QTY. VS. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE NUMERICAL RANKINGS. Quantity Quality. Equal. Quantity Quality

Transcription

1 EXPLNTORY NOTES Numerical ranking questions judges were asked to rank the following on a scale of 1-5: Qty. rg. ( of rguments) 1 = Limited, 5 = Unlimited T (Topicality) 1 = Rarely Vote On, 5 = Vote On Often CP (Counterplans) 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = cceptable D (Disadvantages) 1 = Not Essential, 5 = Essential Cond. rg. (Conditional rguments) 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = cceptable Kritiks 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = cceptable DO NOT LOSE THIS OOKLET! ring it with you to each day of competition. Experience = policy debater in high school, = coach policy debate in high school, C = coach policy debate in college, D = college NDT debate, E = college CED debate, J = college LD debate, K = college parliamentary debate IMPORTNT NOTE: Some judges philosophy statements may be too long to fit completely in the box, and there may be some new judges who do not appear in this booklet. New judges and expanded printouts for those with longer philosophy statements will be posted in the assembly room. Debaters may ask any judge for a brief explanation of his or her judging philosophy prior to the round. COMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES QTY. VS. QULITY OF EVIDENCE DME, HECTOR I primarily will gravitate to stock issues and plan as the framework from which to judge; however, I tend to be a judge that likes argumentation to be grounded somewhat in the real world. Real World scenarios resonate better with me. Not everything is a zero sum game. There are places you can take a judge where they can make a decision on the best presentation and case. That being said if there is no semblance of stock issue structure I'll default to who makes the best case and makes the offense - hence Tab D Number one is that I have to understand you and that means for me that Speed and Spread is not ideal. If I can't understand you, I can't flow so I'll have to listen for what I can hear from the rapid delivery. DMS, CLINT I am pretty good with almost anything. I believe the judge should conform to the debaters and not the other way around. With that being said, I don't spend my time reading the authors on this. If you have a concept that might be hard to follow, you need to explain. Communication is important to good delivery. I will not tell you "clear", you need to use context clues to tell if I'm no longer flowing. DMS, JNELLE Flashing speeches doesn't count as prep, but you should do so with a quickness lest your speaker points suffer. Main dvice I try to remain as objective and impartial as possible, but it is crucial for debaters to provide the lens with which to view arguments in the round. Tell me how to evaluate things, don t just extend arguments. Make impact comparisons, evaluate the evidence in the round, tell me why something is important, and tell me the story of the round. RED YOUR OPPONENTS EVIDENCE. The only CX debates that tend to impress me with clash are those where the debaters actually read the other team s evidence, evaluate quals, and warrants. Make sure you provide me with a clear link story. Fully explain impact scenarios; tell me how we get from Point to global nuclear war, etc. The bottom line is, if you tell me the STORY of your arguments, and the lens with which to view them, I m willing to vote for whichever arguments you decide are your best. *Don t just extend arguments or tell me that you win something because your opponent dropped an argument. gain, always tell me WHY I should vote on said argument. over quantity; I'd rather hear an intense debate over 2 specific arguments than hear about 20 potential reasons that are undercovered. If I don't understand what you are saying, I won't flow it. I'll simply put my pen down until I can understand again. **CX does NOT weigh into my decisions about the round, and I say this because I ve judged too many rounds that end and one side page 1

2 DMS, JSON I believe that debate participants should be able to frame arguments in a manner that displays their abilities to listen carefully and think critically. Participants should be knowledgeable about the topic being addressed and have sufficient evidence to support their stance Fast delivery is appropriate only for students that can communicate clearly while doing so. taken during the round. Participating debaters should also have a clear understanding of the rules and procedures for the debate Speech that is slurred or incomprehensible is round and demonstrate their understanding by adhering to the procedures and providing a smooth flow to the round. Participants better left unsaid. It is often better to make a should be convincing in argumentation without being overly aggressive and be always mindful that comments are always addressed to clear case than to enter an abundance of the judge. In all, participants must provide clear, convincing arguments that can be understood by all in a professional manner with redundant and unintelligible evidence that is fairness. not needed to complete a convincing argument. DMS, JENNIFER I will vote on logical analytics. s a policy maker, if the policy is CLERLY not logical, address it. That being said, you do need to have neg offense in order to have weight in the round. Flash time needs to be taken care of during Prep time. It's your job to convince me of the validity of your argument through sound reasoning I would love to hear a debate on the resolution. If your K does not directly tie to CHIN, I will, more than likely, vote it down. Racism, Feminism, LGTQ issues are important so these issues must have a very SPECIFIC and warranted link to the topic. Slow down. Keep a clean flow, number your arguments and responses. I'd like to see your face, don't hide behind your computer. GHO-OTOGHILE, CLEMENT Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge]. I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's pology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...i am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (p. 21d-e) My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLRITY!!! ll things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must! First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament. Secondly, on case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric. The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all! sk any other clarification questions before the round! One of clarity GUILR, JOSH While I normally judge LD, I do keep a detailed flow. I will evaluate any argument presented and make my decision based on offense and weighing on each flow. Speed is acceptable but please be clear in your sign posting page 2

3 LONZO, USTIN When I am judging, I believe that the ffirmative has a duty to set up the round, and they allow for the round to flow. The status quo has to be shown to either need change or kept the same. oth sides should direct the round to establish this fact. I prefer that the issues or conflicts be addressed or show to be important and connecting to the resolution. The Negative has the duty to conflict the other side, and they will be able to attack the case specifically. They also should show the flaws in the case or disadvantages to push me to vote either way. The use of topicality should be for establishing definitions, and it will allow for clarification of the resolution. This is especially true when there is vague terms or too many inclusions. y the end of the round the resolution will have been tested and proven to be understood. The Negative s job should not be to provide their own plan to solve the resolution because they should be focused on the case that the ffirmative has given them. I believe that the debater should be able to deliver the case clearly and concisely as possible. y the end of the round, I should know their case and arguments enough to be able to explain to someone else. The debater should not have their head buried in the case and not even make eye contact. Finally, I believe that both sides should have kept up with all the arguments in the round. LVRDO, JYSON I am a recent high school graduate attending Texas State University. I competed in UIL CX my junior and senior year of high school so I am familiar with this type of debate and the different arguments used in it. I will flow the entire round but I am expecting you to make the arguments for me. t the end of the round, I will rely heavily on the flow for my decision so address every argument. If a Topicality is introduced it must be addressed as it is an a priori issue. ll other arguments will be weighted equally. I am looking forward to seeing some clash during the debate but please show respect for your opponents. I am fine with speed, however if it affects my ability to understand your arguments it will make it hard for me to accurately judge the round so please keep that in mind. NDERSON, JOHN I'm fine with any arguments so long as they aren't blatantly offensive. Disadvantages aren't necessarily essential, regardless of the indication above, but if you are telling me to reject the affirmative as a policy option, you do need a reason why the action results in more bad than good. It is NOT enough to claim they might not solve for all of their harms; so long as they are reasonably able to solve for some, I will vote aff. Impact weighing is essential. Kritiks need to have time spent on alt and framework. I am not particularly well read on some literature, so feel free to ask beforehand. T can be run as a timesuck but if you want me to vote on it, extend standards, voters, and violation. I default competing interpretations. Please don't read new offense in the 2NC. New evidence on 1NC offense, or new case defense, etc. are all fine, but I have a very low threshold for 1Rs answering entirely new turns and off-case. ffs should extend their case in every single aff speech. I am fine with speed but ask that you respect the general conventions of the tournament. I will put my pen down if you are too fast or unclear. RONOWITZ, JCO However you choose to speak is fine with me, but keep in mind this is UIL and I expect all UIL rules to be followed, so whatever you want to do within those confines is fine are important, but I place a heavier emphasis on the substantive role they play as opposed to a the theoretical structure of the case. CP's are fine but I'm not as friendly towards some of the more abusive counterplans, especially topical counterplans K's are ok, but if I don't understand the philosophy that you are talking about then there's very little chance I will vote for you regardless of whether the aff is technically losing the flow, k's that rely solely on some sort of discoursive impact are also not very likely to gain my ballot D's are fine Clarity is most important. page 3

4 SHLEY, LIS Policy debate is a great way to get students thinking about current events and the status of the United States and other countries. Students should be able to think on their feet; therefore, they should know their case very well. Students should be able to handle their own CX without help from their partners. They should also cite relevant sources to back up their claims. Simply saying that the opposition is wrong or picking on small details while ignoring the big picture is detrimental. Students should answer or rebut all of the opposition's arguments; ignoring arguments makes me (the judge) assume that research on those particular arguments has not been done or has been done poorly. I prefer competitors who speak slowly enough for me and their opposition to understand them. Speaking quickly allows a speaker to get more information out, but if it cannot be understood, it is moot. ZILL-SMITH, DWN Other I won't buy RELLY "out I will not intervene, unless you give me no choice, and then I won't like it! Tell me what you want me to vote on. If you want me to consider a dropped argument, you better impact it. I want to see persuasive, eloquent delivery at a CONVERSTIONL speed. I am not able to process rapid speech. I will vote you down! CONVERSTIONL! If you can't get through your speech in the allotted time, it's too long. RKER, JCQUES I expect to see clash, and very clearly stated impact analysis. I will vote based on the arguments on my flow. I prefer you to be clear, than unnecessarily fast. RRETT, CMERON Run good arguments well and you will win. It's never fun to watch a debater run a super technical Kritik their coach wrote for them that they don't understand. I don't care what arguments you run, just run them well. Same as above. I flow on a computer to try and give you some extra wiggle room, but if you're bad at spreading please don't try and spread. page 4

5 RSHOP, NOH I am a blank slate. Debaters should tell me how I should vote on substantive issues and how I should evaluate the round. With topicality and theory you will have to grease the wheels extensively to get me to vote on potential abuse (really do work on how x practice undermines the a critical community value); otherwise, to win T or theory point out specific in-round abuse and disadvantages. I am open to all types of arguments from cps to ks, Ds and T, plan flaws, critical case args, non-linear ds, w/e. For kritiks, I often find that debaters come up short the most on explaining the alternative and how that resolves k/case impacts. if you want to win a K, you need to do work on that front. dditionally, Neg flex is cool until someone points out that it isn't. That being said, both sides should be wary of performative contradictions and be wary to point them out. e clear. e civil. e respectful. CDEJK ENVIDES, JSMYN tabula rose style paradigm, but leans more towards policy maker. That being said, I am open to any and all arguments both sides would like to present but strongly advise you run something you understand and can explain extensively in round. I'll vote how you tell me to vote (prefer "this" over "that" because of "blah blah"), but if you don't give me clear voters, I'll be forced to vote for whoever has stronger impacts. I am strongly aware of the "rules of debate" for UIL, such that if FF drops any big argument, I'll tend to vote against (unless they can prove why it's not essential to debate). The biggest thing that weighs in on how I flow arguments would be the quality of clash and education brought up in the round, whichever team puts forth the most effort with the highest quality of refutation will win. LSO - IG THING FOR ME PERSONLLY: you don't have to be rude to win debate. Nothing affects speaks more for me, than how you act in the round. Remain professional and cordial, no matter how things are shaping up. If I start to feel uncomfortable with level of tension, will count it HEVILY towards speaks. Fine with speed, but need to slow down during taglines/important stats. However, if your speed affects articulation or breathing, will take into account when giving speaks. ERRYHILL, EKK I am tabula rasa, but if you don't tell me how to frame the debate then I default to stock issues. The resolution of major round issues is more important that communication skills. You can run anything as long as you run it will and correctly. I will flow everything and prefer a conversational style of communication. I don't care for spreading but can usually follow it. If your spreading is too much I will shout clear once and then if it continues will stop flowing. LIN, ROERT CX Debate is an event that brings out the most determined debaters. Those who debate it are forcing themselves to understand the topic and, in addition to having the better points, but to also be more confident in their argument. Emphatic, not just spitting information page 5

6 ONE, RTHUR I would consider myself a tab judge. The following are indicators of my philosophy: Debaters should prove their case. Show me. are important. Have solvency with real problems. Real-world impacts-- no nuclear war over neighborhood disputes. Counterplans OK if clearly different. Legitimate T's. Not interested in k's. No new offcase in 2, except in rare cases No spreading-- I would rather hear and understand one or two good points or ideas than hear fifteen go by in a blur. No bullying or abuse. OYD, JNE My paradigm is pretty simple: First: I try to judge the way you ask me to, but if it is not clear, then I am a policy maker. Second: I am open to multiple negative stances but putting 7 off case for the sake of seeing what stick still causes me some hesitance. If you do that then start making choices early. Third: I am not a theory fan, but I love a good topicality debate. If you intend to go for theory - I need to understand the position from the beginning. RVI's: Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though unless you have a compelling reason why. Fourth: Kritical arguments are fine, but need to link to this topic and this debate. Generic links are not favored by me. Fifth: Generic arguments or generic links that don't apply to the debate on hand or this year's topic will have a strict scrutiny Sixth: Speed is not usually a problem, but clarity is the issue. I will say clear, several times, but if it isn't on the flow at the end, I won't vote on it. Seventh: Finally - this is an educational activity as much as a competition. I will have a discussion afterward, but if there is rudeness or argument about my decision, I will stop talking and leave the room. Rudeness will not be tolerated. RNNEN, CHRISTOPHER I am a judge that cares most about the big picture. What is the impact if we do/don t pass the plan/cp? How does it affect Hu in eijing and lice in San Francisco? What is the practical outcome of what we are doing in the round? RP a bit if you have to, but that is where you will convince me. Put the word reasonable in your head. * On Kritiks: Politically I am a libertarian minded conservative, that said I find kritiks to be great fun. I won t discount your argument just because I may disagree with it. I want your opponent to clash with it! *On Theory: I don't like to vote on theory. If you both go theory, I'll judge based on the reasonability of the arguments. * On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless tell me to do otherwise. I don t think affs need to specify their agent. If you don t ask in CX, you can t win SPEC. * On Ds: Make sure that you do good impact comparison. In the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the D, not the other way around. rguments like this can be helpful. * On Counterplans: I would always prefer a debate about substance rather than theory. bsent the specific debate, I prefer single actor counterplans to multilateral actor. bsent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate Speed not a problem - but be CLER. Use persuasive techniques even if you choose to go fast. * On Speed: I m a 7-9 on speed generally. If your speech is garbled I can t flow your argument. Spreading does not really benefit you with me as I'm going to be judging on the key issues in the debate. > * On Decorum: I like polite debaters who enjoy the activity. Stand during your speeches and cross examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable. (It is rarely warranted.) * On Evidence: Evidence for review must be red flagged in the 2NR or 2R. I find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be RUNE, CHELSE I will default to policy making as my decision-making paradigm. That means that stock issues will be my filter and will be my criteria I believe communication is the key to for decision-making. I like to see counter plans when possible. I also feel that topically is very important to any case. Each team needs success...pronunciation and clarity are to be fair, no matter what side they are on. nd just to enjoy the debate! important when delivering your case. page 6

7 UI, CHRISTIN Other Whatever the debaters tell me I have experience with all types of debate but and believe they all have value. Please do whatever you are best at/comfortable with! Clarity > speed, but you can go as fast as you'd like. Remember, there is a difference between "rude" and "assertive." CRER, SLVDOR Tabula Rasa. I expect solid framework and I don't mind Spreading, CPs, Ds, Ks, and Conditionality rgs., so long as they're run properly. If I'm not given a particular framework to run with, I'm going to have to come up with my own standard of evaluation based on the arguments presented. Spreading is fine. Don't be sloppy. Don't be rude CLDWELL, JSON Stock Issues E Communication is very important CMPELL, CODY I'm a stock issues judge. The affirmative must fulfill of their burdens. If the negative effectively proves that the affirmatives lacking in any of the one issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. I prefer presentations of issues to be well spoken and clear. I dislike arguments that that don't relate to the topic. I like a mixture of on-case and off-case arguments; D's, T's and CP's are fine but K's are not. rguments that are being run need to be concise and explained, not just read cards and analytics without claims/warrants. I like clear and concise delivery. Rude and overly aggressive debaters are frowned Upon. Keep it civil and sportsman like. Let you rguments and understanding if material be the focus of the round. page 7

8 CNEZO, JON CRLO ig picture is paramount, UIL Style on delivery, but otherwise basically tab UIL STYLE CDEJK CNON, JOHN MTTHEW When it comes to judging CX I am a neutral/traditional judge, whatever your style is I will go along with. However, that being said I do not like fast debate I want to be able to obtain and listen precisely to what is being stated by you, your partner and your opponent. I am a firm believer in quality over quantity in argumentation - this will also be reflected in speaker point evaluation. During argumentation please include what you feel is most necessary and what will win the debate, think outside the box and don t spit out information that you have no understanding of because it is shown during questioning when you don t know the response to what you just said. I like to see partners working together to win the round 50/50% needs to be given and demonstrated by each partner during the round. Like I stated before I want you to think outside the box work around your opponent s argument and ask relevant/astute questions where you can attack your opponent as well as make sure that you have clashed with the arguments provided by your opponent. nother evaluation when it comes to speaker points is that I want to see how quick-witted you can be. Most debaters freeze during questioning, prove to me that you know a great deal information about your argument and you can answer any question that comes your way. I start the round with a clear unbiased mentality as the debate progresses it is up to you to prove and fully explain to me why I should vote affirmative or negative. Rebuttals are my favorite part of the round and this is where I listen closely to make an evident decision in the end. Show me that you have been paying attention. Tell me why you deserve to win or if your opponent failed to state the obvious information. Debaters need to maintain professionalism. Overall I want to hear a good clashing debate, but not a shouting match with a surplus amount of sarcasm. CRMON, JUN I feel debate is about skill. It requires someone to think critically, quickly, and logically. Therefore, I want to see more clash about the issues at hand and less esoterics. I want to see research and analysis of the topic and analysis of any pieces of evidence read. I do not want to see simple reading of evidence without analysis or why it is being read I do not like fast debate as I stated before. During your time frame talk at a speed where I can fully understand you crystal clear. rticulation, articulation, articulation is a must during a round. I need to be able to hear you so I can listen to your argument to make my decision. I am a flow judge, which makes clear speech extremely important. Speed is acceptable up to the point where I and your opponents can understand. e well presentable, poised and polished during the round and above everything else act like a champion. Ending on this note, be you. I almost love the conversation style in the rebuttal where you clearly point out what went right and wrong in the debate. Explain/Talk to me in a voice that is not a robot or a jerk. I prefer a clear steady voice, I do not like spreading. I prefer to be able to follow what you are reading. CRNES, JOHN s a tabula rosa judge, I have no preference to debate styles. I want the debater to establish the framework for how I should evaluate the round. If none is given, I will default to a policy maker. I am fine with all types of argumentation. On kritikal debate, I suggest that you do not run the k if you don't fully understand the full extent of the literature you are reading. ssume that I do not know the literature if it is something wanky. I'm fine with conditional arguments and multiple worlds. I will listen to just about anything as long as the debater can warrant why I should evaluate their argument. I love good impact analysis. I also like offense-defense analysis. The biggest thing for me is that debaters do the work for me, I won't do the work for them. I do not like shadow extending. I will not connect arguments for the debater. ll things said, I feel like the debaters should have say over what type of debate they want to do, I will look at the round through the lense they give me, as long as it is warranted. I am completely fine with speed as long the tags are clear and the evidence is not muddled. I think that each debater has their own style and that their style should be shown, so I have no preference as long as it is quality speaking and debating. page 8

9 CRPENTER, DVID I default to a policy maker framework, and while I will listen to other frameworks, a substantial case has to be made for me vote otherwise. I am especially hesitant to accept arguments other than theory that are impacted in the real world rather than the policy realm. I view debate as a critical thinking rather than speech activity. nything not impacting comprehension is acceptable though speaker points include generally accepted decorum. CHNG-GU, RUCE I am fine with any argument; I believe that debate should be a safe place for both teams to present arguments they believe are relevant to discuss. I truly do not believe that one style of debate is innately better. In the end, do your best and have fun! I do not have any preferences, speak at the speed you are comfortable with. Feel free to ask before round if you want any clarifications on my philosophy/delivery preferences. CHP, VNESS I believe the round should be a thorough investigation of the topic. That being said, time should be taken to truly develop and answer arguments, not simply state several arguments without evaluating the evidence. Provide the analysis. Kritiks aren t my favorite, but I will vote on them when asked. Give me voters. Do not tell me the UIL rules or explain the CX handbook to me (I am familiar with both) and then try to turn the debate into one that focuses on such. I m not here to evaluate how well you can cite the rules of CX. I am here to evaluate real arguments/evidence. Ultimately, I will weigh the round the way you tell me to. Professionalism is important. e kind and be respectful of your opponent and judge. Stand up when speaking, face the judge, and speak clearly and loud enough so I can hear you. CHETUM, DON I vote on issues made clear and coherent by debaters in the round with emphasis on internal links and critical frameworks. I vote oncase if there is clear offense with turns by the negative team. For my vote off-case, impact calculus and coherent story to weigh arguments they dedicate large time to in the Teams should be selective with which advantages and disadvantages are key. Counterplans and kritiks are fair game if well explained and voting grounds on theory like negative block and 1R. Substance over abuse & fairness can be relevant during the round. Voting grounds on topicality like limits, ground, fairness, abuse-- must be relevant quantity. during round. page 9

10 CHEN, YO YO My paradigms are on the wiki and Tabroom.com. Please check them before asking for my paradigm Do not adapt to me; I will adapt to whatever and however you want to debate. The best debates are rigorous, in-depth, and nuanced, with debaters who show care for what they're debating, the other participants, and the activity as a whole. Debate should be an inclusive, open, and accepting environment. DE Clarity over speed. If both teams are speaking quickly to make more quality arguments, awesome. If you're spreading to intimidate or overwhelm your opponents, I will use speaker points to ensure you don't reach elims. CHENEVEY, JRED I am extremely tab in how I view the round. ny form of argument is acceptable, though I have a slightly lower tolerance for things along the lines of a scream k, or something similar. Overall, I will listen to anything so long as it is warranted and impacted. I have no preference with regards to speed or speaking style, so long as the debaters are clear and polite. I am willing to "clear" debaters 3 times before I begin penalizing speaker points. CHRISTENSEN, DENNE I am a stock issues and policy maker judge. I prefer quality over quantity of evidence with impacts. If your evidence is better tell me why it is not just that it is. I want clash in the round and prefer a clear line by line debate. I don't intervene in the round so give clear analysis and voters. I do not like speed as I feel debate is a communication event. While spreading may be subjective, typically students know when they are spreading. I like a professional debate where you stand, are polite and respectful to all in the room. CLEVELND, SRH I evaluate the round on a policymaker basis, but if arguments are not cleanly articulated by the debaters, then I will not weigh them. Voters and clean weighing are very important to me. I prefer line-by-line argumentation, with well crystallized final speeches moderate speed is acceptable. If you curse, you will lose speaking points. Debate is a presentation event! page 10

11 CORNISH, NDREW Other Offense/Defense I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should evaluate it. This also means the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions. I tend to only vote for some offensive reason for your side of the debate (coupled with defense usually helps), but I have a hard time voting for only solvency defense, inherency, etc. I err neg on CP theory and towards competing interpretations on topicality. I think new arguments in the 2NC is not strategic and I don't enjoy those debates. Please ask any questions you have. I think you should adhere to the norms of the organization for which you are competing. I will punish excessive speed by docking speaker points, but can flow it and will evaluate the win by the arguments themselves. CORNWELL, PTRICI Debate is first and foremost a speaking competition. Speed of delivery should not compromise diction. While evidence is important, simply reading cards will not get you speaker points. You should be able to explain arguments in your own words. I am a stock issues judge. Topicality, Significance, Harms, Inherency, and Solvency are what I will be voting on. If all those arguments are a wash it will come down to Impacts. The structure of arguments is also very important so be sure to sign post in your speeches. Speed in delivery is acceptable. Please remember to maintain a certain level of professionalism during CX. If you are rude I will take off speaker points. COUNCIL, NTHNIEL I believe that debate is all about education. I will listen to all arguments you would like to present. I will not advocate for you so if you think your opponents are mistaken you must advocate for yourself. I will not automatically vote against NY argument. It is your responsibility to refute your opponent's position and at the same time create an offensive reason to vote in your favor. While I come from a traditional CX background I am familiar with progressive argumentation and have judged many progressive rounds. Feel free to run positions you are comfortable with. E I prefer a speaking rate slightly faster than conversational. Please do not spread, there are circuits for that, this is not one of them. CROSSWHITE, NDREW I consider myself a tab judge that is willing to hear all types of argumentation. I will listen to any style of argument, and will flow accordingly. I need the contestants to give me a clear framework for me to evaluate the round, and I prefer to have good impact calculus to crystalize the round for me. I have a very high threshold for topicality and theory debate for it to be a voting issue. CDEJK You may go as fast as you like, but please have clear diction. I prefer you to slow down for important tags as well. page 11

12 CZRNEK, HLEY I want to be told exactly why I should vote. e very clear about what I m weighing and what I should value most highly. If you re running a T or another argument based in rules or morality, tell me what the role of the ballot is. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. If you spend the vast majority of your time reading it is unlikely you are articulating your framework or giving me reasons to vote. Signposting is also vital; tell me what you re responding to, down to the subpoint or specific card, and show me the clash. The more work I have to do for you, the less likely the round is to go the way you want it. The only arguments I am picky about are CPs. I strongly prefer that they be non-topical, and that teams only run one if they have a strong understanding of its competitiveness. It s important to me that education is prioritized in the round. I take into account clarity (I m only okay with spreading cards) as well as courtesy. I do not like badgering in CX or teams purposefully withholding information til the last second. lso, I am unlikely to know every obscure acronym or fact; if it s important to the round, make sure it is explained fully and clearly. DILY, NICHOLS CDEJK For my full judging paradigm follow this link: I will say "clear" if you aren't clear. In short I defer to tabula rasa. I want you to contextualize your argument (impact it clearly and do comparative analysis). You should extend the impacts that you're planning on going for consistently and develop them. Even if they drop the shell in the 1nc (for instance) I want you to verbalize 1-how you're winning the impact and 2-how that is winning you the round. I will evaluate K's, but as a general rule, the more obscure the K the more explanation I expect to receive. I want to understand what I'm voting for so make sure your 2NC overviews are really clear. Lastly I'm a Theory/T hack. If you can set up a clear abuse story in the round I won't have qualms about voting for it. I left some information out because it didn't fit in the allowed space. Don't hesitate to ask questions or look on the judging paradigms DVIL, MICHELLE When it comes to UIL debate, I am a very traditional judge and will evaluate rounds as such. Traditional stock issues and I do not like "spreading" and I think it has no fundamentals of debate are voters for me. I do not want to hear a kritik at UIL tournaments, I would prefer to hear a relevant, negative place in debate, particularly UIL debate. That position. I do vote on counterplans and disads and prefer them greatly over kritiks in UIL Debate. I want to see a well constructed, well being said, I do not have a problem with run case at the state level. The quality of research is more important to me than quantity. I want to see a good literature review; with speed. What I dislike is inarticulate speech, peer reviewed, legitimate sources. I do not appreciate "information dumps" with a plethora of information spewed out, that is not well unnecessary double breathing, etc. If I can't researched or relevant. I expect integrity in your sources and ethical cutting of cards. understand you, how can I flow your argument or award you speaker points? This is a SPEKING/COMMUNICTION sport, and as such you should be understandable. DE L ROS, ROERT clash, specificity, cordiality. i will evaluate the argument based on the flow, tell me how to evaluate your argumentation; i won't do the work for you. You can go fast just be clear. page 12

13 DICKSON, LEX I'm tab. I evaluate everything within the round as it is presented. I'm good with speed. I am proficient with every argument. Fast and clear JK DICKSON, CHRIS I believe policy debate belongs to the debaters. I believe debaters should establish the arguments and voting framework for the round. Debaters should remain professional at all times and adhere to UIL standards. DEJK I believe debaters should be clear throughout the round. Speed is fine as long as it does not hinder communication. Debaters should adhere to UIL standards. DIMMIG, RENDEN Other Offense/Defense You set the parameters for the debate. I usually default on an offense/defense paradigm. Some things to note, that I think will be helpful for the debate. First, pointing out when teams are not doing things correctly (e.g. not extending or warranting argument (especially crucial ones) will help you win the round. Second, going for the 'stock' issues, probably will not warrant my ballot, unless it's some type of case turn in conjunction with defense. Finally, you do the strategy that you're familiar with. If you have any question, please ask! DE I will say clear if I cannot understand what you are saying. lso, you do whatever method of splitting the block you want (i.e. the emory shift vs the 1NC-all strat). DO, HNH Other DE and Stocks I am very much a traditionalist with old school ccx so I'm a policymaker/stocks which give you lattitude. I think many competitors e nice. It's UIL, don't spread. I'd rather you overthink strategy and want to do what is trendy. I want you to give me good solid argumentation over attempting to run progressive be clear, concise, quality of argumentation not argumentation that lack links and a solid narrative. rguments must be in complete form: Claim, warrant, impact. CPs are welcome quantity. Speak clearly. I cannot emphasize but you will take on a burden of proof of showing it is more competitive than the plan so tread carefully. Ds are always welcome but this enough. If I don't hear it, not my problem. make sure they aren't generic and unique. Topicality isn't always a voter to me. Give me a myriad of things to vote off of to increase your chance at balloting. Keep your arguments numbered, organized, signpost, push the offense, clean links and analysis because that is your job. Write my ballot for me. First reason to down anyone is on burdens. page 13

14 DO, HNH Other DE and Stocks I am very much a traditionalist with old school ccx so I'm a policymaker/stocks which give you lattitude. I think many competitors e nice. It's UIL, don't spread. I'd rather you overthink strategy and want to do what is trendy. I want you to give me good solid argumentation over attempting to run progressive be clear, concise, quality of argumentation not argumentation that lack links and a solid narrative. rguments must be in complete form: Claim, warrant, impact. CPs are welcome quantity. Speak clearly. I cannot emphasize but you will take on a burden of proof of showing it is more competitive than the plan so tread carefully. Ds are always welcome but this enough. If I don't hear it, not my problem. make sure they aren't generic and unique. Topicality isn't always a voter to me. Give me a myriad of things to vote off of to increase your chance at balloting. Keep your arguments numbered, organized, signpost, push the offense, clean links and analysis because that is your job. Write my ballot for me. First reason to down anyone is on burdens. DONLD, KNDCE The team with the clearest line-by-line arguments typically has a better chance of winning the round. The quality of the arguments made is more important than the quantity. It is necessary for each team to use the proper structure for all arguments. Roadmaps are best if used and tagging arguments is very important for the flow of the round. I like debaters to stick with the traditional style more than using experimental arguments. I will listen to all arguments made in the round, but I default to stock issues. Every argument, whether on or off-case must make sense as to how it links to the affirmative case. The affirmative case should be prima facie, and it is the job of the negative team to point out any flaws that lead to the failure of the case. Seeing a flaw myself is not enough to vote down a team. The opposing team has the burden of pointing out all issues within the round and the status of those issues as the round progresses. The style should be kept professional and always be focused on the communication aspect of the event. Respect in all argumentation and answers is crucial to earning speaker points. Delivery should maintain appropriate speed, this means that spreading should not be a method used in delivering speeches. DONLDSON, MICHEL I am a tab judge but will default to a policy maker standpoint if no other framework is given. I want debaters to do whatever they feel comfortable. I want to see a round full of relevant clash and creative arguments. Most importantly, I want debaters to use the evidence that they have as a tool to persuade me. That means that I want debaters to synthesize what they are reading. Good analysis is what wins rounds. I want debaters to stay organized and to run a variety of arguments that allows them to get a strategic advantage. Offense is key! Ultimately, I will adapt to whatever the debaters throw at me as long as they do it with confidence and clear analysis! Please ask questions for clarification. I want distinct flags and clear diction. DOOLEY, MTT I will listen to any argument you want to run in front of me so long as the argument has the necessary warrants to it. This means that T, Theory, Ks, and really anything else you want to run is okay with me. I'm okay with speed. I'll say clear once if you're not being clear, and after that it's not my fault if something you say doesn't make it to my flow. I'm going to be looking at the screen of my laptop while I'm flowing for 90% of the debate, so the way in which you speak or stand or anything like that really will not matter that much to me. I want to watch good rounds, so any amount of comfort you want to have (within reason) is okay with me. page 14

15 DUNCN, CODY Tab Ras. Find where you need to attack. Communication is highly important. Spreading will likely get you a loss. Rudeness will not be tolerated. ( I know the difference between assertive and being rude ). I don't really care for K's, but will give them a fair listen. If they are ridiculous, don't expect to win. Quickly, but clearly and intelligibly. Spreading is not intelligible. EVNS, ZNE My judging philosophy boils down to primarily solvency regarding CX, because I believe an effective plan must solve entirely for each harm/argument during the round. With this being said, I enjoy clash and analytics. Not only does this promote healthy debate, but addresses the real world logistics to the plan - which is the role of a policy maker. Regarding Neg, I take into consideration all arguments, but especially value Disdvantages. I believe these analyze the effects of the plan, and the real world scope of the debate. This is where a lot of clash occurs, thus helping us establish the real world solvency of the plan. I also highly value stock issues in a round, as they are the outline for how the plan will be put into place and carried out. I enjoy healthy cross-examination - I believe this is a time to further understand arguemenrs, direction, plan, and overall impacts of the round. In sum: I love debate because it is a place for education to blossom, make it so. I highly discourage spreading. I respond only to very well articulated oral delivery. Tag lines and plan text must be clear. I enjoy respectful treatment of opponents and professional etiquette. FLORES, JOSE I'll vote on any argument, provided you give me a good enough reason why, and you back it up with quality evidence. I'm looking for weight and impact in the round, but I will not make that argument for you. You need to tell me what to vote on and why I should vote on it. Make sure nalysis and Refutation Skills are used. I want to hear good arguments that clash. I do like line by line debate. CDEJK I'm okay with some speed, if you have to, but since this is UIL, I will also be evaluating your speaking skills. I want you to PERSUDE me, and not just to read to me. FUGLER, JP I come from a more traditional CX background of judging and (sort of) coaching. I list several arguments later as a 3 because I don t know how else to answer them in a way that communicates I m open to all argumentation, but that doesn t mean I want you to run a certain type of argument every round simply because I m open to them. With that being said, I want you to minimize my involvement in the round, meaning I shouldn t feel like I m intervening to vote for you. I like debaters who can explain by the end of the round where I m voting (or they think I should be) and justify why. That leaves you open to determine if I ll be considering T, Ds, CPs, or Ks in the round. I m not that well versed in much of the K literature, so please be ready to explain how the argument functions in the round for me to vote here. I feel most comfortable judging advantage/solvency and disadvantage debates. I like to see strategy in the round. I use speaker points to reward quality of argumentation, clash, and (of course) delivery. J This might sound odd, but I hate when debaters say, For a brief off-time roadmap. It s presumptuous and rarely brief. Provide a roadmap, but all I need is order. If flashing, have evidence on a flash drive before you end your prep. It s a courtesy to everyone in the round. page 15

16 FURTICK, NGEL I am a Tabula Rasa judge, so whatever you tell me to base my decision on - I will. I am willing to believe any reasonable argument, so along as you have the evidence to back up the claim. I do believe stock issues are important as well. I appreciate good speaking skills, a roadmap or sign posting when possible and debaters who are not rude. GRCI, NDREW I am an assistant professor at Texas &M University-Corpus Christi and the policy debate coach for W.. Ray High School. I was a four-year NDT debater and multiple NDT qualifier at aylor University. GENERL: I consider myself a strong Tabula Rasa judge. I will vote for virtually any argument if it is sufficiently impacted. Debaters should pay particular attention to describing the role of the ballot and why their paradigm for the debate should be preferred in the 2NR/R. CX: I consider it to be one of the most underutilized portions of debate. n incisive and strategic CX can be devastating and I value it highly. I pay attention to it closely and consider what is said to be binding. Delivery: I don t mind speed, but many debaters attempt to go faster than they should, losing both clarity and efficiency. Make clear distinctions between tags and cards. Provide proper pen time on analytical arguments, T, or theory. K debates: I have high expectations for alternative work. Make sure you are clearly articulating the implications of the K and help me visualize the alt. Specific link work in the block will be rewarded. Performative contradictions are dangerous, so be careful. D/CP Strats: Sure. Impact analysis. Complement with case cards to short circuit the FF impx. e clear on the net benefit work. I will admit to be somewhat against conditionality. FINL NOTE: I prefer pleasant rounds. I believe you can be passionate, ardently advocate your positions and criticize your opponent s arguments without screaming at the other team for 90 minutes. It won t affect my ballot, but it will affect speaker points (and my general demeanor). Vitriol is wack, so save it for the squad van. D Speed is fine, but as mentioned above, be clear, provide proper pen time between arguments and make distinctions between tags, cards, and cites. GRCI, HIRM I enjoy seeing debates that are relevant to the real world. In other words, although I do enjoy philosophical arguments (such as kritiks), I prefer to see arguments a politician would make when advocating for certain bills or resolutions. Off case arguments should generally have direct or very strong links to the on case material. The debates are meant to be constructive and educational; I frown upon ad hominems. I value any attempts from the debaters to try to emotionally engage the judge(s) in the arguments. Mannerisms are important. D The speech should be clear and easily understandable. Conversational (semieloquent) speech is preferred. If you would like to use flashy vocabulary, make sure it is not being used simply to impress me, but rather needed to further your argument. GUTM, SOHIN Other Do your thing and be clear as to why I tend use an offense defense paradigm when evaluating debate. I'm willing to vote on 100% defense but the threshold is high. Ks are fine with me, I tend to err neg on the link question but err aff on the alt solvency question. Disads need a clear link and internal link. ffs tend to let negs get away with shoddy internal links. CPs are awesome, it's wildly rare I vote aff on CP theory T is good but I often find people rely on tech-y language rather than simply describing what they allow, what they forbid, and why that's preferable. Speed is fine with me D page 16