2024 CX State Judges

Philosophy
As a policymaker judge, I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I require both sides to provide offense to win. Sufficient evidence is needed for any point made through the entire debate. During the rebuttal speeches, give specific reasons why you don't agree with opposing team and provide supporting evidence. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Even though I am a policy maker, the basics of CX debate should be followed such as retaining the stock issues. I do not form part of the email chain. I do not like reading speeches. I want to hear it. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speech.

Delivery
Make sure that during the delivery, you speak clearly in order for me to hear all of your points and watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So no spreading.

Philosophy
I tend to prioritize the STOCKS; I am a small school coach and put a ton of effort into these as it is the majority of the judging pool at the state contest, so it is the paradigm we spend the most time adapting to in our prep. I strive to be a TAB judge, but at the end of the round, I will default to the STOCKS, so I think you should spend a ton of time on these in my rounds. I can track with higher levels of debate but tend to keep my judging philosophy in line with the organization I find myself participating in, so since UIL places a premium on speaking, my ballots will reflect that. More technical teams could lose me easily if they do not control my ballot and tell me what I will be voting on at the end of the rounds. I would also encourage you to pull me up in the tabroom. There is a more up-to-date judging paradigm if you want to see more.

Delivery
I will prioritize UIL-style speaking and adapt to the organization and its norms/standards.

Philosophy
Policy Maker (stock issues framework) The basic policy of this paradigm is the weighing of the affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages. Whatever arguments you run, know how to run them and run them well. AFF: Prove. Convince me that you plan is important and valuable. Convince me that your policy is preferable. NEG: Clash. Why is the AFF plan bad? Why don't they solve? Why are their impacts unimportant, vague, not as good as yours. DAs: Impact! Impact calc will guide my ballot. K/CPs: Why is the alt (cp)better than the aff's plan? Why can't they perm? Impact if K/CP is ignored? (vice versa for Aff) Ts: Be reasonable. Use a T argument that is applicable, generic Ts are ineffectual at this level of competition. Also, tread carefully if you run multiple Ts, they typically contradict each other. I will only vote on the evidence presented in the round. I will not make assumptions from prior knowledge. If you use analytics, understand they are not evidence, but should strengthen your arguments (proving your own knowledge of your case).

Delivery
I appreciate clear communication. Off time roadmaps are appreciated. While spreading is okay, if I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. Communication is crucial. Be respectful always.

Philosophy
I love debate! I am really big on the idea that you are supposed to learn from the round. I like respectful rounds with decorum but I am very supportive of assertive debaters. enjoy the round, relax, take a breath, and tell me why you win!

Delivery
I don't like speed, I think there are much better ways to be strategic in debate, there is no reason to make it harder for anyone to learn.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml The 1-5 scale is confusing to me personally so don’t take it too seriously in my case. The 1NC is welcome to run any off-case positions (disads, topicality, counterplans etc) I am highly, highly skeptical of new off-case positions after the 1NC, so please no new in the 2. I am more lenient towards new on-case like solvency or harms attacks, but if I find myself wondering “why was this argument not made in the 1NC?” I’m probably erring towards the aff or giving them a low threshold for responding. I default to viewing the round through a lens of “does the aff make the world better or worse?” but will happily pivot to kritik framing, ethics, theory etc. if it is warranted. I want you to do your own extensions and not rely on me to keep arguments in the round for you. If you aren’t bringing an argument back up after introducing it in early speeches, please don’t expect me to evaluate it in your favor.

Delivery
Speed is fine. I am not impressed by speed or ‘gotcha’ arguments weaponized against novices or small programs in a way that makes the round inaccessible to them. I love to dock rude debaters’ speaker points

Philosophy
Head Coach at McNeil. "If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat." About Me: B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015 Head Coach at McNeil High School Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC for LD and UTNIF for LD. I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while and I judge a lot of debates each year. Some local, some nat circuit, some just practice rounds for my team. Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone. 2. Do what you do best. Whether that be politics and a cp or kritik. 3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude). 4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff 5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated. 6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good. Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

Delivery
I focus more on resolving issues on the flow than speaking style

Philosophy
Give me a clear framework to evaluate the round under, the warranted offense you have to leverage under it, and weigh your offense against your opponent. I am largely a tab judge with some small caveats (see my tabroom paradigm for more detail). I was predominately an LD K debater in high school, but I have 0 problem dropping Ks in favor of framework, policy args, etc. I value quality of arguments over quantity, but that doesn't mean you can't use quantity of arguments in a strategic manner. All teams should collapse. I highly value and will inflate speaks if you do an effective job of collapsing. In general, I really love to see effective use of strategy in the round. Speed is totally fine just be clear. I'll stop flowing if I can't keep up so be mindful. I default policymaker, but am open to whatever alternative mechanism of framing you want to use in the round. I default to competing interps, but am more prone than the average judge to be own over on reasonability. I'm also 100% fine with stock debate, even against more progressive arguments. While I'm tab, I will vote teams down for making offensive arguments or being offensive in the round. If you're rude your speaks will drop very heavily and if it gets past a relative threshold I will drop you.

Delivery
I don't care about styles of speaking. You can be fast just be relatively clear. I don't have much concern for any formalities in the debate round like where you sit and what not. Just make sure you treat everyone with respect.

Philosophy
I am a tabula rasa judge. Do not care what you run while you run it correctly. So run whatever you want, if you want to run a Kritik or get into theory debate, then go right ahead. Do not mind spreading, but if you are going to spread then I need a copy of what you are going to run. So include me in a speech drop or even an email chain if you are old school. Also with spreading, please clear tag lines and stuff, just makes it easier for me to flow. If the argument is not mentioned, I will consider it dropped. I do not flow for you. In the rebuttals, I do love some good old-fashioned voters (cyclicality etc.)

Delivery
Doesn't matter, just give me a roadmap before 1nc, other than that. Liberty to do whatever you feel strongest towards.

Philosophy
For me, debate is deeply rooted in weighing the pros and the cons of each side's arguments. I try to go into each round with a blank slate and weigh the arguments presented against each other; whichever side can convince me they have more net benefits than negatives usually ends up getting my vote. As I become more experienced in judging and coaching, stock issues are gaining increased precedence in my decisions, too.

Delivery
I am hard of hearing, so I like when speakers are clear and articulate, and I especially like when speakers summarize their cards.

Philosophy
Tabula Rasa I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you explain why it leads to a winning ballot. Make it easy for me to judge the round by explaining to me what to vote for and why I should vote on it. If arguments become incomprehensible, I will default policy. I do not like new arguments in the 2nd Negative Constructive. Kritiks I am mostly fine with Ks. I am not super well read on all K literature, so make sure that everything is well explained, defined and be specifically clear on the link debate. Again if the K debate gets too messy or incoherent, I will default policy. Theory/T Any theoretical conflict is up for debate. I will vote on T but it has to be well-developed and reasonable in the round. Otherwise, I will typically vote Aff on T as long as the aff has a reasonable response to the argument. DA Cool CP I am not the biggest fan of CP but I will usually vote on it as long as its properly debated.

Delivery
As long as I'm part of the email chain or speech doc, all you have to do is have clear tags. If for some reason I do not have access to your doc, make sure your reading is clear and comprehensible. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow anything I cannot understand. Do not make me make the arguments for you. Explain your arguments, provide analytics, and make sure you have a clear line by line. Make sure to go hard into voters in the last speech. Don't be a jerk in-round. I will deduct speaks for unruly behavior

Philosophy
Quality over quantity wins with me. I like debaters to actually understand what they are saying. Fancy verbiage is not what will win me over, but true communication. Debate must be organized, and stock issues must be signposted and explained.

Delivery
Communication wins with me; no speed tactics or scripts

Philosophy
I believe that all Debate is about CLASH. It is important that you not only defend your position, but also must point out why your opponent is wrong. I may not be a fan of K or any specific argument, but I do my best to come in with a clean slate and judge the round on its merits. As the debater, it is YOUR job to explain why I should vote for you. Do not assume that I know everything. I am a bit more traditional in CX, but I am willing to vote on any solid, well-developed argument.

Delivery
I do not care if you speak quickly, as long as you are clear. Be courteous to your competitors and speak well.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Delivery
Speaking:I am fine with speed as long as it is clear and concise. If too fast, I will call out for you to slow down(unless you don't want me to catch all of your evidence). I like to catch taglines, dates, authors so slow down there along with the stock issues and how they link.

Philosophy
I'll vote on anything with a warrant. I have judged a lot of debates, seen a lot of types of arguments, and will be able to follow any type of debate you'd like to have. My extended thoughts are in the paradigm linked below: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=91831

Delivery
Go as fast as you want, just be clear. I flow on my laptop if that means anything.

Philosophy
I was a stock issues debater, so those still matter to me. I am also open to disadvantages and counterplans. I do not want to hear a kritik. I like to hear impact cacl and how these policies could affect the real world. I do not like spreading without analysis. This is a speaking event, so I expect students to be able to slow down and explain how the evidence they have presented supports their arguments. I am also looking for organization. Be sure you label each type of argument you're running (ex. topicality, disad, etc.) so that I know where to flow it. I am okay with new arguments in the 2NC, but topicality, counterplans, and disads should always be run in the 1NC.

Delivery
I understand that you need to read faster in CX than other speaking events, but this is still a speaking event that is supposed to prepare you for the real world. There is no scenario in which you need to read AT someone really fast. I'm looking for professionalism, analysis and application of evidence, and persuasion.

Philosophy
Stock Issues

Delivery
Spreading does not win an argument. I award speaker points based on who can best articulate their argument.

Philosophy
Ultimately, I am a stock issues oriented judge, however, I do enjoy traditional clash between the AFF and the NEG. I am not too keen on running what I consider "gimmick" oriented argumentation, we are not here to debate the concept of debate...but rather, the ideas and issues in the Resolution. My stance on that is that debate is best a tool for moving issues toward "being resolved," with technicalities or "meta" issues merely officiating and preventing any eventual solution. - I don't mind the Negative running "counter plans" so long as they are well executed and can be proven to NEGATE the resolution while still avoiding HARMS or creating benefits. Plans should be specific and well though out able to endure the onslaught of cross-examination.

Delivery
Speed is only a factor if it hinders communication, thus, those who cannot "spread" ought not do it, but rather focus on their other reasoning skills and oratory. Evidence is key, Hitchens' Razor, where unsupported arguments need not be refuted by evidenced arguments is at play and, an analytical point without evidence can be countered by one with said.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. I do not like new in the 2, but if an argument is made for why it should or should not be allowed, I will listen to the evidence and arguments.

Delivery
I want to be able to understand every word you say. I will award higher speaker points to debaters that speak the most fluently, with the fewest mistakes, as long as I understand them.

Philosophy
I will evaluate anything given a claim warrant impact My ballot is solely a decision on which debater was more persuasive. Being persuasive requires a bundle of strategy, tech, charisma, and ballot-painting. search up "ammu christ" on tabroom dot com for more specifics - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=182094

Delivery
You do you, and do it well search up "ammu christ" on tabroom dot com for more specifics - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=182094

Philosophy
I will evaluate the round based on the quality and clarity of arguments, effective use of evidence, and adherence to rules. Debaters should focus on the substance of their contentions, providing clear signposts for easy following. Quality and specific evidence is preferred over quantity, and accurate citation is crucial. Establish a clear framework for evaluating the round and provide impact analysis to weigh arguments effectively. Utilize cross-examination strategically, staying focused on substance and future argumentation rather than clarification. I'll be taking detailed notes, so organization and clarity in arguments are key. I am open to non-traditional arguments if well-explained and supported by relevant evidence. The goal is a constructive and thoughtful exchange of ideas. I award more speaker points to strong performers during CX periods.

Delivery
Find a balance between clarity and speed. I do believe that in order to have an effective debate, speakers must read quickly.

Philosophy
When it comes to CX debate I find myself normally more of a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. I classify myself as a policy maker judge, tell me why your plan/status quo/ counterplan, is better than the proposition the opposite side is making. Additionally, I believe stock issues to be quintessential in arguing your side, although drop(s) on stock issues do not equate to a winning ballot. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument and every stock issue is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and not tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. I’ll flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round. I am not particularly a fan of K debates, however if the competitor thinks they can be successful in properly communicating the K, I will listen to it. In terms of having an open cross examination during the debate, I will allow it, however, I expect the competitor who is supposed to be question/answering to do most of the talking.

Delivery
This is a speaking event first and foremost, so if spreading hampers your speaking ability you should not spread. Spreading is a Negative strategy, as such there should be absolutely no spreading in the 1AC (I can't/will not vote for a plan that is unclear due to 1AC spreading). Spreading is also very exclusive and ableist, so it should not happen at all.

Philosophy
I want to hear complete arguments and evidence to support those arguments. Clash is very important, do not just reread cards. Understand your evidence and be able to explain if asked by opponents. I also want debaters to sum up the round and tell me which arguments they believe they won and why in the rebuttals. I will vote for the team that provides the best defended arguments that are still on the flow.

Delivery
Communication/speech is key in Debate, it is important to speak clearly. I do not like spreading, fast speech is fine as long as I can understand what you are saying.

Philosophy
I am going to default to evaluating who wins the most offense in the round. It's going to be very difficult to get me to vote purely on defense. I am not a stock issues judge. I really, really don't like new arguments in the 2NC. Please don't do it. It's very bad debate strategy in front of me.

Delivery
I would advise you to slow down on tags and theory.

Philosophy
I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should vote on it. As long as you are winning that it is an argument that I should be listening to, then I will evaluate it. This also means that the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions. Topicality - My default position is that there needs to be an abuse story. I am open to arguments otherwise, but be aware if you expect to win on potential abuse you need to spend a lot of time on it. Disads - Any disad is probably fine. I think your internal link story should make sense. Counterplans - Any CP is probably fine without any theoretical objections won by the aff. Theory - Make sure you tell me how my ballot functions. I tend to think I should reject the argument, not the team. If you think I should reject the team you are going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that that is the best remedy. Kritiks - I do not have a problem with Ks (aff or neg), but don't expect me to know what <insert your author> says about the topic. I want to know how my ballot functions in the world of the alternative and on what scale (am I taking a stance in the debate community, is it just an affirmation of the discussion we had, etc). Speech docs - I don't want the speech doc, I will flow your speeches. Keep in mind that means only what is in the actual speech is on my flow regardless of whether or not it is in the speech doc.

Delivery
I think you should adhere to the norms for the organization in which you are competing. I intend to respect UIL rules by reducing your speaker points if you choose to spread. I am able to flow your arguments and will make a decision based on the arguments in the round.

Philosophy
Policy debate is first and foremost a speaking competition, therefore delivery and presentation of evidence and arguments should be conducted accordingly. It is not unconventional for the most organized debater to win the round. I would recommend that you take time in your speeches to provide good diction and well thought-out explanations of your arguments in theoretical or analytical forms. I do not have a preference on types of arguments as long as they are presented correctly. The most important things to me are diction, manners/respect, and stock issues.

Delivery
I do not have a style preference when it comes to reading evidence text aloud. What is more important is that you can articulate your arguments in your own words and sign post for my flow.

Philosophy
I tend to be fairly progressive in the arguments I will vote for and consider any arguments you run. I am fine with conditionality and collapsing if you justify it. I am a tab judge at least as much as that is possible, I want you to tell me what the debate is about and what to vote on. It is your job to set the terms of the round. I will not advocate on the flow. I am open to collapse strategies and prefer non-generic arguments with a real link. I wish we would stop arguing end of world impacts but I will vote on them.

Delivery
There is a time and a place for speed. This isn't it. You are welcome to read faster than normal but if you aren't being communicative I will not flow your argument.

Philosophy
I am an old school stock issues judge. The quality of arguments matter just saying it and throwing it out to see if it sticks is not enough. It is a speakers responsibility to present and develop the argument including providing links and specifics. Speed is ok, but I still vote on quality not quantity

Delivery
Debate is a communication event. The debaters' jobs are to persuade me not shovel information and read briefs as fast as possible. Impact is essential.

Philosophy
I am a strong believer in attacking relevant topics in CX rounds I.e. stay on topic with stock issues and don’t go too crazy with any CP or DisAd that may be used. Anything that doesn’t make logical sense or would conceivably happen doesn’t belong in a CX round. I won’t hear any arguments having to do with the theory surrounding CX debate unless they are abuse arguments that follow the rules of UIL. Any argument such as “Conditional CPs are bad” will not be flowed in round. Simply put, if you can convince me that your side is logically the better answer with evidence to back it up, you will win the round.

Delivery
I prefer all off case arguments to be run in the 1NC so that the AFF has the opportunity to refute in the 2AC. Don’t spread, if I can’t understand you I will not flow any argument that you have. Any on case you have I will flow both in the 1NC or 2NC.

Philosophy
I see debate as a communication event. Other important elements of the activity is structured case and presentation. Important is the use of logic and reasoning.

Delivery
Conversational style of delivery

Philosophy
I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand. Feel free me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Delivery
I would prefer speakers slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Philosophy
I believe this is your round, so do what you would like with your round. I am cool with speed. I am here for generally any type of argument you would prefer to run. I am well verse in most k lit, as well as policy argumentation. Make sure you do the work to tell me what arguments you are weighing and how. I generally weigh the round off of offense/defense, but you should do the work for me. Other than that, nothing discriminatory will be tolerated i.e. nothing homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

Delivery
Personally, I prefer the faster side, but not so fast that the debate is inaccessible for others who are debating.

Philosophy
Clash is key, and that burden rests with the Negative. The neg should attack stock issues, and prove that the affirmative plan doesn't solve.

Delivery
Please do not spread. I should be able to understand so that I can flow. Be sure to signpost.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge and revert to policy maker when needed. I do not believe in new in the 2 and if you spred as long as you are clear I am good with it. Please do not run a bunch of abuse arguments and if you run any make them short and I will decide if there is abuse, this will normally not win my vote. I am looking for clash mainly and do not normally entertain K arguments.

Delivery
Clear and detailed.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge. I like a clear debate. Apply your argumentation, don't expect the judge to intervene and draw the connections for you. Weight your arguments. You analysis of the evidence is more important to me than how much evidence you present during the round. Stay professional and courteous especially during the questioning period. If you plan to run a CP or T arguments--run it in the 1NC. Try not to run T as a time suck. Make sure that the components of your DA's are clear. Generic DA's are okay with me as long as you can stick the LINK. Don't forget to leave time to utilize IMPACT CALCULUS in the rebuttals. Don't run a K, I won't vote on it. If you do run a CP, make sure that everyone in the round is on the same page.

Delivery
This is a communication event centered on a specific resolution. Speed should never interfere with ability to be an effective communicator. Make sure to slow down on your TAG LINES. Please give a ROAD MAP and Sign-Post.

Philosophy
I would say I mostly evaluate rounds based on the stock issues, but I also want to hear reasonable, well-explained arguments. I would rather hear clear, thorough explanations of your argument than a large amount of evidence. Obviously, don't make claims without backing them up with evidence and reasoning, but I can be convinced on a point with just a few cards as long as the reasoning is sound. I also have just a few years of experience with CX, so I don't advise running a Kritik unless you can properly communicate it to me as your judge.

Delivery
I also value clear delivery, so I don't advise excessively rapid delivery. Again, I care more about the reasoning, so no need to throw in a large amount of arguments and evidence (and no need to speed through it).

Philosophy
The UIL judge sheet is too limiting and doesn't paint the full picture, please ask questions about my 1-5 rankings. The scale literally answers nothing. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I would say that I am more a policy maker judge than anything else. This means that I will vote for the best advocacy in the round, which means you have 3 options as the negative (squo good, CP, or K). I would say very much tech over truth. Default condo good. On T I prefer a well developed standard debate. I tend to default reasonability but at the end of the day if you can sell me on competing interps, I'm not opposed. This should be the only thing you are going for in the 2NR if this is your strategy. DA's - I love good uniqueness updates on DA's and 2AC N/Us. Love a good Politics scenario. Will vote on the impact turn on either the DA or the ADV. I'm cool with CPs. On the K debate, I am unfamiliar with a lot of K literature, I know the basics of Cap and Security but because I haven't engaged with the arguments in a few years, I'm definitely a little hazy on the details. If you are going to run a K or a K AFF please make sure you can explain it well. I want to feel comfortable after the initial cross-x that I know what your world looks like. I will vote on Framework regarding the K debate. Finally, on the Theory debate, make sure there is a clear violation and that you have some real offense coming off the argument if it is something you are going to commit to.

Delivery
UIL is an event that balances argumentation and effective commnication. Any speed that sacrifices clarity and/or effective communication is frowned upon.

Philosophy
If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me!! Hello! I am the current debate coach for Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio, and was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I tend to evaluate rounds based on an offense/defense paradigm, so I enjoy rounds with a lot of interaction between arguments and good articulations of their stories. You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded. If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com

Delivery
speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible (if you are being racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. it's L 20s across the board). Speed is cool, just make sure you're being inclusive-- I also flow on paper because I'm not the quickest on a computer so you'll probably want to give me some pen time on tags and analytics. (The average speaks I've given in the spring '24 semester are approximately 28.02 as of the time I'm writing this)

Philosophy
As a policymaker, I prioritize plans that are topical, feasible, and effectively address a defined harm. Whether the approach involves theory or alternative frameworks ("Ks"), I expect thorough explanations of the argumentation without assumptions of prior knowledge. In debates, I assess based on the arguments presented and will adapt accordingly. I do not prefer rapid delivery ("spread/speed"). Mutual respect among participants, including myself, is paramount.

Delivery
Maintaining strong, respectful communication is a fundamental priority for me in every debate round.

Philosophy
thorough paradigm https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=98723 I predominantly subscribe to a policymaker paradigm but enjoy Ks and theory arguments. I love a good T debate. Topicality is top-level. Impact calc from the round guides my ballot, but I'm not going to buy "ignore human rights bc nuke war." Arguments need to be extended to be weighed. Tagline extension is not sufficient. Arguments need warrants for their claims. Analysis of how flows interact with one another is my favorite. I will have a very difficult time buying into a scenario that is not probable, but this is easily overcome with specific and warranted evidence. I think debate skills are more important than speaking skills. As such, I will not ever weigh speaking skills before the substance of the round. Additionally, I have practically 0 tolerance for arrogance and conceit: do not disrespect or belittle your opponents. Feel free to ask questions.

Delivery
I feel no particular way about spreading; do whatever you are comfortable with. It’s probably smart to spread analysis slower than evidence (I may lose some nuance on my flow). I struggle more with enunciation than speed, but will not weigh this against you (unless I genuinely have a difficult time understanding you). Do not offer a "brief off-time roadmap" and proceed to explain flows; a roadmap should be along the lines of "case in the order of the 1AC, the disad, and topicality." Tags should be clear/distinct. I should have zero doubt about when you start a tag.

Philosophy
I am a policymaker who takes into account the style and strategies debaters bring into the round as well as what happens in round. I default to my flow regularly when deciding how to weigh arguments and where to place clash. The affirmative has the burden of proof, the negative has the burden of clash, and both sides should address the arguments of their opponents. Answer arguments and debate rather than just shouting your position at your opponent; dropped arguments weigh heavily upon my decision. I dislike debates without clash, where it seems as if it is two ships passing in the night without contact or response. I'm tolerant of most arguments and styles but expect you to draw the connection to the resolution or position being debated. I won't make assumptions or reach conclusions on my own and prefer to have speakers direct me to key issues through signposting and organized speeches, especially rebuttals. I rarely vote on presumption of aff; just because there might be a 1-percent chance of success is not persuasive unless there is an absence of clash from the negative. Finally, do not assume I know a particular piece of jargon you might be familiar with from your specialized research; when in doubt, feel free to explain it to me. I prefer to have clear voters and an impact calculus to think over at the end of the round. If you have particular questions on something specific, please ask.

Delivery
Debate is a form of communication, so if I am unable to understand you, you cannot persuade me. Decorum also matters - be polite and respectful with your discourse and adapt to your audience, who is a former coach and present educator.

Philosophy
I believe the stock issues are crucial and that the affirmative team should understand these. It is the responsibility of the negative team to clash and show evidence against the affirmative team.

Delivery
This is a speaking event. I prefer to be able to comfortably understand the speaker at a normal conversation rate.

Philosophy
Arguments need to make sense and be reasonable. You need to be organized so that everyone understands the round. Decorum and respect are needed in a round.

Delivery
Be clear in your speaking; make sure I can understand you. Use your time wisely.

Philosophy
Above all, CX debate is a communication event. Listening is a major part of communication. Make sure you really listen to your opponents throughout the round. When judging, I prefer to see professional clash. I typically lean toward stock issues. I will vote on DAs and CPs. I am not a big fan of Ks. However, if reasonable I will vote on a K. I want each side to weigh their arguments and bring their arguments full circle.

Delivery
Speed can either hinder or promote an individual. Enunciate, carry yourself with grace, and always be respectful.

Philosophy
Overall, I am a policy maker judge. Counterplans can be effective if executed correctly. I don’t particularly like T or K arguments, however if you lay out the voters, I may be more keen to vote that way. Still, a debate spent arguing nothing but a T-violation is a waste of a debate. Quality and quantity of evidence are of equal importance. As a judge, I look for clash from both sides. Can you adequately argue against your opponent while upholding your plan? The Aff’s job is to show that their plan goes against the status quo and is a better option. The Neg argues for the status quo or CP and shows that it should be upheld. Present voters and tell me why your side should win the debate. I do not flow CX time, those 3 mins are for you to clarify, not argue. If you want me to flow something from that time, bring it up in constructives.

Delivery
I highly discourage spreading. If your speed interferes with clarity and flowing of the round, I cannot judge it.

Philosophy
I am a tab judge and will allow debtors to establish how they want me to evaluate their debate. With that being said, the content of their evidence is a lot more important than quantity. I am not a fan of time grabs (i.e., running multiple Ts for no reason) and believe that debates should have clash. I am traditional in the sense that you must answer Ts, or you automatically lose as an Aff team. No T = no debate. I do not like Ks that much, but if you run it well, I will vote on it. Lastly, explain to me why your argument is stronger, how your opponent is failing to address issues, etc.

Delivery
I am okay with spreading if you are able to articulate your words properly. Additionally, be sure to slow down and emphasize your taglines and authors if you do spread.

Philosophy
I'm a policy judge. I want clear speaking. This is a speaking/listening event. I want you to listen to what the opponent is stating vs getting a copy of the case and perusing it to find weakness. I want you to be organized with your arguments. If you are neg - I want you to be very, very specific on what your are targeting in the aff case. I enjoy listening to analytics. I want to get that you really understand your case and what the opponent is stating about what you have said.

Delivery
Spreading is not o.k. This is a speaking event. If I can't understand you, the opponent can't either.

Philosophy
Not really a policy maker or stock issues oriented judge… mostly I’m just looking to be wowed by amazing creativity and strategic argument development. I will almost always evaluate based on a comparison of impacts, and dropped arguments still need what I consider claims, Warrants and Impacts. Ideally every major point in the debate is backed up by evidence plus contextual examples.

Delivery
No preference

Philosophy
I am a STOCK Issues judge first and foremost. If there is no other alternative offered in the round, that is where I will default in my judgment. A few prima facie concerns: 1. There is no "off time" roadmap. You may call it whatever you like, I will time it. 2. Please don't call them "cards." They aren't 3. Please give STRUCTURED arguments. T should have definition-violation-standards-voters. DA should have Uniqueness-Brink-Impact. K must have an ALT. 4. Poorly run Kritiks will hurt you more than well-run Kritiks will help you. 5. I am a Yale-trained theologian and philosopher. I can hang with technical terminology, but you run risks when speaking too pedantically. You won't win a round by confusing your opponent. Strong argumentation is clearly and uses proper vocabulary out of NECESSITY, not out of "style." The particularity of the language must mandate its use. 6. I want solid rounds with clash and structured arguments, but you won't solve the worlds problems today. You must be an effective communicator first, not a problem-solver first.

Delivery
Speed and Style are both essential elements of the debate "performance." You must pay heed to pathos, ethos, AND logos. They are all essential elements of rhetoric. If you are speaking too quickly, I will put my pen down. If my pen is down, I am not flowing. If I am not flowing, it is not happening.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge and my decision in the round will reflect that. I am looking for the clash; that is the heart of debate. I feel strongly that CX debate is as much about listening as it is about speaking. Refute what you hear and make clear links. I don’t advocate counter plans because they reduce the clash but I can be persuaded to vote on one if it is well developed. I do not like K arguments and can’t remember a time I voted for one. I will flow the round so organize your thoughts before your presentation and offer signposts as you go; a roadmap isn’t necessary. In the end, I want you to persuade me why I should vote for your side of the issue. I need to hear you and understand you. I don’t mind a little speed, but avoid spreading. I want analysis, not reading. I enjoy a little passion, but frown on rudeness.

Delivery
I want to hear & understand every point and I want to know that you heard & understood the other team. Your argument is only good if it is understandable. I don’t mind a little speed, but avoid spreading. If I quit flowing the debate, you have lost me. I want analysis, not reading. Analysis is key to me and much more important than the quantity of arguments or cards of evidence. I expect debaters to be courteous & professional.

Philosophy
When it comes to policy debate, I vote on evidence-based arguments; however, theories and K's are acceptable as long as they has standards and voters to go with them. I can get behind an alternate idea as long as it comes with evidence. Please, make sure you and your partner are cordial with the other team. Clash is preferred, but not if it is hostile.

Delivery
Fluency is extremely important to me. I want to feel as if you have read your case so many times that it comes naturally. Confidence is key.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge---weighing the issues and arguments presented and effectively delivered. Aff must meet the burden of proof While Topicality is not always considered a stock issue, I will weigh those Neg arguments if appropriately applicable and cast a yea or nay ballot

Delivery
Not a fan of speed or spreading if not easily communicative. Communication of ideas and arguments is essential.

Philosophy
I am tabula rasa but I learn towards stock issues. I don't mind if a team runs K's or counterplans as long as they know what they are doing. I don't believe spreading to the point of incomprehensible is educational.

Delivery
I don't believe spreading to the point of incomprehensible is educational. I believe debaters can be aggressive and passionate without being rude or unprofessional.

Philosophy
I consider myself a policy maker judge but I do like to hear debate of stock issues. Ultimately, I prefer to vote on competing policies -- that does not mean that the Neg must present a CP -- the Status Quo is a competing policy. I am pretty open to all arguments except conditional arguments (as in contradictory or multiple worlds arguments). I will not automatically vote against conditional arguments, but it won't take much for the opposing team to convince me to vote it down. Aff plans should be presented in the 1AC. I am not a fan of spreading (although I do understand it in the 1AR) but I can flow it. However, you run the risk of me missing information and I won't call for evidence unless there is a protest or content issue in round. Debate is a communication event and a monotonous flow of words punctuated with gasps of breath is not effective communication. Rudeness will be negatively reflected in speaker points awarded. Just reading evidence is not making an argument -- the evidence must be explained and linked. Analytics alone is okay but arguments supported with evidence are stronger. I am okay with new on-case in the 2NC but I think new off-case in the 2NC can be abusive. Topicality should be run at the top of the 1NC. If you are kicking an argument, be sure to tell me (and ideally give a reason). Kicking in the 2NR (especially without a good reason) can be seen as abusive and I am receptive to Aff arguments to that effect. I really like a clear impact calculus in the 2NR and 2AR. Make sure you know what you are talking about if you run a Kritik.

Delivery
Speed is okay but not preferred. If you are going to spread, make sure to slow down on tags and citations. This is a communication event and should be persuasive in nature.

Philosophy
As a judge, I approach debates with a focus on the traditional stock issues framework. I believe that debaters should present arguments that address the key components of significance, inherency, solvency, harms, and topicality. In addition to evaluating arguments based on these stock issues, I also prioritize clear communication, logical reasoning, and effective clash between teams. I expect debaters to engage with their opponents' arguments directly and respond to key points raised in the round. Overall, I believe that debates should be judged based on the strength of the arguments presented and the ability of debaters to effectively advocate for their positions within the framework of the resolution and the stock issues framework.

Delivery
I prefer conversational and clear organized speakers. I do not want to hear rude or catty remarks. I do not want team members speaking to each other while the other team is presenting.

Philosophy
Policymaker Judge I will listen to almost any argument but make sure you have the proper parts. I will not flow off case or T violations in the 2NC

Delivery
I don't mind speed but taglines and analytical arguments need to slow down.

Philosophy
I’m tabula rasa. My longer (still very short) paradigm is on tabroom.com but I can summarize: My philosophy is short because I want the debaters to form my opinions for me. In general, do what you do well and don’t change anything for me. I evaluate offense/defense. Offense is more important than defense. Very unlikely you will win a round without offense. Quality>Quantity.

Delivery
Go as fast as you want/can. I’ll clear you if I can’t understand it. If I don’t understand you it isn’t because you’re going too fast for me, it’s because you’re going too fast for yourself. Run any argument you want. I like K’s but only if you normally read them. 1 off K is cool with me too, as well as K affs with no plan.

Philosophy
Debaters determine how I should evaluate the round, and I want teams to provide a well supported and persuasive framing. I do my best to keep an accurate flow, and I make my decision for each round based on the team who wins on the flow and evaluates the round better.

Delivery
A 90 minute debate can pass very slowly if the debaters are not fully committed to the activity. Have fun and speak passionately!

Philosophy
Debaters determine how I should evaluate the round. I do my best to keep an accurate flow, and I make my decision for each round by how the debaters evaluate the round based on the flow. Have fun!

Delivery
A 90 minute debate can pass very slowly for the judge if the debaters are not fully committed to the activity. Have fun and speak passionately!

Philosophy
Default to policy major, I prefer reasonable impacts. Love a good DA and CP. Keep everything organized. I do care about speaking pace. You can be quick, but debating also requires clear communication. K debate is fine but not my ideal. I prefer dealing with the real world impacts a given policy will have. I do vote on T's, but only if fully flushed with violations, standards, and voters. Arguments should be Unique. Generalized arguments are fine, but wont be viewed as highly upon.

Delivery
Know your aff plan. Speak eloquently but I understand if you have to rush. I do care about enunciation. Please be kind and respectful to opponents.

Philosophy
I'm not a big K fan, but will vote on on the arguments presented. I default policy. Point out drops, answer counterarguments, and extend your case. I love to hear a good impact calculus and voters.

Delivery
I can handle speed, but prefer that you slow down on the taglines. Act professionally. There's no reason to be rude in a round.

Philosophy
I am comfortable with any style of argumentation. I'd say I am a tab judge as much as you will let me be. I appreciate it when teams are doing the work for me. For instance, spending ample time on the framework debate when necessary and focusing on comparative analysis. If you don't do the work of essentially writing the ballot for me then I default to an offensive/defensive paradigm, so don't waste time on frivolous matters.

Delivery
I will absolutely try to listen to whatever speed you are comfortable with, but I cannot promise I will catch everything. I am not the best at speed comprehension, so if you want to guarantee that I catch things then just slow down for it.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=29387

Delivery
No preference on rate of delivery, slow and smart > fast and silly.

Philosophy
During a debate, I put the most weight on stock issues. A team's ability to win stock issues weighs heavily on that team winning the round. I also put weight on direct clash on arguments and the application of relevant evidence. When relevant evidence is used, I expect to hear the debater explain exactly how that evidence applies to the argument being made. Additionally, I will put value on the logical analysis of an argument when evidence is not available. I hate for debaters to stand up and read canned briefs of evidence. This is a debate, not a reading competition.

Delivery
Debaters should NOT engage in rapid-fire (spreading) speech during a debate. This is a speaking event. This is not a contest to see who can read the fastest. If a debater or team cannot communicate clearly, I will penalize that debater or team severely.

Philosophy
I am a Tab judge and will base my decisions on what you present. Be clear on your clash and have definite organization for my flow. I prefer Speechdrop. Do not spread as I find it abusive and you will not win the ballot. Have clear voters and take control of the argument.Please tell me if you are going to split the block.

Delivery
Debaters must speak clearly and at a speed that I can follow. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you.

Philosophy
I am a tab judge and like to let the debaters frame the round. If no frame is given, I will default stocks. I like logical arguments, and while I do like lots of on case, I will vote on counterplans and DAs. I dislike voting on T, but I will if I have to. I dislike Kritiks. I will flow them and consider them, but it will be extremely difficult for you to win with one. I LIKE new in the 2 (it is a CONSTRUCTIVE speech, after all). I will count dropping/flashing in your prep time.

Delivery
I am ok with some speed. I am a pretty fast flower, but I can't vote on what I can't flow. If I stop typing, you are too fast. At its heart, I still believe this is a communication event, so it is important that I am able to understand you. Signposting helps.

Philosophy
I judge based on the communication, technical skills, and on arguments. A huge part of CX debate is knowing what approach is needed to dismantle an opponent's argument, as well as protecting yourself from abuse, definitions, etc, so being able to understand the technical side of it is a huge thing I focus on when judging. Arguments should be solid and if they are refuted, I look for those who can flip the situation and present just a strong points of why their argument should stand. All of these focuses tie into communication, as I should be able to follow and understand what is going on and have a clear story line and a reason for why things are being said. Solid arguments and technical skill can only be shown through solid communication.

Delivery
I am fine with a faster pace round. However, this doesn't mean the words should be mumbled and incomprehensible. Communicate well.

Philosophy
I am a very easy judge to have - I read policy and K and high school, and I am familiar with a lot of the literature base on this topic. I am not a fan of new CPs read in the block, though I'm not opposed to new arguments being read in the block. I take disclosure seriously, so both teams should agree not to disclose if that is the case. as a note: please keep your evidence organized in your file that you send - I find it really hard to navigate which cards you're reading if you send over an entire block and only read some of the cards.

Delivery
Whichever style and delivery you prefer is fine with me! My only request is for the CX not to get too heated or personal, as I don't believe that is good for the debate.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge that looks for the issues from both Aff and Neg, that values clash once the stock issues have been delivered. I do not flow spreading at all. If new in the 2 is used, I have to determine if it was necessary in order for me to flow it.

Delivery
Stock Issues with no spreading.

Philosophy
I am primarily a stock issues judge, meaning that I put the highest value on the signposting and explanation of the stock issues in CX Debate. If I cannot hear or understand these issues, I will not be able to flow the round as the debaters would like. I also do not prefer spreading and will stop flowing if the speed gets too fast or hard to understand.

Delivery
I prefer clear, concise speech at a reasonable speed. I want to hear professional delivery and polite clash during round.

Philosophy
You can run any argument as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. Strategic extensions and explanations are important. I look for specificity, line-by-line, and warrants. I’m okay voting for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. I like to see a strategic collapsing of arguments. Theory/T: If you collapse to it, make sure it’s flushed out. Disads: should have some disad-case comparison. Counterplans: should have some analysis like on net beneficial or mutual exclusivity, and comparative analysis. Kritiks: Sure, I like them. I may need a short overview in case I’m unfamiliar with the author/literature base. Perms: Be specific. Example: Saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough; you probably need some solvency mech explanation like for pik/pic. Affs: Good with any format. If it is performance or a planless/K aff, give me ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear advocacies and contextualize them to the conversation/resolution.

Delivery
Speed is fine. I typically prefer tech over truth. A complete paradigm is on Tabroom.com that is currently down.

Philosophy
What it all boils down to is does the Aff convince me their plan will work. Organization is key! I prefer the speeches to be outlined and for the speaker to tell me specifically which contention he/she is addressing (which stock issue, Adv, DAs, impacts, etc). Make sure to communicate clearly and effectively always showing respect toward your opponents.

Delivery
I do flow the debate. If I can't understand you, I can't flow. Please don't speak fast or too quietly.

Philosophy
Overall, I would say that I am a tab judge but will default policymaker. In other words, read whatever you would like. I will adapt to you and the round that you want. If you give me no other lens to view the round, I will vote for whatever the best policy option there is, even if that is the status quo. That being said, I want to see good, warranted debate. Extend warrants, not just arguments. I want to see the 1AC and off case positions effectively extended. This doesn't have to be long. I would just like it to be there. I like offensive arguments. Defense is necessary of course, but I will probably not vote solely on a defensive argument. Good impact calculus and round summaries should start showing up in the rebuttals. This is a good way to simplify the round and tell me what you think I should vote on and why. Topicality/Theory: I default competing interpretations. I want to see a good T debate, with a robust focus on standards. If you do not plan to do that, I would not go for T in the 2NR. K/K affs: I am fine with K debate. I am probably not the most experienced in all of the literature, but I am decent with lots of the mainstream stuff. I want to know the solvency of the alt/aff. I want specific links. As with any argument, know it well and extend warrants with good analysis. If you do that, I will vote on just about anything. Block: Please split the block. I do not like new in the 2NC. New defensive arguments aren't a huge deal to me, but I will not flow new off case. Off case: Unless you have a crazy on case strategy, I will probably need some off case arguments. DAs, CPs, Ks, anything. Aff: make sure you are extending the 1AC. I like to see a team that really knows their aff inside and out. It is great when you use 1AC warrants to answer 1NC arguments. That is high level debating. While overviews/aff extensions are important, I have seen too many 2ACs and 1ARs where the line by line is completely neglected in favor of the overview. Balance is important. I am fine with any kind of aff, any kind of impacts. Run what you are most comfortable with. Debate is supposed to be fun. As a judge, I will listen to any argument that is most fun/relevant/important to you. Just be prepared to debate it well. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Delivery
Speed is alright as long as you are clear. I prefer that you emphasize the tags and author/date in some way. Speak louder, slower, label your cards A, B, C, or say "AND." Either way, I want to know when you are moving on to a new piece of evidence. The same goes for moving on to a new argument. Be kind to everyone in the round.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge. This means AFF your plan must retain all 5 stock issues. It would be nice to label them clearly so there is no question that you met them. NEG in order for you to win my ballot, you must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that AFF does not meet at least 1 of the stock issues. Make sure to provide violation, standards, and voters. If you are running T make sure to provide the definitions. Also, since I am stock issues, this means no CP or K. I require that both teams have evidence to support any claim made during the entire debate. If the claim is important, make sure to extend throughout the round. Make sure to provide voters at the end which should tell me why you won the round.

Delivery
If its important, make sure it is understood. So no spreading.

Philosophy
Honestly, get out there and do what you do best... Debate! All I ask is that you provide me with decent clash and voters at the end of the round. I'll listen to pretty much anything, but be warned that CPs must be run correctly and adequately apply for them to be a significant voter for me. Also, just know that I can count the number of times I've voted for a K on one hand, as most of the time they are run incorrectly, provide zero education in the round, and/or are just vague and silly timesuck arguments. I'm not saying I won't vote on a K, just be cautious in doing so. I'm fine with DAs, Ts, Theory, and all other on-case, as long as it's relevant and applies. Additionally, don't be afraid to run new on-case arguments in the 2NC; after all, it is a constructive speech. Finally, please don't waste our time playing games with technology or running arguments you plan to kick later. Time is a very valuable resource, so if you don't plan on seeing an argument through to the end of the round, please just don't run it to begin with. Other than that, be decorous, communicative, and most of all have fun!

Delivery
I don't mind speed. As long as you don't sound like an auctioneer or like you're about to pass out, we should be good. I will not tell you if you're going too fast or can't be understood. You should know if you're adequately communicating with the room or not. The biggest thing to remember is that this is a communication event and you should not expect me to figure out what you're talking about on my own. Explain, communicate, and remember that I don't have the cards in front of me to refer back to (nor do I want a copy to refer back to). Remember, if everyone in the room does not understand what is happening, then it isn’t debate.

Philosophy
I am tab. Do what you do best and I will adapt to you.

Delivery
Speak clear and be professional

Philosophy
I am a hybrid policy-maker and stock issues judge. I like a well-organized speech with an abundance of evidence. Spreading is fine as long as it is not excessive.

Delivery
Stand during CX, both students face the judge please. Speed is fine as long as it is not excessive.

Philosophy
I am a tabula rasa judge with an old school bent. I can handle a little spreading, but this is a speaking event afterall and should be intelligible. Being a "speaking event" means you need to do the work to get arguments and evidence into the round as I will no be entertaining digital copies to read myself and see how they weigh in the round. Lastly, this is a policy debate which means I do not tend to enjoy or vote on kritiques or framework. Stock issues and weighing of impacts and arguments is how I judge.

Delivery
Audible in volume. Regulate vocal cadence to allow impact. Monotone spreading does not rate highly on speaker points for me.

Philosophy
I am basically a Stock Issues judge. I will remain open minded in regard to COs and Ks but they are not my favorite and are rarely well run.

Delivery
Debate is communicative by nature and if I don’t feel you are using your best speaking skills due to speed, the deductions will be reflected in your speaks. I believe in remaining respectful to all involved in the debate at all times.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge first and foremost. Additionally, I will vote on most any logical argument that is presented clearly during the round. I do not appreciate generic Negative arguments but the Affirmative must still refute them. Make sure to signpost and label each argument. Make it clear when you are grouping or extending arguments. Don't expect me to do that work for you.

Delivery
I believe clear and concise communication is the most important aspect of successful CX debate. I do not mind speakers who read/speak quickly but you must do so clearly. Emphasize key terms and ideas. Be persuasive.

Philosophy
Please make sure you demonstrate that your position on the topic is a better solution than your opponents. Please address the sock issues however, address both offense vs defense. If you run a kritik, make sure it is relevant to the round.

Delivery
Please make sure you speak at a comprehensible rate. If I can not understand what you say, it will not end up on the flow.

Philosophy
I consider myself to be a policymaker judge, but what it comes down to is that the debater that convinces me is the debater that is going to get my vote. This means that I am looking for strong evidence as well as good analysis. I am looking for arguments that make sense. I am looking for cases that not only prove their own points but counter the opponent's points, as well. I strive to start the round with no preconceived notions. I want to see a strong framework and strong impact calcs. Do not make the mistake of presenting your case without arguing your opponent's. Yes, I am repeating that statement. It bears repeating. Speed is ok, but at the end of the day, I still like to hear good speaking. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then your speaking habits are not showcasing what you should be doing. I would rather hear fewer quality arguments than to have so much crammed into your time that I am unable to see clearly how it all works together.

Delivery
Speed is fine but I do need to be able to understand what you are saying. Make sure tag lines, at least, are not spread. At the end of the day, I do consider this a speaking contest and place a high value on your speaking skills.

Philosophy
PLEASE IGNORE THE NUMBERS; instead check my full paradigm here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=103845 If you have a specific question feel free to ask. TL;DR please debate in whatever way you are most comfortable with. I am a tab judge but default to an offense/defense heuristic. My primary experience is judging policy v. policy rounds; I have some experience judging policy v. K rounds and less experience judging K v. K rounds -- I am glad to judge any of these but please assume I am probably not familiar with your specific K lit.

Delivery
I assign speaker points primarily based on strategy and organization and not mechanical speaking skills. Speed in debate can be an important form of technical communication. I am glad to and comfortable evaluating rounds however fast you're comfortable debating; however, I ask that you make an effort not to use speed as a tool to prevent your opponent from accessing the round, particularly in rounds with an unbalanced experience level.

Philosophy
CX debate is about debate--the give and take, the answering of arguments, the strength of one's arguments. Obviously, the affirmative bears the brunt of the burden of proof. They should account for all the stock issues and know their case well. They should be well-versed in all issues related to their case. The negative should be able to point out issues related to the affirmative's case. Typically, if a neg can win one of the stock issues, I will vote for them.

Delivery
I do not like spread. If the affirmative and I cannot hear the case, there is no ability to debate. In the 1AFF, it is acceptable to read quickly; however, the rest of the debate should be more extemporaneous.

Philosophy
I am open to hearing most arguments so I consider myself a tabula rasa judge. I weigh heavily on stock issues but I expect both sides to be convincing. I expect all participants to be polite and respectful during the round. I look for a good coverage of flow. I want to see arguments that link and relate directly. I like to see logical arguments. I do not like Kritks. I will flow them but they are not a deciding factor for me. I like to see new in the 2.

Delivery
I do not mind speed if it is appropriate and understandable. Reading speed needs to be effective and able to be flowed. You should not be mumbling for grasping for air when readng.

Philosophy
Games/Tech Judge Debate is a game; use whatever ON OR OFF positions that allow you and your opponents to *LEARN* and have FUN - No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote which is why I'm a Tech>Truth judge. If all else fails and at the end of the debate everything cancels out I vote on presumption - presumption falls neg but if the negative runs a CP --- presumption flips (keep that in mind negative teams) when in K debates depending on the literature we are discussing let's try and be truthful(for proper education on important structural topics) but I'm still tech when it comes to judging the round.

Delivery
Speed = 👍, just make sure you're intelligible, Also make sure if I'm on a panel to check the other judges' prefs on speed if other judges don't like it, it's probably in your best interest to talk slow, you'll get my vote if your argumentation is superior.

Philosophy
CX Debate is a persuasive, higher order thinking event allowing debaters to see many sides of an issue and to problem solve. Communication and organization in speeches is vital. The plan needs to solve the harms . I like signposting, organized presentations, strong clashes , and on-case, not generic, disadvantages, with ample supporting evidence. Debaters need to tell me why they are the winning team along with professional, persuasive, confident delivery.

Delivery
Speed of delivery needs to allow me to take a flow. Debaters should be confident, persuasive , and have professional demeanor. Eye contact is part of persuasive delivery.

Philosophy
In policy I typically default to the role of being a policy maker, but in no way am I unwilling to take on a different role/perspective... If this comes down to a frame work debate I split when judging these debates... literally around 5o%.... Impact assessments and comparisons are a good idea. I enjoy counterplan and DA/NB debates... Process cp's are not my favorite thing in debate. I enjoy high level critical debates, but if you do not have a grasp of the material you are debating about then possibly you should run something else. I will vote on topicality... you need to do a good job developing the ground/fairness/clash/education standards (you obviously dont need to go for all of these in a debate). Case lists are a good idea.. I can be persuaded to side with reasonability if the affirmative does a good job demonstrating how the interpretation overlimits the topic... Sometimes when the appropriate arguments are made I can be persuaded to evaluate that I should be concerned about what the affirmative does and what they justify. Arguments need to be unique.... I tend to think indepth debate is better for education than breadth or shallow discussions about many things. Good luck! Be nice to each other... I have judging paradigms on tabroom.com. I enjoy and love debate. I coach and judge numerous styles and approaches to policy and LD based on regional variations and the circuits each team/student competes on. I do not believe that there is a RIGHT or WRONG way to debate. I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, this in no way means that you have to speak slowly. I do think the resolution of issues in each debate is very important. Dropped arguments are true arguments the vast majority of the time. I will flow the entire debate and my flow will be the blue print from which I make my decision.

Delivery
I want everyone to speak clearly. I am not going to dictate how fast you go, but it is important that the speeches are accessible to all debaters and judges in the round. Do not mumble through evidence. I really do want to understand everything you say. This does not mean that you have to speak slowly....

Philosophy
I'm tab - I'll vote under framework and for any argument as long as you give me a warrant, and I'm a warrant stickler - I either won't flow the argument or will note that there was no warrant and won't evaluate it if you don't give me one. For deeper analysis check my tabroom or just ask. Don't use the numbers on this form to answer any questions. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=56445

Delivery
Spread as fast as you want, just signpost and organize. It's better to go straight down most flows. Other than that I don't have much preferences on style. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=56445

Philosophy
I tend to be more of a traditional policymaker judge (though I was initially coached by a stock issues coach). Affirmatives should have clear presentation for me to flow their entire position and plan. My preferred negative strategies are disadvantages, topicality, and counterplans (in order of preference). I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round, but I find that they can get overly technical and rely too much on policy theory which I may not subscribe to. As a teacher, my ballots focus more on education (both on the topic itself and individual debate skills). Debaters should approach each round as an opportunity to both practice and grow. I will ultimately welcome any strategy you may have practiced throughout the year, just know how to read my nonverbals when I have no idea what your approach is (I’ve found over the years that I do tend to give away my train of thought throughout the round). Above all, debaters should have fun with this activity. Congratulations on making it to state!

Delivery
I prefer a more traditional UIL presentation style. I am not a fan of spreading, though speakers who possess the delivery skills to clearly enunciate and highlight key taglines or evidence throughout the round can sometimes get away with it. When judging speaker points I take into consideration many criteria such as eye contact, gestures, radiation of confidence, mannerisms, posture, emotion, and level of respect towards your opponents.

Philosophy
I am a traditional policymaker that is interested in the merits of the case before me. I am more interested in comparative analysis than quantity of evidence. I do not mind hearing that certain aspects of an opponent's case have value (all of them do, even if just a sliver). It is ok for a debater to recognize the value of an opponent's case, but then I want to hear why even despite that value, it will be better to adopt your position over your opponents'. This is usually best done by analysis *supported by evidence.* I think the Affirmative's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. Keep in mind I am interested in sources. Evidence supported by a source that lacks credibility is not persuasive evidence. For example, when presenting evidence to a jury, if the witness is not credible, a jury ignores what the witness says. Similarly, if a debate judge should disregard your opponent's evidence because of the source, explain why. I am also interested in effective C-X. I will give weight to this interaction. C-X is a highly effective way of framing your opponent’s arguments. Remember you do not have to rebut his/her argument in C-X; instead, you should set up that argument in C-X so that you can destroy it in your next speech. Keep in mind that asking one question too many, especially on the ultimate issue—“So you’re case won’t work?”—is a mistake. At the end, I will give the round to the side that has done a better job persuading me of his/her position based on many of the criteria above (although please do not let what is written above ever stifle your awesome creativity).

Delivery
believe debate is about honing persuasive skills that you will use in the future to advocate for your position in whatever field that may be. I want to see persuasive skills more than debate tricks. No bill has ever been passed in Congress based on the speed of presentation. The best persuasion combines emotion, analysis, and evidence. An advocate must determine what moves his audience and focus on reaching that audience, not on what makes the advocate most comfortable. Look for cues; if I look confused, maybe you need to explain your point in a different way.

Philosophy
Tab judge (I.E. I will not connect the dots for you). Any and all arguments need to have offense behind them for them to be counted Stock issues, DA's, CP's, are all good. Theory and K's I will listen to and weigh as long as they are not being run just to run. This is a speaking event and not a speed reading event is my take on speed in a debate round. Meaning, if it is not on my flow, it does not exist in the debate. I do not like new off-case arguments in the 2 NC unless the affirmative opens the door.

Delivery
Don't speed...UIL prioritzes comunication as do i!

Philosophy
I think debate can be a lot of things, but at its core it’s a space for teams to have interesting and impactful discussions about differing perspectives. That being said, I believe that it’s important for teams to demonstrate their ability to explain a clear narrative and deploy that narrative to generate offensive arguments against their opponent’s position. I think there are a few things that teams can do to grab my ballot: 1.) JUDGE INSTRUCTION: I think it’s to your benefit to explain to me what I'm supposed to do with the things you have said. There are questions that I need answers to (What does the aff do? What does alt/cp do/why is preferable? What is the role of ballot and how should I use my ballot? Etc.) I also think attaching offense to your judge instruction can be useful in swaying me a particular way, especially for K teams. Clearly define what action I should take given the comparison of impacts and offense in the round. 2.) FRAMEWORK: I was a big FW debater and think that winning the FW debate coupled with clearly articulated judge instruction is a slam dunk for me most of the time. Framework determines how I evaluate other portions of the debate, so even if I think your winning some compelling arguments, you need that FW push to justify prioritizing those arguments. A 2AR/2NR centered around what voting for your framework and evaluating the debate through that lens means in the broader sense paired with an offensive comparison of the arguments on the line by line proper will help me gravitate towards voting you up. 3.) OFFENSE: Forwarding a few key pieces of offense with a clear explanation of what they mean in terms of you're opponent’s arguments is necessary for me in terms of impact calculus. It’s also important for you to recognize and problematize your opponent’s arguments and not let this portion of the debate become two ships passing in the night. 4.) This is me (ask anyone) but BE PETTY: I am here for the spice, and you will be met with bonus speaks. You’re there to win, and you should let it be known. This is also super helpful because moments like these can open opportunities to exploit your opponent’s reactions and the way they articulate responses to these moments. Read my Wiki, you’ll see how out of pocket I was, there really is no limit to the things I will vote on. Full Paradigm on Tabroom.com under Benjamín Noriega

Delivery
Im good with spreading but I will clear - if I clear you more than once, don't expect anything above a 28.4

Philosophy
I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework. The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot. I ask that 2NR's collapse down to one or two positions rather than going for the entirety of the 1NC.

Delivery
Speed is fine, but since this is a communication event you should never be using it to abuse your opponents. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

Philosophy
As a judge I approach competition as clash in communication. Debate is a elevated level of both communication and critical thinking applied through logical application. I will judge any argument -- not opposed to K, Aff K, theory etc. I have awarded wins on each. However, my feelings about K/Aff K are that this type of argument is basically a protest against the event or the alleged inherent bias or unfairness of the topic/framers/system or other foundational aspect of Policy Debate. If you are refusing to engage on the topic of the round, I must hear a clear alternative to the specific failures exposed by the K/K Aff, and you must give voters. Clash is all important, but civility is paramount to applying your arguments to the round. Ad Hominem attacks will cost speaker points, even if they are somehow tied to an inherent bias argument. There are plenty of ways to question the fairness or bias of something without somehow crafting your CX opponent into the evil embodiment of such a bias. Rapid delivery is tolerated insofar as I can keep up. If I stop typing and disengage from the ballot, you are going too fast. This relates back to my position that Debate is a communication event, it is not an audition to become the voice that reads fine print at the end of a Pharmaceutical or Car financing commercial. I like CP, Stock Issues, DA, On Case, and Framework arguments equally. It is up to you to teach me why your arguments are superior to your opponents and how your positions have withstood any attacks from your opponents. A great impact Calc is a way to take me over to your side...I have changed my mind many times in judging a round when I am presented with an effective final rebuttal like this. Have fun, be respectful, and great job for working this hard to get to the state meet.

Delivery
Speed is only fine insomuch as it does not impede communication and understanding. This is a speaking contest not a reading contest with unintelligible speedy delivery to register as many arguments as possible.

Philosophy
I am more of a traditional STOCK issues judge. Topicalities are you me best bet to take the round- although I hate definition debates, so pick the superior definition and move on. I will not link arguments for you, you must clearly outline what specifically you are arguing and what you are attacking with. The flow should remain nice and clear throughout entirety of round because I will not guess if it’s on case or off case. Love counterplans but be sure you are solving for everything aff is or else it doesn’t hold enough weight to be a proper solution to affs plan. Ultimately just provide respectful and educational clash.

Delivery
While I don’t mind spreading, but be sure you can ACTUALLY do it well because it’s much better to speak slowly and clearly where your information is actually being understood than it is to cram a bunch of evidence into your speech but only about half is interpretable.

Philosophy
I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. State your case up front as soon as possible and as clearly as possible in the 1AC. Topicality as a time suck is not good debate. I prefer on-case DAs but I vote on unanswered "generic" DAs, too. Well-thought out analysis and evidence of DAs will be essential to winning a NEG ballot. Impact calculus will sway me—tell me why the harms/advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and vice-versa. Tell me in the rebuttals why I should vote for your side. I am not likely vote on a counterplan but you are welcome to try. Kritics are not the purpose of policy debate, if you chose to run them, they do not sway me.

Delivery
Do not spread, do not talk fast. If I cannot understand you and flow, I cannot vote for the argument you are making. If I stop writing, I've stopped flowing and I don't hear the arguments you are making. Please don't run a plethora of arguments in the neg, a few well-thought out and supported arguments are better than 20 short, barely supported arguments. I really don't like the shotgun approach in either the neg or the aff.

Philosophy
Policy Debater should use the most traditional approach to engage my attention. Inherency - Barrier to plan passage as well at their plan early in their presentation, then solvency, followed by evidence to benefits and finally impact links to fulfill there burden that they are meeting the dictates of the Topic. Significant, arguments to prove the plan and advantages that create ground are important. UIL does not spread and should reflect the intent to the creators.

Delivery
Individuals should be clear and use appropriate language and process should be clear Cross X should used to clarify and not used to restated your arguments.

Philosophy
I am generally a policymaker and prefer that to anything else. HOWEVER, in a lot of debates there aren't negative arguments that fit this philosophy and the Aff does not point out the lack of negative offense. If that is the case, I will judge the round as debated and vote on stock issues or plan arguments. I do not like to intervene in the round. My preferences are disads against case. I am ok with counterplans and they can be very strategic in some instances. Stay in your wheelhouse. I am not against t debates if the case isn't topical. Please speak clearly. Explain why you win, and why your opponent loses. Have fun. Be polite.

Delivery
My delivery preference is clear. Don't try to spread if you can't. If you can it better be clear because no one can tell you to be clear in the round. I do not have a style preference. If I did it would be you all have style.

Philosophy
I am a tab judge. I am willing to listen to anything as long as it’s not offensive. No spreading Debate is a public speaking event. If I cannot understand what you are saying then it is difficult to vote for your arguments. I expect both teams to give a road map before speeches and signpost along the way. You should weigh the round and tell me why I should vote for you. No rudeness, there is no place for it.

Delivery
No spreading

Philosophy
Communication is key in CX Debate. Debaters need to be able to understand each other, and respond to each other. Clash is vital in a debate round. I want to hear you responding to what the other team has run in the round, as well as presenting your own arguments. As a judge, I need to be able to understand what you are saying. If you spread, then you must articulate and be easy to understand. Please focus on clear, and well assessed stock issues, and the importance of evidence rather than theory. I will vote on any argument as long as it is run well.

Delivery
My style and delivery preference is that you present your speeches in a way that can be understood by your opponents and your judge. Speak with confidence in what you are saying, but always be professional. Never be rude, disrespectful or talk down to your opponents.

Philosophy
I will judge on stock issues and strictly by UIL rules. The affirmative team has the burden of proof. The negative team must poke substantial holes in the affirmative's case to win. The affirmative must uphold each stock issue and address the negative's arguments with evidence to win. Impacts are very important to me, and the team with the most impact calc (along with the other things mentioned) wins.

Delivery
I will not flow spreading if I cannot understand you. You must be respectful to the other team, your partner, and the judge.

Philosophy
When I judge rounds I try my best to adapt to the style of debate in front of me. I am comfortable with all types of arguments and I am generally pretty tab. You should focus on doing what you do best and not overly adapting to me. Things that I find are important / make my decision easier are when teams give clear weighing of arguments, impact out drops, tell me where I should vote, and do clear line by line. I have a more extensive paradigm on tabroom.com (with an email for the chain if needed) but don't feel like you have to read it. 99% of what you need to know is in the first two paragraphs. A small note on new in the 2: I won't intervene (meaning not flow) new arguments in the 2NC, I just think it makes the 1AR overly difficult. If the AFF makes no theory / argument for why the neg shouldn't be able to read new in the 2 then I will evaluate the round as normal. When I score new in the 2 as a 1 I am just saying that I have a slight bias towards the aff in that theory debate, but ultimately the debating done in round will decide this issue.

Delivery
I have no problem with speed, just make sure to slow down on analytical arguments. Make sure to sign post and tell me what argument you are answering, the less work I have to do organizing the debate for you, the happier I will be (and the better speaks you will get). Lastly, please be kind to your opponents! I tend to give kind debaters much better speaks than rude debaters.

Philosophy
I evaluate debates on an offense-defense paradigm, meaning I will vote for whichever team has created a net-good in the world in comparison to each other. I highly value clean technical debate followed by quality argumentation and direct engagement with text-evidence (aka. debate past the taglines). I’m more favorable to depth/breadth and substance within every argument laid out on the flow. It’s easy to win me over with a good technical performance + * great quality of evidence* I don’t have an aversion to any specific off case/affirmatives in round. I however do have a general dislike towards arguments presented as pure time-sucks- I will still evaluate them fairly. For more specifics, look at my tabroom paradigm, https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=341234

Delivery
Above anything else, be kind to each other and have fun. Assertiveness and playful banter is fun, but crossing the line into being intentionally mean or belittling will reflect poorly in speaks. Besides that, I love passionate speeches and I LOVE a clean speech that gives me a clear map of the flow. Messy flows do not make me happy. Keep the speed to a 70%. Otherwise, send your analytics in your doc at least to me. If not, I’m not going to promise I will pick up everything you hear.

Philosophy
You will not win on topicality unless the Aff is completely not topical. Topicality is usually a wash. I like DAs but make sure that you have all required parts. For the DA to win, I look at impact of the harm and the source for the harms and the source and date of card. For CP to win, I look at who solves for the harms the best way (neg.'s burden to solve and prove to me). K's and theories are fine if you are Neg. Do NOT run a K as Aff. Aff needs to have all parts as well as cost and funding plan. Make sure that you do not drop arguments. If you do not restate your claims in each speech, then I count it as a drop and you are giving that to the other team. Tell me why the point should flow your way and extend with additional cards to back up your claim. For rebuttals, please elaborate on how the round should flow and back up your claims with extensions. I like impacts and clash. I flow the debate and the team with the most points in their favor wins.

Delivery
I like roadmaps and summaries. Be nice to each other. Being rude can cost you speaker points and can loose you the round. If you have to be rude to win, then you are not a good debater. Talking fast is fine to get as much evidence in as possible but remember that it is a speaking event and I need to be able to understand what you are saying. If I cannot flow then you are going too fast.

Philosophy
CX: I'm a policy maker judge. I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (amrhea@mabankisd.net), but I prefer Speechdrop. I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must. I DO NOT vote on CX. That is for you to get an advantage on your opponent through inquiry.

Delivery
Talk to the judge. Don't waste time showing off. Be direct and clear. Overtly aggressive questioning or debating will not won a round.

Philosophy
Clash is important. Offense preponderance is good. Weigh impacts. This is policy debate, reference it, especially in rebuttals. Rebuttals should not become endless analytical arguments. However, speaking is important. The back of your computer screen is less persuasive than your face. Endless technical analysis is not as persuasive as evidence driven persuasion. Flow! Drops and turns are very impressive. Remember, "Debate is blood-sport, only your weapons are words."

Delivery
Communication is everything. This is a speech event.

Philosophy
I default policymaker but have no problem voting for critical rather than policy frameworks. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round. Congratulations on making it to State. I hope you have a wonderful tournament.

Delivery
Speed: Slow down on tags and authors.

Philosophy
I have been judging CX debate since 2008. I am a policy maker judge. I believe that the affirmative has the burned of proof and the Neg has burden of clash. I do not like time suck arguments. If you are running topicality please make sure that it is warranted. I am ok with K, CP and DA. Make your impacts realistic.

Delivery
I have no issues with speed but if your diction suffers because of speed i will not flow your speech and your arguments will not matter.

Philosophy
I believe the purpose of speech and debate is to foster effective communication skills. I prioritize logical coherence and effective communication in evaluating arguments. I am open to all perspectives as long as they are logically sound and well articulated.

Delivery
I am not a fan of spreading or anything that may resemble spreading. Please articulate your words clearly

Philosophy
I enter the round essentially as a “blank slate”. I am completely unbiased to the topic and I expect a successful debater to convince me that the case that they are presenting is the evidence that I should believe.

Delivery
I prefer the use of hand gestures and direct eye contact with opponents, audience, and judges.

Philosophy
I am tab if a clear alternative evaluative framework is provided, otherwise, I default to policymaker.  What matters most is that you provide me with the easiest route to the ballot. Tell me what to vote for, how to vote, and why. Other than that, please extend things appropriately, provide me with overviews, and maintain the structure of the argument. To the best of my abilities, I will evaluate the rounds based on the information I can flow from your speech. There should be clear extensions throughout the round, with an evident strategy. I expect a collapse in the 2NR into one or two positions instead of going for the entirety of the 1NC.

Delivery
Speed is fine as long as you are enunciating. This is a communication event and speed should not be used to abuse the opponent. Unless there is sufficient cause for deducting points for hate speech or immoral arguments, a speaker's technical debating ability primarily decides their scores.

Philosophy
Saanvi Seth She/Her/Hers Lake Travis Highschool 19-23 | University of Texas at Austin 23 - 27 Key Points: - Do what you do best. - I am Tab and default to policy making if not given an alternate framework. - I evaluate the round through offense/defense metrics and am tech over truth. - I competed mainly on the TFA circuit to keep up with most arguments other than high theory Ks with obscure literature. - Just show me the easiest way to the ballot & of course keep the debate organized - Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Delivery
Speed is fine, but if you are unclear and want me to catch all arguments analytics should be sent.

Philosophy
My philosophy on judging CX is primarily from the view of stock issues and the speakers knowledge of their case this is shown in their depth of answers in cross examination. I also look for clash and resolution as I it leads to education and richness of the round.

Delivery
I don't prefer spreading if I can't understand you how can I vote for you. I also look for professional speaking that is clear and understandable. This is because I believe that students should demonstrate their knowledge of their case in their delivery style. I don't vote on Kritiks.

Philosophy
I am a tab judge and want to see how you frame the round. However, I do want to see interaction with the policy in the round, so I enjoy neg addressing the stock issues of the aff. I am fine with condo and collapsing but I will also not punish a debater for not taking that route. For affirmative make sure to carry your case with you throughout the round. I am open to hearing your arguments and how you use them. Clearly express why I need to vote a certain way. If not I will default to policymaker. Listen to your opponents and be respectful.

Delivery
Speed is fine but I should be able to understand you. If you are gasping that's probably a good indicator to slow down. Apart from speed, organization is also very important. This is an event for communication and persuasion so make sure to signpost and clearly articulate.

Philosophy
I am a firm believer in stock issues and affirmative burden of proof. While evidence is important, if the negative can make a real world, logical argument, I will vote for it. Debate should reflect that each side is listening to the other and responding. There needs to be clash. Don't just read to me and don't just share files on a computer and expect me to vote on it. Listen and respond to your opponent. Apply your arguments to opponents arguments. Tell me why you are reading/making an argument. Sharing of information should be prompt even when digital. The prep time for file transfer belongs to the person transferring the files. If an opponent doesn't have technology, be prepared to hand over a computer or paper copy to adhere to UIL rules on sharing evidence.

Delivery
Keep it professional. There is absolutely no place for rudeness in debate. While I may flow while you spread, keep in mind the faster you go, the lower your speaker points. Debate is a persuasive communication event, and you are not persuading me of anything if you are talking 90 mph. Please do not bury your face in a computer when speaking.

Philosophy
I coached at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: Policy debate, LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp. I coached from 1999 through July 2019, when I retired from the classroom. Now I do consulting for students who want private coaching and for school districts as well as for UIL. I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know. My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts. Know the difference in a claim with a citation and a warrant. If nothing explains why it's true, I'm not likely to buy the argument. I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round. I'm pretty straightforward. I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate the round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. In LD and PF, the HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens, in policy debate, this is the link from the plan to the topic on aff or the CP or simply delinking on the neg. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W. In LD and PF, I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own. I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist. I want to see clash from the negative. I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.

Delivery
I can handle speed if it is clear. I will not share documents because I believe it is your job to communicate, so if I can't flow it, it won't be recorded. That being said, I can usually keep up.

Philosophy
This is a communication contest. You must speak to me and make sure I understand your arguments

Delivery
speed is not what this contest is about

Philosophy
I selected tabula rasa because I do my best to let the debaters shine at what they are best at doing; however, I coach my students in a traditional stock issues format so that is where I tend to default if not persuaded to do otherwise. Remember to follow all UIL rules at all times. I do not time roadmaps BUT keep in mind that if I consider what you are saying a speech and not a brief order I will start my timer. I would prefer if you time your prep. I will also time you but I feel this is the best way for you to keep track without 30-second reminders.

Delivery
I don't mind speed but I should be able to clearly understand and flow the round. I believe this to be a professional speaking event and feel that it is appropriate to be confident but you should not be rude.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge and expect affirmative to carry all 5 voters in a prima facie case. Road map each speech off time. Counter plans are okay, but NO Kritiks. I expect an understanding of each word as presented by the UIL resolution.

Delivery
I adhere to UIL rules on speed of delivery and on cross examination procedure.

Philosophy
Just a big fan of the event. It is challlenging and demands much effort to do well. Thank you for giving it a go. Stock issues may be a factor in how I vote, but the policy arguments/clash are what I truly enjoy. Real world implications for why the plan solves or why the plan is going to be ineffective help determine my decision.

Delivery
communicate so that you are clear with where your arguments are targeted; UIL guidelines for speed observed; no need for cut-throat spreading or snark

Philosophy
CX debate requires decorum and class. Rudeness will earn you a loss. Your arguments must be reasonable. Another words, NOT EVERYTHING leads to war and death. All arguments need to be structured and well developed. Make sure you signpost so I can follow you.

Delivery
This is a speaking event, so you must be clear and understandable. In a speaking event yo must listen and speak. Remember the judge doesn't get to read evidence unless they ask for it. The judge listens, so you must say what you want the judge to hear during the constructive and rebuttals. CX time is to be used for questions and clarification. The judge doesn't flow CX time.

Philosophy
Paradigm--stock issues, prefer quality evidence over quantity I am a flow judge, so do not drop arguments. Be sure to address all attacks on your case. I will be paying attention to clash in the debate, so whatever is the focus of the clash will be important to me when I vote. For example, if the clash is over topicality, I vote on that and the dropped arguments.

Delivery
As long as your delivery is intelligible, I'm okay with speed. I'll let you know once if you are too fast. Then I expect speed to be adjusted.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge. Please tie your arguments to a stock issue. T and Disads need to be run in the proper format, please.

Delivery
Speed is fine if enunciation is still clear. Rudeness will not win, ever!

Philosophy
I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic, rather than how to win a specific argument. How everything relates: the topic, case, and each argument should flow together without conceptual contradictions. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs. Make sure your arguments make sense, as a whole - that they don't contradict each other - and are explained in your own words. (Remember, SPEECH event, not READ to me event. I'm confident you're solid readers.) I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks. deep conversations with a friend. Don't spread.) Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? Which other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, cite the concept. Specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash. (Simply saying "cross supply" doesn't cut it.)

Delivery
Unless your career goal is to be an auctioneer or to voice over medical warning labels on commercials, DON'T SPREAD. At all. Or use your arm like a metronome to keep time. Or bounce. Or gasp. Or lose variation in your voice. (I'll worry you're hyperventilating.)

Philosophy
I consider myself a stock issues judge. I expect the AFF to retain all stock issues and label/identify them clearly in the debate. The NEG needs to disprove one of the stock issues. I like a clash and both AFF and NEG to the offensive. Evidence must support the claim. I do not intervene and do not take part in evidence drops or email chains.

Delivery
I beleive debagte is about speaking, listening, flowing, and questioning. I do not like personal attacks. Attack the plan not the person. Do not spread. The AFF and NEG must speak clearly in order for me to hear all points. Please watch the rate of delivery and pronounce words clearly.

Philosophy
When evaluating a debate round, I look for full arguments on topicality and expect both sides to be prepared to advocate their positions. It is the affirmative's job to persuade the vote with a well-developed and evidence-based plan. The negative's job is to prove why the plan won't work. Brief off the clock road maps helps to set the round and are encouraged. Although sufficient evidence is needed to support any claim during the entire debate, analysis of that evidence to relevance of the argument is equally important. Preferably, debaters should not depend solely on cards to read as a way to argue a claim, but be prepared to analyze the relevance of those claims to the argument being made. In the end, I will vote for the side who is able to convince me their argument dominates the opposing argument based on quality of evidence, analysis, and overall debate.

Delivery
I prefer clear and concise delivery. I am not a fan of spreading. If I cannot understand the speaker, I cannot flow the argument, and as a result cannot provide constructive feedback for a definitive decision on the win. There is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. I like to see assertive debaters who can maintain proper etiquette without demeaning their opponents.

Philosophy
I default to policy and love offensive arguments (meaning disadvantages, case turns, etc). I'll vote on whoever can create the better world either with the aff plan or the squo/counterplans. I like hearing a lot of impact calculus. New in the two isn't really a problem for me, within reason. I don't like conditional arguments and think it reflects poorly when the neg kicks arguments. I rarely vote on topicality. I feel most of the time it's used as a default when teams don't know what to run and will not vote on it without standards and voters. That isn't meant to dissuade you just remind you that to be effective it must be perfect. I will vote on T specs if they make sense and seriously affect the negs ability to argue the aff plan. I don't flow cx period, clarify arguments don't make them.

Delivery
Speed is fine. However, organization is one of the most important things at any speed. Cards should be labeled and numbered with clear tags including date and author. I heavily consider rude, snappy or condescending behavior in speaker points. I am strict on time keeping and allow little wiggle room between speeches and prep time.

Philosophy
It is important to display excellent speaking skills while being able to adequately and tactfully debate this year's resolution. Clash is a good thing and arguments can be won with proper evidence and intentional support. Debates should always be competitive but respectful and appropriate

Delivery
Being able to hear and understand a debater is much more important to me than speed.

Philosophy
I am primarily a stock issues judge but I have some policymaker leanings as well. Overall, I will vote for the team who presents the best policy position while debating within the stock issues framework. It is critical that teams emphasize why I should prefer their arguments. Do not bring up an argument (such as a baseless topicality) just to fill time in the debate. Counterplans are good if they present a better policy position. I will consider K's but they have to be run correctly and the alt's must be realistic. Be sure to weigh the round and provide clash! Again, tell me why I should vote for you!

Delivery
Proper debate takes place with proper communication. If you are speaking so fast (spreading or otherwise) that I cannot understand you then I cannot flow your arguments.

Philosophy
I am a traditional debate coach and a stock issues judge.

Delivery
I believe it is imperative to communicate when debating rather than seeing how quickly you can spit out information. If I can't flow what you say because you are spreading too much, then that's the risk that is taken when choosing to do so.

Philosophy
I am pretty tab. Just road map, sign post, and be clear. I am willing to adapt you.

Delivery
Again, we clear. I am okay with speed, but clarity is most critical.

Philosophy
I'm a STOCK issues judge who'll entertain CPs and DAs as long as you keep them on point. Don't chase the CP/DA rabbit trail and forget about the main STOCK issues. If you present CP/DAs they should be competitive and immediately impactful towards a STOCK issue. However, I don't default to any particular STOCK issue. I flow everything and if you take it somewhere, then that's where I flow. If I shouldn't be flowing somewhere, the burden is on the debaters to call it out. I won't intervene for you on the ballot and draw connections you didn't make. Clash, as always, is important. Meaning, don't say "Judge, this automatically flows to the Aff/Neg" if you went temporarily deaf when your opponent was addressing the issue head on and you decided it wasn't worth flowing. And of course, give impacts/voters at the end. Evidence: Your analysis is more substantive than running 10 cards with zero explanation of the point you're trying to make. This isn't a reading competition. T: I prefer the Neg to run the T in the 1NC unless the 1AC completely drops the ball and the plan isn't clarified until the 2AC. Definitions: Similarly, I prefer the teams to ask for and/or present the definitions in the 1AC/1NC+CX. Don't wait until later to bring it up. CX: I flow definitions provided and concessions made during the CX. Kritiks and Fiats: I almost never vote on these. To me, you can't Kritik and Fiat your way out of losing major STOCK issues. Prep Time: I give 1 minute pre-round for any flashing that has to be done. When the round starts, everything's on the clock.

Delivery
Roadmap and signpost ALONG THE WAY. Organization as I *hear* it will go a long way in my speaker point ranking. Prespeech roadmaps are fine if you're used to doing it, but it's not necessary for me other than Aff/Neg, AC/NC, or On Case/Off case. Remember, the judge doesn't see the paper in front of you. Your organization of your arguments should be clear. Otherwise it *sounds* like one giant paragraph without indentations and separations. Tell me exactly where you're going. "DISADVANTAGE 1: ________" "Card....(Smith '22)" I like catching card sources (last names preferably) and the YEAR. I have a detailed flow, I catch these, and I can see where things are x-applied.

Philosophy
Debate is a communication event. I expect students to be able to persuade me with their words, not necessarily the amount of information they provide.

Delivery
I disapprove of spreading.

Philosophy
I am primarily a classic stock issues judge, although I do allow your logical analysis to weigh the issues. Speaking style and delivery is very important to me.

Delivery
Style and delivery is very important to me. You must not speak so fast that you cannot be understood. Persuasiveness is important and I do not like aggressive behavior.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge. I want to hear how the Aff case will fulfill the resolution. I want to hear the Neg tell me how the Aff case will not successfully achieve the resolution. Excellent debaters should be eloquent, well-prepared, and quick-thinking.

Delivery
Debate is primarily a speech event. I expect to understand every word that you say. Spreading is okay, but if you cross the line into rapid delivery you will lose speaker points.

Philosophy
This is UIL so make sure stock issues are addressed. I am looking for clash, not generic arguments that can be run against any case. Run T if it is a true violation, not a time suck please. Impact calculus is ESSENTIAL! Tellme why I should vote for you. I can flow speed but if it hurts communication in the round, it will affect my ballot. What is the point of arguing if only one side can keep up, be conscious of that.

Delivery
I can flow speed but if it hurts communication in the round, it will affect my ballot. What is the point of debate if only one side can keep up, be conscious of that.

Philosophy
You are welcome to run any argument you are comfortable with. I will vote on any argument as long as you clearly explain how it functions. Signpost to let me know exactly where you are on the flow. Take the time in the rebuttals to explain how you're winning and why because that makes voting for you that much easier. Congratulations on qualifying for state!

Delivery
Speed is fine, as long as you stay clear and signpost. The more organized you can be, the better!

Philosophy
I am open to any and all debate although I fall back to stock issues. Ultimately, the team that effectively presents clear, well-supported arguments, engages with the opponent's case, and demonstrates superior strategic thinking will likely earn my ballot. Good luck, and let's have a constructive and intellectually stimulating debate!

Delivery
I am open to any and all styles and delivery however you must be able to maintain proper diction and clarity of arguments when speaking.

Philosophy
I believe in debate. I am a tabula rasa judge and will listen to believable arguments. I also believe in the importance of the stock issues. The most persuasive arguments backed with credible evidence will win points.

Delivery
UIL delivery ( no spreading), and persuasiveness are the most important. Extemporaneous explanations are necessary to prove the debaters know their cases.

Philosophy
Debate is about influencing the judge to see your point of view. I default to a stock issues judge. On the neg, when you run an argument be sure to include all components of the argument. For example, if you run a T, run it in the first NC and include interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. On the aff, be sure that you counter and cover the neg attacks completely. Speed is fine as long as your delivery is understandable. I am not a fan of K's, but will accept a well-constructed, non-generic K that truly links into the aff case. Most of all, this is State, so provide clash and have fun!!! Congratulations on making this far.

Delivery
Speed is fine as long as your delivery is understandable. Do not let muttering through cards hurt speaker points.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge through and through. I do not like theories, counter plans, and kritiks. I do not mind speed but if I cannot understand you, I will not flow. Speed should not be used as a mechanism against your opponent. Do not trade clarity for speed. I do flow CX times. CX debate is a professional competition. With that being said, I do not stand for slander, passive aggressive remarks or rude nonverbal behavior. I do notice when things like this happen and will judge accordingly.

Delivery
As mentioned earlier, I don't mind speed but do not trade speed for clarity. (I will dock major speeks if used as an attack method).

Philosophy
Debate is a game where by the participants use their topic knowledge, their research skills and their persuasive eloquence to persuade a judge to vote for them. I expect the affirmative to provide and course of action that serves as an example of the resolution. This course of action ought to provide more benefits than the harms it will likely inevitably create. If the affirmative achieves this then they should win the debate.

Delivery
I am not as fast as some of you would wish. I enjoy extemely intelligent kids arguing cogently and respectfully. There should be organizational respect for line by line debate, but the debaters cannot escape holistic comparisons either.

Philosophy
I am a tabs judge. I will listen to just about any argument in a round as long as that argument is formatted and presented correctly. You must prove to me that you have a clear understanding of your case and of your job as aff or neg. PLEASE do not just read 8 minutes of evidence with no analysis/synthesis. It is your responsibility as a debater to tell me: what your evidence means and how it relates to your argument, where it should be on my flow, and why I should vote in your favor. As debaters, you decide where the round will go and I will judge accordingly.

Delivery
Always make sure you are speaking clearly and with good diction. Remember you are competing for a State title. CX debate is fundamentally a persuasive speaking competition, so you must speak well to win.

Philosophy
I have no preference to any specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I enjoy debates with well researched arguments (good evidence) and solid link and permutation analysis. If you would like a longer paradigm statement, you can find my full paradigm on Tabroom.com under the name Benjamin Wolf.

Delivery
I prefer clarity over speed. I would also prefer that you slow down when reading theory arguments so that I have sufficient pen time.

Philosophy
I am a policy judge. I like to see the real-world implication of the policy and the ability for the debaters to provide practical and effective solutions. I believe it's important to emphasize why we are here discussing this specific topic. Why does it matter? Why would this make the status quo better? Tell me why your policy is better by weighing the round through impacts and the rest of the plan that you attack. I will vote on Ts and DAs. I like theory if it's creative and not whiny and I do not like Ks because I find them to be a waste of time.

Delivery
No speed

Philosophy
I believe that a round is about the students and arguments in the round and that a round should be evaluated on what is presented and not what I want to see. That being said, you need to link arguments to the topic as well as making them make sense. I don't live debate, which means I don't consume high philosophy, don't assume I know your authors or evidence. If you don't explain it well, I might not know what you are talking about. Additionally, decorum is important in a round. Rudeness will take a toll on your speaker points.

Delivery
Style in delivery is important.

Philosophy
I will adapt to whatever you want me to judge as long as you are CRYSTAL clear in your justifications. Do not assume I know your authors, explain to me. Number and label your arguments to keep the flow clean. Civitilty is appreciated.

Delivery
Hearing and listening are different animals. I might hear your argument at lightning speed, but I will not process it at that rate. Slow down if you want my flow to match yours.

Philosophy
I tend to prioritize the STOCKS; I am a small school coach and put a ton of effort into these as it is the majority of the judging pool at the state contest, so it is the paradigm we spend the most time adapting to in our prep. I strive to be a TAB judge, but at the end of the round, I will default to the STOCKS, so I think you should spend a ton of time on these in my rounds. I can track with higher levels of debate but tend to keep my judging philosophy in line with the organization I find myself participating in, so since UIL places a premium on speaking, my ballots will reflect that. More technical teams could lose me easily if they do not control my ballot and tell me what I will be voting on at the end of the rounds. I would also encourage you to pull me up in the tabroom. There is a more up-to-date judging paradigm if you want to see more.

Delivery
I will prioritize UIL-style speaking and adapt to the organization and its norms/standards.

Philosophy
I'm partial to the K, if its done well. Good link and impact stories go a long way with me. Please tell me how and where to vote so I don't have to make that decision myself.

Delivery
Be clear, slow down a little when reading your taglines and be nice, but not too nice.

Philosophy
I love debate! I am really big on the idea that you are supposed to learn from the round. I like respectful rounds with decorum but I am very supportive of assertive debaters. enjoy the round, relax, take a breath, and tell me why you win!

Delivery
I don't like speed, I think there are much better ways to be strategic in debate, there is no reason to make it harder for anyone to learn.

Philosophy
If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat." About Me: B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015 Head Coach at McNeil High School Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC for LD and UTNIF for LD. I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while and I judge a lot of debates each year. Some local, some nat circuit, some just practice rounds for my team. Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone. 2. Do what you do best. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah). 3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude). 4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff 5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated. 6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good. 7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

Delivery
I am more focused on arguments made in round than style. Please adapt and make sure rounds are accessible ( especially with panels at UIL)

Philosophy
I'm a mostly tab judge. The exception to that is that I'm very prone to intervene in a round if I find a team to be particularly toxic or offensive in some manner. This is especially true for misogyny in rounds. Just treat eachother with respect and we're good. Give me a clear framework to evaluate the round under, the warranted offense you have to leverage under it, and weigh your offense against your opponent. I don't mind stock debate whatsoever and if that's what you're best at go for it. I think you should generally debate in the way you find most effective, but make your arguments clear and understand them well. I find that much more respectable than running arguments you aren't familiar with. I default policymaker, but am open to whatever form of alternate framing you want just win that it's a better framing mechanism. I was a K debater in high school and am most familiar with K debate, but that doesn't mean you can read a K and auto win. You need to understand the literature and arguments. I default to competing interps, but am more likely to be persuaded towards reasonability than the average judge. For more details check my tabroom. My views are mostly explained in the context of LD, but mostly transfer over unless otherwise stated.

Delivery
Style and delivery only matters insofar as I can understand the words coming out of your mouth. I don't mind spreading/speed at all just be relatively clear. I will say I think debaters undervalue slowing down and breaking rounds down. This can make a ballot story way easier, but it's all relative.

Philosophy
Policy v Policy: I like these debates, generally. I think what’s key for me in evaluating these is proper framing of impacts and sufficient ev comparison. re-highlighting is great. Have clear weighing, give me clear overviews in 2AR’s and 2NR’s as to where your winning the debate. Policy Aff v K: I really like these debates. I think the key here is the FW debate and sufficient aff analysis of neg alternatives. The aff needs to have a clear defense of policy action being able to resolve the K. Typically these debates devolve into incrementalism vs the alt (assuming the aff wins their FW interp). In this case I need very explicitly why either incrementalism is preferable to the alt or why incrementalism is fundamentally unable to resolve the K. On the link debate, the more specific the k link is the better. Typically, it’s pretty easy for the aff to weave out of non-1AC specific links so yeah. On impact calc here, if the K has a good link, the threshold for me voting on extinction outweighs is high. Perm arguments are more compelling to me alongside linking to aff to working to resolve the K. K Aff v K: I love these debates lol. However, I’m not that familiar with every lit base. Therefore, explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic. General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well. T: Im gonna be so for real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow. Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like one theory argument I heard recently that was a "power-tagging" violation. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Delivery
Im fine with any speed. I enjoy good structure and organization of speeches.

Philosophy
I do not have a CX Debate Judging Philosophy.

Delivery
I prefer for debaters to speak clearly and use good enunciation, volume, and pace. I don't appreciate fast speaking. Demonstrate effective non-verbals, and be well-poised and confident.

Philosophy
Howdy, I am Riley Bailey (He/Him), a current student at Texas A&M University-College Station, and former student at Barbers Hill High School. Paradigm Policy (CX): You may consider myself a Games Player- I am willing to flow any argument as long as other conditions are met Speed is fine as long as either (a) transitions are slowed and clear or (b) I am allowed to see the cards being read through the round or post round for tabulation. I would greatly respect pre-speech notices on what will be read (not necessary in the ACs or NCs, I mainly need it when approaching the Neg Block and/or the rebuttals - it just helps me organize flow) SPECIFIC ARGS: I am good with all args, but some things should be noted. If you are going to read a T shell of any kind, please line it out, I consider Topicality a prerequisite to debate (until it's not lol), so don't offhandedly say it last minute in your 1NC. When it comes to K-debate I consider myself novice/intermediate, so if I don't know the literature you back your K on, convince me that I can walk out the room after the round feeling confident I understand the K (Neg blocks is a great time for a absurd metaphor or an outline on AFF/topic link to the K). Concerning CPs, I think they are valid, but I hate tracking condo args, so give me some patience with that. I take abuse args seriously, so if you think a strategy is worth complaining over, make that arg, but actually flesh it out, show me the violation, show me how it could be bad for debate etc.

Delivery
I think style is important, but debate has shifted from its roots, so ill keep brief. 1. treat everyone in the room with respect 2. focus deeply on structure and signing the args 3. speed (refer to my paradigm)

Philosophy
You can find a more detailed paradigm on Tabroom which has detailed descriptions of how I feel about every argument. Feel free to ask me questions before the round starts for any clarification, but for the main ideas: The most important thing in the round is that you treat each other with respect and kindness. People are in debate for an educational and beneficial experience, so don't make that space hostile to someone. I consider myself a policymaker judge because I want to hear about how the literature that is being discussed in round impacts the world outside of round. I think I'm the perfect judge to bring up unique and creative arguments in front of because I love to see the new ways debaters try to answer or attack the resolution. I am open to anything so I encourage you to do whatever style of debate you are most comfortable with. That being said, I like to hear a lot of clash. Make sure you explain your evidence to the full extent. What is it saying? How does that compare to what your opponents are saying? How does that change what is happening in the round? If you do this work with all of your arguments it will help you write the ballot for me. I prefer when the neg attacks the aff from multiple angles in the 1nc and then in the 2nr consolidates to one voting issue. The hardest argument to win the round for me is topicality or theory because you have to convince me that the aff doesn't fit within the resolution. Feel free to have a T on the flow and I will vote for it if you convince me.

Delivery
You can go at whatever speed you are most comfortable with in front of me. It will be better for you if you go at a speed that doesn't cause you to mumble or stumble on words. I would recommend going as fast as you can without losing clarity. The best debaters are able to fit in all of their arguments but also emphasize the most important issues through their argumentation in rhetoric. Just remember at the end of the round you are trying to convince me to vote for you.

Philosophy
I follow a tabula rasa model of judging. Impact out your arguments and tell me why they should matter. Even if I know something to be true or see the connection in the arguments I will not weigh in my decision making unless a debater makes the argument for it. I am fine with any type of argument.

Delivery
Be clear and make sure I can hear you. If I'm not flowing because I can't understand you it's not counted for me. Make your tag lines clear. I like roadmaps and signposting.

Philosophy
Policy- I am a policymaker I am looking for one of two things either the best plan available from either team or if the neg does not have a CP from them to prove while the aff's plan will not succeed. I do not think that nuclear war is the most imminent bad thing. Is it bad yes - am I going to automatically say neg wins they pulled the nuclear card - no. Because sometimes the aff's harms are more immediate and need to be addressed first. LD- As far as argumentation goes I lean progressive. In round I expect debaters to handle themselves in a professional manner. I understand that things can get heated and that is okay as long as it does not devolve into arguing, name calling and a refusal to listen to each other. You may attack, and are expected to, each others case, you may not launch a personal attack against your opponent.

Delivery
With the understanding that each competitor is at different level and that we all have differing levels of knowledge using technical jargon is not high on my list of requirements. Sometimes its easier to say the simple way. Having said that if you are familiar with technical wording then please use it as you would. When it comes to your speed of delivery, please try to keep it at a conversational speed. I have been in rounds where the speaker was talking so fast that what was being said was lost. While I understand this is a good way to keep your opponent from keeping up, I think that in an event that is based around debating you need to speak where your opponent and judge can understand you. I have found that the best signal for me is to put my pen on the table. If I'm not holding it, I'm not flowing. My note taking can be moderate to detailed depending on the arguments. I tend to flow in detail and in addition to recording your arguments I will stop and add comments on why I think it doesn't work or if I have any suggestions to make it better. I will also leave notes on how well you spoke and ways to improve. I value both style and argument but I believe that the focus of the debate should be on proving your case - which is argument. However, you need to be organized and able to think on the fly to do this successfully.

Philosophy
I am open to all theories and arguments, as long as they are well articulated and the debaters focus on clash within the round. I want to see argument links and actual intellectual discourse, highlighting your ability to effectively engage with arguments with one another.

Delivery
No more than 50% of your max speed. Do not speak faster than your speaking skills allow you to do.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues type of coach. I want them to be thoroughly explained by the Aff and thoroughly attacked by the Neg. Not a fan of K's but I will listen if explained well. I base my decision for the win by who provides the best impacts and is organized.

Delivery
No spreading! I want the round to be professional and articulated well. Stand up during all presentations and CX.

Philosophy
I like substantive attacks over spread tactics; a concession or failure to cover a topic doesn't matter unless you're telling me why it matters. Sell me on impacts. I'm open to all topicality arguments as well as critical or unconventional approaches.

Delivery
Enunciation is key. Please clearly tag cards, especially if you're going to rely on them going forward

Philosophy
I would consider myself a policymaker judge. I want to hear a strong, well-thought-out policy from the affirmative. I want to know exactly what your plan does and why you are doing it. For the negative, I appreciate a mix of on-case and off-case arguments. I like to see impact turns. I really enjoy CPs and DAs, especially if they link directly to the affirmative case. Generic CPs and DAs are fine, but make sure you contextualize them to the affirmative. I enjoy topicality arguments as well, but please include meaningful standards. In the 2NC, please only read new arguments when necessary (i.g. the affirmative changes their case mid-round). Overall, I am fine with any arguments you want to run. I appreciate strong analytics in the debate. A strong debate has a combination of evidence and analysis.

Delivery
I like to see strong organization in the round. Please sign post and explain your analysis to me. Do not be rude to your opponent. As for speed, I understand the strategy behind it. Please slow down on anything important for the flow. Make sure you articulate your words and are understandable.

Philosophy
It is your job as the debater to tell me what to vote on in a round. I am a little more traditional in the sense of debate where I believe the quality of the argument should speak first. The burdens fall on the affirmative to up hold proof that there case will solve and outweigh the negative arguments.

Delivery
Speak clearly and slowly.

Philosophy
I will judge a debate round both as a decision-maker of the debate and as an educator of oral argumentation. I will vote for the affirmative if its proposal is inherently more advantageous than the negative option (the present system or the counterplan). The affirmative must meet its obligation to the burden of proof on each of the stock issues to win the debate. The purpose of debate is to deliver arguments so that anyone listening to the debate may make an informed decision as to which side presents a stronger case. Debaters speaking rapidly, or making random arguments without sign-posting, do not communicate and therefore cannot win.

Delivery
I must be able to understand you.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. I do not like new in the 2, but if an argument is made for why it should or should not be allowed, I will listen to the evidence and arguments.

Delivery
I want to be able to understand every word you say. I will award higher speaker points to debaters that speak the most fluently, with the fewest mistakes, as long as I understand them.

Philosophy
I default to a competing worlds paradigm and am a tech over truth, big tent judge who tries to be tab. To ensure that the round is resolvable, you should weigh arguments and compare evidence. It's in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining why you win which layers and why those layers come first. Best case scenario for you, I am pulling lines from your last rebuttal to quote in the RFD. If you don’t crystallize, layer clearly, or provide clear judge instruction and I’m forced to intervene, it is likely that you will be dissatisfied with my decision. My strongest preference these days is that teams are doing high-quality research and cutting updates. You should know what your cards say and what your authors defend. I will reward teams with speaks who have done their homework, including re-highlighting your opponent’s evidence and pulling lines for the link debate. I judge frequently across a broad spectrum of styles and am reasonably flex, so you should do what you do best and have the debate that you would like to have. You can find a lengthier paradigm as well as my judging record here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=17033

Delivery
You should debate in the style that you prefer, provided you're clear and keep the round accessible. If you want high speaks you should probably be cutting updates and reading something case specific on the negative.

Philosophy
I am looking for voters. If you tell me to vote on an issue, I will vote on an issue. While Ks are not my favorite, I have voted for them in the past. I am looking for them to be run correctly and for them to not contradict any other negative arguments that are proposed. I do not like conditional arguments under any circumstances. It's a waste of everyone's time and more often than not muddles the debate. CPs should be run correctly, it is not a chance to just run another aff case on the neg.

Delivery
Please stand when you speak and CX (if possible). Do not give your back to the judge. I'm ok with some speed, if you are going too fast, I will stop flowing. Do not be rude to each other in round either during CX or speeches.

Philosophy
I’ll vote up anything barring a claim impact and warrant. See “Ammu Christ” on tabroom dot com for more details - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=182094

Delivery
See “Ammu Christ” on tabroom dot com for more details - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=182094

Philosophy
As a judge, I approach CX debate with a commitment to fairness, rigor, and intellectual engagement. I believe in evaluating rounds based on the quality of argumentation, evidence, and logical reasoning presented by both teams. My philosophy revolves around the following key principles: Clarity and Organization: I value clear and organized presentation of arguments. Debaters should structure their speeches logically, signpost effectively, and articulate their points with clarity. A well-organized case enables better understanding and evaluation of arguments. Argumentation: I prioritize substantive arguments supported by credible evidence. Debaters should develop coherent arguments, anticipate and respond to opponent's arguments, and use evidence effectively to support their claims. I assess the strength of arguments based on their relevance, logic, and soundness. Critical Thinking: I encourage critical thinking and analysis in CX debate. Debaters should not only present arguments but also critically evaluate them, identify logical fallacies, and engage with the underlying assumptions and implications of arguments. Critical thinking skills are essential for effective persuasion and engagement in debate. Clash and Engagement: I value substantive clash between teams. Debaters should engage with each other's arguments, refute opposing claims, and defend their own positions effectively. I look for depth of engagement, including direct refutation, rebuttal, and extension of arguments throughout the round. Fairness and Respect: I expect debaters to uphold principles of fairness and respect in their interactions. Debates should be conducted in a civil manner, with mutual respect for opponents and adherence to rules and norms of debate. Any breaches of fairness or respectful conduct will impact my evaluation of the round. Overall, my philosophy centers on the principles of clarity, argumentation, critical thinking, clash, and fairness. I approach each round with an open mind, carefully evaluating the merits of arguments presented by both teams and rendering a decision based on the strength of those arguments and adherence to debate norms.

Delivery
As a former public speaking teacher, speeches should be clearly stated with no "spreading." If I can't follow what is being said because of speed of delivery, there is not a chance of winning with me.

Philosophy
When I was in college, the separation between NDT (policy) and CEDA (value) debate was at its greatest. But by dumb luck, I picked up a solid grounding in how kritiks work when they first appeared on the scene (the concept of the "alt," for example, is to me a modern innovation). And thirty years of law practice has made much better at theory and topicality debates than I ever was back in the day. So if nobody gives me any other decision criteria, I will stay with my roots and apply an old-school legislative policymaker paradigm. But I will freely use other criteria if debaters say persuasively that I should and I have no particular prejudices, leanings, or preferences in that regard.

Delivery
Debate theory is an interesting subject for discussion. But a handful of pre-scripted analytics, read too quickly for mortal understanding without a speech document, does not qualify as a discussion. I am unlikely to be persuaded on a theory argument that is not (a) set up comprehensibly in the first instance, and (b) connected in some way to what's actually going on in the debate.

Philosophy
When it comes to CX debate I find myself normally more of a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. I classify myself as a policy maker judge, tell me why your plan/status quo/ counterplan, is better than the proposition the opposite side is making. Additionally, I believe stock issues to be quintessential in arguing your side, although drop(s) on stock issues do not equate to a winning ballot. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument and every stock issue is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and not tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. I’ll flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round. I am not particularly a fan of K debates, however if the competitor thinks they can be successful in properly communicating the K, I will listen to it. In terms of having an open cross examination during the debate, I will allow it, however, I expect the competitor who is supposed to be question/answering to do most of the talking.

Delivery
This is a speaking event first and foremost, so if spreading hampers your speaking ability you should not spread. Spreading is a Negative strategy, as such there should be absolutely no spreading in the 1AC (I can't/will not vote for a plan that is unclear due to 1AC spreading). Spreading is also very exclusive and ableist, so it should not happen at all.

Philosophy
I am a policymaker at heart. I will listen to and vote on kritical positions,but I am really looking at policy implications, even of the k. A kritical position ought to be one that you can consistently defend and be a meaningful argument that advances debate, not just a side argument you are running to see what happens. Education and debate on the current topic matter to me. I think that topicality can be an important issue in the round, but it should only be run when there is ground to debate the violation - not merely as a time suck. Disads and counterplans can play important roles in the round but should be meaningfully constructed and argued - not just read in an effort to "see what might stick" (and counterplans need to be competitive). I listen to arguments and to evidence - I am looking at the debate and argumentation, not just who can read the most/fastest. If you run it, you should be able to explain it, apply it, analyze it, and defend it.

Delivery
Your speaking style should not get in the way of your argumentation. I listen to arguments, evidence, analysis, cx, etc... - I don't read the emailed version or follow along with whatever you have loaded into Speech Drop. Your style cannot get in the way of the debate. Speed is fine as long as it's clear.

Philosophy
My default paradigm is policy maker. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution. I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive. I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument. Topicality needs to have a real abuse story. Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature. The K needs to have a pragmatic alt. Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument. Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

Delivery
I will not tolerate speed. NO SPREADING

Philosophy
I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should vote on it. As long as you are winning that it is an argument that I should be listening to, then I will evaluate it. This also means that the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions. Topicality - My default position is that there needs to be an abuse story. I am open to arguments otherwise, but be aware if you expect to win on potential abuse you need to spend a lot of time on it. Disads - Any disad is probably fine. I think your internal link story should make sense. Counterplans - Any CP is probably fine without any theoretical objections won by the aff. Theory - Make sure you tell me how my ballot functions. I tend to think I should reject the argument, not the team. If you think I should reject the team you are going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that that is the best remedy. Kritiks - I do not have a problem with Ks (aff or neg), but don't expect me to know what <insert your author> says about the topic. I want to know how my ballot functions in the world of the alternative and on what scale (am I taking a stance in the debate community, is it just an affirmation of the discussion we had, etc). Speech docs - I don't want the speech doc, I will flow your speeches. Keep in mind that means only what is in the actual speech is on my flow regardless of whether or not it is in the speech doc.

Delivery
I think you should adhere to the norms for the organization in which you are competing. I intend to respect UIL rules by reducing your speaker points if you choose to spread. I am able to flow your arguments and will make a decision based on the arguments in the round.

Philosophy
Policy debate is first and foremost a speaking competition, therefore delivery and presentation of evidence and arguments should be conducted accordingly. It is not unconventional for the most organized debater to win the round. I would recommend that you take time in your speeches to provide good diction and well thought-out explanations of your arguments in theoretical or analytical forms. I do not have a preference on types of arguments as long as they are presented correctly. The most important things to me are diction, manners/respect, and stock issues.

Delivery
I do not have a style preference when it comes to reading evidence text aloud. What is more important is that you can articulate your arguments in your own words and sign post for my flow.

Philosophy
I am a tab when it comes to CX. I only have a few set ideas on a couple of arguments. First, I consider theory procedural if you do not tell me otherwise. Second, I am cool with framework debate in any capacity. I consider framing procedural. Thus, if you are not responding in an indict on util calcs in the debate, I will default to the alt FW. Third, I will consider anything you put in front of me; you just need to tell me what lens I need to view the round through. If you see three on the metrics below, please consider this a reflection of my tab style of judging an not direct indifference. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to ask! For a more in-depth look at my paradigm, please look at Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121858

Delivery
I am okay with any style; I am more concerned with substance.

Philosophy
When it comes to CX debate I don't have very many paradigms. I enjoy clash in the round. I like students to be able to explain what their CASE is- it shows me they know more than just the words on the paper. I accept T's and K's as long as they are well explained and make sense.

Delivery
I do like a reasonable pace. You spread at your own risk. If I can not understand what you say, or I miss something crucial because of your spreading- that is on you.

Philosophy
I see debate as a communication event. Other important elements of the activity is structured case and presentation. Important is the use of logic and reasoning.

Delivery
Conversational style of delivery

Philosophy
I will vote on whatever is brought up in the round. I will not tell you that anything is off limits. You are the debaters. However, I will hold you to a standard of proof in order to get me to buy your argument. You must be able to understand your arguments and have good analysis, not just read to me. I am not one to vote often on abuse arguments so get on past that and argument the more substantive issues in the round. I prefer policy makers in debate but will vote on the round as it is debated without demanding you do it my way.

Delivery
I still think CX is a communication endeavor but I have been flowing since I was 15 and I can write down a lot. I am not interested in any file sharing as a judge.

Philosophy
Debate can most usefully be seen as an exercise in public policy making: The affirmative team is advocating a policy change and the negative team is opposing it. The questions that determine rounds are does the affirmative plan work (does it solve the harms in the status quo), does the plan's advantages outweigh the disadvantages proposed by the negative side, and does the AFF plan follow the terms of the resolution.

Delivery
Make sure speech is organized, be clear on how you are applying cards and evidence to the debate. Spread is acceptable as long as the speech is understandable. Any part of the speech that is unintelligible will not be considered in the judging process.

Philosophy
I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand. Feel free me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Delivery
I would prefer speakers slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Philosophy
Absent egregious and institutional issues, please make sure that you are 1.) extending arguments in a warranted manner that are 2.) warranted, while 3.) Making sure that you weigh.

Delivery
.

Philosophy
Debate is for the debaters. I'm just a humble critic; it's my job to evaluate and comapre the content of your arguments. Do what you do best! If you want, feel free to check out my tabroom paradigm for more words.

Delivery
I'm comfortable with both traditional and progressive styles. BUT consider how stylistic choices impact your overall strategy.

Philosophy
My biggest philosophy behind CX debate is that the art of argumentation is the biggest voter for me. A well organized speech with thoughful analysis and relevant evidence will take my ballot every time over a speech that is more evidence heavy. I also value decorum in rounds

Delivery
I prefer a more formal type of

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=67351

Delivery
Be clear

Philosophy
I believe debate is an excellent life skill and a superb exercise that every school should partake in. Long live debate! I debated in high school and I also coached at Riverside High School in El Paso TX. I feel like every single kid in their life should experience debate at one point or another in a competition setting.

Delivery
Traditional Debate

Philosophy
I began policy debate decades ago as a policymaker (1990's when a good counterplan/disadvantage strategy ruled the day). Critical arguments are fine but don't assume that's a beginning point for me. As far as performative based arguments and other more progressive styles of debate, I'm not against them...just don't have a lot of experience with them--definitely not my starting point--be sure and invest time helping me get there. Generally speaking, I feel the Affirmative should Affirm the resolution and any arguments ought to have a pretty specific link/buy-in to it. While I don't consider my understanding of debate to be inflexible or permanent, a few very gifted and persuasive college NPDA/NPTE teams have tried to convince me that the topic doesn't matter and haven't been successful. e-mail: timothy.doty@lubbockisd.org

Delivery
Once upon a time, I erroneously gave myself credit as being a speedster from both a delivery and flowing perspective. I've gotten older (OLD) and am not in that kind of shape any more. I haven't coached or judged national circuit style of debate in a LONG time. I value efficient, quick delivery with lots of arguments--but; word economy is more impressive to me than the rate of speaking. If you must talk as quickly as possible, I'll do my best to keep up but don't be surprised if I miss stuff and/or don't have enough time to process it in a way that does you a lot of good. Definitely go slow on tag lines, game-winning arguments, transitions between arguments, and anything that you'd like to have show up on the RFD. If you enjoy "rapid fire," I get it--it's fun and I want you to have fun--I don't question the pedagogical value in any way; but if you want me to get most of everything on my flow, I recommend slowing it down to at least 75% of your norm.

Philosophy
I would consider myself a tab judge. I am okay with any forms of argumentation as long as your arguments have a claim, warrant and impact. I evaluate debates through offense and defense unless told otherwise, and I try to intervene as little as possible when making my deciding who wins the debate. I like to be told at the end of the debate why I should be voting for each team based on their offense, defense and overall arguments made in the debate. My tabroom paradigm is more specific in terms of how I feel about each argument. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=77731

Delivery
I am okay with a fast debate. I am okay with slow debate. I believe that teams should adjust and adapt to each other as opposed to me. If it is obvious you are just trying to spread the other team out of the debate you will get the win but your speaks may suffer.

Philosophy
I am open to pretty much any argument you want to read. Most of my paradigms stack up the same way here, but I'll go more in depth on each here. Please do not read new arguments in the second half of the neg block, I will not flow any of them. Additionally, I don't love hearing completely new, complex arguments in the 2AC (i.e. a performance k in the 2AC) and won't flow them. If you're reading an extension of an argument in the 1AC or a more basic disad, case turn(s), or theory shell I will flow them. K- I am well versed in almost all forms of debate, but I'm an a little less knowledgeable in areas of kritical debate that don't deal with well established philosophers (deleuze, baudrillard, foucault) or preexisting kritics in the debate space or topic lit (cap, fem, bio power, abelism, afro pec). If you choose to read a k that isn't super well known or more in depth, just make sure to really slow down on the tags and give a clear underview at the end, emphasizing the link and alt. I am more likely to vote off of a performance k in CX than Ld since there is a lot more time for either the off or neg to flesh out the k. Theory/T- I can guarantee I will never vote off of substantial T unless it goes 100% conceded. It is a lazy argument that almost never wins rounds. I am far less likely to vote off of RVIs in CX since there is so much time that can be dedicated to the theory debate. Unfortunately, all that time also means I usually end up evaluating theory as a wash unless there is a clear winner, which there usually isn't. CP- Same as above Stock Issues- While I am a progressive, modern CX judge, if both teams want to debate stock issues I am comfortable evaluating that as well. I usually end up voting on inherency or topicality out of the bunch.

Delivery
Be respectful. Speed is fine.

Philosophy
The function of the debate should be education. To that end, be courteous, mindful, and considerate while planning an offense. Lean towards lay judge (but can still run progressive tactics, such as Kritiks, Topicality arguments, etc). Framework and Philosophy arguments still need sufficient evidence as support, with solid links and clear arguments meaning much more to me than lofty and abstract ideas.

Delivery
No spreading (will call "clear" if too quick), no ad hom attacks (esp. during CX), flex time is fine, do not assume judge knows things that they may not (thoroughly explain concepts).

Philosophy
When it comes to CX, I am a judge that is very persuaded by the flow. If you do the work on the flow and give me reasons why that is important to the round I will be more inclined to vote for that side. I feel that K's and off case hold a lot of weight if used effectively to combat the AFF. I am willing to listen to any and all argumentations but, if it is more of an out of the box argument then you need to do the work to guide me on how it is relevant and how it adds to the debate. For the affirmative the best defense is good offense. If you can prove to me that voting for the AFF would in any way lead to a 1% net positive increase from the status quo, the round is almost decided for me. At the end of the day, just make sure there is clash and that all information presented is relevant and realistic to what the topic is asking for.

Delivery
In debate I would say that I lean more towards what is said than how it's said. That being said, there is a threshold with delivery that must be met. Delivery shouldn't be used to gain a tactical advantage on your opponent because they have trouble keeping up.

Philosophy
It is imperative that the future leaders of America begin to debate and discuss national topics at a young age. Being able to determine how the world changes as they get older is equally important to studying what they learn in their history classes. I aim to hold and judge a round that allows for students to fully envelope themselves in the role that they are preparing themselves for.

Delivery
n/a

Philosophy
While policy debate has evolved to a progressive form, it is still an art of persuasion backed by policy making and design. I believe the aff still has the burden of advocating a policy(ies) that meet the resolution (topicality). While the neg has the role of arguing the opposition and why the plan doesn't work under the squo. Very much a traditional debate. Not much a fan of k's, especially without background in the theory behind it.

Delivery
I do prefer traditional communication styles. While spreading does permit debaters to introduce more information, if I cannot understand or follow along with the arguments that I cannot be persuaded nor vote for the debater.

Philosophy
Hello! I was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I tend to evaluate rounds based on an offense/defense paradigm, so I enjoy rounds with a lot of interaction between arguments and good articulations of their stories. You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!! Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!

Delivery
Be clear. Speed is fine. I flow on paper, so give me some pen time on what you want written down. Debaters who don't sound monotonous generally get better speaks with me.

Philosophy
*Think of me as an "old school" judge. I want to hear traditional cases and arguments. I care about public speaking, philosophy, and logic, not just the evidence cards. Be mindful, reading a card doesn't mean the judge has to accept the argument you're associating with that evidence. *I will keep a detailed flow during the round. To help me flow, I like to hear each part of the case signposted in each speech. If I don't understand where to flow something, it might not make it onto my flow. *I like to hear voters in the final speeches. When possible, I will use those voters to determine my RFD. *If you are sharing case info for the round, here is my email: FeeJ@LISD.net

Delivery
*Please speak at a normal conversational speed. If debaters speak too quickly and are not clear, I will miss arguments/evidence and it won't get onto my flow for the round. *I encourage all debaters to be as polite and professional as possible. If someone is yelling or being rude, I can't focus on what they are saying and their arguments will not make it onto my flow.

Philosophy
Evaluation - I will evaluate the round first through the framework provided by the debaters. In the absence or wash of framework I divert to being a policy maker judge. Kritik's - Avoid generic K's I only consider them a voting issue if they're substantially within the scope of the resolution and have an obvious alternative. DISAD's - I have voted on DISAD's for especially the negative when there is an emphasis on the impact-calc with reasonable link-chains. IE the stronger the probability warrant the likelier it's a voting issue for me. CP's - Voting issue as long as you ensure they're in the scope of the resolution. Solvency - I'll vote on solvency especially in conjunction with uniqueness arguments. Speed - As long as I can flow your signposting's and extensions I don't mind speed especially at the rebuttal stages of the round. Clean organization is one of the fastest ways to increase speaker points with me. Theory - I buy theory arguments that are warranted within the context of the individual round with appropriate standards. However, if you have an issue where you are uncomfortable with another team, please discuss it with TAB before the tournament. Engagement in racist, sexist, misogynistic, or discriminatory behavior is an automatic vote down from me with low speaks.

Delivery
I'm fairly adaptable on style delivery differences. See above as long as your organization doesn't suffer I rarely have ballot issues with delivery.

Philosophy
I prefer the stock issues. I also believe both AFF and NEG must uphold their burdens (proof, clash). If the debate gets sloppy and both sides drop significant issues or don't respond with the proper structure, I tend to default to Policymaker. I also don't like new off case arguments like Topicality in the 2. Run them in the one. I don't really like Ks, but every now and then if presented well, I will vote for one, but I prefer stock issues and policy. I do believe it is the job of the debaters to give me reasons why I should vote for their position. Persuade me, and tell me why your claims should be valued, weighed, and voted on.

Delivery
I'm not a big fan of spreading, but I realize some speed is necessary to respond to arguments. If you have to answer the arguments, so there are no drops, I understand. But I prefer good communication skills (persuasive speech). I need a reason to vote aff or neg, so tell me WHY I should either way. Give me reasons. I want to hear good analysis.

Philosophy
As a judge, I expect the affirmative team to be on topic, address stock issues, and show a clear pathway to solving the issue. I expect to see them create clear arguments and address the flow at each point. For negatives, I expect to see arguments on the stock issues and any weaknesses in the affirmative case. I expect to see the flow covered at each point. I expect cross examinations to have points and merit and to see some of those questions transform into arguments.

Delivery
I expect both sides to be respectful and professional even when a clear point has been won. Drive the win and the point home but overconfidence and rudeness have a fine line. Speed of reading is wonderful, but I still need to be able to clearly understand the case and point.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge. I like a clear, organized format with a roadmap included so I can flow easily. I like solvency and usually judge off of that. If your plan solves, I will most likely flow aff, however, if neg pulls apart aff's plan, proving they cannot solve, I will flow neg.

Delivery
I do not like spreading. I like organized speeches with clear formatting. (Would like stock issues to be included for roadmap and formatting preferences)

Philosophy
The winning contenders are those who, though they may be passionate about a topic, are driven by logic-based arguments and stay away from being emotionally fueled while speaking/interacting with their competitors. Respect is important. The winning contenders are those who present the best key arguments and most effectively persuade me in the end.

Delivery
I look for the following criteria. Did the contenders: • Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, and fluency?• Display solid logic, reasoning, and analysis? • Stay away from overcomplicated/hard to follow argumentation? • Present a clash of ideas? • Counter the arguments of the opponents? • Create content that was organized and focused on the topic? • Deliver in a professional manner and implement an appropriate professional tone? • Stay within time limits?

Philosophy
Argue as if I have never read the news, and know nothing before the round. Evidence within cards should prove your tags. Explain them well, CLASH with your opponents and show me how you beat them down the flow, and I will appreciate that very much. Argumentation as to why your opponents' arguments fail to adequately answer your points (and why that's important) will always prevail over just telling me they "completely dropped" something (which is usually untrue).

Delivery
No style/delivery preferences. Do whatever you want. Don't be offensive

Philosophy
I believe the aff team should present and defend how their "plan" will work; burden of proof. The neg team must attack and explain/prove the plan will fail. I do not feel the neg team must have a counterplan, but must show how opponent's plan will not work.

Delivery
I am not a big fan of "spreading", as it makes it difficult for me, as a judge, to understand and keep up with what the debaters are saying. I love when debaters/speakers deliver with confidence, volume, and overall, good speed.

Philosophy
All arguments will be heard as long as they apply somewhere on the flow. I do vote on all stock issues, including T.

Delivery
Speed not an issue as long as it's not excessive.

Philosophy
Tell me why it links and why it is important in the round. Not a fan of K debate unless it can be linked without a doubt.

Delivery
Clear on tags and on analysis

Philosophy
Both teams should provide well researched and organized evidence with accurate data that reflects the topic in debate. Data should be quantitative and qualitative in all aspects. Winning debates will come down to who had better evidence, delivery, and policy.

Delivery
Debaters should not spread as this is UIL Debate and engaging in this action makes for an unfair round for the opponents and judge. Competitors should be clear and concise and remain as professional as possible during the round.

Philosophy
I am a clean slate when it comes to a Debate Round. I believe the debaters should tell me what the round means and if I sign the ballot aff or neg what impacts that has on the world. I am looking for direct clash and not just extending case. This is a communication event especially for UIL so speed and delivery are important. The best round for me requires no intervention and low work so keep us organized and it will be a great round. The only type of argument I would stay away from with me is the K. I am not up to date on literature and would probably be the hardest way to my ballot

Delivery
I believe speed should only be used when necessary. Do not drop an argument because you could not get to it but dont spread just to jam the flow in hopes of drop.

Philosophy
I try to be as close to a Tab judge as possible. I can acknowledge my own viewpoints and preference for debate, but I remain non-partisan and will pretty much vote on anything that has great warrants, line-by-line work, and clear attention to the external world (outside of the debate space). I will listen and vote on any argument or style of debate as long as it is well developed and given clear voters (which means why those arguments are important) in your speeches. Style and Presentation: Maintaining a collegial atmosphere is very important to me. Always respect your opponent, and try your best to take up all your prep time, and all your speech time. Being unscholarly and unfair makes me less inclined to vote for your team. Try to keep hyperbolic and sarcastic comments to a minimum. Sometimes I like casual debate, but that is only for upper level debate. If you are competing in a UIL round, I can understand the professionalism that comes with the circuit. Don’t expect me to disregard an argument because a debater says it’s stupid or wrong, or if the ideology is commonly rejected. Explain why it’s wrong and engage the warrant and evidence, which is great for productive debate. Speed is fine as long as it’s clear and consistent. The tags and analytical arguments NEED to be slower so they are easy to differentiate. I will say “CLEAR” if it gets too muddled. My flow will also be bad if you are going too fast and do not listen to my call for clarity. That means bad speaks and I probably just will not get your argument. Impact Calculus and Weighing will be a key factor in my decision-making. Using real world examples in a policy frame is very crucial. Framework is severely important to me, because it tells me why I should think about a particular issue in a certain way. It is a great way to reorient my biases (which are inevitable for everyone) and win my ballot. Debaters should state what they think the most important thing in the round is, why they think it’s important and why they think I should vote for it. I would also like debaters to include analysis of what the role of the ballot should be. While overviews are sometimes useful, they are often overwrought and I ask that they be short and sweet. Simply, " (1NC) the order is gonna be three off, then solvency", or "(2AR) the order will be case in the order of ... then impact calculus." I would prefer most of the debate to occur on the line-by-line next to the evidence that makes the arguments to keep the flow tight and encourage clash. Line-by-line is an easy way to garner my ballot, and it is a great way to raise your speaker points. I don’t like judge kicks. Debaters should have a clear and firm defense of the arguments they wish to the present in the rebuttals. The negative block should be split strategically. PLEASE do not talk about all the arguments, perhaps drop some in the block so your substance can be stellar and convincing. I expect to see only one or two arguments in the 2NR, and anything else can be quite messy. Stick to the arguments you know you are confident in going for. I don’t count flashing or e-mailing as prep but don’t steal prep please! If you’re talking, writing or typing, prep should be running. I do request to be on the e-mail chain if there is one. (lolthedisad@gmail.com). K– I am familiar with most common critical debate arguments and will vote on them. Do the K proper in the 2NC, and I actually prefer the 2N to take only K, that is, if the link is convincing. I greatly prefer specific links and love it when you take the time out to pick out in the evidence where it specifically talks about the opponents’ position. If you have a great link, I recommend going for the argument, assuming you know the K proper. Debate is ultimately about education therefore don’t try to be squirrely when explaining the philosophical underpinning of your K. Those arguments should not be vague either. You should strive to give a straightforward and intellectually honest explanation that will help your opponents understand what your arguments mean. Explain what the alt does and tell me what the world of the alt looks like in comparison to the world of the 1AC and the status quo. I don’t like alts that are tagged simply as “Reject” because it doesn’t tell me anything about your advocacy, and it does not promote anything progressive, or policy-based/real world. I prefer K's that have a sense of realism to them, rather than K's that are highly theoretical--I just think they provide better clash and discussion (which is good for debate). Topicality & Theory – While I will vote on these arguments in a vacuum if they are properly argued and given independent voters, pointing out specific abuse in the round that relates to your violation is the best way to get me to vote on them. Don’t go crazy with a flurry of Ts or random theory arguments sprinkled through your speeches as time sucks. I love T though. If you run it, either fully commit to the 7 off strategy or actually go for T if you think there is a problem with the affirmative advocacy in accordance with your ability to debate. CP – I prefer your counterplans to have an actual CP text that’s written down and policy based, so it can be reviewed by both teams just as a plan text would be. The more indicting the evidence, the better. PICs are fine as long as you can defend the theory and do well explaining why it gets a net-benefit against the aff’s specific plan.

Delivery
Tech vs. Truth – I would say that I am more for Tech over Truth. I try to allow the flow and the debaters to shape and lead the round in order to intervene as little as possible. FLOW. Make sure to extend arguments to keep them on the flow. I don’t like whole advantages just showing back up in the 2AR after being absent since the 1AC. I will not err sloppy arguments like that in debate. I will vote on weaker arguments if they were not properly answered in the constructive speeches but debaters should do extra work to build them up and extrapolate on them in order to make them reasonable voting issues, which does not require evidence (most of the time, at least in rebuttals). But I will mention that I review evidence very closely, including the credibility of the author, their argument, and their background in the way it relates to the topic at hand (if I get my hands on it).