2024 LD State Judges

Philosophy
I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments. Make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Philosophy
I believe that LD is value debate so the value clash is important. Plans and counterplans are not evaluated until the value analysis is met. Your criteria must uphold your value and both shouldn't just be add-ons to your case.

Philosophy
Overall, as an LD judge, I just want to see clash on the flow. I can flow progressive ans traditional format, and I really do not care if it's a prog round or trad. I just want them to engage and also learn. I can flow speed, but just make sure the opponent is okay with it.

Philosophy
am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation, but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD. I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops, especially if it appears this strategy is being used to grab a win; I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round. Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Philosophy
Find me on tabroom or ask me in person for more paradigm info. I’m open to just about all arguments that aren’t blatantly disrespectful. Framework is important to me, but in 90% of UIL LD rounds I judge, debaters don’t use their framework effectively and I end up having to do work for both sides. That being said, if you can effectively utilize your framework to get me to focus on your voters/impacts/etc, I will greatly appreciate it. I like to see good extensions and calling out drops. Please explain dropped arguments to me — you DON’T win the argument just because it was dropped, but you WILL win it if you just go the extra step and explain it to me. Observations/pre-standards/burdens are fine but I don’t love it when these get abusive. I may vote on them but dock your speaker points if I feel it’s a cheap win. Standard resolution analysis is probably fine. “My opponent must deliver their rebuttal in French” or something wild is less fine. Please be respectful! I am not impressed by teenagers being rude to one another.

Philosophy
I'm mostly a tab judge with a few exceptions. If I find a debater to be overly rude or offensive I will vote them down. Aside from that, I judge based on an offense/defense paradigm. Give me a framework to evaluate the round under and then tell me what offense you're winning and why your impacts outweigh your opponent's. I don't care what type of argument you read. I'm fine with stock LD, policy arguments, and especially K debate.

Philosophy
Traditional judge when it comes to LD. A debater should be clear, respectful, and easy enough for even the average joe to follow.

Philosophy
I believe that Lincoln Douglas Debate should be conducted in the spirit that Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas conducted their debates in the 1800s. It should be a debate of values, philosophy, and convictions rather than a debate of numbers. At the same time, debaters should debate with the aim to persuade the audience with the power of their ideas rather than the speed of words. I do not like debaters that talk too fast to understand. Ultimately, I want the winner of the debate to be the one that persuades me of the values that they believe in and makes an argument focused on ideas.

Philosophy
"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic." That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm. In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you. I do have a few pet peeves. 1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W. 2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument. 3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won. 4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate. I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

Philosophy
I walk into any debate round with a clean slate. All preconceived notions and opinions I have are left at the door. The students do not need to know what I believe. They need to be able to build their case against their opponent in order to convince me that they have the right of the resolution over the other side. Using resources, clarity, ethical competition, and respectful decorum are my expectations for a quality debate. The essence of a great debate is listening and speaking to make your points against another who has done the due diligence to compete thoughtfully and without bias or malice. Competition with respect and embodying the strength of character it takes to do these speech and debate events properly is the root of what these events are. That is my expectation, no matter what event is being judged.

Philosophy
I am a traditional judge, and I believe that clash of the value and criterion come number one in a quality round of LD Debate. I am open to listening to all arguments; however, I do value evidence and realism over emotions.

Philosophy
I realize that LD is a philosophical debate, and I am looking for philosophy to support your value; however, I am also looking for substantive evidence in your contentions to support your value. I haven't seen as much spreading in LD, but I do not want to see that. I am looking for persuasive speaking that utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos. Remain professional at all times. Be sure to fully uphold your value as well as your criterion, bring clash, and point out dropped arguments. Give me voters so I can see exactly why you should win the round.

Philosophy
First and foremost, as an LD judge, I want to see clash in the round. I’m pretty open to all arguments in LD, as long as you are able to make them make sense and I do not have to do any heavy lifting in evaluating why an argument makes sense within the round and how the argument leads to you winning the round. As far as delivery goes, I prefer a relatively slow delivery so that I am able to understand you at all times.

Philosophy
Inexperienced judge developing a familiarity with formal Speech and Debate format rules. Expect me to have heard of but be unfamiliar with, and thus slow to identify warrant, linkage, impact statements, etc. Clear signposting would be to your benefit! I am unfamiliar with formal speech and debate format, but I do listen to a lot of Oxford Style debate, in which the overall goal is to clarify, persuade, and educate. I will expect to be able to link your thesis to evidence and rationale. I will follow a philosophy of tabula rasa to (attempt to) refrain from preferring my predispositions. Generally, I lean left politically but I dislike populism on both sides. I do not accept "common sense" arguments as being a given unless you can construct a sound framework justifying your position. What I value most about debate is the development of the cognitive ability to deconstruct an issue and address it from not only your predisposed conception, but from the opposing perspective(s). Respond to your opponent's argument! Do not expect to restate your own convictions and convince an audience by sheer volume or rhetorical performance. Given this summary of judge types I consulted to write this paradigm, you can expect me to be inclined as a Hypothesis tester who may fall back on Appearance to adjudicate final determination of judgements if I was unable to discern the breaking points from a Stock Issues approach. In other words, I will do my best to determine arguments from formal speech and debate format philosophy, but will devolve to my personal philosophical inclinations when necessary. I am here to learn as well and beg your patience with my performance as a judge. I will do my best to provide you with clear feedback about what I found convincing or lacking in your argumentation and refutation. update as of Sept 2023 3rd year coaching. Still feel slightly inexperienced as my primary job is a High School Science and Engineering Instructor. However, I am much more experienced than when I originally wrote this paradigm. All stated above is still accurate although I am more fluent in identifying formal speech and debate structure.

Philosophy
1. Value Criterion Framework: I prioritize frameworks that clearly establish the value and criterion for the round, ensuring that all arguments are evaluated within this framework. 2. Clarity & Organization: I value clear and structured arguments that are logically organized to support the debater's position. 3. Logical Analysis: I prefer debaters who utilize logical reasoning and analysis to develop their arguments and rebuttals effectively. Truth over Tech. 4. Evidence & Examples: I expect debaters to provide relevant and credible evidence to support their claims and illustrate their points with well-chosen examples. 5. Clash: I encourage debaters to engage with their opponent's arguments, providing direct responses and demonstrating how their own arguments address and rebut them. 6. Spreading & Speed: While I appreciate debaters who can deliver arguments efficiently, I prioritize clarity over speed and expect debaters to be mindful of balancing speed with articulation.

Philosophy
I prioritize value/criterion clash above all else in LD. I am willing to accept strategies such as disads as long as value/criterion clash is demonstrated throughout the round. I am a flow judge - truth over tech. I strongly dislike spreading in any debate round. Debate is about communication as well as argumentation.

Philosophy
I will listen to any arguments you run. I am fine with conditional argumentation and collapsing. Winning framing is important and will influence my decision in the round BUT will not be a skate to a ballot. You must also convince me that the resolution is either true or false OR that your advocacy gives me a convincing reason that I should abandon that rationale. I don't mind LARPING, K, Theory, Counter Plans, or any other strategy you may make use of in LD, provided you do it well, know the parts, and convince me of your positions. I prefer philosophical debates but don't mind whatever you want to throw at me. I am fine with some speed but to be clear, this is UIL and you should limit your speed and make sure you are communicative in your delivery. Unintelligible argumentation will not make my flow. You are welcome to speak faster than normal, but you should not be gasping for breath and your delivery should be clear. I will be flowing and will not be on an email chain or speech doc as a check to excessive speed.

Philosophy
I see LD debate as a communication event. Using logic and reasoning.

Philosophy
I want LD to be LD--clear value/criterion based debate. It is not single CX and should not look like that. I love the philosophical debate but also believe pragmatism and real world is applicable. Basically, though, I will judge the round based on what happens in the round and not any preconceived ideas or preferences that I may have.

Philosophy
I would consider myself tab. 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 (ie: scream K). Feel free to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be 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. Please remember you are at a UIL State Championship Tournament and UIL rules / style should and will be applied at all times.

Philosophy
This is Value Debate. I expect debaters to flow and debate what is in the flow; and to keep up with what is up for debate in the round. Debaters must debate the resolution; otherwise we are not engaging in ethical debate. I must be able to understand the debater and follow their logic down the flow. We must not reduce the educational value of debate by being abusive in the round.

Philosophy
I am a hybrid judge but I tend to be fairly traditional in LD. I'm not a huge fan of Ks only because most people don't know how to properly execute it and give me clear links so do run at your own risk. I prefer well thought out philosophical debate but am really open to practical policy arguments. You can run both as long as there are clear links and things are reasonable in terms of impacts. I will not be doing the work for you nor should any adjudicator so please be aware, this is upon you to craft the narrative, strats, and ensure that your evidence, logic, and analysis reflects accordingly to link to the topic.

Philosophy
LD is based on philosophical ideas. The value and the criterion must be upheld at the highest level. All contentions must support these. All contentions must be covered in rebuttals. Speech is important but the value, criterion, and contentions supersede all.

Philosophy
i take both philosophy and pragmatics into equal consideration when weighing the round.I will vote for the better debater Counterplan substance will be weighed greater than or equal to framework, that being said if you run a cp make sure to run it properly Absent framework debate i will default tangibility of impacts Ask further questions if you want!

Philosophy
I value direct clash highly in rounds. Clarity of arguments against cases, including frequent signposting, is extremely important to ensure that I am able to track each argument in its entirety. Aside from this, I would consider myself a tab judge and will vote on most types of arguments.

Philosophy
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 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!! 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 for China Spring High School, 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. I'm typically in the policy side of things, but I have been in many a value round and know more than enough to judge this activity. That being said, I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically. I typically find myself using the framework of the round as a heavy component when making my decision, so use your value and criterion strategically-- make comparisons, tell me why your opponents framing is wrong, and tell me why I should care about your impacts through the lens of your value, debaters that do that work usually have an easier time winning my ballot. If the values in the round are the same, or if there's no sort of clash on values for why I should pref one over the other then I typically find myself defaulting to looking for offense and defense on the flow. I'm probably a bit more flow oriented than some other judges you might see, I pay very close attention to my flows and if there's not an argument on it then it's not in the round. That being said; having good case structure, signposting, and line-by-line really helps yourself out with me.

Philosophy
Organization details are key to me for getting high speaks. Please ensure your extensions are well executed, provide signpost, and follow your roadmap. I have no issues with speed as long as you're signposting is clear. I am familiar with both traditional and progressive styles of LD debate. However, it is crucial to remember which circuit you're competing in and what's expected from the tournament you're attending. With traditional debate circuits, I vote based on the framework debate. However, if you make the argument, I have and will differ to vote based on impact calculus. Arguments have to be warranted for me to consider them as voters. Observational arguments are at the top of the flow for me and must be addressed. I love philosophy-oriented arguments, especially when utilized correctly in the framework.

Philosophy
I evaluate the round through the lens of each criterion (assuming both debaters offer a framework that allows me to do this). I believe contention-level arguments serve as evidence that embracing either advocacy can move the needle toward achieving their value.

Philosophy
n LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional. -I do not like Kritiks; they are generic and lazy debating - I will not vote for them. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem. -On case attacks are important! -Theory & CPs good. -Do not read at me while giving voters. -2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line. -I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please. I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible. Include me in on email chains: madison.gackenbach@pisd.edu

Philosophy
I believe that when judging a Lincoln Douglas Debate, contestants should be judged by how well they prove their values and criterion using with credible evidence, the delivery and clearness in which their message is presented, and by how they are able to rebuttal their opponents using their own contentions and case.

Philosophy
I want to see a clear link to values and criterions and weigh the round over those lenses. I love a good line by line showing the impacts of the round and how they fit within the framework. Do the work on my flow for me.

Philosophy
offense defense is very important to me. i try not to do any work for a competitor when deciding that means I'm looking for a lot of judge instruction and fully warranted arguments. stylistically i have no particular preference and there is no world where any of the debaters are going to go too fast for my comprehension.

Philosophy
For both LD and policy debate, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. LD debaters should always remember the priority of "value" in each round.

Philosophy
I consider myself a traditional judge in that I weigh the value, criterion, and contention arguments but I also consider this a communication contest and would like your ideas and how they tie to the resolution clearly communicated. Presentation of voters is also highly important. Tell me exactly why you should win today and don't just spend your time arguing with your opponent as this is at its core a persuasive speaking event. I prefer debaters to be professional and polite to their opponents while managing to create clash for an engaging round.

Philosophy
I am a little “old school” in that I expect to hear a Value and Criterion from both debaters and clash at that level. I know that aspects of policy debate have spilled over into LD but I am not particularly happy about that. I believe that LD should be distinct from policy. Having said that, I will listen to more progressive arguments. It is important that you give citations for any information that did not originate with you. You need to indicate where evidence ends and analysis begins. The first negative speech should include the negative case but should also contain arguments against the affirmative case. While I understand that analytical arguments are more prevalent in LD, arguments supported by evidence are usually stronger so use evidence to back you up when you can. I am not a fan of spreading ever but especially not in LD. However, I do understand that the 1AR in particular often has to be speedy in order to cover everything. The important thing is that this is still a communication event and I need to be able to understand you in order to evaluate the round effectively.

Philosophy
My judging philosophy tends to be more traditional. I expect a clear value/criterion framework with contentions that are built around that framework. To win the round, you will need to uphold your framework as well as make effective refutation of your opponent's case. When making arguments, include the impacts of your arguments-why does it matter? Finally, organization within speeches is certainly preferred. Signposting and addressing the flow line-by-line will benefit your speaker points.

Philosophy
As an LD debate judge, my philosophy centers around fairness, clarity, and educational value. I aim to provide a fair and constructive environment for debaters to showcase their skills, learn from each other, and enjoy the intellectual challenge of LD debate.

Philosophy
Establish a framework and link offensive back! I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution. I will accept almost any argument as long as it is not offensive and you link it back to your framework. I'm fine with speed, but you run the risk of it not making the flow if I can't hear your tag, and I will take away speaks for consistent mistakes relating to your speed. Truthfully, I'm not as familiar with theory, CP and K's, although I don't care if you run them. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature. The K needs to have a pragmatic alt. Theory needs a real abuse story. Please make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument. Don’t make do a lot of work for you! I really won't, you have to weigh, extend, etc. so please don't expect me to just give you what you want across the flow.

Philosophy
Very traditional LD is what I prefer. Philosophical and V/VC debate is key. Not a huge fan of anything Policy/CX in LD. I want to see debaters clearly state their value and defend it throughout the round. It should not be something that is mentioned and then never brought up again. I have no issues with speed as long as you aren't out to set a world record. However, if you are going to go fast please be CLEAR. I like hearing good quality evidence, but it needs to somehow tie back to your value and to the philosophical side of the debate. This is LD, so I don't want to see arguments over plans or lack of plans.

Philosophy
I lean more traditional, in that framework is an important part of LD. For UIL competition, I do not encourage progressive positions in LD. The structure of these arguments are important and you must signpost well. In general for debate, I am not a fan of spreading. It has always been a "thing" in debate. It was a "thing" when I was a student, it is still a "thing" now. Just because some "thing" is popular does not mean it is a good "thing". If I cannot understand it or catch it, then I cannot flow it. If I cannot flow it, I cannot evaluate it.

Philosophy
I consider myself more traditional in terms of LD Debate. I do NOT accept plans in LD, I will listen to impact calc and analysis but, only as it relates to value criteria. There should never be spreading in LD, this is not single person CX. I expect to hear voters in the last two speeches. I will flow, but I expect you to explain the impact of dropped arguments as they relate to you.

Philosophy
I am more prone to pragmatism. Theoretical arguments are not as preferable as real-world connections. If the argument stray too far from the resolution, the link-chain will overcome the debate and then contention arguments will overshadow the value. Basically, maintain a strong framework from which to debate. I prefer quality of argument over quantity. Clash is necessary. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.

Philosophy
Framework in LD is very important. Contentions should support the Value and Criterion. Addressing all the arguments on the flow is important, but I also want to see the big picture. Make sure to make the impacts of your arguments clear. Don't make the judge do impactcalculus for you.

Philosophy
Probably the most important part of LD is the value/criterion debate. If you can show that your value/criterion frames the resolution better than your opponent’s, then that’s a pretty easy win in my book. Otherwise, the main thing I look for is legitimate clash between opponents. I don’t mind some progressive argumentation, but remember that at the end of the day value debate isn’t about providing a plan to solve a problem. If you want to do that, you might consider switching to CX.

Philosophy
The most critical piece of LD use and debate of value/criterion. There needs to be clash within the round and it is preferable if that clash is centered around the value and criterion. I am open to progressive arguments, but please keep in mind that the purpose of LD is not to solve any specific problem, but rather debate the philosophy and the values within the round.

Philosophy
I would like to be on the email chain for documents in the round → rmassey3@kleinisd.net My name is Ronnie Massey — I have 10 years of debating/coaching/judging experience in an array of events. I prefer Truth > Tech and should be treated as a lay judge. You need to stay under 250 wpm. It's much more important that you are clear than slow. Either way, I’m not especially accustomed to spreading. On that note, I do not feel comfortable evaluating progressive and/or “circuit” arguments. I have zero tolerance for any “-isms” (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) that will get you an L25. Speaks should average from 28.0 to 29.5. Have fun debating!

Philosophy
I have been judging and coaching for 30 years You should debate how you want to debate. However you should be able to justify and impact your arguments. If you don't you may not be happy with my thought process. Warrant are important for arguments when they are applied with impacts. I am not a huge fan of frivolous theory and I am good with most frameworks. If you choose phil please walk me through the thought process. Most important have fun.

Philosophy
Students should have a clearly defined value and criteria in their cases, read a lot of credible evidence, but most importantly they must answer each aspect of their opponent's case including their framework. Students should be penalized for dropping arguments or not completing an argument. I will not fill in the blanks on my flow sheet. Students will start at 28 speaker points and go up if they're exceptional, or down if they're rude or appear unprepared. I will likely NOT award a 30 since it requires perfection, and I will likely NOT award below a 27 unless offensive comments were made or rude behavior was displayed.

Philosophy
I am very tab. I would rather adapt to you than you adapt to me. I want to see what you do best.

Philosophy
I believe that students should strive to determine an appropriate weighing mechanism for the round that could be accessed by both sides and then funnel all of your offense through it. I believe that this is how we take the subjectivity out of debate. Arguments should connect back to this standard and debaters should impact their warrants as a way to prove that their side can meet their standard.

Philosophy
I am a traditional LD Judge. It is a speech contest. Clarity is more important than speed. Both philosophy and evidence are important in a round. If I can flow a round, contestants should be able to as well. Do not drop arguments.

Philosophy
I enjoy the core of LD Debate--conflicting philosophical / moral / aesthetic viewpoints about a topic that lead to affirming or negating the resolution. I enjoy thoughtful arguments and thinking about what you are saying. I enjoy debaters who use the wide range of logical, ethical, and emotional appeals in their argumentation (although emotional appeals should be used for effect and not be relied upon to win arguments or rounds themselves). The issue of speed is problematic because everyone's definition of "spreading" or "fast" is different. I can keep up if you go faster than conversational speed, yes. If you view what you do as "spreading," however, I would caution against it. While you are an expert at the topics, I am judging it for the first time and so the "buzz words" and standard arguments are being interpreted for the first time, which takes time and mental energy. At the end of the round, I try to take the easiest path to the ballot. I would recommend that rebuttals start with big-picture / comparative worlds analysis and drill down to specific argumentation from there. If I can vote on the big picture, I will. If the big pictures are a wash, I will get into the weeds on the 2nd subpoint of contention 1. Make sure that you weigh each argument you are wanting me to consider at the end of the round against my alternatives coming from the other side. Why is what you say more true / more impactful / more urgent / etc than theirs. Don't just tell me what your argument is, do the mental work to interpret / compare it for me. Have fun! You are at State!

Philosophy
** PLEASE IGNORE THE NUMERICAL SCALES** Link to full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=103845 If you have a specific question that isn’t answered here or in the linked paradigm feel free to ask! I default to judging through an offense-defense heuristic. I want a balance between evidence/cards and analysis, especially later in the round. I’m fine with evaluating anything you want to read, but my primary experience is judging policy and some things are out of my wheelhouse — assume that I haven’t read your K lit before the round and explain things to me well.

Philosophy
Have you Lincoln Douglas as a philosophy base debate. I look for a value Criterion links to be strong down the flow. And for all the contentions to support the value and criterion. I don't argue around for the student so it is their job to point out any drops or flaws in their opponent's case. Don't just assume that I want know what you mean but make sure that it's Crystal clear. I want crystalization or a summation at the end of the round for you to point out to me the things that you believe are important in the round. I will take some outside of the box thinking as long as the student makes the links work. I really like framework as it gives me a way to view the round that the student wishes me to view it in. If you have a definition that would be a little unusual I also need to have that. Basically it's the student's job to show and convince me that they have the moral High ground. So impacts need to have a moral link to them. Just because the world's going to end doesn't mean it matters.

Philosophy
I debated a few decades ago when there was only traditional debate. As a result, I am good to go with a value, criteria, and contention style of debate. In college I competed in NDT/CEDA debate and expanded my argument toolbox because I love both policy and Ld. I am an assistant policy coach at the St. Mark's School of Texas. I coach LD & PF at Colleyville Heritage High school. I keep a meticulous flow so most of my decisions will be based on arguments on my flow. Dropped arguments are true arguments. i expect a person to do more than say they dropped my argument extend it I win, this is insufficient. Extend a sentence or two argument that encapsulates the crux of the dropped/conceded argument. If you do that then dropped arguments are true arguments and almost impossible to come back from. No one wins every argument and the debaters in the final rebuttals that can identify an argument their opponents could be winning and then make comparisons and assessments about why your ARGUMENT outweighs/comes first/is happening now and is ongoing etc. I think debaters that use their contentions to bolster their value/criteria debate are being strategic in most instances. If you are a "progressive" debater then you should run the arguments you want to, and I will evaluate the debate the best I can. I don't think anyone needs to spread at this tournament. Speaking quickly or more quickly than conversational is fine with me as long as you are clear. Congratulations on qualifying to the state meet, this is a huge accomplishment! Good Luck!

Philosophy
I can flow, and tend to value arguments that are more Germaine to the topic than generics. More of a traditional judge.

Philosophy
I am a traditional UIL LD judge. Your framework needs to relate to the topic and your case proves your framework. Need to provide clash on the flow. Give me reasons to vote for you. I will not connect the dots for you.

Philosophy
I think the focus of the debate should be on the value and its importance to the topic. Debaters should be able to show a relationship between their value and contentions as well to demonstrate the impact that value has on the topic.

Philosophy
ahhh philosophy.. I prefer a value criteria. If none, there needs to be some type of framing for me here. I enjoy philosophical rounds to impact util rounds BUT I am not adverse to those rounds. I am also ok with emotional appeals if that is your thing. Some discussions should focus on emotional ways of looking at the world. My ballot is generally won by comparing the aff and neg and explaining why your side is best whether philosophical or pragmatic. I don't see that much on this topic. Value criteria/on discussion. Think about why it is important. Sometimes saying we also meet our opponents value is a good thing. Do your best, have fun, tell me why you win and your opponent loses. Be nice. Good luck!

Philosophy
I will judge on all complete arguments. I want you to be clear about what I am being asked to weigh. I will not cross apply for you.

Philosophy
Full paradigm on Tabroom under "Bryce Piotrowski" I will care more about what you say than how you say it. I'll flow the debate carefully and vote based on the arguments you've made and not my personal opinions. Debaters need to compare impacts and weigh arguments to win the debate. Lots of evidence and clash is good.

Philosophy
Clash between and defense of values is the most important. Value, criterion, and all contentions must be clashed with in every speech. Remain respectful at all times. Have sources available for any information given. Speak at an appropriate pace.

Philosophy
I want a debate where there is clash between the two debaters. They need to be able to prove why their value and criteria support the topic better than their opponent’s. The need to be able to demonstrate great questioning in the cx portion of the debate asking questions based on the flow of debate

Philosophy
I teach the traditional format for LD Debate. I expect value, value criterion, contentions, warrants, and impacts. If you were taught policy jargon, make sure and convert it to LD Debate format. I do not want spreading. Make good sound arguments. The person who upholds their framework will win the round.

Philosophy
I am open to vote on any developed and structured argument, as long as you provide the necessary framework to allow me to know how it affects my decision. I will focus my evaluation on what you focus your analysis on, so if you think something is a voting issue, make sure to provide thorough analysis to support, and also defend your argument throughout the debate round. Comparison of both side's analysis and evidence is the best way to get my ballot. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Be professional. Very line-by-line. I'm fine with you conceding to your opponent's value and providing reasons you uphold it better. Pre-standards are voting issues but do the work on them. I'm more inclined to buy less-than-persuasive arguments when they are dropped by the opponent, so cover key arguments that you think can win your opponent the round. I pay close attention to my flow and love extensions and cross-applications. Speaker points are based on both presentation and argumentation. If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round begins

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

Philosophy
I find direct clash down the flow is the most important aspect because if I cannot flow attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Voters aren't essential but helpful. I will not weigh drops unless you call them in round. Logical fallacies can be averted by clear links and internal links from case to case/case to resolution. Use the often ignored criterion to your advantage and know what framework is and how to use it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. CX is a great opportunity to question for flaws in your opponent's case. Use it wisely but know I will not use it to weigh the round.

Philosophy
I consider myself a Tab judge. I'm up for about anything when it comes to arguments. Run what you feel comfortable running. I prefer the debaters to tell me what they want the round to look like. If you leave it up to me, I will vote almost exclusively on framework and impacts. Not a big fan of speed. At all. If I can't follow you, then I won't flow the arguments. If I don't flow it, then I won't vote on it. If you have anymore questions, then don't hesitate to ask.

Philosophy
I am a retired debate coach. I will vote on whatever framework you are defending. Please give 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.

Philosophy
I am more traditional and believe in a strong Value and Criterion debate. I am not a fan of CP in LD but will use it as a voting issue if the AFF doesn't answer it strongly. Speed is not an issue but if I can't understand you then there is an issue. I love philosophy debate and appreciate a strong philosophy based case.

Philosophy
I am a traditional UIL Judge. I am not a fan of CX-style arguments being used in LD Debate. I also see this as a speaking event, therefore I do not like spreading or excessive speed. I value a healthy debate with clash that avoids negativity/rude behavior. I like clear voters and crystalization at the end of the round. At the end of the round, I am voting based on which value in the round is proven with evidence to be superior or could subsume the opponent's value.

Philosophy
I am a traditional judge and believe the following: Each side should present a case with a value and criteria. I expect there to be clash from both sides. I am not opposed to theory arguments, but at the end of the day, we have a resolution and one side should affirm and one side should negate. Speed of delivery...This is a communication event! Rude and condescending behavior will be reflected in your speaker points. No speeches should be given sitting down (unless their is a medical need or extreme circumstances), this includes the cross examination period. Have fun and Be Kind!

Philosophy
I am a "traditional" LD judge. Debaters must show that their value is the highest, and provide a weighing mechanism or criterion that achieves that value. Contention level arguments should be used to support the framework and show how the criterion achieves the value. I prioritize framework when evaluating a round. I will also consider clash. Without clash, there is no debate. Debaters should not merely talk around each other. Debaters must provide impacts to their arguments. There cannot be just claims and warrants. Debaters must show how these claims and warrants impact the debate, the resolution, and their framework. Debaters should rely on analytical, philosophical arguments as well as empirical evidence to support their claims. Debaters may speak quickly, but should not spread. If I cannot understand an argument because of speed, I will not flow it. I prioritize clear communication in a debate round. Debaters should clearly sign-post when presenting arguments. I should not be left guessing where to place an argument on the flow.

Philosophy
I consider myself a tab judge in LD debate and am open to letting the debaters frame the round and arguments. I prefer to have value/criterion clash and will weigh impacts at the end of the round. I do not mind speed as long as you clearly communicate and signpost as you go. Respect your opponent but be confident in your arguments and your voters. Organization and persuasiveness is important in getting my vote; this translates to clearly telling me why you win the round today.

Philosophy
Communication first and foremost. Cover the voters in rebuttals and use the values set up in the round.

Philosophy
First and foremost, congratulations on advancing to the state tournament. Secondly, make sure to follow all UIL rules and keep in mind that I am the official timekeeper of the round today. If your roadmap goes beyond the basic order or lasts more than 15 seconds it will be timed as part of your speech. (I also do not find roadmaps of any real benefit in LD but feel free to provide them if that is your habit). Also, if you say "stop prep" but are still prepping it will be timed. This is to allow a fair round today. I believe in letting debaters frame the round according to their strongest case arguments but that being said I feel that LD debate is based on a philosophical approach and prefer policy debate to be a different event than the rounds we will hear at this tournament. Be polite and professional. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I vote on Value/Criterion/Contention clash.

Philosophy
I lean traditional in my evaluation of LD debate. The affirmative and negative debaters should spend time at the top of the argument in the FW debate. This allows me to evaluate the round through the FW and give a more clear reason for decision. Impact Calculus is important to me. When giving an impact clac the debaters should make sure to use their framework to drive the impacts. CX style spreading is an immediate loss of speaker points. Speed is fine if you give overviews of the arguments. Please note there is a difference between speed and spreading.

Philosophy
My preference is the practical emphasis on value/criterion. Philosophy obviously has its place, though, and I just ask that debaters make it make sense with this topic. In my speech circles, I just don't hear much philosophy. I am resistant to any intrustion into LD from the policy world (no topicality, funding, disadvantages, etc.)

Philosophy
Negative must solidly disprove some aspect of affirmative debate to win the round.

Philosophy
Debaters should be able to uphold the value throughout the duration of the round and use their contentions to link to the value. Criterion should be used as a support mechanism to measure the value in the round. I want to see clash with arguments that prove why one moral stance outweighs the opposition. I feel that it is important for each speaker to maintain composure and respect, while attacking opponents and upholding his/her case. While I understand that debate does require some speed, if I cannot understand the debate, I cannot vote on the issues presented.

Philosophy
The focus of LD is for value, so keep CPs, Ks, and spreading out of it. Contentions should support the value and criterion and continue to be upheld and reinforced throughout the debate. It should be evident that you are familiar with your case and are able to summarize it in your own words rather than only reading what is on your case. Make the "big picture" impacts clear as you address the impacts of your position. Having tact toward your opponent and keeping composure when pressed speaks volumes about you as a debater.

Philosophy
I am huge on the framework. I am also not a fan of Kritik or PERMing in the LD playing feild but can understand it if needed to judge. I cannot keep up with speed as I am not humanly able to, its been 3 years now and it hasnt been easy to keep up with people thta tlak fast, but I will try my hardest to keep up. I just love a fun and competitve debate round.

Philosophy
Your value and criterion should be well supported with contentions and explain why it is preferable. Directly clash with the Aff/Neg. Explain how you win under your opponent's framework. Signpost as you go and tell me where your arguments apply. Slow down on taglines and framework. Please give voters. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask!

Philosophy
As a speech and debate coach I believe that good delivery is just as important as argumentation. It is the debater's responsibility to make sure the judge and your opponent understand, so while spreading is fine, you must maintain good diction. At the end of the day, whichever debater upholds their value/criterion better will win the round.

Philosophy
I want to hear the debaters logic and argumentation as much or more than the evidence. DO not just read evidence. Explain your arguments and why they are better than your opponent's arguments. I believe debate is a speaking event , presentation matters. I can handle speed, but do not let it distract from your presentation. I prefer a Value/Criterion debate, but am open to other forms of debate style. Your cases must be topical and tie in to the resolution.

Philosophy
I am primarily an LD, Congressional, and Individual Events judge. As a former competitor, I am pretty traditional in my approach to all forms of debate. I view LD Debate as value/philosophy debate. Make sure that you address the value and criterion debate, as I will consider those central to the round and voting issues. If an opponent drops arguments, I will expect that you mention the drop and explain the relevance of the dropped argument to the round. It is necessary that you stay centered on the resolution and don't spend time getting bogged down in argument tangents (and, frankly, lengthy definition & author credibility debates). I am more focused on the quality of argumentation and logic than on sheer quantity of evidence. Even though I can flow you when you spread in a debate round, in LD it will impact your speaking points for me. I will vote based on what I flow in the round, not on what you email to me. In fact, I will usually decline to be on the email chain and will prefer to flow the actual round (rather than just read your evidence and analytics emailed to me on a document). Professionalism does matter to me. Of course, in cross examination you might wind up interrupting each other occasionally, that is to be expected. However, somebody who does not allow their opponent to speak or proceeds to be rude or lack professional demeanor in CX or during a speech may see a loss of speaker points. I also am not a fan of open CX and do not believe that opponents should be speaking to each other during prep time in an LD round. Also, even though I am certainly capable of timing you, I would prefer that you time yourselves (allowing me to focus on the flow and the ballot). It should go without saying, but please make sure that you are clearly signposting as you go down the flow.