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

Transcription

1 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 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. PRDIGM COMM. SKILLS VS. RES. OF ISSUES QTY. VS. QULITY OF EVIDENCE CHTSM, EN Use evidence or logical warrants to back every assertion and avoid hyperbolic statements and generalizations such as "This argument is just dumb." In addition to the individual arguments, please give holistic arguments concerning the entire round including but not limited to: giving voters, weighing the different issues against each other, and explaining what you think the role of the ballot should be. e clear and precise in both spreading and argumentation. Maintain a collegial atmosphere in the round. DMS, CLINT I try to be as neutral in the round as I can possibly be. With that being said, I have a life outside of debate. I do not read theory or author cards for fun. It is your job to make sure I know your argument without having studied it myself. I appreciate direct clash, and want to see definitive links. Tag your arguments and do not expect me to flow based on author cards, tell me where you are on the flow. If you are spitting and gasping, chances are I am not flowing. Tag your arguments and keep the flow clean. DMS, JENNIFER I enjoy CX and know a fair amount about education. I will conform to you. I keep a rigorous flow and will weigh the round accordingly. That being said, I do not teach debate full time, I do not read cards for fun and do not know your authors. It is your job to sell the argument as if I am unfamiliar with your sourcing. over in sourcing and argumentation. over. Hearing and listening are different animals. I may hear your argument, but if you do not give me time to process it, I may not vote on it. page 1

2 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL. GHO-OTOGHILE, CLEMENT Tab judge; clarity is of the utmost importance! I do not yell clear! LNIZ, JOSE.P I'm partial to the K, if its done well. Good link and impact stories go a long way with me. Please tell me how and where to vote so I don't have to make that decision myself. e clear, slow down a little when reading your taglines and be nice, but not too nice. LCL, ROGELIO Hypothesis tester: Other Hypothesis Tester elieves that the purpose of debate is to determine the probable truth or falsity of the debate resolution, in much the same way that a critical philosopher or research scientist would apply the scientific method to any other hypothesis. Really slow down on the tag lines please. LIM, MOHMMD I am primarily a tab judge, but I will default to policy argumentation as this is policy debate. I don't love theory or T but I will listen to it and flow it if you present the argument well and it's explained correctly. Slow down on your tags, and I mean actually articulate when you read a tag and author. page 2

3 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 LONZO, USTIN PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL I am a stock issue judge, so I prefer for there to be full arguments on topicality, and both sides should be prepared to advocate their positions. I believe that the main parts of the case should be set up first thing, so the round can move forward. Explain how the case is relevant to the resolution. I like for the importance of the case to be related, so it can show why or why not the status quo is not working. I am able to weigh the round by seeing a summation of the arguments to deliberate. I do not like to see the negative try to run their own cases. I do like to see some frame work arguments to be able to set up the structure of the case. Try to provide me with compelling reasons for voting for your side. Do not just read the cards also try to explain why they are important and how it relates. I would like to see some sign posting to know which direction we are going in, and for the cards that are read to be applied. Please refrain from spreading. e confident and know your information, so you should be able to answer any question raised. 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. I evaluate case attacks in the same manner as disads: I am concerned with whether the plan makes the world better or worse. It is NOT enough to claim the aff might not solve for all of their harms; so long as they are reasonably able to solve for some, I will vote aff, and I will vote on risk of solvency if there is no consequence of doing the plan. 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. If you don t know what that means, probably don t go for T in the 2NR. 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 offcase. ffs should extend their case in every single aff speech. Negatives should split the block: this means I see the 2NC and the 1NR as essentially the same speech, and I don t want that speech to repeat itself at all. For more, look me up on the judge philosophies wiki, and feel free to ask any questions before the round. I am fine with speed, but I ask that you respect the conventions of the tournament. I like impassioned delivery but I m not impressed by you being rude, and I ll dock you speaks with no hesitation. I start you off at 27.5, which I consider being the average state qualified debater, and adjust from there. Debate is first and foremost a technical event, and as such, I value technical skills over delivery. NDRDE, REYMUNDO "REY" Impact calculus is key in the round and whoever can prove that has the best chance of getting the W on the ballot. I need to be able to follow your argumentation in the round so tag all your arguments and link them to your evidence. nalyze cards and weigh their relevancy in the round. Stay away from time suck arguments. Don't waste tour time throwing mud at the wall to make it stick. Just be clear, persuasive and have clear impacts. e the advocate in the round. Spell it out and don't be cute or ambiguous.provide road maps, voters, etc. arguments are preferred to quantity arguments. E I have a master's in Communication from UTS. I value good delivery, speech dynamics, projection, poise and tone. RONOWITZ, JCO Other Kind of a mix of Tab and This is my first time judging the activity in a minute, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms associated with this topic yet, so don't assume I will know them. 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 abusive counterplans and topical CP's 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 - I don't like k's that only have a discoursive impact 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 D's are fine page 3

4 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 USTIN, MICHEL PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL I am a Tab-Stock Judge. Generally, I can judge anything and everything. However, there are a few points that I am picky about. I rarely vote on kritiks or counterplans, so this area might be a waste of your time. I also don't usually vote on Topicality unless the ff is RELLY untopical and it is an obvious abuse issue. In this case, I take Topicality very seriously. For the ff to win the debate, they must at least hold LL stock issues. If the Neg wants to win, they need only prove one of these to be insufficient. If the ff meets all stock issues, then I will weigh dvantages vs Disadvantages during the impact calc. No New in the Two: I will not consider NY new off-case arguments in the 2NC. However, you may bring in new evidence for your current arguments as well as new on-case arguments. I ask is that you slow down at the tag lines so I can understand what your card is saying. I give speaker points on a ranking system: 1st=30, 2nd=29, 3rd=28, 4th=27. This will only change if I really had difficulty understanding your points. LDERRM, JESSIC My judging style is very tab. I see cx debate as an educational safe haven. With that being said, I will listen to any argument you like. I will vote and judge the round based on want you'd like for me to vote on. You set the framework. I appreciate a good impact calculus, so I will default to policymaker otherwise. I gave kritiks and disads a 5 because I think that those arguments bring good discussion and substance into the debate. I gave topicality, and counterplans a 3 because I do not see that same substance being brought into the round. ut I will vote on these arguments. These arguments are not "me" but if they're "you", go for it! Other than that, run your favorite arguments. You control the way the round goes. Speak in the way that you think will be most beneficial to you in round as long as tags are clear for flowing purposes. RRINGTON, EMM There's nothing I won't vote on on principle, however, topicality and generic disadvantages are weighed less than other theoretical arguments and well constructed disadvantages. I want to see clash. No speed preference. Please ask questions. of communication is important to me, but it matters more that you are arguing successfully. Spreading is okay, but if you are unintelligible I will not be able to flow. 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. page 4

5 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 ENVIDES, JSMYN PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL T Judge that leans Policy -- open to any/all arguments, but at the end of the day, I really want you to highlight all the advantages/impacts of each argument of the round. Need you to really tell me the roll of the ballot - make my job easier and keep me very up-to-date with all drops/concedes/impacts/etc. Super hate time-suck arguments -> if you run something and you kick it at the last minute, that's gonna flow aff and really hurt your ground. I'm "okay" with a little speed, but don't take that as an excuse to reed mph. please try to CLERLY communicate your arguments in the round -- if i can't get it down, it won't be flowed. lso, please don't be incredibly rude in round - hurts your speaks real bad. No need to be a jerk to win. ERRYHILL, REEKK I believe the debaters should set up the framework of the round. I prefer a lot of clash within the round. I am able to flow anything as long as what you are running is run well. I can flow anything - however, if your speed is such that it is unintelligible I will say clear once and then flow to the other team. ONE, RTHUR First of all, no spreading. This is, after all, a speaking event. You do not, however, have to speak really slowly. I can follow a fair rate rather easily. I am a tab judge, and I try to come in with an open mind. Find a few good arguments rather than throwing a bunch against the wall to see what sticks. If you find an opening, take it. I will judge you on what you say. I may think of something obvious that would win your round for you, but I won't use it unless you actually say it. If it is something that is common knowledge, I reserve the right to consider that. Do not expect to get a win just because your opponent did not address a worthless point you made, and you won't lose on a minor technicality. Make a good case. Clear with a reasonable speed. OREN, JUSTIN I'm big on stock issues, but will default to policy-maker and what is best for the U.S. Stay away from K's and focus on T, CP's, D's, and especially impacts and solvency. I expect impact calc on both sides to prove to me who should win. I can appreciate a really great D that links with an extinction clause. Let me know if you're giving a brief off-time road map beforehand. I don't mind spreading. Don't sound like a dead fish. Signposting is key. We will conduct ourselves with respect and honor in cross-ex. We will abide by the UIL rules for cross-ex. page 5

6 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 OYD, JNE Policy debate paradigm My paradigm is pretty simple: PRDIGM First: I try to judge the way you ask me to, but if it is not clear, then I am a policymaker. EV. QTY./QUL 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. 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, I won't vote on it. RNDON, CHUCK CKGROUND - Have been involved in debate as a student, high school debater, college debater, high school coach or a college PRESENTTION coach since the Nixon administration. Yes I actually cut Watergate cards. So pardon my smile when asked how I feel about speed etc. PHILOSOPHY- Try to be Tab as much as possible. ut like all judges I have some personal preferences listed below: TOPICLITY - is a voter, don't usually vote on it unless it is mishandled or extremely squirely. Make sure to have a violation, standard and voter in shell. Haven't previously voted on a RVI on T. THEORY - Tend to look at in round abuse. KRITIKS - They are fine, but make sure you understand the literature, spend a lot of quality time on the link and have a clear alternative. PREP TIME - I count flash as prep time. OTHER ISSUES - Will vote you down for being rude or sarcastic. Proper decorum is a must. I will vote against sexist, racist et al. arguments. CONCLUSION - I was fairly succinct on this paradigm, so feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. lso debate should RNNEN, CHRISTOPHER I am a judge that cares most about the big picture.what is the practical outcome of what we are doing in the round? Does it impact real people in real ways? Put the word reasonable in your head. On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework.in the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker. On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant. It would always be better for you to default to over explaining (as I will let you know you can proceed) rather than under explaining. CDE Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". Make a clear distinction between your taglines and and your cards. On Communication: First, I'm a little deaf, be loud and clear. s a result of being a little deaf, speed is tough if you can't speed and speak clearly. Debate to me is as much about communication as about the arguments you are making. Spreading would not benefit you with me anyway because I m looking at, in the end, on the key issues in the debate. Plus, it s bad for competition and accessibility. (If your opponents spread anyway, I ll buy an ableism K on the matter) Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags. RENNER, KYLE I enjoy debates where students engage in substantive issues. Feel free to run anything you want, but you are going to need to clearly explain how each argument is relevant in the round. If I can understand you, we're good. page 6

7 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL. CMPGN, ENJMIN I am between a stock-issues judge and a tabula rasa judge. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the ffirmative proposes to do about it, and why the ffirmative plan is a netpositive to implement. I have no reason to vote for the ffirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the ffirmative plan. This will usually be done by defending the status quo (i.e., the stock issues), but counterplans are fine too. The Negative will need to establish that the counterplan is a netpositive over both the status quo and the ffirmative plan (I am perfectly fine with conditional arguments here). I will vote on a Kritik if the Negative explains in-round why it should be a voting issue; otherwise; I will treat it as being outside of the scope of what the debaters came to discuss. Like disadvantages, I believe Kritiks must be unique, and therefore there is a high bar to clear for a Kritik aimed at the resolution rather than at the specific ffirmative case. I am fine with spreading as long as the taglines are delivered clearly. I prefer analytics to be delivered more slowly to allow me to follow the debaters' reasoning. If using debate jargon ("perm," "K," etc.), I would prefer that the team use the complete correct term at least once first, before shortening it for the rest of the round. 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 CNON, MTTHEW For starters, I will say that I am a traditional judge and I am open to listen to any argument you would like to run. I as judge focus on the quality of the evidence, I bottom line listen to why I believe you should win the round and not your opponent. I am unbiased and will listen to see what skills/ tactics are used in round. I love a good debate that is professional and that has a great flow, and above all debates on the topic. Do not just spit out a bunch of information and not touch on it whatsoever. My judging philosophy is based on following all rules and being able to debate on the topic. y the end of the debate I should be able to clearly understand the importance of your position to the resolution. CDEJK When it comes to any debate round, I first want to be able to clearly understand you. rticulation is a big key for me. I am not a big fan of fast debate. When debaters are going one hundred miles per hour of an overload of information, your argument to me starts to become unclear and unimportant--focus on what is needed to win the round. Spreading for me can be a good and bad thing. If you do spread, be clear and articulate, do not let your words run all together. Follow UIL Guidelines. CRMON, JUN I believe that policy debate should teach students essential skills that they will need in college and in keeping with that belief I feel that it must include a fair amount of research on the topic at hand. lso, students should learn how to properly present an idea before an audience, thus I look to debate for clear presentations that are on topic and fall within the stock issues of traditional debate. I prefer a clear and concise presentation which is at a normal pace and which includes more than just reading but analysis of the plan and topic at hand. page 7

8 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 CRPENTER, DVID PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL I prefer to be a policy maker and default there but will evaluate the round differently if given a good reason. I appreciate good theory and topicality debate but have a fairly high standard for what it takes to earn a ballot. Kritical arguments are welcome but do not assume I am familiar with your author. I view debate as primarily a critical thinking activity so any presentation that does not interfere with comprehension is okay. CRPENTER, LRRY I consider myself a tabula rasa judge who, in a very close round, will lean toward stock issues. I look for good clash of arguments and depth of analysis within given cases. Rate of speech only becomes an issue if you are going too quickly that I cannot flow your case. If I can t flow you, then I cannot accurately assess your team s position. e organized! Please do not use fillers just because you have time left on the clock. Use your time wisely with meaningful, accurate points. Organized and a rate that I can flow. CEDILLO, GERLD Other Stocks and judge but this doesn't mean debaters should presume I will make arguments for them. Clearly constructed and weighted impact calculus usually takes the round for me. That being said, if arguments are clearly linked and developed, I will vote on what you tell me to vote on Topicality requires a higher degree of scrutiny but if run correctly, I will always consider this. I am adept and understand K but it must clearly link and be well defined. Lastly, speed kills. debate should be about communication and understanding. The more complicated and complex argumentation requires the more patient and gifted speaker, not the fastest. stay polite or your speaker points will suffer. Thank you CHNG-GU, RUCE I believe that the debate should resolve/discuss the topic. I have experience in both traditional and critical debate so feel free to debate in positions you are most comfortable with. lthough I will listen to any argument, debaters should make clear why I should evaluate the argument (this applies to both traditional and kritikal debate) in order for me to determine the purpose of my ballot. If not given a reason, I will default to simple impact calculus. sk before round if you have any more questions about my paradigm page 8

9 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 CHO, ISC PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL I believe that debate is a game where most rules are up to dispute by the debaters in question. s such, I attempt to adjudicate rounds with as few preconceived notions as possible. My typical decision calculus goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework. My goal is to make the decision that requires the least amount of intervention so that the prior clauses (a/b/c) are ideally resolved via the arguments debaters make in round. I will vote off any argument so long as it qualifies as an argument (i.e. it has a claim which is warranted and implicated). See my paradigm on judgephilosophies for a more detailed description of what I believe about debate. *Caveat - below, I marked "Topicality arguments" as a 2, indicating that I rarely vote on them. This is not because I have paradigmatic objections to T; rather, I just find that debaters rarely go for that flow. Read it if you'd like; I won't hack against it.* CHP, VNESS s a tab judge, it is very important for the debaters to give me voters and weigh the round. Ks are not my favorite arguments, but I will take them into account and vote on them when asked to. 1 or 2 new arguments in the 2NC are acceptable, but it should not be a time to run a whole new neg strategy. Do not waste my time running several off case and on case arguments in the 1NC and then kick out of half of the arguments during rebuttals. Many times, this just leaves me with a messy debate to figure out rather than fully developing fewer arguments throughout the round. Roadmaps and signposts are appreciated Spreading is no substitute for quality of arguments (and quality of warrants especially). I'm flexible on style and delivery. I am inflexible on the norms of showing your opponent(s) respect and keeping the round accessible and educational, particularly if you are much better than they are. ggressive argumentation is recommended; rudeness and disrespect, however, are unacceptable. Communication is key. I do take style and delivery into account, however, the arguments themselves carry more weight. Speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate clearly. CHEN, YO YO I will adapt to your style and argumentative preferences. I am very flow centric. Generally, I am tech over truth, but an argument must be sufficiently extended and warranted for it to matter. DE Clarity matters more than speed CHRISTENSEN, DENNE I am a stock issues judge primarily but will default policy maker. I do not like K. I expect the debaters to do the work for me and do not like to intervene as a judge. That said, if you force me to do the work for you then you risk me using my paradigm. If affirmative does not uphold the burden of proving that the SQ does not solve then I will vote negative (unless they run a counter plan and then the negative must uphold the same burden). I don't like arguments ran as a time suck- if you are going to make the argument then there should be merit to it. I expect you to extend your case and to tell me the significance of why it matters. It is not enough to just say you win an argument-tell me why the argument is important. I like clear links and analysis. I like solutions that are workable and not just hypothetical. Give me impact calculus and clear voters. I expect the debaters to be polite to each other and the judge. I want a slightly faster than normal conversational rate-this is a communication event not a auction. Please don't waste time in the round-we have a schedule to keep so come with your pre-flow done, your materials clearly labeled and easily accessed for flashing or providing to opponent. page 9

10 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL. CLEVELND, SRH, traditional. Prefer clean crystallization over line by line. Don't make me do the work for you. If you want it judged, you must clearly articulate & weigh presentation is key, traditional clean & clear debates are best CONTRERS, ELIZETH Having done policy on both TF and UIL in high school, I am comfortable with a wide variety of arguments on this topic. I tell competitors before round that I will vote on literally any argument- as long as they can back it up with evidence and convince me of the magnitude and impact of the harms of passing or not passing. I like for partners to be consistent in what they're saying in CX and in speeches. i was taught policy by a rule following coach, and I therefore like to see the standards being upheld in round. Signposting, and slowing down on tag lines and authors is critical to my understanding of the argument. COPPEDGE, NN , but I ve evolved from a stock issues background. I weigh the round so an impact calculus is a requirement and I m fine with generic D s. I don t have a problem with CP s or K s as long as they are run well. I feel like K s should be over explained as to really make them a worthwhile argument. Speed should not sacrifice clarity or persuasiveness. Speed doesn t bother me as long as you signpost and the tag lines are stressed, since I still flow by hand. Debate is a communication contest, so once you ve read the evidence tell me why it is important persuade me. CORNISH, NDREW 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. page 10

11 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 CORNISH, NICOLE PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL. Other Offense/Defense I believe a debate round should have a balance of offensive and defensive arguments and the debaters should weigh those arguments in the round. I am not opposed to any particular argument. Its important to me that krikik alternatives clearly explain the role of the ballot. Topicality probably requires some sort of abuse story or at least an explanation of what arguments you cannot make because of their 1C choice. I am willing to answer any specific questions you might have before the round. The UIL ballot indicates I should evaluate speed as a criteria for assigning speaker points, and I will follow the norms of the organization I'm judging for. CRIG, RYN CX debate should be strictly policy argumentation. I value good arguments over the number of arguments. I am pretty open to all arguments except Kritikal arguments. K's have no place in CX debate, in my opinion. I will listen to it, but I will not vote on it. To win the round, tell me what to do. s the judge, I'm not supposed to intervene in the decision, so make it crystal clear why you win the round. Impact calculus is a great tool to utilize in the round, and chances are it will be one of the deciding factors in the round. This event is a communication event, so speak clearly. I can understand you going fast, but if your words are jumbled and I can't understand you, then why even be in the round? CRWFORD, DN 1. I want teams to "hit the HITSS." (Significance not so much since that is part of harms and disads.) 2. Show me that you understand and can extend what you are reading in your constructive. 3. No tolerance for spreading. I value quality, well-developed arguments over blurt in out a massive volume of info. 4. I don't require negative to present a counter-plan NO SPREDING. 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. page 11

12 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 D'MICO, NICHOLS PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL. Metaphysics. My worldview is that I see Education from the perspective of being a social change activity and one designed to help students become future leaders prepared to deal with our society's future problems, both predictable and unpredictable. Epistemology. Student must know their topic and understand it, not just memorize, read, or regurgitate words. xiology. I value all points of view, even those I may not agree with; as a judge I will be objective and not biased. Logic. I will vote for the the winner based on the consistency and logical connections of arguments presented I will look for the qualities and quantities mentioned above. Less is more. It is not how much the debaters say, but how well they say it, considering both verbal and non verbal language. D DMM, VICTOR I am a policymaker by default DE Don't be mean. Have fun. I am more likely to enjoy the round if it looks like you are enjoying the round. DNIELS, JOHN I need to be able to understand you. Tell me how to weigh the round, and tell me the real-world implications. Don't overload the aff with 10 off-case arguments. There should be real CLSH in the round. Neg, bring on-case arguments. I will not flow Kritiks. I need to be able to hear and understand you. I will not flow spread/rapid-fire. Speed is ok, as long as you're understandable. DRY, RIN Tell me what to vote for and I will. I evaluate the round and arguments as you present them. I need link stories and impact calculus... if going for theory I need you to explain and show abuse. Slow and steady page 12

13 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 DVIES, TIMOTHY PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL I have a lot of experience judging and debating Lincoln Douglass and policy debate. I flow and judge the round however it is presented to me and can adapt to varying debate styles. I prefer to listen to arguments based in empirical evidence with lots of impact calculus. Kritiks have to have strong links for me and alts that have realistic solvency. I am a huge fan of good theory debate, but don't call rampant abuses in the round. I have a higher threshold for earning '30' speaker points than many and you must not only be a clear communicator but an effective communicator and player of the debate game to earn these points. For my decisions, I place a lot of weight on theory/topicality, and then examine the substance of the solvency and impact debate. C I am fine with any sort of delivery, including spreading. DVIL, MICHELLE I consider myself to be a traditionalist in both Policy Debate and Lincoln Douglas debate. I am a STOCKS judge, so I want to see well formed, well articulated arguments that are supported by evidence. I don't appreciate information dumps, or giving a preponderance of evidence without really understanding your claims. Students should know their cases very well at the State level and be prepared to defend their affirmatives. I am open to non-traditional negative positions such as both topical and non-topical counterplans. I will hear a kritik, but it must be original and not a rehashed kritik we've all heard before, used for this year's topic. I want to see a true, clean traditional debate with significant clash on real issues. I do not like spreading, or double breathing. I want to be able to understand your speech, as this is a speaking event. If you are unclear I will tell you so and stop flowing. DVIS, GEORGE s a policymaker, I want to hear reasonable and convincing arguments with links and warrants. I am not interested in your burying your opponent in a mountain of cards. Cards should be the support for your argument not the sole basis of your case. Know what your position is and be able to discuss it, explain it in your own words. Explain the logic of the argument and the plan. rguments and plans that skew the resolution to the obscure will not get my ballot. Plans with effective argumentation and support that speak to the heart of the resolution or to logical, reasoned positions or responses will earn my ballot. I would enjoy hearing creative or innovative cases that speak to the issues. However, I am not interested in emotional or frivolous pleas or positions. Emphasize your tags, warrant your arguments. I want to hear clash in the round. I am okay with counterplans as long as they are run well. I am not fond of jargon for the sake of impressing your opponent or your judge. Don't insult my intelligence nor that of your opponent. Do not play games. Don't waste my time or yours with insignificant arguments. I have degrees in psychology, education and mathematics Do not spread. Do not speed read. You are a debater and should have some style to your presentation. This is persuasive speaking. Convince me. Signpost your arguments along the way. Promote engaging discussion and debate. Keep time for yourself to know where you are in your arguments. Speaking style, tone of voice, variance of pitch, and emphasis of key points all influence my ballot. DE LOS SNTOS, RENE No Spreading. I want to hear the rgument develop and extend the Logic Flow Slow and Methodical page 13

14 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 DE LOS SNTOS, RENE PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL I want to hear the argument Develop and be defined first then argued. Students should go into the round and not assume that a judge has heard the argument before. The Student should be about to state a case from an idea. No Spreading- I want to hear articulation DELEON, ROSENDO I like clashes in the debate. I want to see great analysis and reasoning I also like to hear a very well constructed case with support. Do not attack the debater but attack the the case. I want to hear cases that strongly are rooted on the stock issues and deal strongly on the topic. Communicative style of delivery. I think that speed often gets in the way of communication. DENNY, MELLESS I will vote on any issues brought up in the round. However, I am relatively traditional and like stock issues and good policy makers. I like direct clash. I like good analysis of evidence not just reading of cards. I believe debate is a communication sport so I want to hear good communication. I can flow well and do not mind speed as long as you are communicating well and using your time. DENNY, STEVEN I think communication is important but I can flow quickly. I want to see clash in the debate. I want to hear analysis not just the reading of cards. I lean towards being a policymaker but I also like to see stock issues. I will judge the round on what happens IN the round, not what I think or know. Thus, I will vote on any arguments that are brought up--ks, CPs, etc.--if you do what you need to do to prove you win that argument. I have not judged much this year in CX because I am running for office to be a district judge. ut I know CX To me, communication is important but it is not what wins the round. I look at substantive issues and who proves what. page 14

15 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 DICKSON, LEX PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL This is your round. Have fun! I am open to every argument. Please keep in mind this is a UIL tournament, so you must adapt to the philosophy of the tournament when it comes to communication. t the end of the day, I vote where the flow and the debate round tells me to vote. Please ask if you need any clarification. K Speed isn't an issue as long as its clear and articulate. Remember, this is a UIL cademic competition, and you must adapt. DICKSON, CHRISTOPHER I consider myself tabula rasa. I am clean slate. I want you to tell me why a particular argument is important in the round and how I should weigh it. I think it is important to weigh arguments against each other. I don't think you should be rude to your opponent. I think this is an event that has the ability to take you far in life. Have fun and enjoy State! Don't mistake all my 3's as a bad thing. I literally will vote on anything...tell me why you win it. Weigh it in the round and I will vote on it. CDEJK I can flow speed. You must be clear and articulate. However, please keep in mind this is a UIL State event - so you must adapt to the rules and regulations of the meet. DIPIZZ, PHILIP I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments. Spin control is extremely important to me, and compelling explanations and/or examples will certainly be rewarded. nd while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged. s for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I prefer strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote ff/neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it s the Negative s job to prove why rejecting the ff is necessary which means more than just presenting a counterplan, alternative, or methodology that solves better. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round. I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution. Framework is debatable, but I prefer substantive arguments that respond to the level of criticism underwriting the 1C. Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper probably doesn t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) I think there is a difference between intensity and rudeness. Please be mindful of this. CDE Like every judge, I look for smart, wellreasoned arguments. I have no real preference regarding style, but I am familiar and comfortable with contemporary trends such as speed, conditionality, and kritiks. Style should be dictated by content and strategy. Do what you re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thoughtout decision. DO, HNH Other J Stocks and I'm a stocks/policy maker. I'm not big into the K debate. I prefer you to debate directly on the issue although I will entertain theory as Speak clearly and concisely. Don't sacrifice well. I just need links to be strong, easy, uncomplicated and most of all argumentation needs to be UNIQUE ND PROPERLY clarity for speed EVER! FORMTTED!! Please make sure Ds,T's CPs, have all their pieces together and DO THE WORK. I am not here to make assumptions. My first voter is to down based on burdens, ff has burden of proof, Neg has burden to clash. The other team must identify this and call it out. I need you to impact the round eventually on a macro level and clear narratives are welcome. Impact it and write my ballot for me. You also LWYS NEED TO PRIORITIZE THE RGUMENTTION T THE END OF THE DY to control how you ballot. page 15

16 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 DONLD, KNDCE PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL I am a tabula rasa judge, so I come in with an open mind to all arguments. However, I prefer the traditional style of debate and I strictly follow the UIL rules and guidelines. When the round becomes difficult to frame, or neither team shows a clear warrant for the win, I default to stock issues. lthough the negative team should always create arguments against the affirmative case, the affirmative team is required to present a prima facie case regardless of whether or not the negative team approaches each stock issue. The affirmative should present an affirmative case complete with all five stock issues in the first affirmative constructive. Ideally, each team will continue to uphold their arguments throughout each speech during the debate. Speed and spreading are two separate entities. Debaters typically speak faster than someone would while having a normal conversation, so speed is acceptable to some extent. Spreading, or speed that gets in the way of effective communication, will prevent the debater from receiving the maximum amount of speaker points. Debaters should always maintain a professional and respectful demeanor. I prefer traditional debates and discourage teams from running a performance debate. DONLDSON, MICHEL I am a tab judge who is willing to listen to any argument that you want to throw out into the round. If I am not given a specific weighing mechanism or framework to view the round through, I will default to a policy maker outlook. I want debaters to work to provide a clear and organized round that includes analysis of their ideas - don't just read evidence...use IT as a tool to help make a point. I enjoy rounds that have a lot of clash and clear offense. No argument is off limits for me, but I don't like it when arguments are left underdeveloped or are not clearly labeled. I value pretty much all arguments on the same level - so go with whatever strategy that you feel most comfortable with. Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you are confused! Please give clear tag lines and be explicit with your organization. DOOLEY, MTT I am a blank slate. I enjoy all types of arguments. I'm willing to entertain virtually any argument (within appropriate reason) so long as you're giving me a reason as to why I should vote off of the argument. The clearer you make things, the more likely I am to vote for you. There's only a few specific things I want to touch on. I don't mind spreading as long as I can understand you. I want a strong strategy/advocacy and clash. While I'm familiar with things like Ks, Ds, Plans/CPs, etc., I'm not great at evaluating theory and topicality debates. I will evaluate them, but run them at your own risk. I have no preference as long as I can understand and follow you. EDWRDS, KY I have no prior leanings towards any style of argument; you go to state, now do they kind of debate that you are most skilled at/find the most enjoyable. I prefer to be given a framing mechanism for the round. bsent a framing mechanism, I will probably evaluate on an offense/defense paradigm and will give preference to higher levels of debate (i.e. if the neg reads T, that is the highest layer because it is a meta question about how debate should function). The above being said, I really would prefer to be given a weighing/framing mechanism. (Note: I placed a 3 on Topicality because it is on a "vote on" scale not an "unacceptable/acceptable" scale. I vote on T the same way I do anything else; it needs to have substantive impacts and a weighing mechanism, not just "T is obviously good, so vote neg.") I don't have any specific delivery preferences; do what you are comfortable with and best at. ny stylistic questions would be best broached before the round for clarification. page 16

17 PHILOSOPHY OOKLET UIL CX DETE STTE TOURNMENT , 5, 6 ESPRZ, CHRISTOPHER PRDIGM EV. QTY./QUL I believe that strategic organized strategy is a large component in the execution of building a successful case and neg strategy. While kritiks and counter-plans can be successful in the negative strategy, the MUST be ran appropriately and explained thoroughly. When warranting claims on either side, I believe recency and merit of the author outweigh in evidence. Theory arguments are acceptable as well but must have background on philosophy or standards to be weighed in the round. I believe in equal distribution of work to be done by both competitors in a particular team with a substantial amount of knowledge on evidence and information that is presented. I score highly on clarity and fluency. While the nature of policy debate leans towards a rapid delivery, loss of clarity due to mumbling and breaths will be weighed into account. FLORES, JOSE I'll vote on any argument, provided you give me a good enough reason why (voters, impacts, etc.). I like weight and impacts for your arguments (why does it matter?)with analysis and refutation skills. I want clash and I like line by line debates. If not given a good reason to vote for your argument, I will vote on the best policy option, or real world policy option. CDEJK I'm okay with speed if you have to do it, but since this is UIL, I will also be evaluating your speaking skills. I want you to PERSUDE me, and not just read to me. Key tag lines and plan text. lso, I do not like rudeness. FUGLER, JP I describe myself as a tab judge. However, that doesn't mean I prefer critical argumentation. I have less experience with that type of argument. While I will still vote on it, you'll need to explain the literature and why voting there is justified. I tend to have a high threshold on T. I'm most comfortable with Ds and case debate. Counterplans are welcome You'll notice I selected mostly 3s for types of arguments. That's because I don't necessarily have a preference one way or the other. Use what I said above as a guide as opposed to the listing provided. In rebuttals, I want to hear how I'm able to vote for you. Show me you understand how the different arguments left at the end of the round function together. I'm looking to make a decision that requires the least amount of intervention as possible. J i prefer your rate of delivery is either normal or slightly faster. FURTICK, NGEL I am willing to believe any reasonable argument, so long as you have the evidence to back up the claim. Voters are important... Tell me why you should win the round. I do believe stock issues are important as well. s I appreciate good speaking skills, a roadmap or sign posting when possible and debaters who are courteous and well prepared. page 17