speaker points. Asking for a 30 means the literal lowest speaks I can give.

I will assume good-faith on evidence ethics challenges and strike the evidence from the debate, barring extreme circumstances.

Conditionality is good. I don't care. I default judge kick, but this can be contested.

I will not vote for senseless, coward garbage such as tricks, frivolous theory, or RVIs.

Please ask questions, but post-round at your own peril. I have no patience for adult coaches who behave like children.

There is no flow clarification period in debate. Asking for marked docs or clarifications is CX or flex prep.

Answering a 1NC position that wasn't read is an auto 27.5. Flow.

Background: Seven Lakes HS '16; UT Austin '20. I competed in speech and debate in both high school and college. My background is mostly in Extemp and Congress.

Debate

• I’ll vote off any argument. Creativity is fun. Ultimately, I'm going to vote based on what I find more convincing rather than based off some technicality on the flow. That being said, you can't fail to respond to arguments wholesale/respond to them poorly and still expect to win.
• I like to flow with pen and paper, if that makes any difference to your strategy.
• If you're planning on spreading, include me on the email chain - rohanv1998@gmail.com
• Clarity is key. Signpost if you’re going to be jumping around. Collapse and crystallize as the debate goes on. Weigh please.
• Don’t intentionally distort evidence.
• I don't really care if you sit or stand, wear a suit or not, do flex prep or do it the normal way, etc. as long as both sides are comfortable.

Congress

Clash is expected. Don't rehash arguments that have already been made unless you have a really good reason to. If you're PO, please be fair to everyone in the chamber and don't play weird political games with who you choose to let speak/in which order you let them speak.

Extemp

Go ahead and do your thing. Just don't make up sources.

current debater at stratford high school

generally tech > truth, but i don't really like Ks, I'll still evaluate them though

im chill with all arguments, just explain them well.

I do disclose results. I'll probably seem harsh with my feedback, just know it's for your own good

speaks will probably range 26-30

I don't listen to cx, bring up what ur opponent said in ur speech

for novices, EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS!! So many times I'm watching a novice round, and nobody extends their case or their responses, and everything is dropped. That's not good.

feel free to postround me and ask for advice

email: nywang3@gmail.com

I am a parent judge of a debater.

I prefer calm and logical debates with believable arguments.

Dont like over exaggeration to extinction

Dont really care about framework but you cab read it if you want.

Good luck and have fun!

i did 1 useless year of nld, 1 actually helpful year of nld, half a year of vld and as of mid america cup 2024 a little over half a year of vpf. I'm clueless on cx besides hearing that theory is traded which I don't really understand

debate in general:

ill try my best to accept all arguments, but my record is uhh not that good

these aren't what I prefer but what I will understand (and thus vote accurately on) in order:

• policy
• theory
• k and phil (I haven't done much reading on the literature)
• tricks (why in novice? I'm probably going to judge novice considering I'm still competing)

if you want to run theory/k with substance ill usually flow substance to make rfd helpful everywhere but if both teams want to go for full uplayer i can drop substance from the ballot

speaks are based on flow, I start at 28 and go up/down.

non debate stuff:

for interp: I don't really like performances so if I look bored dont feel discouraged, thats probably my preferences

but I have zero experience with those events so I'm not going to be a great judge anyways

for public address, i have no idea how to judge, i guess appeal to debate with good warranting

I have no idea how wsd is judged

I'm a mother of two grown children and I love to read. Mostly mysteries. It may show that I have a short Tabroom judging history, but I have judged many middle school rounds that are not included here. My husband, who is a debate coach, believes that he is the better lip sync judge but he is mistaken. I am much more qualified. I like poems about kittens and warm summer days. I don't like dramatic interpretation much because it often makes me sad.

My paradigm

Debate is the test of the truthfulness of a claim, thus truth is important. I don't understand the tech over truth argument, nor do I want to.

Debaters should:

Speak slowly.

State the resolution, as that is what is being debated

Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.

Speak very slowly.

Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.

Be nice to each other.

Give me a reason to vote for your side. Or more than one.

Speak slowly.

To summarize, in debate judging, I adopt most of the nuance but very little of the substance in this abstract on the qualitative vs. quantitative debate that Kenneth R. Howe espouses in the American Journal of Education Vol. 100, No. 2 (Feb., 1992), pp. 236-256 (21 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press. FYI, '92 was a good year for debate about debate in educational philosophy.

Speakers should:

Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.

Present evidence/sources (not so much in IMP maybe, but definitely in OO, INF, EX,

Don't go too fast, but instead go at the exact right speed.

Be entertaining. Try not to steal minutes from your audience's life (especially mine) by being boring. Try and pretend this stuff is fun.

Interpers should:

Be real, or sometimes in HI or humorous DUO, be so polished and perfect in your blocking, gesturing, and facial expression, that the hyperbole does not need realism.

Real acting is seen in the eyes. Are you believable? Is there anything about your performance that distracts?

I do my best to judge the performer not the script.

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

1. Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
2. Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
3. Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
4. Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

1. Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
2. Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
3. Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
4. Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

1. Follow precedence with few mistakes
2. Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
3. Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

For LD:

Signposting: Please use clear signposts to guide the judge through the debate. For example, clearly indicate when you are introducing a new argument or transitioning to your opponent's points.

Delivery: Maintain a clear and confident speaking style. Make eye contact with the judge and your opponent, and speak at a moderate pace to ensure effective communication.

Wording: Avoid using debate jargon, as I may not be familiar with it..

Clear Voters: When presenting your final arguments, explain the key issues in the debate, why you believe you are winning, and why the opposing side is not.

Remember to maintain respect and sportsmanship throughout the debate.

Speak in conversational speed. Please do not spread.

Focus on presenting the best information within the limited time, not the most amount of information.

Be concise and to the point, use supportive information selectively. This will help me understand your argument and reasons behind it.

Turn your camera on. Use proper body language, avoid provocative gestures or expressions.