** 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 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.

Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

Email: janegboyd79@gmail.com (for case/evidence sharing)

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

Order of Paradigms LD, PFD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)

I am NSDA-certified in all debate and speech events.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

A good debate is a good debate. Remember that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for a good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation, I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theories used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens are the same thing - these are mechanisms for determining who wins the debate. If a value is used, it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply as an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and unacceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want a substantive debate on the topic, not an excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate, resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round, then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case; however, I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I wouldn't say I like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy, but I expect you to explain and understand the philosophies you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD, by nature, is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a tough job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then explain the importance or relevance of that argument. Don't just give me the "it was dropped, so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is a crucial argument; you must tell me why it is crucial in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Slow down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear, I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritik:

I have been around long enough to see Kritik's arguments' genesis. I have seen them go from bad to worse and then good in the policy. I think K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and, specifically, the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of generic Kritik, which questions whether we exist and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LDs ask me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That said, I will listen to the arguments, but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a straightforward abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is essential. Also, please know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. Learning what non-unique really means is essential. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote, though, unless you have a compelling reason.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't like fast PFD. The time constraints don't allow it. There are no plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run, but more traditionally, without calling them disadvantages.

Basic debate principles - claim, warrant, and IMPACT must be clearly explained. Direct clash and clear signposting are essential. WEIGH or compare impacts. Tell me your "story" and why I should vote for your side of the resolution.

I have experience with every type of debate, so words like link cross-apply and drop are okay.

The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview

I flow - IF you share cases, put me on the email chain, but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing, not reading.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

I have experience and success coaching American-style Debates. World Schools Debate quickly became my favorite. Every year that I coached WSD, I coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournaments. I judge WSD regularly and often.

The main thing to know is that I follow the norms of WSD (to which you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is a classic debate—the type that folks think about when they think about debates. It is much more based on logic and classic arguments, with some evidence but not much evidence. It is NOT an American-style debate.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?

I flow each speech.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I look at both. Does the principle have merit, and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think the practical idea has to be solved, but is it a good idea?

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.

Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.

Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.

The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.

General Paradigms:

-My greatest emphasis in a debate round is impact (what are we debating, if not the topic's impact on people/society as a whole?)

-I place great weight on logical progression of ideas, and the closer your links line up, the better off you will be

-Be cautious when using jargon since I only have limited debate experience

-Speak slowly and clearly. It does not matter how good your argument is if I can't understand it. DO NOT SPREAD. Whatever speed you believe is not spreading, slow down an additional 50%.

-As someone with extensive speech experience through choir, theatre, and voice acting, I am always listening for speaking quality as well as arguments, and a good presentation can take you a long way.

Event Specific Paradigms:

-IE Events: always make sure that any modulation in your performance is motivated. Emphasis, speed, and volume are all well and good but they do nothing if their placement doesn't make any sense

• PF/LD: always be sure to keep track of your arguments. If you make a claim about your opponent's argument that is not true, it illustrates that you are simply reading off a pre-prepared script without actually properly engaging in the debate.

I lean more Traditional when it comes to Debate, however i understand and am fine with more progressive arguments and evidence. I’m fine with speed just make sure your main points/cards/evidence is clear and i as well as the opponent can understand it.

Alumni of Cypress Ranch High School - Primarily Congress and Extemp (De Moine DX 2024). Current Novice Policy Debater at the University of Houston.

Email: pablo.debateuh@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

Policy

T - I tend to default to competing interpretations. Good T debate should have clear standards at the end of the debate and reasons why I should vote for a team.

K - I love Kritik debate, despite not being well-versed with all of the K literature. I am familiar with Settler Colonialism, Security K, and Cap K, and I've ran some Latinx Ks. For more general Ks just as long as the links are contextualized to the aff.

DA - At the end of the debate there should be good link analysis and impact calculus. DAs should have a focus on the IL to impacts of the affirmative (e.g. We access... or We turn their impacts.)

CP - Good CPs should be specific, they should also have a good net benefit. I lean more negative when it comes to theory (conditionality). But if the neg reads four conditional CPs I will lean towards the affirmative when standards are flushed out and explained.

Lincoln Douglas

Phil - I love philosophical debate. I am familiar with Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau. That said, I am open to learning during the round as long as it is simplified and explained thoroughly. That said, any good Phil debate contains the links to the conclusion of the literature.

Framework - I believe in leveraging framework to win a round (e.g. If you win on protecting property and your resolutions accomplish so, even marginally, I will vote on it.) I ask that you make an effective comparison with your opponent.

Public Forum

By popular request, this is the only debate event I judge differently. I judge on the abstract of which world would I prefer to live in. Even if marginally. I derive this decision by defaulting to utilitarianism, that said, I will change this if the framework is debated. This does not mean that I don't evaluate cutting links or targeting solvency.

CP - Because of the paradigm of judging mentioned above, con fiat is bad. Therefore, I don't vote for CPs

Speech

Presentation > Analysis

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

PF:

I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during the case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.

If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.

I will vote on a warranted argument regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.

In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to pref me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.

Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.

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.

I have mostly Worlds School experience, as well as congress, impromptu and extemp.

WSD:

• Good clash, structure, framework
• I really like a well developed principle argument, especially when it’s cleanly carried out.
• Weigh your arguments
• No rehashing, if you do I will not be listening.
• Strategic POIs are appreciated

Congress:

• Add to the debate, rehashing arguments will be counted against you
• Do not just give me rhetoric, provide analysis and weighing
• Good strategy is appreciated

Extemp:

• Have good structure and time utilization
• I like good and well developed content, in-depth analysis is appreciated
• Be creative with your speech

Have fun & be kind :)

Please add me to the email chain! 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 impacts and weighing. Towards the end of the debate, condense the round and tell me why you have earned my ballot. I'm not very familiar with K debate. 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.

CX/PF/WSD: Consider me to be a lay judge.

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, please 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, please don’t hesitate to ask. Good luck!

I’ve decided to update my paradigm for two reasons. First, after judging the first third of the season, I have generated some thoughts based the debates I’ve seen. Second, I thought it would be more helpful to modify my paradigm to give readers a greater sense of how I view debates generally (rather than just a list of bullet points).

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for death).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and you show me that you used your flows as the basis of your argumentation throughout the debate, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round (which will be reflected in the speaker points).

Theory

I’m unlikely to reject the team but have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency deficits, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts:While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good. On another note, I think the complex grammatical structure of the rez means that teams could likely get mileage out of defining more words together.

General thoughts:I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative. I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). A fun and underutilized aff tactic is to argue why a 1NC interpretation actually harms NEGATIVE ground/limits.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and underbaked “no link” arguments. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I often find that framework debates often become a wash and thus a secondary part in my decisions. I thus appreciate it when teams initiate a “compromise” of sorts near the end of the debate, such as by conceding part of the other team’s framework and still explaining why you win. This could sound something like “even if they win this debate should be about the consequences of the plan, we meet because the links are reasons why the policy action of the aff makes things worse.”

Other Notes on Policy-Oriented Debates

Counterplans:As mentioned above, I’m not usually enthusiastic to vote down a team on theory. However, if a counterplan cheats, the affirmative can argue that the problematic aspects of the counterplan justify things like intrinsic perms. Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantages:Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case:Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

I'm tab. I'm a former CX debater. I'm okay with any style of debate, and any kind of argument you want to run. And yes, that means you can spread as fast as you want, I'll keep up just fine.

But here are the things that are important to me:
-Signposting.

-Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning for every argument. (Give me warrants.)

-Impact Calculus.

-Voters.

-Be kind.

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.

BIO:

Education:

• Pursuing a B.B.A in Management and a B.A in International Relations & Global Studies at UT Austin
• Pursuing a minor in Sociology and a Certificate in Core Texts & Ideas

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

• Space City Camp Instructor (Summer '23)
• Middle School Debate Coach at Coppell Debate Academy (22-23)
• Coaching Intern at Coppell High School (22-23)
• World of Words Institute Instructor (Summer '23 & '24)
• Victory Briefs Institute Instructor (Summer '24)

Hey y'all! I'm a sophomore at UT Austin who debated at Coppell High School (in Texas) for about 4 years; 3 years in World Schools Debate and a dabbling in Extemp, Congress, & Policy. I also debated for Team Texas my senior year and the NSDA Longhorns my junior year.

The tl;dr of winning my ballot: Win your asserted arguments, have a clearly delineated claim, warrant, impact structure with a strong (and mechanized) link-chain, and make sure you weigh your impacts vs the other side. BE COMPARATIVE and CHARITABLE! make sure to have fun :)

I don't have an issue with speed – unless you're unintelligible – but if I ask you to slow down please do so.

I'll automatically vote someone down if they're being discriminatory or harmful in any way shape or form, those rhetorics have no place in debate so be careful about what you say.

Longer Ballot:

• Make sure you engage on the most important parts of the motion; be clear in your weighing and have logical extensions (throughout the whole debate!)
• Weighing at the end of the round should be comparative and charitable of both sides best/worst grounds
• I'm going to buy most arguments at face value – unless they're ridiculous – so whoever bestproves their argument and weighing is going to win --> if someone makes a dumb argument but you don't refute it, I'm taking it at face value – no judge intervention!
• Prop Teams: You have to establish a compelling framing at the top; given the skew in the Opp Block you need to set up your Prop 3 to get as far ahead as possible --> I'm not taking new arguments in the P4 (but equally if the O3-4 is new content I'll dock it)
• Opp Teams: Use the block strategically – don't repeat content and make sure you sound different (but cohesive)
• Weighing – in my opinion – functions on two levels: factual/tangible content & in round (meta) weighing
• Principled arguments: I'll buy them and they can win rounds but only if they're weighed effectively; I need to hear from the top why I should prefer this argument over any possible/potential practical from the opposing side – don't hang your principle and then tell me to vote independent of practical
• Regrets: don't be daft, they're inherently retroactive in nature so if you make a mechanizing argument I'm going to look at you funny. the biggest thing is to make sure your counterfactual is believable and likely
• Stylistically have fun! I loved the style aspect of WSD when I debated and I think its about being your own speaker, the more fun I have the better the speaks for the round lol

Have fun and good luck :)

If you have any questions reach out at sahith.mocharla@gmail.com, always happy to help!

"novice judge" and that you prefer not to "spread"

Eastern Hills LD Debate coach 18-20

New Tech at B.F. Darrell LD/WS Coach 22-24

Hillcrest High School Debate coach 24-current

kellmoore@dallasisd.org

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

World Schools:

I prioritize strategy and content over style.

You will be rewarded for extending out arguments your team made, engaging with the opposing side's arguments, and comparative analysis. For me, content is determined by how well you generally understand the motion, arguments in the round, and how well you can respond to PoIs. Strategy will be determined by how successfully you extend out offense through out the round, when you accept PoIs, and when you ask PoIs.

Style: I try my best to discount things like appearance and enunciation and instead focus on things like how you much you are emphasizing specific points. Likewise, I will award points in this category for speakers who are kind and compassionate while debating (aka, speakers who acknowledge nuance and take their opponent at their highest ground) and will deduct points for blatant mischaracterizations or overly hostile rhetoric.

LD:

I will vote for theory or fairness arguments; however, I will not vote for them if they are in bad faith. Generally speaking, theory arguments should be responded to.

K and Phil are my stronger areas and I enjoy hearing them in a rounds. LARPing is fine, but do not expect me to know all of the lingo-- I started out as a trad LD and WS judge, I will miss policy-specific lingo.

You should debate how you want and not over-adjust for me. The debate space is yours. This is your time to speak about things you care about.

Generally speaking, I am concerned about my flow during a round. If I am not making eye-contact, that is not a negative sign.

Speaker points -A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear.I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive.

Each side must establish how they interpret the resolution and which framework is the best for evaluating the round. From this, I judge on the impacts that are relevant under the winning framework.
I can only consider arguments that are presented in the round. It is my view that it is the debater’s responsibility to adequately communicate and warrant their arguments and why those arguments matter for that particular round. When competing claims occur, I will weigh the arguments/evidence/impacts presented in the round and through the “instructions'' students have given me. Ideally, debaters will make clear comparisons, lay out the order of operations, provide even/if statements, and tell me how to weigh. This makes my job a lot easier and requires less intervention on my end. Please do not assume that your argument speaks for itself. Even if I understand the aim of your argument, I cannot vote on it if you do not clearly extend it, and its impact on the round, through your speeches. Going fast and covering the flow is not an excuse to avoid explaining your arguments - collapsing effectively and introducing weighing early will make it easier to flesh them out. If neither debater has met their burdens, then I will vote for the side that requires the least intervention on my end.

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

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the fastest debater on the circuit I am comfortable with 7. I am fine with a number of communication and speaking styles. I am generally fine with fast rates of speech, but if you are speaking so fast your arguments are blurred together, it will be highly difficult for me to flow. Clarity is the larger issue here. If I cannot flow your argument, I cannot vote on it.

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

What's up y'all! I'm Katelyn Moss, a current freshman at Washington University in Saint Louis, double majoring in Political Science and Sociology plus a minor in African and African American Studies. I have debated in both middle and high school at the honorable Irma Lerma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School, coached by the debate legend himself, Kris Wright. (Shoutout to him) I have experience with Policy, World Schools, and LD, qualifying for the Texas Forensics Association (TFA) tournament and NSDA Nationals for World Schools specifically. For fun, I like to play Clash Royale (I need a clan to join, if you know a good one who gives you cards, trades, and does the little clan war thingies, put me on)

Most of my debate experience is in World Schools, so I primarily judge that division. Here’s what I expect from a round:

Just a few housekeeping to start,

1. Please limit your spreading. World Schools is a conversational debate. You have a whole 8 minutes, chillax. I can’t keep up with it, so I will write down what I hear.

2. You, as in EVERYONE on your team, should be asking POIs. I’ve been trained to ask them every 30-45 seconds, but I’ll settle for at least once a minute if you are in the beginner division, to me that shows how engaged you are in the debate. If one person is carrying the POI asking, that person gets a greater number of speaker points compared to the other two teammates. Nothing quicker than that please, it’ll seem like you’re pestering the opponent.

1. Also, if you know the answer to your opponent’s POI is embedded in your case and it’ll come up in the next speech, SAY IT that gives me a little glimpse of what to expect, and I want to see the answer brought up in the next speech.

2. One more thing, don’t take too many POIs, you should aim to take at least 2, no more than 3. It might seem like you’ve run out of content and you’re trying to fill up time.

3. Be confident in what you say and try to maintain eye contact with me. I like to be engaged in the conversation, so don’t keep your head down on the paper. I promise I’m not going to bite you. I stopped doing that a long time ago…

Now, on to the good stuff:

1. I want worldly examples, U.S.-centric or one-nation examples are okay, only if the topic calls for it. When it doesn’t, I expect a global approach with examples from countries all over the world

2. PLEASE I BEG YOU PLEASE SIGNPOST. Tell me what you’re about to do before you do it so I can flow easier.

3. In regarding preferences for practicality or principled arguments, it’s your job to sway me. I have no preference if Prop is practical and Opp is mainly principled, just convince me yours is better. Preferably, you should have a healthy mix of both anyway.

4. Clear and concise links…yes!

5. I need both sides to establish what the burdens for the round will be, however, let’s not make it a contention, if both of you disagree with burdens you should be proving to me how you win on both sides’ burdens. (How many times am I going to say burdens?)

6. You should be carrying down the bench for any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend and/or carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded to buy that argument.

7. There’s a difference between a countermodel and a counterfactual. They are not interchangeable.

I take points off for:

1. Ad Hominem attacks, attacking someone’s character instead of their argument, IMMEDIATE markdown. Having been on the receiving end of these attacks… not fun, so…don’t do it.

2. Clear laughing or making fun of the other team. → Will also result in me notifying your coach of your behavior.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk, and I am honored to judge your round.

P.S. If you have any questions, comments, and/or suggestions email me at k.a.moss@wustl.edu

*Paradigm Updated 9/9/24 with preferences for each event.

ALL DEBATE: Welcome to my ten second tutorial, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

**PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK IMPOSSIBLY FAST. If you’re talking like you’ve had too many Dr. Peppers, we’re fine, but if you blur words together and start double breathing, I can’t understand you. It’s a disability issue. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed. I also feel you should check with your opponent before EVERY round to discuss what their threshold for speed is to make sure you are both on the same page and that the debate space will be inclusive. That’s key to keeping people in this activity. Please don’t chase out people who can only compete sometimes. Be better. Do better.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS: I will consider anything that isn't offensive, but you have to give me a reasonable explanation for why it applies in this debate. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

THEORY: I am open to any theory arguments critiquing your opponent’s rhetoric, behavior, or advocacy. I am NOT open to resolutional critiques, because in that instance you’re basically critiquing the wording committee. We have to have an agreed upon resolution to have a fair debate. It may not be your favorite resolution. It may not be my favorite resolution, either. However, it’s the resolution we’ve all walked into the round to engage with, so do me a solid and actually engage with it. For disclosure theory, show me the receipts. How is it the norm in this event, this tournament, how many times did you reach out to your opponent, etc.

WEIGHING: I don’t need you to use the words probability, timeframe, reversibility, etc. So long as you compare your argument with your opponent’s and tell me why your argument makes your world comparatively better than theirs, I’m good.

BEHAVIOR: Be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Firstly, although I have judged this event for five years or so, I am not necessarily aware of every norm in the activity. If you feel your opponent is using debate norms from other events and they aren’t in line with world norms, tell me why their position should be disregarded. Secondly, I like to see a lot of worlds comparison in either the 3^rd or Final speech. What happens if we pass the motion? What happens if we fail it? What are the implications of that action across broader populations and through time? Especially with impromptu topics, I think it’s important to figure out what the effects are of voting either way. I’m not going to want to make a decision about a subset of the motion taken in one snapshot in time. I want to look at precedents the motion might start, or how the motion may change perceptions across the globe. Think BIG. Thirdly, don’t ask incredibly long POI’s just to waste opponent time. Your POI’s should be strategic in terms of their content.

PUBLIC FORUM: Firstly, do not make arguments in cross. Ask questions of your opponent. Weaken their link chains, make them explain warrants and evidence. Please let your opponent have a reasonable amount of time to answer, and only interrupt if they are being purposefully obtuse. Take turns asking. If you have a follow-up, it should be able to be answered with one sentence, or it is a second question. Secondly, I do not believe that policy and LD norms automatically apply in PF rounds. If you would like to access another debate event’s norms, you need to give me a reasonable explanation as to why your interpretation is best. Thirdly, I like to see incentive analysis done that helps me to see why certain policies might be preferred over others. This can be from a government perspective, a societal perspective, or even individual perspectives, depending on the argument. Fourthly, you have to give me more than the argument name to count as an extension, and arguments need to be extended in every speech if they end up in Final Focus. Give me the evidence, the warrant, the way that argument outweighs the opponent’s argument – I’m flexible, but give me something to extend other than a word. Fifthly, be realistic about what you can do in a four minute constructive. You will not be able to go into massive depth with any of your arguments. Low probability, high impact arguments require a pretty strong link chain, and that’s probably not something you have time for in PF. Stick with what you can defend. Then defend it. Sixthly, be smart about evidence sharing. Have your evidence immediately accessible and shareable. Better yet, send the cards either right before or right after the speech so everyone can see them. I do not want to have to police both teams while searching and copying and pasting and refreshing emails. I also really, really do not want to see teams using evidence challenge as a way to get more time to mentally prep. PF debate should not take a lifetime. It should take less than an hour.

LD: I’m not judging much LD anymore because the activity is becoming less enjoyable for me. I’m not a tech happy judge, and I won’t vote on flow tricks. I will vote on comparative benefit in the overall aff and neg position. I would prefer you take prep time before the NC so that you are responsive to your opponent’s rhetoric and arguments. If your entire NC is cards that you don’t bother applying directly to opponent arguments, I’m probably not going to vote for you. Clash is key, and clash requires being in the moment of this particular debate with these particular people. Every debate should be different. If you’re making them all the same, you’re probably going to get the L from me every time, too.

POLICY: I judge policy only when tabrooms really, really need me to, or for UIL Texas debate where speed is not the norm. I recognize that on most circuits, speed is the norm, and I simply can’t keep up. If tab needs me to take one for the team, though, please read your taglines more slowly. I don’t understand all of the intricacies of policy debate norms, so if you want me to judge off something more obscure, explain it to me. My favorite thing in Policy to hear about is the solvency debate, so points there if you dig in deep.

To finish it off, this activity should be something all of us enjoy. If you’re miserable during the round, we probably will be, too. Find a way to make each debate interesting, unique, challenging. Stretch your world, and make your opponents and judges think in new ways. Being in debate should inspire you. If it doesn’t, there’s probably a better activity for you, and I hope you can find that joy elsewhere. We’re all spending a day or weekend together, so let’s all try to make it pleasant.

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

Lee Patterson: The Kinkaid School

Email: Lee.patterson6@gmail.com

Hey Everyone! I am a parent judge; however, my son has been debating for 5 years, and he has taught me the basics of judging worlds.

DISCLAIMER: Any blatant discriminatory, inappropriate, and/or prejudiced behavior exercised during roundwill result in an Auto-Loss and 60 speaks! (Also, a message to Tab!)! Debate is meant to be fun and educational! NOT a place for hate!

For a TLDR, here is where I stand in the spectrum of judging:
<-Lay-----------X------------------------------------------------Very tech->



General Housekeeping:
1. Please be respectful while answering/asking POIs! -- This includes barraging your opponents with POIs as well! If they reject one now, they probably won't accept one in 15 seconds either! You should be spending that time flowing or preparing for your speech rather than interrupting the flow of debate. (However, You should accept 1 or 2 POIs in your speech)

2. Please keep track of your time! (I will be timing as well, and I will start to dock speaks after the 15-second grace period)

3.SIGNPOST IN AND ORGANIZE YOUR SPEECHES! (I'm new to judging, so it will be really hard to flow messy/lackluster speeches!) -- Emphasize the arguments you want me to vote on!

4. Have fun and be respectful!

Now, onto what I judge:

Principles: Only Relevant When Linked

I value principle arguments only when they are directly linked to the motion and the world it seeks to address. A principle must establish a clear connection between the resolution and the debate’s broader ethical or moral framework. Teams that present abstract principles or those tangential to the motion risk having their arguments deprioritized.

• What I Reward:

  • Principles that are well-justified, tied explicitly to the resolution, and integrated into the debate’s weighing.
  • Arguments that explain why the principle is universal, necessary, and outweighs competing pragmatic or principled claims.

• What I Penalize:

  • Principles that are generic, untethered to the motion, or lack clear relevance to the world teams are building.
  • Examples: A principle argument on "freedom" in a motion about environmental protection without explaining the specific relationship between the two will hold minimal weight.

Pro Tip: Tie your principles to mechanisms or impacts that manifest in the round, and explain why they outweigh alternative frameworks or harms presented.

Weighing: The Core of My Decision

Weighing is non-negotiable. Teams that weigh effectively dominate the round by guiding my ballot. I will reward teams that not only engage in impact calculus but also use weighing to contextualize their arguments within world-by-world analysis.

What I Look For in Weighing:

1. Clarity: Explicitly compare impacts and explain why one matters more. Avoid generic weighing statements like "our impact is bigger." Instead, offer detailed reasoning.
2. Impact Calculus: Use frameworks like magnitude, probability, timeframe, and reversibility to argue why your world achieves better outcomes.
3. Comparative Worlds: Analyze the specific trade-offs between both worlds and show why yours is preferable. Simply asserting your world is better is insufficient.

World-by-World Analysis

I value teams that break down what each world looks like in the end, explaining:

• What is gained or lost in each world and how those outcomes compare.
• Which world aligns more closely with the values or principles tied to the motion.
  

What I Reward

• World-by-World Analysis: Teams that provide a side-by-side comparison of both worlds demonstrate control over the narrative. I will always favor teams that clearly show me why their world is better over teams that rely on abstract claims or scattered rebuttals.
• Integrated Weighing: Teams that layer weighing throughout the debate, rather than in an isolated section, are more persuasive. For example: "Their economic harm of job loss is less important because it’s reversible, whereas the environmental destruction in our world is irreversible and affects future generations."
• Strategic Engagement: Preemptive responses to likely opposition weighing or principles are a sign of strong debate control.

What I Penalize

• Disconnected Worlds: If neither team provides clear world-building or comparative analysis, I am forced to intervene, which reduces my confidence in their advocacy.
• Failure to Weigh: Teams that avoid weighing or rely on judge intervention will lose out to teams that explicitly frame their impacts and principles.
• Generic Principles: As stated earlier, principles untied to the motion are dead weight in my evaluation.

The Role of the Ballot

I vote based on which team provides the strongest comparative analysis of the worlds presented, considering both principles and pragmatic impacts. My ballot reflects the debate as framed by the teams—so the clearer and more explicit your world-by-world weighing, the easier it is for me to decide in your favor.

Key to Winning: Provide specific weighing, tie principles and impacts directly to the motion, and show why your world achieves better outcomes. If you guide my ballot effectively, you will win. I WILL NOT INTERVENE!!!!!!!

Hi I'm Elaine Pham, excited to be your judge! I spent three years in Seven Lakes Speech and Debate and competed mainly in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, DX and DUO Interp which I went to state for. I have some experience in worlds as well.

For debate events, I do not like spreading.

For interp, I look for a solid plot line that is engaging just as much as developed characterization. For OO/INFO, I look for solid impacts. Why should I care about your topic? Do not depend on your boards, I should be able to understand your speech without them. In general, keep your energy up, especially at the start!

I don't tolerate any hate speech or discrimination. Do not be rude or distracting to other competitors.

Lastly, tournaments are long! I keep docs on every round I judge but if I miss a ballot by accident or you want me to elaborate on my critiques, feel free to message me at elainecpham@gmail.com.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. I am now the head coach at Grapevine High School. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

This is my second time parent judging. please go slow.

If you have any questions for me, particularly in Congress I can be reached at nevras@yahoo.com

Individual events: in extemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.

I will say that the key to winning in International Extemp is to immerse yourself in magazines, books and newspapers involving all things not United States. You'll get questions from areas not familiar to to normal lay person or someone that only follows domestic news. You then have to put the speeches together on non tournament days so that you are not scrambling to find the research within a half hour. Know what you want to say in advance, pick the question you have a good speech lined out and deliver. Friday night and Saturday mornings are not the time to piece together an international extemp speech. And keep in mind, more than 50% of the judges you face may not know a thing about a Morocco, a Republic of Congo or a Myanmar and somehow you have to bring that judge in to explain yourself these situations in a way that you are explaining it like a college professor while explaining it to a five year old. Only then will you see true success in International Extemp.

In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.

In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.

LD & CX: I will honestly say that I don't judge those debates in the traditional sense and as such I draw my decisions based on my IE and PF experiences. Like PF your cross and rebuttal speeches usually wins the day in my eyes so if you can extract good counter information in cross and use it in rebuttal, then you'll likely get the win.

PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.

I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.

Being the presiding officer it means that you have to dedicate your life and your time at the chamber to the speakers and making sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.

I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

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.

Truth > Tech

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

Providing strong logic and reason

Speech - Strong analysis and organization is key. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION! I evaluate heavily on the use of evidence to back up clear, logical analysis. Communication is key - it is your job to communicate with me, not my job to work to understand you - keep this in mind and consider what structure to provide in your speech to make sure your concept and analysis can be easily followed.

Interp - I judge interp based on storytelling, characterization, and performance technique. In dramatic selections - I am looking for depth of character, honesty, realism, and believable character relationships. Make sure you have moments and aren't just presenting dialogue. Character arcs are also important and should be part of your storytelling. In humorous selections - I am looking for strong, committed acting choices with strong polish and technique. Storytelling is still hugely important - the story should be easy to understand and clearly focused. Characters are the most important. I am looking for strong characters that feel realistic and react in the moment. The comedy should drive largely from character reactions. Popping technique is also very important - should be polished and clean with distinct physical and vocal choices.