2025 CX State Judges

Philosophy
Unless specified, I weigh all args equally and it is up to the teams to provide voters in rebuttals for how I should weigh the round and why, coupled with an impact calc if applicable. New in the 2 is fine unless it's excessive. If you’re going to run topicality, please do so properly with all four planks or it will not be considered on the flow. I will also not vote on T unless the plan is clearly abusive. I like Ks, but I like to see a good alternative paired with it and a link that isn’t too generic. I won’t vote solely on a counter plan, but it can help strengthen any on-case args that are being ran. Remember to have fun and to treat this as an educational space, so remain respectful!

Delivery
Speed is fine, just please slow down on taglines and authors/dates out of courtesy for your judge and opponents. Please stand and face the judge during CXing periods.

Philosophy
As a policymaker, I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages and for the side that presents the best policy option. I require both sides to provide offense to win. Sufficient evidence is needed for ANY point made through the ENTIRE debate. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Even though I am a policymaker, the basics of CX debate should be followed such as retaining the stock issues.

Delivery
Make sure that during the delivery, you speak clearly in order for me to hear all of your points and watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear and can't understand. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during the speech.

Philosophy
CX(Policy) Debate I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round. I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech. T-Topicality I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(24-25), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round. DA-Disadvantage In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing. CP-Counterplan I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds. K-Kritique I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see. ON-CASE THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible. Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round. Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot. Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS... (I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS) I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading. Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

Delivery
Check the statement above for my position about speed.

Philosophy
I observe carefully the fluency of the round by each debater responsibility: 1AC. Presents several advantages and arguments in favor of their plan, these cards have come from qualified sources in support of the position. 1NC. Presents their own positions, some combination of Disadvantages, Counterplans, Kritiks, and topicality or Theory. 2AC. Answers to the Neg’s offcase positions. 2NC. Dismantles the Aff’s case, extending case answers from the 1NC. This speech will also answer any lingering theoretical/procedural questions. Cross examination. During this period I like to observe how they use their opponents' responses to improve their speeches. 1NR. Presents the most important position given an entire speech to just dump arguments on the most important source of Neg offense. 1AR. To cover most ground possible about all the DA presented by neg on their 2C and 1R. 2NR. Summarize the round, while preempting the Second Affirmative Rebuttal. 2AR. To consolidate and makes things clear for the judge.

Delivery
I like presentations with emphasis, emotion and reasoning, which show that they are experts in their case and capable of investigating any loose ends in a short time. In addition to formal attire and genuine behavior.

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

Delivery
I will be flowing rather than reading your cases. Slow down on the things you need to but I’m okay with reasonable speed.

Philosophy
I consider myself a policymaker but I'm open to most arguments. Framing: I default to util good and policymaking good but you're welcome to go for other frameworks Case/DAs/CPs: I'm most comfortable judging these debates. Aff should extend case (even if it's just adv. overviews) in every speech. Clearly explain your impact stories. I default to condo good/PICs good but I want the 2NR to collapse to one CP/advocacy. I love good theory and perm debates on CPs. T/theory: I like theory debates but I don't like to vote on bad/lazy theory flows. I try to be 'tech>truth' but my threshold on theory can be high, specifically for frivolous arguments. If you feel like you're winning theory on the flow, you should go for it, but I err against it if you have bad extensions or you're dropping responses. If you want me to vote on it, it'd better be a big deal in your last speech K: I like good K debate. I err aff on framework when it's not clear who's winning but if you've got good reasons why your role of the ballot is good then I'll buy it. I want your method to have some sort of solvency or a clear reason to endorse. If the 2NC/1NR is just scripted overviews, I won't want to vote for you K affs: I err neg on framework but I'll listen to these rounds. I like K v K method debates but I'm fine if the neg is fw+cap. I expect good extensions and clash from the aff I've judged policy regularly for years, but I have fewer rounds on this year's topic than usual. More on tabroom.com

Delivery
Please be respectful. Slow down on taglines AND authors/dates and give me time to type for analytics/theory/perms/etc. I will follow docs while flowing but if you go off doc, I may need you to slow down if you're spreading.

Philosophy
I am a stock issue judge. I like on-case and off-case arguments as long as you can make a real connection and show me why you are arguing what you are. I have little experience dealing with kritiks. I am not saying that I won't listen to them but they need clear reasons as to why I should listen to them. One thing I will say is that I like clash, I do not like kritiks that take away from the real debate topic. I'm okay with CPs just run them well and don't be lazy.

Delivery
Please be formatted and use road maps. Talk in a clear and concise manner. Do not spread, if you do, do not be surprised if I was not able to flow an argument, I'm trying my best to keep up.

Philosophy
I am primarily a stock issues judge, but I also believe strongly in persuasive techniques and strong refutation. I will keep a perfect flow, I like debaters who flow and use the flow to be organized and accurate in refutation.

Delivery
I like speed as long as you can speak clearly. Persuasion is important.

Philosophy
I view CX debate as an opportunity for students to engage in real world issues with the same temperament and finesse as the law makers on capitol hill. Therefore, my paradigm mostly aligns towards what will be generally considered "policymaker." I will be focusing on clash, solvency, disads, CP, quality of evidence, and impactful rebuttals.

Delivery
Debaters need to be mindful if they're going to spread. They need to consider that I will be flowing their arguments. If they don't spread properly and speak unintelligibly or don't roadmap, it will impact their RFD.

Philosophy
- I am ok with New in the 2 as long as it isn't abusive (example: pulling excessive attacks in the 1NC and then even more in the 2NC) - I want good speaking/explaining. Don't just read to me for 8 minutes with no explanation of what you read or how it links to the case - I want to hear clash. - organization, speaking quality, and quality of attacks are more important to me than the number of attacks. Continue to flow it across the board and extend/elaborate on it. - I do lean more toward stock issues - I will flow a DA & a CP. I am not opposed to K or Theory; however, my ballot will not normally come down to just the K or Theory - I want you to outline it for me in the end. Give me good voters going down the flow along with impacts and net benefit. Don't assume I know.

Delivery
- I do not time roadmaps as long as they are brief - I am ok with speed but I need to be able to flow it - signpost

Philosophy
I am looking for well crafted arguments that outline a clear plan with advantages and disadvantages. Arguments should be clear, organized, and provide sufficient evidence.

Delivery
I understand the "need for speed", however an argument is not fun if no one can understand the speaker.

Philosophy
Well constructed arguments are key. I am more of a clean slate and will always look for the speakers who have the best arguments and are able to connect their points when defending their position on the resolution. I will not make the connections for you, you must make them for your audience. CX Debate is first and foremost a speaking event. Clear and precise communication is preferred. I am not opposed to counter-plans or new evidence in the 2nd AC.

Delivery
Rate of speech is a big issue to me. If I cannot understand what is being said, neither can your opponent and audience. I prefer a clear and articulate rate of speech throughout all constructs and rebuttals.

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

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

Philosophy
I believe that communication wins rounds. I want clear organization, real evidence, quality cards, and full speeches.

Delivery
Speed is fine until I put my pen down; clear, organized communication is the key to productive and winning debate

Philosophy
I grew up in stock issues debate, so I still want to hear those, and I will vote on them. I lean towards being a policy maker judge now, but I still want to hear how you've organized your case around the stock issues. I will vote on DAs and a well executed CP, but I am not open to Kritiks. I expect arguments to be labeled and well organized.

Delivery
I do not like being read to for eight minutes. This is a speaking event. I expect you to read evidence, analyze it, and use it to persuade me to vote for you. I understand that you need to read some cards quicky. Slow down on taglines and explain how the evidence applies to your arguments.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge. I am okay with new in the 2NC. I will also vote on DAs and possibly a counter plan if it is presented well. I do not like kritiks and will not vote for them. Remember that your job as a debater is to persuade me. Fully explain your arguments, your evidence, and make it clear to me why your team should win. Be sure to make your voters clear.

Delivery
I do not like spreading. Debate should promote good communication skills.

Philosophy
Judging Paradigm for Cross-Examination Debate 1. Clash and Logical Argumentation I prioritize debates where the affirmative and negative actively engage in clashing arguments. Logical reasoning, supported by evidence, is crucial. Merely reading evidence (cards) without tying it into a clear and coherent argument does not win rounds. Arguments must connect and build toward a compelling narrative. 2. Stock Issues Stock issues are fundamental and should be highlighted in the "voters" section of rebuttals. However, blanket statements about stock issue violations are insufficient. You must substantiate claims of violations with clear explanations and proof. Likewise, the alleged violator should respond with substantive counter-arguments. 3. Counterplans and Debate Techniques Advanced debate tools like counterplans or theory arguments can be effective but must be executed flawlessly. If you are unsure about running these arguments or lack confidence in their presentation, it may detract from your case. Sloppy execution will be penalized. Quality over quantity is critical—ensure all arguments are solid, clear, and well-explained. 4. Evidence and Explanation Evidence is only as good as the explanation accompanying it. Provide thorough analysis to link evidence to your arguments. Articulate why your evidence supports your case and how it fits into the larger debate framework. Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate 1. Clash and Philosophy Clash is equally important in LD. Lincoln-Douglas debates should focus on philosophical underpinnings, and these must be meaningfully integrated into the round. Avoid being "a mile wide and an inch deep"; depth and understanding of philosophy are vital. 2. Value Premise and Criteria The value premise is the cornerstone of LD debate. Establish a clear hierarchy of values, demonstrating why your value premise is superior to your opponent's. Ensure that your value premise links directly to your criteria and contentions, creating a cohesive framework for your case. 3. Linking Philosophy to Arguments Philosophy must advance your arguments, not exist in isolation. Explain how your philosophical framework underpins your contentions and demonstrates your case's superiority. Winning the value clash is important, but you must also address and win the pragmatic arguments presented in the round. 4. Depth and Connection LD is about balancing the abstract and the practical. Deeply engage with the philosophy while clearly connecting it to the contentions and real-world implications of the resolution. Ensure that every point ties back to your value premise and criteria.

Delivery
I value clarity and structure. Signpost arguments and ensure I can follow the flow of the round. Both rebuttals and final speeches should crystallize key issues and provide clear "voter" arguments. Ultimately, I am looking for the debater who provides a logical, evidence-backed, and well-structured case while effectively addressing their opponent's points.

Philosophy
In evaluating CX debate rounds, my focus tends to be on the disadvantages, topicality arguments, and the strength of case arguments. I place significant weight on the logical consistency and depth of the arguments presented, particularly in how well disadvantages are articulated and their implications for the round. Topicality is another crucial element I consider, as it helps ensure that the debate remains within the scope of the resolution. The validity and warranting of case arguments are essential as well, as I look for clear, compelling reasoning and evidence that supports the team's position. While I do not generally focus on critiques or counterplans, I am open to evaluating them when they are run effectively and contribute meaningfully to the round. However, these arguments need to be well-structured and substantiated to make a significant impact on my decision. I also would say for the affermative team you need to make sure you do not drop any arguments and you uphold the burden of proof.

Delivery
I really do not like spreading or tactics of confusion. Many debaters tend to forget that this is an educational debate. It's not about who speaks faster or who is meaner. The debate should help you learn and improve basic skills like speaking listening, and understanding not speed of delivery.

Philosophy
As a judge, I prioritize persuasive and well-organized speeches. While I consider the traditional stock issues, I don’t require them to be explicitly emphasized unless they are central to the voting decision. I value clarity and appreciate when debaters consolidate their arguments into key voting issues during rebuttals. Effective communication and strategic argumentation are crucial in my evaluation. Write my ballot for me.

Delivery
I don’t want to read your case to understand what you’re saying. Articulation and organization are important to me.

Philosophy
Overall I am open to hearing any arguments you want to make in the round. That being said, I am not a big fan of the K debate and can think of maybe 3 times that I have voted on a K before. One thing that all debaters should do is impact their arguments and expand on why whatever argument they are making is important in the context of the round. I do not believe that the debate has to answer every single argument on the flow, be strategic, and focus more on the winning arguments.. if you think something needs to be kicked, don't be afraid to kick it, it may be a minor setback but an overall gain.

Delivery
Spreading should not occur in debate, it is an exclusionary practice that makes those with auditory/processing disorders unable to engage in the activity, it is also just a bad form of communication. I do not add myself to the speechdrop, so you should be explicitly clear in your signposting where you are at in the debate. If you rely on me to be on the speechdrop for me to know where you are at in the round, my flow for you is going to be very messy and that only hurts you.

Philosophy
My default framework is to vote for whichever side proves their world is “better” (saves more lives, leads to better debate, is morally better, etc.). I will have a very hard time being convinced to vote for purely defensive arguments. I am not a stock issues judge. I'm open to pretty much any type of argument. It's up to you to win why it matters, etc. I strongly believe that reading new arguments/positions in the 2NC makes for bad debate, as such you should read all of your arguments in the 1NC and use the block to answer the 2AC and extend/impact your arguments.

Delivery
Please slow down on tags and theory. I really, really do not like it when you read new arguments in the 2NC.

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

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

Philosophy
CX debaters should present their arguments using proper debate terminology. Arguments should be presented with their correct shell, ensuring all parts of an argument are properly presented. It is very important to be organized and well-versed on your arguments. I will vote on topicality. I will vote on drops. It is important to answer every argument so make sure you are flowing the round. I will be flowing but the debater should tell me what to flow and where to flow. I won’t vote on anything unless I’m told to do so. Debaters should understand their arguments and be able to articulate them in their own words. Don’t just read cards to me, tell me what they mean and represent for your arguments/case. Interpretation of evidence is important, as well as authors and dates. Please use your speech time fully and wisely. If I can’t vote on the stock issues I will lean to policy and talent.

Delivery
Debate is first and foremost a speaking competition. With that being said, you may speak as fast as you like as long as you are articulate, use good diction, and can sign-post during your speech.

Philosophy
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XLZ0O-NzMADRfKr3qgQCE9bChDzCi8oK/view?usp=sharing

Delivery
Ok with spreading

Philosophy
I am a more traditionalist when it comes to judging. I am looking for clash and evidence supported arguments. Quality of evidence wins over quantity. I am not a fan of Kritiks, but I will not discredit them. They need to be very relevant and supported to be considered for a win. I value a considerate debate. Do not spend your time calling "abuse", especially more than once. I will flow the ballot to the opposition.

Delivery
If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow, I cannot consider you for the ballot.

Philosophy
I'm a Tab Judge. I prefer to come to debates with a fresh perspective and without any preconceived notions. I rely on the debaters to make the necessary connections and persuade me why I should vote for them. I am open to all off-case arguments, but I am selective about Ks. I don't want them to be a time suck, so if you plan on running a K, make sure it's strategically planned. I appreciate and welcome Framework arguments as they can be a great starting point for the round. One thing that I dislike is when the neg runs "T"s of little importance only to stonewall the affs plan. Instead, I would rather listen to real disadvantages or counter plans. However, if it is indeed a good "T," I expect the aff to complete each step in replying back. If you have any other specific questions just ask me!

Delivery

Philosophy
I recognize these students are not policy experts and are learning the skill of debate. Therefore, I will be evaluating them on deliver, communication style, persuasiveness of arguments and of course - how well they refute the opponent.

Delivery
Looking for a coherent argument with proper cross examination skills.

Philosophy
I look for reasoning and analysis in debate . I think that stock issues are important. Also strong is the use of evidences is also vital .

Delivery
Fluent and  articulate is important. Not too speedy.

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

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

Philosophy
I am a stocks/policymaker judge, although I will sometimes be tabula rasa but rather temperamental that I don't commit to that philosophy. I like pragmatic and sound narratives that have balanced logic. Not every scenario is going to end in nuclear war or any type of war. I'll buy reasonable impact chains and terminal impacts but won't entertain leaps in logic. All debaters must do the work as I am not going to intervene and provide your links and internal links to you. Specification is key to winning rounds. ALL ROUNDS SHOULD GIVE THE JUDGES A FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO EVALUATE THE ROUND OR LENS TO EVALUATE THE ROUND. Arguments must properly be formatted with all their adjoining parts and evidence with proper citation and full dates. I am looking for consistency of arguments moving through all the speeches, clash, and also weighing on a micro and macro level. All teams should be prioritizing issues of the day for the judges and warranting why we ought to be siding with their advocacy.

Delivery
Clarity ALWAYS OVER SPEED. Don't spread if you can't do it clearly and concisely. It's not necessary to win. If I can't understand it, it may not get flowed.

Philosophy
About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time. Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed. Since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing. Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important. AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns. Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read" is not an argument. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing. Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. You need a net-benefit to the counter-plan internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick. Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. The most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts. Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation. Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

Delivery
I prefer you to be fast and clear. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If one team has a preference for no spreading please accommodate to them.

Philosophy
Stock Issues judge, do not believe in new in the 2, do not think K's belong in CX. I will lean towards policy making beyond stock issues.

Delivery
Clear

Philosophy
Effective debate relies on well-structured arguments supported by solid, reliable evidence. Speakers should focus on organizing and communicating their points clearly and persuasively. The quality of evidence and sources is crucial and should be carefully reinforced throughout. Additionally, signposting should be efficient, and stock issues should be addressed in a way that enhances clarity and engagement. Structure matters. Respect for opponents is essential—maintain professionalism and foster a constructive discussion. Debate is a dynamic exchange of ideas, requiring meaningful clash while also demonstrating active listening and thoughtful responses. Be sure to honor this. While I welcome multiple angles on the topic, I’m not particularly fond of Kritiks.

Delivery
Spreading and speaking too quickly will result in you scoring lower. Debate is about argument, which also factors in with being understandable when it comes to communicating effectively.

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

Delivery
This is a communication event centered on a specific resolution. Speed should never interfere with your ability to an effective communicator. Make sure to slow down on your tag lines, authors, and dates. Please give a road map and sign post.

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

Delivery
i am okay with speed but i feel that communicaion is the most important thing in debate. so as long as the speed dosent take away from the material being given ( slurring or words running togther) then i will have no problem.

Philosophy
True tabula rasa. Please click the link to see full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Delivery
Some people spread just because they think they should without doing any of the training or maintenance required to be good at spreading. Everyone should prioritize clarity as clarity and speed are not mutually exclusive

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

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

Philosophy
I prefer to hear stock issues debated in the round which is fundamental. Communication skills are imperative.

Delivery
I do not want to hear rapid fire. I need to be able to hear and understand your plan.

Philosophy
I most value clash in a debate. I want to hear each debaters conceptualization of the negative and affirmative cases. I want to hear reasons why either position is superior to the opponents. I appreciate hearing specifically why the opponents argument is inferior. I like hearing in the rebuttals reasons to prefer or voter issues- why I as a judge should prefer to vote your side. I believe in responsible policy making and will vote on which ever team demonstrates better clash and gives me reason reasons to prefer their policy.

Delivery
I can keep up with fast rate of speech as long as you consider your opponents comprehension as well. annunciate and speak with conviction. Avoid reading cards without explain explaining to me why those card are important and how it serves as evidence for your claim. Face the judge during CX.

Philosophy
I consider myself a blank slate. Persuade me of who has the best arguments. Communication is key. Structure is important, and you need to tell me where you are going.

Delivery
This is a speaking event. I must be able to understand you, so I do not like spreading.

Philosophy
I prioritize well-supported arguments, logical reasoning, and effective clash while maintaining an open approach to different debate styles. I evaluate CX debate rounds based on the traditional judging criteria: case analysis, argumentation, and presentation. I am not a strict judge in the sense that I will listen to any argument presented and evaluate the round based on what is run and how it is defended. I prioritize well-structured argumentation, clear clash, and logical analysis over purely technical debating. Topicality is a voting issue if sufficiently impacted and debated. I weigh inherency and solvency in relation to significance and disadvantages, considering comparative impacts. I expect clear extensions and weighing mechanisms to determine the round’s outcome. While I am open to various argument styles, I prefer debates grounded in strong analysis and well-supported evidence.

Delivery
I value clarity and organization in delivery. Speed is fine as long as it remains clear and understandable. Effective communication, strategic emphasis, and signposting improve speaker credibility. While presentation is not my primary criterion, persuasive delivery can enhance an argument’s effectiveness.

Philosophy
Principles for Contestants In evaluating contestants, I prioritize the following principles: ethical conduct, conscientiousness, consistency, and effective communication. Key Aspects of Debate Evaluation When assessing the debate, I consider several critical aspects: Evidence: The quality and relevance of the evidence presented. Delivery Speed: The pace at which points are articulated, ensuring clear and effective communication. Balance of Arguments: The evaluation of gains and disadvantages presented by both affirmative and negative positions. Optimal Solutions: Whether the plan or counterplan provides a more advantageous perspective than that of the opponent. Engagement in Debate: Maintaining an active flow of thought and dialogue throughout the debate. Overall Communication All points must be communicated thoroughly and respectfully, fostering a debate environment characterized by intellectual clash and thoughtful consideration of the topic at hand.

Delivery
Overall Communication All points must be communicated thoroughly and respectfully, fostering a debate environment characterized by intellectual clash and thoughtful consideration of the topic at hand.

Philosophy
My CX debate judging philosophy emphasizes fairness, clarity, and evidence-based argumentation. It prioritizes logical coherence, quality and relevance of evidence, and effective engagement with opponents' points. Delivery and rhetorical skills also matter. Tending to lean toward debaters who present strong, well-supported arguments and demonstrate critical thinking and adaptability.

Delivery
No spreading but still with a speech drop

Philosophy
I'm a Tab Judge. I prefer to come to debates with a fresh perspective and without any preconceived notions. I rely on the debaters to make the necessary connections and persuade me why I should vote for them. I am open to all off-case arguments, but I am selective about Ks. I don't want them to be a time suck, so if you plan on running a K, make sure it's strategically planned. I appreciate and welcome Framework arguments as they can be a great starting point for the round. One thing that I dislike is when the neg runs "T"s of little importance only to stonewall the affs plan. Instead, I would rather listen to real disadvantages or counter plans. However, if it is indeed a good "T," I expect the aff to complete each step in replying back. If you have any other specific questions just ask me!

Delivery
0

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

Delivery
I believe debate is about communication first and foremost. If your opponent cannot understand your speech/debate, neither can I. Therefore, no one can adequately flow the round. Rapid fire delivery is not appreciated and often times conflicts with clear communication.

Philosophy
I'm a policy judge.   Don't spread.  I love a road map.   Don't be snippy or disdainful of the opponent.   Using analytics backed up with cards is really important.   I want you to listen to the opponent and tell me why they are wrong and you are correct.    Don't run a K.

Delivery
Don't spread.   This is a speaking event.   If I can't understand you, how am I supposed to judge you?

Philosophy
Judge instruction is nice... don't just say it to me, tell me what to do with an argument when considering who I think won the debate. Ultimately I decide debates on spectacular and brilliant moments of thought expressed throughout. I used to be way better at going with the tech and flow of the debate, but I’m prepared and delighted to hear something new. I will do my best to follow along, and I am grateful to be here.

Delivery
Fast Debate is okay for me there’s no such thing as too fast

Philosophy
The debaters must be on topic and follow the debate time outline. A judge should follow the rubric to judge each contestant fairly and with the same criteria.

Delivery
First year, not sure

Philosophy
I prioritize the arguments presented in the round rather than my personal beliefs. I evaluate debates based on the framework established by the debaters, considering the burdens each side must meet. I assess arguments through a lens of clarity, evidence, logic, and impact comparison. I focus heavily on the line-by-line clash, rewarding teams that effectively extend and weigh their arguments while addressing their opponents' responses. I generally consider dropped arguments conceded unless convincingly mitigated later. Finally, I value strong comparative analysis.

Delivery
Clarity is essential and speed should not come at the cost of comprehension.

Philosophy
As a Stock Issues judge, my decision-making will primarily be based on whether each team successfully addresses the four key stock issues of policy debate: Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality. I expect both teams to engage with these issues in a structured, clear, and strategic manner. Inherency: I expect the affirmative team to clearly demonstrate that there is a systemic barrier or flaw preventing the status quo from solving the problem at hand. The negative team should scrutinize the existence and nature of this barrier, providing evidence or arguments that it does not exist or is not as significant as the affirmative claims. Harms: The affirmative should effectively establish that the problem they are addressing is real, urgent, and harmful. They must present strong evidence and logical reasoning showing the negative impact of the status quo. The negative team should provide counter-evidence or arguments that the harm is either overblown or non-existent. Solvency: The affirmative must show that their proposed solution will effectively solve the harms they’ve identified. This involves presenting credible evidence that their plan is feasible and that it addresses the root causes of the issue. The negative team should challenge the feasibility or effectiveness of the solution, offering evidence or counterplans where appropriate. Topicality: Both teams should adhere to the resolution in their arguments. The affirmative team must prove that their plan is consistent with the resolution, and the negative team can challenge topicality if the affirmative plan doesn’t fully fit within the scope of the resolution. I expect clear, logical explanations of how each team interprets the resolution and its application.

Delivery
I value clarity over speed. If I can't understand your argument, I can't fairly judge it. Signposting is a must—clearly indicate where you are in the round and what point you’re addressing. Take your time to explain your arguments thoroughly and organize them logically. Directly engage with your opponent’s points and use cross-examination strategically. I expect professional conduct and respect throughout.

Philosophy
Impact Calculus: Love impact calc, use it effectively, remember that to flow it I have to see Impact, Probability, & Timeframe. Stock Issues: I will vote on stock issues if you tell me to or if I am not given another voter. I don't have a problem voting on stock issues but give me more reason than me just defaulting. On Case: Love on case! It is so important to be specific! With that said, don't just run a laundry-list of arguments that don't link. Disadvantages: Please attempt to include, I don't demand it but it shows you're well-versed and it gives you a back-up plan. Theory/Topicality/Spec: I am completely fine with T arguments, just don't use it as a time-suck. Kritiques: Perfectly cool with Ks, just make sure you actually understand it and can clearly explain it, it is only effective if I understand what you are saying. Counter-Plans: I am fine with PICs and regular counterplans, whatever you choose to do, but you have to out-weigh the Aff's plan with a net-benefit.

Delivery
No spreading, speak clearly, make sure you speak loud enough, slow down on taglines, authors, and dates.

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

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

Philosophy
I am more of a traditional stock issue judge. I look forward organization of arguments supported by quality evidence. I do NOT like useless Ts or generic DAs. Das should be on case and CPs competitive. I do prefer on case impacts. Aff has the burden of proof and neg must provide clash. Use of rebuttals is important. All stock issues must be present and solvency is critical. Good luck and congrats on being here.

Delivery
Organized clearly stated args are essential. I do not like rudeness, spreading or rapid fire. I prefer roadmaps and absolutely no new args in the 2s Give voters snd acknowledge any or all drops.

Philosophy
My philosophy on CX is that anything is open for discussion. Stock issue arguments are important, but I like listening to ideas beyond the norm. Theories and Kritiks are exciting to me because they open the debate up to more than what is initially thought of. As a judge, I want to listen to arguments and ideas that make me think- not arguments and ideas that everyone has reused over and over again. As long as ideas are backed with evidence, they are acceptable to me.

Delivery
Make sure you are clear, concise, and that you flow. Road maps are appreciated.

Philosophy
I am a stock issue judge. I am okay with listening to arguments beyond the normal stock issues, but they need to connect back to a stock issue- especially if you are the Negative team.

Delivery
Please speak clear and concise. This is extremely important to me. Also, professionalism matters. Do not be snarky or rude toward the opposing team.

Philosophy
As a Policy Debate judge, my philosophy aligns primarily with the Stock Issues framework. I believe that debate should be a clear, structured, and educational activity, focusing on the core tenets of policy change: Topicality, Significance, Inherency, Solvency, and, when applicable, Disadvantages. My primary objective as a judge is to evaluate whether the affirmative team has sufficiently met its burden to justify the proposed plan. Topicality is paramount. The affirmative case must directly align with the resolution; if it does not, I am inclined to vote negative. Topicality debates should include clear standards and voters, emphasizing fairness and educational value. Significance and Inherency are equally crucial. I look for compelling evidence demonstrating that the issue is both significant and inherent to the status quo. Without a clear, compelling need for change, the case lacks the foundation for policy action. Solvency is the linchpin of the affirmative case. I expect clear evidence that the plan can reasonably solve the identified harms. Disadvantages, when well-articulated and supported by evidence, can be decisive in my decision-making process if they demonstrate significant negative outcomes. I prefer clarity and organization throughout the round. Taglines, warrants, and impacts should be clearly delineated. Weighing impacts through magnitude, probability, and timeframe strengthens the comparative analysis. Ultimately, I value logical argumentation supported by credible evidence. Debate is an educational activity that should cultivate critical thinking, effective communication, and engagement with real-world policy implications. Teams that adhere to the Stock Issues and present clear, well-supported arguments will find their efforts rewarded in my evaluations.

Delivery
Speed is not inherently problematic, but arguments must remain comprehensible.

Philosophy
Make sure to follow all UIL rules and be professional and polite. I value clear and persuasive communication and consider myself a TAB but I am used to traditional arguments and don't often vote on theory or K's. Clearly present and communicate your arguments through signposting. Speed should not get in the way of clear communication. It is important to present voters in your last speech and tell me why I should vote for you. Don't just read to me: convince me on why you should win. I do not mind if you keep your time but remember I am the official timekeeper and will determine what counts as prep.

Delivery
I don't like spreading. If you are gasping for breath and I can't understand you it defeats the purpose of your speech.

Philosophy
My judging philosophy is rooted in evaluating the debate through the lens of stock issues, clash, and the quality of case arguments presented by both sides. These elements form the backbone of my decision-making process, and I prioritize how well debaters address them, incorporating evidence and analysis to support their claims. I vote based on the stock issues. I need to see the affirmative team effectively establish a clear harm to be addressed, a mechanism to solve the issue, and that their plan is significant enough to warrant attention. The negative side must point out flaws or challenges in these areas. Both teams should argue in depth about the extent of the harms and the feasibility of solutions, using evidence that is well-explained, not simply read or cited. Without that explanation, the evidence lacks weight in the argument. Clash is also central to my evaluation. I want to see substantive engagement between the teams. I don’t want arguments to be glossed over or merely read off evidence. Both teams need to engage directly with the opposing team’s arguments. Lastly, I emphasize case arguments. Both teams must show clear reasoning and evidence that ties back to their overarching narrative. The quality of evidence matters here, but how the debater explains its relevance is just as critical.

Delivery
I prioritize substance over speed. While I appreciate clear, effective speaking, rapid-fire delivery does not impress me if it sacrifices the quality of argumentation. I value debaters who take the time to explain their points thoroughly, making connections between evidence and arguments in a way that is easy to follow and understand. I prefer arguments that are well-developed and well-articulated, not just rushed through to hit a time limit. Good speaking skills—like clarity, poise, and effective use of time—are important, but they should complement strong, well-supported arguments. I want to see debaters engage with the substance of the round, not just perform for speed’s sake. Ultimately, the depth of reasoning and the quality of evidence presented will outweigh flashy delivery.

Philosophy
I prioritize a structured and methodical approach to evaluating arguments, with a focus on the core principles of stock issues, clear organization, and effective communication. I believe that successful debaters must present their arguments in a logical, well-organized manner that aligns with the key components of the resolution. A compelling debate, in my view, is one that not only addresses the stock issues—significance, inherency, solvency, topicality, and harms—but also does so with clarity and precision.

Delivery
As long as everyone is treated with respect, I do not have set style and delivery preferences. Perform how you have been practicing (with civility please)!

Philosophy
The only thing I don't like to see in a round is when a team runs a K poorly. Please don't do it if you don't know how. I will judge mostly on stock issues but I will buy more progressive arguments. The round goes to the team who provides the most clash and has A/T attacks. If you give a poor argument but your opposition doesn't attack it, you win the point.

Delivery
I don't think spreading is educational. I can keep up, but if your opponents can't, then back off.

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

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

Philosophy
Anything you can argue I will consider in deciding who wins the round; however, I need you to tell me where the argument goes. I won't flow the information you provide if you don't tell me what you are attacking or defending. Don't just read cards at me; you need to understand what you're reading and why you're reading it.

Delivery
I need clear tag lines and authors, everything else can be as fast as you prefer.

Philosophy
Really like Stock Issues. I think the Neg should be able to defend the status quo, but I have heard a couple of good counterplans, so I am not as averse to CPs as I used to be. Not a big fan of K. Especially like for each debater to flow the round and use logic, reasoning, evidence, and persuasion to show me why their team should win and why the other team should not.

Delivery
Communication is key. I want to hear taglines, signposts, pertinent evidence (not overload), and good reasoning, logic, and persuasion. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

Philosophy
My goal is to evaluate the round fairly and based on the arguments presented. I look for teams to directly engage with each other’s arguments. The more clear and well-supported your responses are, the better. Having strong evidence is great, but how you explain it matters more. Make sure to connect your evidence to why it impacts the debate. Since I may not be familiar with debate jargon or extremely fast speaking (spreading), I prefer clear, organized arguments. If I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you. Tell me what matters most in the round and why. The team that best explains the biggest impacts will likely win my vote. Debate is about argumentation, not personal attacks. Be respectful to each other and to me as the judge.

Delivery
Clear and organized statements.

Philosophy
TLDR:My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round. Flowing - I will flow on paper, usually with my laptop only open with the ballot. If I do open a speech doc, its to read evidence during cross. I will apply arguments in the line by line where you tell me to, however, if you start spewing information without telling me where on the flow, I'll just flow the speech straight down, and some arguments will get conceded without ink next to them. IP Topic Specific: I still believe the debate is yours and I will evaluate it how you tell me to. However, its disingenuous to deprive you of my sub-conscious opinions about the topic. I have found many of my debate opinions challenged by argument availability on this years topic. On a general level I think process cps. multiplank cps, & the use of conditionality should be restricted in debate. HOWEVER, I have become a lot less adamant about that given the lack of good generic disad ground on this topic. For T debates, interps that are contextual to the topic area are preferable. If your reading a hyper restrictive interp please be ready to answer case list questions. Especially because I don't think there is an aff currently on the topic that can meet T-Penalties.

Delivery
I think you should adhere to the norms of the circuit you are debating on. While I can handle the fastest of speeds, I think the slower nature of UIL makes it more accessible, and we should keep it that way. This doesn't mean conversational but please don't go super fast.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml Tabroom Paradigm has more detail. I’m comfortable with anything. Go as fast as you want. I’ll clear you if it’s incomprehensible.

Delivery
Go as fast as you want. Clarity matters. I’ll clear you once and if you still aren’t clear I’ll stop flowing (pretty obviously).

Philosophy
I am a tabula rasa judge who will allow the debaters to determine how I should evaluate the round. It is important for the debaters to explain to me how I should evaluate the round. I do my best to keep an accurate flow, and I make my decision for each round by how the debaters evaluate the round based on the flow.

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

Philosophy
I am opposed to spreading. I especially value clear linkage if you're going to do a chain of impacts, I want competitors to consider how what they're saying actually connects to each other rather than just reading cards. I want a clean, fair debate. I do believe debate is about education rather than just a game.

Delivery
I am mostly a speech judge so I prefer a clear and crisp delivery if possible. I value communication skills a lot even if I feel resolution of substantive issues is more important. Please stand up when speaking unless you have a disability that prevents that. Please don't be rude.

Philosophy
I believe this event is designed for students to design federal policies that will solve a problem, addressing not only the issues solved by the aff, but efficiently responding to the problems triggered by the policy. I want to see the aff case debated as a whole without the neg isolating just one part of the case and dropping other aspects. I love a good line by line and impact calculus.

Delivery
I'm a flow judge...I can handle speed, but please be understandable. Slow down on tag lines, author and date. If you see me put down my pen, know that you are reading too quickly and I am no longer flowing. I love to see your arguments impacted out. Tell me where to put things on the flow.

Philosophy
I value an organized debate where both teams give line-by-line analysis of their arguments and responses. Debate is about effective communication---not who can read the fastest, present the most evidence, or make their opponents feel the most inferior. Part of being a good communicator is making people WANT to listen to you. Do this. Be respectful.

Delivery
I am okay with reasonable speed but am a strict follower of UIL guidelines, so the speed must be easily understood by anyone who may listen. This means spreading is out. In UIL, debaters typically stand in a neutral location to deliver their speeches and conduct cross-examination. I like to see this in rounds.

Philosophy
My judging philosophy is based on if the debater made and defended a logical arguement that is based upon validated research, and if they maintain the same argument throughout the debate.

Delivery
I prefer a clear and concise delivery where the speakers point is clearly stated and easy to understand.

Philosophy
Clarity of speech and clash are essential.

Delivery
Clear, concise speech

Philosophy
While I don't think stock issues are everything in a CX Debate round, I do try to keep them in mind for the sake of fairness. As a judge, I simply ask that there is some clash if possible. I personally do not like debates where it feels like the two sides are speaking past each other without addressing the other's arguments. The Affirmative should make the effort to at least address every criticism the Negative makes, and if the Affirmative fails to do so, the Negative should take advantage of this. If the Affirmative fails to address the Negative's claims, I'm more inclined to flow it to the latter. For me, this sort of back and forth between the Aff. and the Neg. is the lifeblood of CX Debate.

Delivery
I would prefer if the participants do not spread; at the very least, they should speak clearly, loudly, and at a relatively normal speed when explaining their evidence cards.

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

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

Philosophy
Policy maker- stock issues.. rarely vote for off case theory or only T. If I say clear please slow down I can’t understand. My email for chain is macleodm@friscoisd.org

Delivery
200 wpm

Philosophy
I will vote off ANYTHING you want as long as it’s not spread. The flow is my favorite tool to decide a round. I am often sad when debaters don’t weigh appropriately and I have to intervene. I will usually default neg if the round is impossible to evaluate unless instructed otherwise. You can run absolutely anything and I will vote off it if it is winning on the flow. This is your game. You should be able to defend your interpretation of the rules of the game. It goes without saying “anything” is not inclusionary of violent, sexist or any other offensive argumentation. My main background is in speech, public forum and congress so I automatically appreciate the more in-depth argumentation found in policy.

Delivery
I will not follow your spreading. Too often I judge and say no spreading and get spread on anyways, I will say clear and if you do not slow by that point you will be dropped with 20s. I find myself giving more 30’s nowadays if the round is basically at minimum-level competent, because truly I think most debaters I judge deserve to break.

Philosophy
As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly.

Delivery
All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand.

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

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

Philosophy
I am old so I guess many would say I am "traditional". Aff: Prove a need for a plan, present a plan, prove you solve and give me some good advantages. Neg: You can do whatever you want. I am open to it all but I will say I am not a big fan of K's. If you run them or any real in depth philosophy you had better slow down a lot and explain it to me. I will buy a non-topical CP but you need to offer some good advantages off of it. T: Both sides need to run proper T standards/answers when T is in the round. I don't vote on T often unless it is dropped or mishandled. I am not discouraging you from running it. Just saying.... Weigh issues for me. Tell me why you are winning. Answering an argument doesn't = winning it. Why are you winning it. Point out dropped arguments and impact them.

Delivery
Look, I am older now and I just can't flow speed like I did when I was young. Speed then was probably much slower than speed is now. Be considerate of that. Up tempo delivery? Yes. A spew down....nope. Always slow down on tags and transitions. Stay organized.

Philosophy
I am very tab. I would much rather adapt to you than you try to adapt to me. Do what you do best.

Delivery
Just be clear and professional.

Philosophy
I am a Tabs judge, meaning I go into each round with a blank slate mindset and require the debaters to explain why a given argument should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. I am comfortable with any style of argumentation, but I do expect some logical analysis.

Delivery
At the end of the day, debate is a speech event. Therefore, you must speak well and be able to be understood at all times.

Philosophy
I am primarily a policy coach/judge, but do have experience with LD and PF. I have been judging for more than 15 years and have judged on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits. In CX, I consider myself to be a policymaker judge, but what it comes down to is that the debater that convinces me is the debater that is going to get my vote. This means that I am looking for strong evidence as well as good analysis. I am looking for arguments that make sense. I am looking for cases that not only prove their own points but counter the opponent's points, as well. I strive to start the round with no preconceived notions. I want to see strong framework and strong impact calcs. Do not make the mistake of presenting your case without arguing your opponent's. Yes, I am repeating that statement. It bears repeating. Speed is ok, but at the end of the day, I still like to hear good speaking. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then your speaking habits are not showcasing what you should be doing. I would rather hear fewer quality arguments than to have so much crammed into your time that I am unable to see clearly how it all works together.

Delivery
Speed is ok, but at the end of the day, I still like to hear good speaking. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then your speaking habits are not showcasing what you should be doing. I would rather hear fewer quality arguments than to have so much crammed into your time that I am unable to see clearly how it all works together.

Philosophy
I am primarily a stock judge and believe focus on the stocks lends the structure for coherent debate. This does not mean that I am not looking for deeper analysis in fact, surface level speeches are liable to get you voted down. In general, if you attempt to run an argument and it's missing key parts or was run incorrectly, I will not consider it a voting issue. This means that CPs need to be mutually exclusive and have a clear net benefit, DAs need to be unique, linked, and impactful, Ts need to have definition, violation, etc,. I do not mind new in the 2 and will account for it in the 1AR. I don't like voting on Ks. If the round lacks structure or clash, I will vote based on ground gain.

Delivery
If reading fast means I can't understand you, then I'm not flowing it. Prioritize coherence.

Philosophy
Although I tend to be a tabula rasa judge and approach every round with an open mind, I want to hear specific and clear warrants for every claim, which means if you utilize spreading, I must understand what you are speaking, communicating effectively is important. I also want to see the debaters work on developing their skills to the point that they are fundamental game-players. This type of game-play develops over a long period of time and should not be used to trick or abuse either the opponent or the debate itself. It should be a way of expertly handling the material and the components of the debate to the advantage of the team. This can only be accomplished by knowing well the fundamentals of policy debate through study and practice and engagement in every round.

Delivery
I like ideas to presented in a clear and concise fashion, I believe that debate is also a speaking competition as well as a competition on who presents the best policy.

Philosophy
Although I tend to be a tabula rasa judge and approach every round with an open mind, I want to hear specific and clear warrants for every claim, which means if you utilize spreading, I must understand what you are speaking, communicating effectively is important. I also want to see the debaters work on developing their skills to the point that they are fundamental game-players. This type of game-play develops over a long period of time and should not be used to trick or abuse either the opponent or the debate itself. It should be a way of expertly handling the material and the components of the debate to the advantage of the team. This can only be accomplished by knowing well the fundamentals of policy debate through study and practice and engagement in every round.

Delivery
I tend to appreciate the effective communication element of the debate process and like to see how effectively the competitors deliver policy and how well they are able to reveal sources to back up policy ideas.

Philosophy
I think my job as a judge is to weigh the resolution as a policy making decision. I am comfortable evaluating any type of argumentation that you wish to present. I typically write my ballot from a tech over truth perspective. I will read your evidence if I needed and expect to find that what you are claiming is founded in the evidence that you provide me. I will not vote for affirmative teams that do not present a viable 1ac. I find that given the unlimited prep time and freedom of choice the affirmative team should be held to a burden of providing a viable mechanism for solving and or resolving the internal links inside the 1AC. Things to avoid in front of me. I have been successfully persuaded that the ballot is a measure of anything other than wins or losses. In my experience teams that ask me to use the ballot for anything other than a measure of wins or losses often come off as manipulative and are attempting to co opt the ballot for their favor. Any gamesmanship that attempts to deceive and hide arguments evidence or truth in round will have me looking for reasons to vote against you. Debate with integrity and debate with confidence. Things to prioritize in front of me. I enjoy T debates, especially when we get into go standards application and really nuanced applications of the topic wording to the subject matter. I think offense wins rounds. I think impact weighing is very persuasive (when done correctly, no your probability is not 100% and your Magnitude is the biggest and your timeframe is now. This is not impact weighing, this selling used cars). Counter plans that solve the aff. I believe that terminal solvency exists (not for every aff in every instance) and will vote on it.

Delivery
Persuade me. Speed is a skill. I think the best analogy is with running. Form over power, if you run so fast you trip you will not be competitive to win the race. We all do appreciate someone who runs fast with good form though. Just help me understand your arguments.

Philosophy
email: laynegmorris05@gmail.com -- add me to the file share -- please send speeches -- CX/Policy: Games Judge - Debate is a game; use whatever ON OR OFF positions that allow you and your opponents to LEARN and have *FUN*. - No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote ---- Tech>Truth - If all else fails and at the end of the debate everything cancels out I vote on presumption - presumption falls neg but if the negative runs a counter advocacy (CP,K) --- presumption flips (keep that in mind negative teams) - when in K debates depending on the literature we are discussing let's try and be truthful(for proper education on touchy structural topics) but I'm still tech when it comes to judging the round. - speed = idc , just make sure you're intelligible if i dont have the doc, also make sure if I'm on a panel to check the other judges' prefs on speed if other judges don't like it, it's probably in your best interest to talk slow, you'll get my vote if your argumentation is superior.

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

Philosophy
Cross Examination Debate allows a person to use critical thinking skills, analogies, persuasion, and be a problem solver. Respect for others is vital. The ability to listen to others is developed and necessary. Organizational skills using signposts help a debater be a successful communicator. Researching evidence to support cases is a lifelong skill. Restating points and summarizing evidence is effective. Identifying advantages and disadvantages to specific plans and solutions show higher order thinking.

Delivery
Confident, Persuasive delivery is important. Speed is acceptable if pace allows judge to take a flow. Articulation must be understandable.

Philosophy
Congratulations on competing at the UIL State Tournament, good luck! I typically begin the debate as a policymaker trying to determine what is the best (this can mean a lot of things, avoiding the risk of existential impact or minimizing structural violence etc.) policy choice at the end of the debate. If you want me to view the debate differently then you need to establish how I should evaluate the round and why evaluating the round that way is more important/better than policymaking or whatever view the other team is advocating for. I will vote on Topicality. I have voted on competing interpretations/more limiting interp. is better and I have voted on reasonability/a few more cases is better than overlimiting an already small topic. I do think that an unlimited topic is too much in terms of research/preparation, and I also think that 1 to 3 cases is far too limited for a topic to be debated for an entire season. I like to hear all kinds of counterplans (are process counterplans, counterplans?), but you must be prepared to defend them theoretically. I think infinite conditionality is not so good for debate, and I can be persuaded that being able to run only one counterplan may not be fair/best for the negative. I do think there is a difference between conditionality and dispositionality. I like to hear disadvantages which need to be unique. If the negative proves that the affirmative does something that is currently happening in the status quo, then that is likely not a reason to vote negative. Please don't just make a claim without explaining why that claim is true. You need to elucidate warrants/reasons to substantiate your arguments. I try to let the arguments in the round dictate my ballot. If you are light on warrants and expecting me to use my debate knowledge to fill in the warranting for your arguments (theory in particular), I will do my best not to do that. If your time choices & time allocation cause you to under-warrant some of your arguments, then that is a strategic mistake/miscalculation. I will keep a detailed flow and what is on my flow will be the basis of my decision. If you have any questions, please ask them. Good Luck!

Delivery
If you want to speak fast, then I expect to hear every single word clearly including all the evidence clearly. I really do not see a reason for you to go top speed, if a team forces you to go top speed, then I will take that into account. If you are unclear, I will not read or evaluate the evidence you read unclearly and/or evaluate the arguments I couldn’t discern when you were not clear. I will say clearer once or twice and then I will likely look annoyed and stop flowing if the lack of clarity continues. If we get past two clearers, you can expect your speaker points to be low.

Philosophy
I am Tab, the goal of the round is access my ballot. This is done primarily by creating clear voting issues and swaying my ballot your direction. If the T is a priori, state that and tell me why. If I should prefer non-terminal impacts, say that and give voters as to why I should. Any other substantial questions on specifics are welcome in round. Otherwise, I have a Tabroom judging paradigm that goes further in depth under my name.

Delivery
Loud and clear in taglines, different vocal inflections for clarity. No problem with speed as long as the taglines are clear. Please no obvious aggressions toward immutable characteristics.

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

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

Philosophy
I am open to voters. Clash is important in a round. The quality and recency of evidence is important.

Delivery
Communication is important because this is a speech contest. Spreading is abusive.

Philosophy
I personally love to highlight a great CX questioning.

Delivery
Just speak clearly; slow down if needed be respectful

Philosophy
Tab for the most part, most experience is with K debates - dont be ableist, racist, sexist or your points will suffer. Debate is a game sure but also its a space for in depth discussion over conflicting ideals which means the "game" can look a lot of ways. See my tabroom profile for full paradigm or just ask questions before round. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=182961

Delivery
Fine with spreading, but I don't "clear" so do so at the risk of your own speaks

Philosophy
- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." This is an awful practice. Don't do it. - Tech > Truth - Line by line > Overviews but the best debaters will combine both.I'm not a good judge for debaters that don't engage in the line by line. - Asking for a marked doc comes from your prep if it wasn't egregious, but their prep if it was (i.e they marked 15 cards without saying what words they marked it at). Please get better at flowing. Free game: You should be flowing by ear and not off the doc and the doc should be used for reference and evidence validation. - Judge instruction GOOD. REALLY GOOD. - I will evaluate the debate objective but assume I know very little about ANYTHING. It is your obligation to extend and explain your position. Not my job to explain it for you. - I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND JUSTIFY* why. - If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I know little about ANYTHING. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links. - I'm not flowing of the doc. I only even glance at the document in 2/100 debate. Doc flowing has destroyed this activity incentivizing ATROCIOUS clarity and rhetorical practices and bad flowing skills for debaters. It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it Clarity is axiomatic. - PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. You folks are UNFLOWABLE - Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=37382

Delivery
Go as fast as you need to just be clear and slow down on tags/analytics/blocks https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=37382

Philosophy
As a judge I look for meaningful clash. Debate is a elevated level of both communication and critical thinking applied through logic and persuasion. NO T IN THE 2NC! First speech only. I will judge any argument -- not opposed to K, Aff K, theory etc. I have awarded wins on each. However, my feelings about K/Aff K are that this type of argument is basically a protest against the event or the alleged inherent bias or unfairness of the topic/framers/system or other foundational aspect of Policy Debate. If you are refusing to engage on the topic of the round, I must hear a clear alternative to the specific failures exposed by the K/K Aff, and you must give voters. Clash is all important, but civility is paramount to applying your arguments to the round. Ad Hominem attacks will cost speaker points, even if they are somehow tied to an inherent bias argument. There are plenty of ways to question the fairness or bias of something without somehow crafting your CX opponent into the evil embodiment of such a bias. Rapid delivery is tolerated insofar as I can keep up. If I stop typing and disengage from the ballot, you are going too fast. This relates back to my position that Debate is a communication event, it is not an audition to become the voice that reads fine print at the end of a Pharmaceutical or Car finance commercial. I like CP, Stock Issues, DA, On Case, and Framework arguments equally. It is up to you to teach me why your arguments are superior to your opponents and how your positions have withstood any attacks from your opponents. A great impact Calc is a way to take me over to your side...I have changed my mind many times in judging a round when I am presented with an effective final rebuttal like this. Have fun, be respectful, and great job for working this hard to get to this meet. I look forward to judging each team I will meet.

Delivery
I don't mind rapid delivery, but I should be able to decipher each word through my EARS! In no way should your vocal delivery be a mushy slip & slide meant to direct me to read your evidence rather than understand your words.

Philosophy
I will go down the flow of debate and take drops into consideration- but only if they are pointed out. Perfectly fine with negation splitting the block- however, once into rebuttals all arguments made should be kept on the flow regardless of splitting the block with your partner- if affirmative is expected to refute and defend everything, I will hold the negative to the same standard.

Delivery
A clear and concise roadmap with signposting throughout speech. I will not guess and arguments so you need to make them clear. Be respectful or your speaker points will suffer.

Philosophy
Be clear in your argumentation. I expect debaters to provide tough analysis of evidence presented in the round and may miss it if you choose to spread. I prefer you do not spread. I judge on stock issues including Neg DA’s, and debaters must prove which stock issues are present or not. As for cards, I want to hear an explanation of why one card outweighs the opposing team. Don’t just say “cross apply” or “there is no link”. I want to hear the argumentation even if you are repeating yourself. The negative side has the burden of clash, and in the event that the negative fails to provide clash to the affirmative case, I will default affirmative. I am not a fan of Kritiks nor counterplans.

Delivery
In debate, I prefer clear and concise arguments that are well-structured and easy to follow. Speakers should prioritize clarity over speed, ensuring that their points are well-articulated and logically sound. I value debaters who present their cases confidently and maintain a poised demeanor throughout the round. Strong delivery includes effective pacing, controlled tone, and strategic emphasis on key arguments. Avoid excessive jargon and overly complex phrasing. Organization is key—arguments should be clearly tagged and extended logically. Ultimately, I appreciate debaters who balance assertiveness with professionalism, making their arguments compelling while maintaining respect for their opponents.

Philosophy
I prefer quality of arguments over quantity, however I will note if something is dropped. I am open to hearing anything, but I will vote on topicality if dropped or answered inadequately. I like to see good clash and game play! I am also fine with speed as long as I can still understand you! Not a fan of Ks.

Delivery
I prefer clear delivery! I am good with speed as long as your speech is understandable.

Philosophy
Although I am primarily a policymaker judge, I still feel that the stock issues are an important part of policy debate. I prefer affirmative plans that are realistic, calculated, and substantial. I expect affirmative teams to know their plans inside and out, and they should be able to defend the stock issues of their plans against any on-case attacks. When it comes to off-case, show me how the significance or advantages of your plans outweigh the negatives’ impacts. Don't forget to leave time for a good round summary and impact calculation. In regards to the negative team, I love good counterplans and disadvantages; however, I would rather debaters refrain from using super generic CPs and DAs. Those tend to be just a waste of time and usually end up getting kicked anyways. I also want solid on-case argumentation and lots direct clash. I will evaluate/vote any type of argument, including topicality and kritiks, IF they are ran correctly and debaters take the time to fully explain them and remember to extend them throughout the debate.

Delivery
Debating the effectiveness of the affirmative's proposed plan is the primary objective of a CX debate. However, this can only be accomplished if both teams (and the judge) are able to clearly understand all the arguments. To this end, it is imperative that debaters speak clearly and audibly. Sacrificing enunciation and clarity for speed is never wise. Sign posting and road maps are also important. Additionally, I believe that gesturing and sarcasm should be kept to a minimum.

Philosophy
I am a current law student with a background in high school cross-examination debate. I am a policy-maker judge, but I default stock issues if the off-case debate becomes a wash. Your case must be feasible from the outset via the stock issues, but beyond that, I enjoy debates with a lot of clash over the pros and cons of implementing the case as a policy and/or other competing policies (like a CP). I am willing to listen to theory arguments, but it must have all the key components and framework. I do love a well-written topicality argument; it can definitely be a voting issue. Spreading is fine (as long as breathing is well managed), but it is important to remember the goal of debate is education through communication. If you are too fast, I will stop flowing (you will see/hear me set my pen down). If it is not on my flow, then it doesn't factor in my decision-making. Overall, I hope teams have an engaged debate with lots of clash and collapsing the arguments to the key voting issues with an impact calculus.

Delivery
Spreading is fine (as long as breathing is well managed), but it is important to remember the goal of debate is education through communication. If you are too fast, I will stop flowing (you will see/hear me set my pen down). If it is not on my flow, then it doesn't factor in my decision-making.

Philosophy
Generally a policy maker. If the aff reminds me I am a policymaker,then rounds were there is no negative offense they are more likely to win. If they argue like every argument matters and they have to win them, I sometimes change to that idea. It is confusing to me, but honestly, if my outlook on what debate is supposed to isn't what the round is, saying no offense by neg seems unfair if the aff doesnt point it out. I don't care what you run if you understand what you are running.It doesnt mean you are going to win but sure. Debate is about education and access. I take both of those very seriously. Have fun and weigh arguments, read dates with your evidence always, and enjoy the round

Delivery
You have your own style. My delivery preference is clarity. Is that clear? If you are unclear and it is because you cannot speak clearly, I will usually pick that up. It will not be on my ballot.

Philosophy
I flow and will judge what is said in the round and nothing else. Speaker points and argumentation are different and the team with the best arguments will win - even if they have lower speaker points.

Delivery
I prefer point by point refutation with clear links to arguments. Confidence is important in voice and body language and persuasiveness and passion is always valued. I do not care how fast a speaker speaks if they have something to say and still speak with persuasion. Persuasion is more important that amount of evidence read.

Philosophy
I consider myself a stock issues judge, however I am willing to vote on any argument as long as it is well run and supported. I value clear arguments. While I don’t mind spreading I strongly recommend slower signposts to ensure the key points are fully understood.

Delivery
I have no preferences as long as all competitors maintain a some level of respect for their opponent.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge. The stock issues are paramount to the win for aff. Impacts are heavy on importance. Aff has the burden of proof.

Delivery
No spreading. If I can understand you it is fine. Don't be rude to your opponent and don't expect me not to run prep if you are taking an unrealistic amount of time to "flash" your case to the opponent.

Philosophy
The most important factor is that no arguments are dropped throughout the round. Arguments should be addressed more than once. I do not prefer Ks or counterplans. Topicality should only be run if it is glaringly obvious. Advantages/disadvantages will be weighed the most.

Delivery
Acknowledging the judge is very important. Speak at an appropriate level with clear enunciation. Speak at a speed in which we can all understand.

Philosophy
As a judge, my role is to evaluate the round based on the arguments presented by both teams, prioritizing sound logic, strong evidence, and clear impacts. I value well-structured arguments, strategic clash, and effective weighing of issues. I appreciate clear signposting, organization, and efficient use of time. I do not like spreading; if I cannot follow or flow an argument due to lack of clarity, it will not count in my evaluation. Topicality, disadvantages, and counterplans are all fair game, but they must be well-explained and directly impacted in the round. Theory arguments should be warranted and not frivolous. If there is a debate over framework, I will evaluate it based on the arguments made in round. I am not a fan of kritiks. Ultimately, my decision will be based on who best upholds their burden of proof and provides the most persuasive and well-supported case. The team that most effectively impacts their arguments and controls the narrative of the round will earn my ballot.

Delivery
I value clarity, organization, and well-structured arguments over speed. While I can handle some speed, I prioritize comprehension and well-supported reasoning. Debaters should focus on making their arguments accessible, extending key points, and weighing impacts effectively. I appreciate good evidence comparison and clear crystallization in later speeches. Persuasion, strategic decision-making, and strong warranting of arguments will be rewarded.

Philosophy
[CX] TLDR I operate on an offense-defense paradigm. Make my life easy please and keep a clear flow and speech. Messy debates = Tech>> Depth>Breadth CX is binding Send me evidence you’ve flagged Have fun! Don't be mean spirited or bigoted. You can generally do what you want in round- these are just some of my thoughts on certain practices and dynamics within arguments. K I love K debates. Don't assume I'm familiar with your literature. I have a high standard for solvency and links on Ks. It'll be hard to convince me on a nebulous intangible alt or a link to the entirety of the squo given someone calls you out on it. I also hold aff to a higher standard of response than just screaming "pragmatism." PIKs are annoying and border on abusive T Idc, don't forget about them. Keep the clash alive or just kick out of it. DA's Start the framing and impact calc early in the debate. Engaging purposefully with every piece of the argument here is a lot more fun to listen to than just skating by each other analytically. Evidentiary indict debate is my fav- debate the text of the evidence, not just the tags. CPs Unwarranted Condo final speeches are boring. Do them if needed, of course. Be reasonable in your decision to run it. A 1nc that's 70% counterplans is also annoying. Do ur thing though

Delivery
Don’t be mean and signpost your arguments.

Philosophy
I like off-time road maps and summaries. Newer dates are better than older dates and legal sources are preferred. You need to tell me that your cards are newer and better sources than your opponent. Aff - I do not like K's for the aff. Neg - I am fine with new arg. in the 2N but do not take advantage of it and the aff can combat it during the 1AR so they can fight it. Neg - if you are splitting the neg block you have to tell me at the beginning of the 2N and the 1NR should only be on-case arguments. Rebuttals - no new arguments and extend on your case and tell me how the flow of the round went...do not just reread cards but read the tag and date from before and add more cards to support your case if time allows. CP's, DAs, and K's are fine just make sure you have everything needed to link and support the arg. T's are usually washes and I usually do not vote on T alone if at all. Make sure and hit everything each speech or it is a drop and you lose that arg. I like impact calcs to show why your case should win.

Delivery
Make sure and read the taglines with author and date at a good pace but get as much information in as you can. I do not like spreading so make sure I can understand what you are point.

Philosophy
Tabroom Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/user/judge/paradigm.mhtml

Delivery
No style preferences. If you spread fast, I can flow it as long as you're clear. If you want to incorporate music, poetry, or other artistic elements I will flow those as well.

Philosophy
The structure of an argument is important. Link, Brink, Impact, Harms, Inherency, Plan, Solvency, Advantages, Disadvantages, Topicality, K, and many others I'm sure I have missed while writing this are all voters for me. While I'm a tabula rosa judge, not all arguments are created equal, and not all arguments in the round result in a win for one side or the other. Sometimes, an argument in the round is not persuasive, logical, or supported - in that case, the argument results in a no-decision, and neither side wins that argument. I am fine with all types of speaking speeds. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count. I do not flow CX time. Time is the most critical resource in a round - use it wisely. The only thing more beautiful in this world than a properly executed Neg Block is a well-refuted first affirmative rebuttal. If you are rude or disrespectful to the opposition in any form or fashion, you will lose the round. I've voted down highly decorated varsity speakers who decimated novices on the sheer grounds they were outstandingly rude in the round during their speaking time and CX time.

Delivery
i have been doing this since 1994, all speed is fine.

Philosophy
POLICY MAKER JUDGE; PREFER END OF WORLD SCENARIOS TO ME THE WINNING TEAM IS ONE THAT SPEAKS CLEARLY, CLEARLY STATES A ROADMAP UPFRONT, GIVES CLEAR SIGN POINTING THROUGHOUT AND POINTS OUT OPPONENTS DROPS,THERE IS AN IMMEDIACY TO REAL WORLD PROBLEMS AND THE RESOLUTION. PLEASE PROVIDE VOTERS AND IMPACT CALCULUS.

Delivery
TALK AS FAST AS YOU WANT, BUT IF SPREADING PROVIDE ME A COPY OF THE EVIDENCE SO I CAN FOLLOW ALONG - OTHERWISE NO GUARANTEES. CLARITY IS THE KEY. WATCH ME FOR QUES, IF I CAN HEAR YOU OR UNDERSTAND YOU, THEN I CAN'T FLOW YOU.

Philosophy
I am a policy maker judge. I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (Anna.rhea@kempisd.org), but I prefer Speechdrop. I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I am probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Use rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must. I DO NOT vote on CX time. That is for you to get an advantage on your opponent through inquiry. Follow through with your argument so that the flow can clearly define what arguments are valued most (cover what is winning; don't try to take on everything if you cannot response thoroughly).

Delivery
Professionalism over chauvinism. I have no problem with speed, but in a panel, err on the side of quality over quantity.

Philosophy
Full: https://www.tabroom.com/user/judge/paradigm.mhtml TL;DR: At the end of a round, the winner should be determined by answering the question of "who was the better debater/team?". What goes into determining who the better team was and who made the better arguments in the round largely depends on the pace of the round itself: The only bad arguments are ones that have no consistent internal logic and/or are easily refuted The only good arguments are ones that are internally consistent and manage to stand up in rebuttals. Failure to follow the rules outlined in the CX debate handbook is the only possible thing you can do to guarantee a loss in a round that I am judging. No prompting, no lying, no being inconsiderate or unprofessional in my round. Please note that being aggressive is not the same thing a being rude or unprofessional, this is an event where only one team can be right, and at the end of the day you do what you must do to win.

Delivery
At this point, Speed is almost ubiquitous in CX debate. I will never down a team for deciding to spread. I do ask that if you intend on spreading, you need to slow down to signpost the titles of contentions, subpoints, card titles, and section headers. Additionally, I prefer the rebuttal portion of the round to be considerably more analytics heavy. Blitzing your opponent with new cards in the 1R doesn't make you good at debate, I want to hear arguments.

Philosophy
I try to be as close to tabula rasa as possible - but of course there are some things you cannot unlearn - basic knowledge, like water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Though I shoot for tabs, I very much appreciate teams that address stock issues and make the focus of debate education and communication, not a competition of who can read the most cards in the allotted time.

Delivery
Give me quality cards AND quality analysis. I want to know what YOU think and how your cards apply to the other team's arguments. I am fine with "spreading" so long as it is done well and does not take away from the communication or educational value of the debate. Organized cases are something that makes me smile!

Philosophy
I believe that first and foremost all debate should be based on communication. To that end be sure that you do not utilize forms of debate which leave the audience more bewildered than informed. When it comes to speed, don' get a ticket. But, I will hang with you until about 350 words per minute. Exceeding that barrier will leave me with the impression that you are yet another lost narcissist with dreams of sugar TOC fairies dancing through your head. Style, I consider myself a policymaker, although my wife seldom agrees. In argumentation, I like most arguments, however, I hate K debate when it turns totally ridiculous, i.e. time machines, comfort (keep your clothes on), pinkwashing, etc, I like theory arguments to be justified and tied to other arguments in the round that warrant their use. Humor is a plus when used appropriately. I won't ask you for your evidence after the round (Unless one of you is lying, then the liar loses). Speak like your life depends on it. In everything, ...decorum! In the end, I want to think, wow he/she would make a great president, not argh, ...another cute dog catcher. Represent the sport well. Let the games begin.

Delivery
Communication is most important. This is UIL, you should keep your rate under 300 words per minute and probably slower than that unless you are a master enunciator. Be professional. Show decorum. Provide a roadmap that you plan to follow and sign post well.

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

Delivery
Speed: Slow down on tags and authors.

Philosophy
I evaluate debates based on the strength of arguments, evidence, and rebuttal presented by both teams. My philosophy prioritizes clarity, coherence, and persuasive power in argumentation. Stock Issues I expect the Affirmative team to clearly demonstrate: 1. Significance: The problem addressed by the plan must be substantial and warrant attention. 2. Inherency: The plan must address a problem inherent to the current system or policy. 3. Solvency: The plan must provide a clear and feasible solution to the problem. 4. Topicality: The plan must fall within the designated topic and adhere to its parameters. The Negative team should challenge the Affirmative on these stock issues, providing evidence and arguments to undermine the plan's validity. Disadvantages, Kritiques, and Counterplans I evaluate Disadvantages (DA), Kritiques (K), and Counterplans (CP) based on their: 1. Uniqueness: DAs, Ks, and CPs must be unique to the Affirmative plan. 2. Link: DAs, Ks, and CPs must have a clear link to the Affirmative plan. 3. Impact: DAs, Ks, and CPs must have a significant impact, outweighing the benefits of the Affirmative plan. Evidence and Argumentation I prioritize evidence-based arguments and evaluate the quality of evidence presented. Arguments should be clear, concise, and well-organized. Rebuttal and Refutation Effective rebuttal and refutation are crucial in CX debate. I expect teams to address their opponent's arguments directly and persuasively. Time Management and Speaking Skills Teams should manage their speaking time effectively, making the most of their allotted time. Clear and confident delivery of arguments is essential. Decision-Making When deciding the outcome of a debate, I consider the strength of arguments, evidence, and rebuttal presented by both teams. The team that presents the most compelling arguments and effectively refutes their opponent's claims will prevail.

Delivery
I am fine with speed but if your diction suffers I will not flow the round.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge, which means that I want to hear those in the debate. Plan text is also important. In order for me to flow a topicality argument, it must be properly run. The same is true for disadvantages and counterplans. I will not vote on a Kritik. Debate should have clear arguments supported by evidence.

Delivery
If I can't understand what you are saying, then it won't hit my flow. Slow down for anything that you want to make sure hits my flow. Roadmaps are encouraged.

Philosophy
I am a traditional stock issues judge. I believe the Affirmative has the burden of proof and the negative has the burden of clash. Topicality- Please make sure if you run "T", that you provide standards and counter definition in 1nc shell. Explain to me why the AFF gets the violation. Counter plans- I don't mind them, but don't run it as a time suck. I will not be happy if you are kicking out of it in the rebuttals. Kritiks- Not a fan. Disads- Same as CP's, don't run as time suck. Other: 1. Above all, Be Kind. 2. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow and where you are placing arguments. If you don't tell me it may not get written down. 3. Please sign post. 1AC, I know you want to make it difficult for Neg team, but you may be making it difficult for me too.

Delivery
I do not like speed. This is a communication event and it is your job to communicate and persuade for all to understand.

Philosophy
My judging philosophy is pure tabula Rasa. I prefer to judge on rounds where the debaters not only tell me why their argument is winning, but also why it is important to the debate.

Delivery
I will RFD on any argument, I'm good with T, theory, CP's, K's, or anything else. I do not mind speed as long as you share the speech doc with your opponent and the judge. I prefer rebuttals to be round specific and not just pre-written blocks. I also like to see lots of clash in round. Make sure to be nice in CX as well, if there's aggression there's less education. I don't like new args in the 2NC.

Philosophy
My philosophy in evaluating CX rounds is stock issues oriented although I love to see well ran progressive argumentation as well. Emphasis on well ran. I am a very laid-back judge and will flow any argument that has validity. I’m not particular on what type of argumentation is used just as long as it is used well.

Delivery
I enjoy a well spoken and concise delivery. I do not enjoy debates in which teams will present a large quantity of arguments, yet not actually understand them because they are focused on overwhelming their opponent and not the quality of the argument. This all goes to say that I am open to any argument and to any style so long as the team can articulate their argument well.

Philosophy
I'm a policy judge, meaning I believe the affirmative defends the resolution with their plan while the neg must defend the status quo with their attacks. If the affirmative plan shows to be even marginally better than the status quo I will vote affirmative. Therefore, the negative should use on and off case attacks to show me why the affirmative plan will be WORSE than the status quo. I weigh disadvantages, case attacks, and counterplans the heaviest. I only vote on topicality if the negative clearly explains the violation of the aff and standards/voters to support that, and I very much dislike Kritiks, so if you run one you'll need to explain the literature very clearly to me and show why it's a voting issue.

Delivery
You can talk fast, but don't do it at the expense of being articulate. Annunciate your taglines for me and slow down if you're saying something that you really want to hammer hard.

Philosophy
I prioritize stock issues and recognize the affirmative's burden of proof. While evidence is crucial, a well-reasoned, real-world argument from the negative can still win my vote if left unanswered. I would much rather hear well-reasoned arguments from the negative directly addressing the affirmative position over an onslaught of generic disadvantages and topicality arguments. DA's are welcome so long as they are clearly signposted and linked to the affirmative plan. I am not a fan of kritiks. Debate should be an active exchange where both sides engage with each other’s points, not just recite evidence. There must be meaningful clash. Debaters should listen, respond, and incorporate their own analysis to show a true understanding of the material. Reading cards isn’t enough; engagement and critical thinking are essential throughout the round. Sign-post! I am flowing your arguments, so please tell me where to place them on my flow.

Delivery
Communication is a crucial. Debaters should utilize both verbal and nonverbal skills. Persuasion suffers when a speech is difficult to understand due to speed, monotone delivery, or poor volume control. Slow down to ensure each argument is clearly articulated. A few well-developed arguments will always outweigh a barrage of under-analyzed points delivered without pauses for clarity and impact. Regarding nonverbal communication, always stand while speaking and direct your attention to the judge, not your opponent. Lastly, be kind and respectful to one another.

Philosophy
This is a communication event. I'm an old-time stock issue judge.

Delivery
Speech kills!!

Philosophy
I strive to be a TAB judge and let debaters frame the round with the arguments that they do best; however, I coach and think like a traditional stock issues judge. I am open to hearing any argument but most often vote on stocks. I value that debaters are strong communicators and are professional and respectful to each other while still maintaining confidence in their arguments. Feel free to attack ideas, but not people. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. Also, if your roadmap turns into a speech (more than 15 seconds) it will be timed. This is to maintain fairness for both teams and ensure everyone receives the same amount of time. If you are working on organizing papers or sharing files this will count as prep for the same reason. Make sure to follow UIL rules at all times. I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!

Delivery
I don't mind speed but I should be able to clearly understand and flow your arguments. If you need clarification on my paradigm or timing procedures, feel free to ask.

Philosophy
I believe debate is a unique opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, open-mindedness, and sharpen articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, I believe judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thinking ability as well. It’s far more important to me that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. Good line-by-line and organization is extremely important. Don’t frustrate me with careless and sloppy speech structure. If you don't answer an argument, it is conceded. If you don't extend it, it’s not extended.

Delivery
Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency is how you make up time, not by being faster than you are clear. If you’re super super quick and also clear and easy to flow, then by all means. But most of you ain’t. Especially don’t spread analytics like they’re cards. If I don’t hear it, you didn’t say it. And if I can’t write it, I might forget you said it

Philosophy
I love watching students grow and expand their thinking. I may not be a fan of more progressive arguments, but if they defend them well, I will vote for them. Students should NOT depend on getting copies of cases/arguments before round or speeches. Listening is an academic skill. I want to hear not only why your side is right, but why the other side is wrong. Clash is NOT just a band from the 80s.

Delivery
Debate is about presenting clear clash--thus I need to be able to hear and understand you. Speed is not always your friend.

Philosophy
communication with substance and intent flow of the round evidence of preparation, debate terminology, and execution of debate strategies resolution of key arguments with impact calculus determined from specific (not repetitive) clash

Delivery
polished speaking is not a pre-requisite to being an effective debater, but when it is demonstrated in the round, it does carry some weight

Philosophy
I will vote on whoever presents the best evidence and communicates their points the best. Arguing topicality is acceptable as long as it is a genuine argument. I prefer real-life arguments and consequences over conditional arguments. Contestants should prioritize giving quality arguments over quantity. Counterplans should clearly explain why the counterplan is better. New arguments may be brought up in the 2NC as long as it is justified. I appreciate avoiding kritiks because I am not very familiar with them, and you risk me judging them poorly.

Delivery
Off time roadmaps are acceptable. I like to be included in sharing evidence. Debaters should be courteous to each other during CX. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, you won't score well.

Philosophy
Decorum must be observed at all times.  If you are rude to anyone during a round, you will lose the round.  I consider myself a stock-issues judge, but I can be considered a blank-slate as well.  (Who is the most persuasive? but I follow the stock-issues.)  You can bring up new arguments in the constructive rounds, however nothing new in the rebuttals.  Make sure that you speak to me and don't just read evidence.

Delivery
Be organized and let me know where to flow.  Also, this is a speaking event so I must understand you to judge you.  So, no spreading. 

Philosophy
Anything goes but be careful of theory and K.

Delivery
No Preferences

Philosophy
I judge primarily through stock issues (Topicality, Inherency, Solvency, Harms, and Significance). The Affirmative must present a clear and compelling case that upholds all stock issues. If the Negative successfully disproves any essential stock issue, I will likely vote Neg. I value clear, structured argumentation over speed and prefer debates with strong logical analysis. I expect a clear link story for DAs and a solid net benefit for counterplans. I default to a policy-maker framework and will evaluate counterplans on competitiveness and solvency. If the counterplan is conditional, I expect a strong justification for why that flexibility is necessary. Debate is about persuasion and argumentation, not just technical wins. I appreciate respectful, engaging debates where debaters clash substantively and prioritize strategy over gimmicks. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round!

Delivery
I can follow speed, but clarity is key. If I miss an argument due to lack of clarity, I will not reconstruct it for you. Signposting is crucial, and I appreciate debaters who adapt to my paradigm rather than purely spreading for the sake of quantity.

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

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

Philosophy
As a Policymaker, I want to hear debate about the status quo and what can, should, and should not be done about it. AFF needs to be able to clearly communicate how their plan will be the best solution to the status quo. I want to hear arguments for and against the policy.

Delivery
This is a communication competition. It is not about reading the most amount of material in your speeches. Your delivery should be at a pace that can be flowed and comprehended by all parties.

Philosophy
I default as a policy maker. I weigh impacts and advantages heavily. clear concise voters are a must. I’m looking for the best world be it before or after the aff plan. I am fine with k’s and theory. I don’t particularly like T. It has its place but is more often than not a time suck. If you run a T make sure there is real abuse. Standards and voters are necessary to value the T.

Delivery
Speed is fine as long as your cards are numbered and you give clear even paced tag lines. Organization will seriously influence speaker points. Rude or inflammatory language is a sign of a poor speaker.

Philosophy
As a new judge, I am mainly looking for arguments and analysis. I want to hear links and connections to what each team said. I am also looking for teams who go through a list of attacks and are well-organized (inherency, topicality etc.) I want to know what about the case is being attacked.

Delivery
Not a fan of spreading & I like clearly labeled cases.

Philosophy
When judging a round the first thing I take into consideration is the stock issues and how well a team is able to either meet them and defend them or how well a team is able to dismantle them. After that the ability to use evidence in an effective manner to convince me they have won the round is important. I look for well spoken, articulate speakers that use the rules of debate to intelligently go to battle with their opponents. Good sportsmanship is important but don't be afraid to take risks.

Delivery
While speed may be necessary to fit all information into speeches clarity is more important in a round. If I cant follow what you're saying it doesn't matter how much you say.

Philosophy
email vasquezamandarenee@gmail.com -- add me to the file share -- please send speeches -- CX/Policy: No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments. Speed : I don't care, just make sure I can understand if I don't have the doc. Signpost and clearly read tags. Also make sure if I'm on a panel to check the other judges' prefs on speed if other judges don't like it, it's probably in your best interest to talk slow. Watch me/my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I'm not following you, and the only saving grace is the speechdrop/file share. Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. SIGNPOST THROUGHOUT THE ROUND Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with (IE CP, K). I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument. It lets me know you know what you just talked about. Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING TEAM DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.

Delivery
SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge. I do not prefer K's.

Delivery
I will tolerate spreading, but if I can't write it on the flow, then I don't have it.

Philosophy
CX debate is not an LD debate, so I expect to hear arguments pertaining to actual policy and political action rather than the philosophy behind it, though you may use it to champion your particular policy. Please do not run Ts just to run a T. I'm a policymaker judge, meaning at the end of the day I want to hear a solution to a problem or why the proposed solution isn't going to solve, or if you're running a CP why your CP solves better. Your arguments should be clear and concise, and most importantly, well-organized to my ear which means you need to signpost/flagpost very very clearly. Please don't say "they dropped this" when they haven't. Please don't assume you win on an argument -tell me why. I will not argue for you on the ballot. I will only vote on what y'all spend time on. IMPORTANT: Start distilling down your main issues of the round in the rebuttals, and then give voters at the end.

Delivery
I care more about substantive arguments rather than presentation style. Eye contact is not necessary, and you may sit or stand, however you feel comfortable. I'm okay on spreading, but if you start to become unclear, I will say "CLEAR" 1x/person and that's it. My preference is a 5-8 on a scale of 10 for speed. All debaters should keep their own time, including prep time. I will keep the official prep time. I give 2 minutes at the beginning for you to flash, but after that everything is on the clock.

Philosophy
I want to see a well-spoken round where the teams clash over the stock issues of the plan.

Delivery
While I can follow spreading, if you cross into rapid delivery, I will stop flowing and it will hurt your speaker points.

Philosophy
I am a Tab judge who focuses a great deal on how well you are able to sell me on your ideas. I do not want a ton of jargon, I want you to persusade me that your idea is the best idea.

Delivery
This is a huge priority for me. The best speakers in the round have an advantage for the ballot.

Philosophy
I am a Policy judge with a little bit of Stock Issues. I weigh strongly the advantages vs the disadvantages of doing the AFF plan as if it were something that we could put into policy. Both sides should follow the pattern, or the T/DA’s and S.H.I.S, when developing their arguments for or against the plan. I want to see clash in the round and will entertain counterplans if the NEG puts forth a strong argument as to why the AFF plan shouldn’t be argued in the round. I like a clear and concise BUT brief off time roadmap and be sure to sign post between arguments during your speeches. I don’t like spreading and will lay my pen down when you begin speaking so fast that I cannot understand you. I will not weigh Kritiks or framework in the round, please stick to traditional argumentation. Above all be professional, be persuasive, and be polite.

Delivery
I don’t like spreading and will lay my pen down when you begin speaking so fast that I cannot understand you.

Philosophy
I default stock issues. I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and be labeled clearly. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue to win. Both sides need to provide offense. Evidence is key. Please tell me what is important and what I need to vote on! Good luck!

Delivery
Speed is fine if it remains understandable, but excessive spreading that sacrifices argument quality is a disadvantage. Line-by-lines, overviews, underviews, and signposting are appreciated!

Philosophy
Debate is about influencing others to see your point of view using analytical arguments supported by evidence. For the affirmative team, you must present a prima facie case in the 1AC that meets the requirements for all stock issues. For the negative, you must present arguments that are constructed in a clear and organized manner utilizing the proper elements required for the argument. For example, DA’s should include uniqueness, link, unique link (brink), and impacts. Without all elements, it is impossible to measure the validity of the argument. It is also extremely important to remember that this is policy debate, therefore I will judge the round as a policy round. I am not a fan of K’s as most K’s are poorly constructed and/or linked. Good luck and congratulations on making it to state!!!

Delivery
I am fine with speed as so long as I can understand you. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge through and through. I do not prefer CP’s but I will still flow them, but I don’t like kritiks and most theories because it typically confuses me and doesn’t allow me to flow. I like a lot of clash and like when multiple arguments are ran. I am a stickler about common curtesy and will not tolerate rudeness. I don’t mind speed but policy debate is about clear communication so don’t trade your clarity for speed. I don’t mind people timing off of their phones but I find phones buzzing or making noises other than timers to be distracting and rude and will note through speaker points if this is an issue throughout a round.

Delivery
I don’t mind speed but don’t trade speed for clarity.

Philosophy
This judge has been confirmed but is currently out of town in a hard to reach location.

Delivery
This judge has been confirmed but is currently out of town in a hard to reach location.

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge, meaning I believe that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens. If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. I generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.

Delivery
I am a policy judge so I am perfectly fine with spreading, but it is your responsibility to make sure you are understood by all in round.

Philosophy
As a CX debate judge, I focus on clarity, organization, and strong argumentation. Coming from a policy debate background, I know how important it is to present arguments clearly and logically. A well-organized case, where points are easy to follow, is key to winning a round. I appreciate when debaters structure their arguments in a way that makes it simple for the judge to understand their position. Good organization isn’t just about the opening case—it’s also about how you respond to your opponent. A solid rebuttal that clearly addresses each point and uses evidence to back up your claims shows strong preparation and strategic thinking. I also value substance over style, meaning I look for debaters who provide solid evidence and directly tackle counterarguments. In short, I reward debaters who are clear, organized, and focused on making their arguments easy to follow while backing them up with solid evidence.

Delivery
In CX debate, I’m comfortable with spreaders as long as they clearly know their material. Speed is fine, but clarity is key—if I can’t understand your argument or tell that you understand it, that’s a problem. I value debaters who speak confidently, and while speed can be effective, it shouldn't come at the expense of delivering well-organized, coherent arguments. Ultimately, it's about balancing speed with substance and clear delivery.

Philosophy
As a policymaker, I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages and for the side that presents the best policy option. I require both sides to provide offense to win. Sufficient evidence is needed for ANY point made through the ENTIRE debate. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Even though I am a policymaker, the basics of CX debate should be followed such as retaining the stock issues.

Delivery
Make sure that during the delivery, you speak clearly in order for me to hear all of your points and watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. There is NO NEED FOR SPREADING. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Philosophy
I will adapt to you. You must tell me what to vote for AND keep the flow clean. I will not buy your extinction-level DAs unless you have VERY specific internal links. Your evidence better not be from 2010, 2013, 2017... Things change in the policy world, especially regarding technology and intellectual property. Your evidence should be as current as possible, or it will weaken your credibility, and in a close round, I am left to make the decision; old evidence will cost you.

Delivery
There is a vast difference between hearing an argument and comprehending it. NUMBER your arguments so my flow is clean, and I know where you are attacking what.

Philosophy
I try to let the students debate and make the decision based what goes on in the round. That being said, I would rather read a Superman comic book than involved Philosophy. If you run a K, you need to be able to explain it to me and how it links to the topic. Politics being what they are and technology being what it is, I am not buying evidence, ESPECIALLY BRINK AND IMPACT evidence, that is older than one year. I want new arguments in the second negative constructive. I don't want to hear the same thing for the entire round.

Delivery
If I can't hear you, it doesn't matter how great your evidence is. So make sure that you are clear.

Philosophy
I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round. I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech. T-Topicality I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(24-25), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round. DA-Disadvantage In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing. CP-Counterplan I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds. K-Kritique I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see. ON-CASE THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible. Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round. Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot. Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS... (I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS) I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading. Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

Delivery
I will honor the integrity of the circuit we are competing on, since UIL prioritizes speaking ability I would encourage you to practice this delivery style. It may not cost you the round but will be reflected in your speaker points.

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

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

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

Delivery
I will be flowing rather than reading your cases. Slow down on the things you need to but I’m okay with reasonable speed.

Philosophy
I’m a pretty traditional policy maker judge. The way to win my ballot is through lots of impact comparison and weighing. Here are just a couple of things for you to know before you enter round. 1. I’m fine judging speed as long as you send me and your opponent the doc and you use good signposting. 2. I will NOT evaluate new in the two on the side of the neg. And 3. Be respectful to your opponents. Feel free to ask paradigm questions before round and this my paradigm on tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Delivery
I’m cool with speed as long as there’s a doc and you signpost well. Make sure not to slur your words while spreading otherwise you’ll lose speaks

Philosophy
I consider myself a policymaker but I'm open to most arguments. Framing: I default to util good and policymaking good but you're welcome to go for other frameworks Case/DAs/CPs: I'm most comfortable judging these debates. Aff should extend case (even if it's just adv. overviews) in every speech. Clearly explain your impact stories. I default to condo good/PICs good but I want the 2NR to collapse to one CP/advocacy. I love good theory and perm debates on CPs. T/theory: I like theory debates but I don't like to vote on bad/lazy theory flows. I try to be 'tech>truth' but my threshold on theory can be high, specifically for frivolous arguments. If you feel like you're winning theory on the flow, you should go for it, but I err against it if you have bad extensions or you're dropping responses. If you want me to vote on it, it'd better be a big deal in your last speech K: I like good K debate. I err aff on framework when it's not clear who's winning but if you've got good reasons why your role of the ballot is good then I'll buy it. I want your method to have some sort of solvency or a clear reason to endorse. If the 2NC/1NR is just scripted overviews, I won't want to vote for you K affs: I err neg on framework but I'll listen to these rounds. I like K v K method debates but I'm fine if the neg is fw+cap. I expect good extensions and clash from the aff I've judged policy regularly for years, but I have fewer rounds on this year's topic than usual. More on tabroom.com

Delivery
Please be respectful. Slow down on taglines AND authors/dates and give me time to type for analytics/theory/perms/etc. I will follow docs while flowing but if you go off doc, I may need you to slow down if you're spreading.

Philosophy
I am usually tabula rasa but as debate has become a battle of objective versus subjective views and I try to stick to a fair assessment of arguments in the round. The arguments that tip the scale of impact calculus are going to be more advantageous towards garnering a win in the round. I don't appreciate debaters putting conditions on the team; when the only condition the team has are their burdens; no additional hoops need to apply and to be fair its abusive to expect them to follow anything than what each side needs to accomplish. Your framework needs to be clear and concise and doable. Also, I don't tolerate rudeness or laughing at your opponents or belittling them in CX. I will dock speaker points accordingly and may even give the loss to the abusive team.

Delivery
I am hard of hearing so VOLUME, PROJECTION, CLARITY is a big help when I am trying to flow the round. Passion and persuasiveness goes a long way to helping see your just not spitting out regurgitated arguments and analysis.

Philosophy
I am okay with any type of argument you decide to run, but make sure that it is a fully fleshed out argument and you keep it organized. I am a fan of line-by-line analysis but then paint the bigger picture and crystallize the round for me with clear voters. You should be comparing your impacts and as to why your side's world should be preferred. IMPLICATE YOUR ARGUMENTS!!! T is fine as an argument, but if aff can prove that they are reasonably topical that should be fine. If neg goes for T, then they should really go for T.I like substance arguments more than anything, but I will vote on procedurals and framework. I will vote for Ks and CPs with no issue. They do need to be debated well though, don't assume I will vote for you just because you ran an argument without implicating it. If you drop an argument in an earlier speech and then try to bring it up in a later speech, that's not a clean extension and I am highly HIGHLYUNLIKELY to flow that your way. Most of my firsthand experience with debate is in CX debate since I debated that all 4 years in high school. Now I coach debate and have experience coaching all the formats: CX, LD, PF, WSD, and Congress.

Delivery
Be clear. You may spread if you really have to and I'm fine with speed, but you need to slow down on taglines and if I am not flowing, I am not following along with what you are saying.

Philosophy
For UIL I am a policymaker. I don't particularly care what kind of argument you read, but that is my default position. I can certainly be convinced to default to a different framework if needed. Feel free to read my full paradigm through tabroom.

Delivery
Feel free to go fast. I don't consider this a communication event, so your presentation does not mean anything special to me.

Philosophy
Please be as clear as possible. I do not mind spreading if it is within your skill set to do so and you maintain a level of clarity that allows me to easily flow your arguments. I will hear all arguments that are well articulated and cohesive.

Delivery
How you speak is equally as important as what you say. If you cannot articulate your argument for all audiences, you are not doing your job.

Philosophy
The ultimate goal of CX debate is to evaluate policy proposals through a critical lens. The affirmative should present a clear and topical case that: identifies specific, significant harms in the status quo, and offers a plan to solve them. The negative's ultimate responsibility is to either prove that a)the aff has some issue with the presentation of the case (ie, stock issue arguments) or b) that the passage of the aff plan is unnecessary or would cause more harm than good.

Delivery
a little speed is fine, but you must be able to be understood. I side with the UIL in stating that this is a communication competition above all. Reading off of a speech doc while spreading at each other is not communication IMO, save it for other formats.

Philosophy
I believe that debaters should be respectful and conduct a professional round. I am looking to hear effective claims , warrants, and impacts along with a clear explanation of the stock issues by the AFF and a full address/attack of those stock issues by the Neg. Do not drop the stock issues. Counter plans are fine as long as it is used well. If a debater doesn’t provide impacts that support either side it is highly unlikely that they will win the round. I need to know why it matters.

Delivery
Professional communication is at a rate that we can clearly understand what the speaker is saying. If you choose to speak fast, I should still be able to understand the words being spoken.

Philosophy
Policy I am a policy maker – an impact calc. is crucial to me. Really provide in-depth analysis for risks/scenarios/advantages. Whatever you run in the round just make sure you do it well. I like intelligent clash and not getting stuck in a time suck over less relevant arguments. T – Please make sure to provide a quality definition and show why your interpretation is to be preferred. Do not use it was a way to wrap the entire debate up on a T argument and waste time. DA – The more specific the link the better. I don’t really care for super generic canned disads. Show why the big bad is more likely to happen with what you read than in aff world. K – I am open to a Kritik, but you need to really understand and explain it well. It really comes down to your explanation though if I buy it. Don’t run one in the 2NC – I find it to be unfair to aff. CP – Like everything else if you run it well, I am a fan. I think naturally it makes more since for it to be plan inclusive, but you can set it up anyway you’d like with the right evidence. Theory – I strongly dislike theory arguments. You can run one if it is necessary but don’t wrap the whole debate up in a theory argument.

Delivery
Speed – I think I can flow just about anything, but I will say “clear” if needed or stop flowing.

Philosophy
Do not call me sir (it makes me feel old)! instead: Jackson, Mr. B, or if you want to use my full last name you can. I debated CX my freshman and sophomore year of secondary school with experience primarily on the Austin circuit with a few UIL district meets under my belt. That is to say I am what you’d consider a more “techy judge” given my experience at locals . I really think theory should be treated like a faux-Kritik with clear advocacy, violation, etc. I also hate dispositional CP’s and don’t think they belong in debate. But I digress; I’m open to pretty much anything if it’s run well!

Delivery
You can spread if you want but if it’s too blippy I can’t flow it—just keep that in mind when you want to outspread your opponent. I also have some tremors right now so my flowing ability is limited. TL;DR: spread through the card content not the tag. (**please note** I can tell if you use unethical card cutting methods)

Philosophy
Debate needs to be just that- a debate. It's not a reading (let alone speed-reading) event. Give me actual substantive policy reasons to vote for your side over the other. My teaching background is in Social Studies (History, Gov't, and Econ) so make sure your facts are accurate. Few things compromise a case more than getting hard and fast facts wrong; while no one's perfect, facts are facts. At the same time, these are students- they are giving it their all and I will be willing to listen to any argument, if it has substance. It's on both sides, regardless of the wording of the resolution, to sway me to vote their way- neither side can sit back and just knock holes in the other case. They need to give me reasons to vote FOR them, not just AGAINST their opponent.

Delivery
I view debate events like you're laying out a case before a court judge. If you have your facts right, are persuasive, and give me sustantive reasons to decide in your favor, I can do so. There are no "debate tricks"- 3-4 supported contentions are better than any number of unsupported ones.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=262826#judging

Delivery

Philosophy
My greatest philosophy is that the strongest argument is a logically warranted one. It's one thing to make statements that seem logically obvious, but this will always be overridden by an explicit explanation of HOW a piece of evidence ties into an impact. Additionally, the impact of most arguments, but especially Utilitarian, is nearly entirely predicated upon the scope and probability. While magnitude can matter somewhat, the crux of Util is the number of people affected, and if we're debating for the greater good of the world, the needs of the many will pretty much always outweigh the needs of the few. The more you can link your impact to a larger group of people, the better your argument will be.

Delivery
Please, for the love of God, do not spread. And by that I mean take whatever you think is spreading, slow that down by another 50%, and then you might be approaching a reasonable speaking speed. I am only human and the point of debate is to compare arguments and logical points, not just read cards at each other. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then I can't take notes, and "it was on the card" is not a valid excuse for speaking so fast that I can't keep up.

Philosophy
I only consider arguments and evidence that is presented by competitors during rounds. If not offered during speeches it does not exist.

Delivery
I have no problem with competitors spreading rounds but will consider the quality of the arguments over quantity.

Philosophy
I have been coaching debate for 20 years. Before that, I debated in HS and college. I am fairly traditional in all aspects and will always prefer an on-topic debate to a kritik. CX I will judge a debate round both as a decision-maker of the debate and as an educator of oral argumentation. I will vote for the affirmative if its proposal is inherently more advantageous than the negative option (the present system or the counterplan). The affirmative must meet its obligation to the burden of proof on each of the stock issues to win the debate. The purpose of debate is to deliver arguments so that anyone listening to the debate may make an informed decision as to which side presents a stronger case. Debaters speaking rapidly, or making random arguments without sign-posting, do not communicate and therefore cannot win.

Delivery
Please communicate. If I'm not flowing, I'm not understanding you.

Philosophy
I evaluate debates based on argumentation, clarity, and persuasion. The affirmative must prove its plan is necessary and beneficial, while the negative must effectively refute it or present a better alternative. I value logical analysis and well-explained evidence. Debaters must connect their evidence to the argument. Impact weighing and comparative advantages are crucial in close rounds. Speed should not come at the expense of clarity; if I can’t understand an argument, I won’t evaluate it. Cross-examination should be used strategically to clarify points and expose weaknesses. Speaker points reflect argument quality, strategy, and professionalism. I evaluate theory and kritiks if well-developed and relevant, but they should be clearly explained and accessible. I vote based on the flow, considering argument development and dropped points. Debaters should provide clear voting issues in final speeches. Above all, I appreciate respectful, strategic, and well-structured debates. My goal is to judge fairly, rewarding logical reasoning and strong advocacy.

Delivery
Communication speed does not matter to me as long as I am able to understand. I do like a loud speaker to help me understand better.

Philosophy
I will only vote on thoroughly explained arguments that have been implicated and carried through the debate round. I have judged some this year, but mostly in a helping capacity. I have enjoyed debates featuring Stock Issues, Disadvantages, Counterplans and K debate when broken down and clear. I am not a big fan of T debates.

Delivery
Please do not spread. To me, debate is a speaking event so I would enjoy hearing persuasive speech.

Philosophy
Policy/CX Debate: I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. The following is personal preference, but one thing that irks me as a judge is teams that kick arguments that they are winning or that there is good debate on, only kick arguments if you're absolutely sure the argument will have no impact on the round at all. Also, when you kick an argument, please be explicit about kicking the argument and don't "silent kick" an argument.

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

Philosophy
I am a tab judge. If you tell me to vote on an issue, I will. While progressive debate isn't my favorite, I will still weigh arguments fairly in the round. Kritiks needs to be fully developed and not used in a way to just confuse your opponents so that they are completely unable to participate in the debate.Please elaborate on why issues are key in the round, too many debaters simply make statements or read evidence without providing the justification for the argument or need to vote a specific way.

Delivery
Speed can become an issue, especially if it is clear that you are using speed as a tactic against a team that is clearly not able to keep up with you. However, if it is clear and everyone is able to understand, then I have no objection to speed. I do expect voters, for debaters to stand when speaking, and for everyone to be polite. Assertive in defending yourself, yes, but no need for outright rude behavior.

Philosophy
The affirmative team bears the primary responsibility to prove each of these stock issues (Harm,Inherency, Topicality, Solvency) to establish case. If The negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. For Significance, I'm not enamored with arguments that something isn't big enough, or or too small, if solid arguments to address the resolution result in any positive change or demise...I will accept them as significant. The negative must also be TOPICAL in uses of disadvantage evidence, or risk negating their case as being irrelevant. Topicality is a more of an argument against nontraditional affirmatives than super big on unusual K’s. Counterplans that are relevant to the affirmative case are stronger than random offerings. Not as interested in conceptual, abstract forms of argumentation. Rather appreciate applied examples, empirical history, and case studies as ways of demonstrating your arguments. Debating the case matters, I could be persuaded that debating the case does not matter but that would require a significant investment in framework. I am a librarian. For the 2024-2025 topic of Intellectual Property, I have Master's Degree in Library and Information Science, and have spent a lot of time writing and contemplating intellectual property. I am familiar with nearly every caveat of copyright and have spent a lot of my personal time understanding the nuances of the topic. Do your research, be up to date. Listen to your opponents, and craft arguments to the discussion at hand.

Delivery
I do not prefer spreading, but i can flow it out, if needed. Grammar matters for card highlighting. I prefer Signposts, rather than off-road maps, but understand if debaters use them.

Philosophy
tl;dr – I can't flow as well as I could in the George H.W. Bush Administration, but otherwise I'm reasonably sophisticated and open-minded. I love debate and want any round that I judge to be a fun exchange of smart ideas. Personal: I have an extensive, if dated, background in policy debate (1990 NDT and Copeland winner for Harvard College; 1986 TFA and UIL state champ in high school). I went to law school at the University of Texas where I coached some debate on the side - I was in the room when Bill Shanahan said "I think we should call it a 'kritik.'" My son Camden is now a junior at Highland Park in Dallas. I've worked with him and the HP team for three years now. To my pleasant surprise and thanks to speech documents, I can still flow reasonably well and have judged consistently since his novice year. You should see me as: (a) very knowledgeable about policy debate and how it works, (b) reasonably informed about this topic and the major K areas, and (c) a couple of steps slower with high speed than I once was.

Delivery
You do you within the restrictions of UIL.

Philosophy
At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have to buy it. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Delivery
Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Philosophy
CX debaters should present their arguments using proper debate terminology. Arguments should be presented with their correct shell, ensuring all parts of an argument are properly presented. It is very important to be organized and well-versed on your arguments. I will vote on topicality. I will vote on drops. It is important to answer every argument so make sure you are flowing the round. I will be flowing but the debater should tell me what to flow and where to flow. I won’t vote on anything unless I’m told to do so. Debaters should understand their arguments and be able to articulate them in their own words. Don’t just read cards to me, tell me what they mean and represent for your arguments/case. Interpretation of evidence is important, as well as authors and dates. Please use your speech time fully and wisely. If I can’t vote on the stock issues I will lean to policy and talent.

Delivery
Debate is first and foremost a speaking competition. With that being said, you may speak as fast as you like as long as you are articulate, use good diction, and can sign-post during your speech.

Philosophy
My philosophy, when it comes to judging is the round should fit within inside of the resolve with clash, fitting the affirmative as well as the negative having contextual argument about the resolve as well as refuting any links or claims against provided. Having all of the required parts of the negative arguments filled and executed correctly and properly.

Delivery
Clear and precise with clear spreading as well as clash throughout the round

Philosophy
I believe the person with the best arguments should win the round. I also believe that students should know what their cases are saying. Being able to recite a card is fine, but if you can't tell an opponent what that card is saying or be able to find information you just read, it is hard for me to vote for your side. I enjoy clash. I like when both sides do attacks and have good defensive arguments.

Delivery
I am not the biggest fan of spreading. Speaking a little fast is understandable, but if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I do not mind Theory and Topicality Shells or Kritik's as long as they make sense and are used correctly.

Philosophy
This is UIL CX state and the expectation is that all debaters are to follow all UIL rules, from dress to argumentation. Therefore, Closed CX is a must and rapid-fire delivery is discouraged. I must be able to understand what you are saying - pronunciation and enunciation are very important. Although my paradigms follow what would be a stock issues judge, where the expectation is to prioritize the traditional elements of policy, such as significance, harms, inherency, topicality, and solvency. I look specifically for the affirmative to hold their ground against the negatives' on and off case arguments. The team that defends or attacks best and holds their own, while consistently and logically presenting thorough analysis of their position, will get my vote.

Delivery
I prefer that the debaters provide thorough analysis of arguments and issues in a timely, well delivered, and well informed manner. I would prefer that debaters refrain from personally attacking their opponents.

Philosophy
I look for reasoning and analysis in debate . I think that stock issues are important. Also strong is the use of evidences is also vital .

Delivery
Fluent and  articulate is important. Not too speedy.

Philosophy
I am a traditional policymaker that is interested in the merits of the case before me. I place more weight on the quality of the evidence and its relevance to the case than the quantity of evidence presented. The Affirmative's goal is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. Sources are important. Evidence supported by a source that lacks credibility is not persuasive evidence. If a debate judge should disregard your opponent's evidence because of the source, explain why. I am also interested in effective C-X. I will give weight to this interaction. C-X is a highly effective way of framing your opponent’s arguments. C-X is your opportunity to set up your rebuttals in the following speeches. At the end, I will give the round to the side that has done a better job persuading me of their position based on stock issues and the criteria listed above.

Delivery
Debate is about honing persuasive skills that you will use in your future career to become an effective advocate. No bill has ever been passed in Congress based on the speed of presentation. The best persuasion combines emotion, analysis, and evidence. An advocate must determine what moves their audience and focus on reaching that audience, not on what makes the advocate most comfortable. Look for cues; if I look confused, maybe you need to explain your point in a different way.

Philosophy
I think that you should do what you are best at doing whenever debating. I vote on an offense/defense paradigm.

Delivery
Please utilize UIL rules.

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

Delivery
Be clear

Philosophy
I am a stocks/policymaker judge, although I will sometimes be tabula rasa but rather temperamental that I don't commit to that philosophy. I like pragmatic and sound narratives that have balanced logic. Not every scenario is going to end in nuclear war or any type of war. I'll buy reasonable impact chains and terminal impacts but won't entertain leaps in logic. All debaters must do the work as I am not going to intervene and provide your links and internal links to you. Specification is key to winning rounds. ALL ROUNDS SHOULD GIVE THE JUDGES A FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO EVALUATE THE ROUND OR LENS TO EVALUATE THE ROUND. Arguments must properly be formatted with all their adjoining parts and evidence with proper citation and full dates. I am looking for consistency of arguments moving through all the speeches, clash, and also weighing on a micro and macro level. All teams should be prioritizing issues of the day for the judges and warranting why we ought to be siding with their advocacy.

Delivery
Clarity ALWAYS OVER SPEED. Don't spread if you can't do it clearly and concisely. It's not necessary to win. If I can't understand it, it may not get flowed.

Philosophy
About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time. Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed. Since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing. Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important. AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns. Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read" is not an argument. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing. Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. You need a net-benefit to the counter-plan internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick. Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. The most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts. Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation. Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

Delivery
I prefer you to be fast and clear. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If one team has a preference for no spreading please accommodate to them.

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

Delivery
i am okay with speed but i feel that communicaion is the most important thing in debate. so as long as the speed dosent take away from the material being given ( slurring or words running togther) then i will have no problem.

Philosophy
True tabula rasa. Please click the link to see full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Delivery
Some people spread just because they think they should without doing any of the training or maintenance required to be good at spreading. Everyone should prioritize clarity as clarity and speed are not mutually exclusive

Philosophy
I look for Debaters to build a case around the Resolve and all evidence to point to the Resolve. The harms and inherency  to support each other and the case being presented by the Affirmative. If the impact claim of the debater is large in scale (the end of the world) the evidence must be plenty and impactful to support such a claim. Impact must be plausible for it to be considered viable. I do not like spreading as a tactic of confusion to win a debate. I like for debaters to argue their case not technicalities, continue to complete your case while pointing out technical issues with your opponents case.  

Delivery
Well paced speaking, not spreading. Stand when speaking and a respectful tone to your opponent.

Philosophy
The 1-5 system doesn't make any sense to be honest. A disadvantage is both necessary and unnecessary depending on what the strategy is in the round. Therefore ask me questions about my paradigm if you'd like. For the odd scale, I will simply put a 3 for everything. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I would say that I am more a policy maker judge than anything else. This means that I will vote for the best advocacy in the round, which means you have 3 options as the negative (squo good, CP, or K). I would say very much tech over truth. Default condo good. On T I prefer a well developed standard debate. I tend to default reasonability but at the end of the day if you can sell me on competing interps, I'm not opposed. This should be the only thing you are going for in the 2NR if this is your strategy. DA's - I love good uniqueness updates on DA's and 2AC N/Us. Love a good Politics scenario. Will vote on the impact turn on either the DA or the ADV. I'm cool with CPs. On the K debate, I am unfamiliar with a lot of K literature, I know the basics of Cap and Security but because I haven't engaged with the arguments in a few years, I'm definitely a little hazy on the details. If you are going to run a K or a K AFF please make sure you can explain it well. I want to feel comfortable after the initial cross-x that I know what your world looks like. I will vote on Framework regarding the K debate. Finally, on the Theory debate, make sure there is a clear violation and that you have some real offense coming off the argument if it is something you are going to commit to.

Delivery
UIL prioritizes effective communication, therefore, I will penalize any communication that is effected by speed. You may go quicker, but you should not weaponize speed to win a round.

Philosophy
You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded. Please do not call me "Jacob", it makes me uncomfortable when I'm addressed by name in-round If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!! Link to tabroom paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121829

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

Philosophy
I am a stock issues judge who values clear argumentation, direct clash, and well-supported analysis. I expect a well-structured case that is clearly extended throughout the debate. Negative teams should directly engage with the affirmative case through well-developed on-case arguments, disadvantages, counterplans, or kritiks, but they must explain the function of their arguments within the round. Clash is essential. I want to see meaningful engagement between teams rather than disconnected speeches. Strong cross-examination skills matter—this is the time to expose weaknesses in the opposing team’s arguments and clarify points, not just ask pre-prepared questions. I appreciate debaters who can explain their evidence in their own words rather than just reading blocks. If you cannot articulate what your evidence means or how it applies to the round, it carries less weight in my decision. While I will evaluate theory and topicality arguments, I expect them to be impactful and not frivolous. In-round adaptation is key—debate is about persuasion, and I reward debaters who can explain complex ideas in an accessible way rather than just relying on speed and jargon. Ultimately, I will vote for the team that does the best job of proving why their advocacy is preferable within the framework of the round. Keep your arguments well-organized, extend and impact them clearly, and engage in meaningful clash.

Delivery
I value clarity over speed. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your arguments. Speak at a pace that allows for effective communication and persuasion. Enunciation and strategic emphasis go a long way in making arguments compelling. I appreciate confident, engaging delivery but not aggression or rudeness. Cross-examination should be focused and interactive, not just a series of pre-written questions. If you spread, be clear and slow down on important tags and analytics. Good organization and signposting help me track arguments, so use them. Ultimately, debate is about persuasion, and the best speakers make arguments accessible and compelling.

Philosophy
General: I'm a policy maker judge, tech over truth. Write my ballot for me, and tell me what arguments I should vote on and why. Use impact calc, case outweighs, and general analysis to show me why your world is preferable to your opponents. I think collapsing to your best arguments in the 2NR is good. Make sure to explicitly extend all arguments in each speech that you want to keep in the round. Stay organized and signpost when moving on to another argument. Please provide a roadmap before each speech. Speed is fine; please slow down on taglines and enunciate clearly. Speech documents should be sent before speeches, especially if new evidence is being read. I think it's good practice and allows for the best debate to include written analytics in speech documents, but you don't have to. I will evaluate each argument based on my flows. Speaker points will be decided by your technical debating over style unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments. I am more familiar with the policy vs. policy debate than I am with policy vs. k and k vs. k, but do what you're best at/what you want to practice! Do not be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, sexist, etc. DAs: I love DAs! The UQ + link debate is super important to me. Reading generic links is fine, but make sure to give good analysis to better relate to your opponent's aff. Do not neglect the case argument; "DA turns case" arguments should be used more often! On aff, "Case outweighs and turns the DA" arguments are also convincing. Topicality: I default to competing interps on T but will vote on reasonability if I am convinced otherwise. Feel free to read T in the 1NC, but I think you should only go for T in the 2NR if either the violation is bad or it is the only argument you're winning. Break down your standards, and show me why your definition provides the best limits, grounds, etc. If you have a more substantive argument over T in the 2NR, please go for that rather than T. CPs: I am less familiar with the CP debate than I am with DAs. I like a good CP paired with a good net benefit DA. Please give me an analysis of how your CP avoids your net benefit and how it is mutually exclusive to the aff. K's: I am less familiar with Ks, so if you run one, please make sure you 1) don't assume I know the lit base, 2) give me instruction on what I should be evaluating through your framework, 3) explain your K simply so that I can get a good understanding of it.

Delivery
Speaker points are decided by technical debate, not style

Philosophy
I am a policy maker judge. I weigh impacts in round, and rely upon the debaters to explain their positions and follow the flow of the round.

Delivery
If I can't understand you, I cannot evaluate your argument. Slow down when necessary and explain.

Philosophy
I'm almost a tab judge, in that I will weigh and evaluate every issue and argument that is brought up, but I prefer stock issues. But at the end of the day, I want to hear good arguments, and why I should vote on those arguments. I prefer good analysis to support claims and arguments. I'm not the biggest fan of Kritiks, but I have voted on them before. Make sure you persuade me why the Kritik is important and why I should give it weight and vote for it.

Delivery
I prefer Good Communication Skills to Speed. I realize that some speeches and answers require faster responses, but if not necessary, I prefer persuasive communication.

Philosophy
As a policymaker judge, I evaluate debates based on which team presents the strongest, most persuasive policy option. Both communication skills and the policy itself are important, as debate is a great opportunity to develop public speaking and persuasive argumentation. I prioritize high-quality evidence over an excessive number of arguments and appreciate a clear, strategic approach rather than scattered. I value disadvantages the most and accept counterplans, but I am less interested in topicality unless clear abuse is demonstrated. Conditional arguments are fine as long as they are well-explained and justified. I am not a fan of kritiks and prefer debates to remain grounded in policy rather the philosophical or performative arguments. New arguments introduced in the second negative constructive (2NC) frustrate me, as they create an unfair burden on the affirmative team. I vote based on which team best justifies their policy through strong evidence, clear argumentation, and effective impact analysis. Dropped arguments are considered concessions, but they still need to be impacted in final speeches. Overall, I strive to be a fair and engaged judge who rewards well-supported arguments, strong communication, and strategic debate. I encourage debaters to take advantage of this space to refine their ability to articulate ideas in a compelling and respectful manner.

Delivery
Speed reading (spreading) is acceptable as long as it remains clear and understandable- if I can't flow it, I won't evaluate it. Debate is about learning to communicate effectively, and while technical argumentation is important, I appreciate when debaters prioritize clarity and persuasion.

Philosophy
I truly believe that the topic should be debated with the stock issues in mind. I highly dislike Kritiks as I see them as a contradiction to the sport of debate. However, if not properly attacked by opposing team, I will take them into consideration until attacked/confronted. Every other component of Cross Examination is fair game and will be flowed throughout the round.

Delivery
SPREADING will not be tolerated. There is difference between speaking with a rhythm and trying to cram every possible argument. I would appreciate signposting on every argument stated in the AFF and NEG. For example (Link, Brink, Impact) from a disadvantage should be said out loud to communicate the different components of the argument.

Philosophy
You can run anything that you wish. I do expect you to tell me why it is important in the round. Not a huge fan of abusive speed and card wars.

Delivery
I prefer a slower pace than I use to and I want analysis with the evidence.

Philosophy
I believe debate is about communication first and foremost. If your opponent cannot understand your speech/debate, neither can I. Therefore, no one can adequately flow the round. Rapid fire delivery is not appreciated and often times conflicts with clear communication. Overall, I am a policy maker judge. Counterplans can be effective if executed correctly. I don’t particularly like T or K arguments, however if you lay out the voters, I may be more keen to consider it. Still, a debate spent arguing nothing but a T-violation is a waste of a debate. Quality and quantity of evidence are of equal importance. As a judge, I look for clash from both sides. Can you adequately argue against your opponent while upholding your plan? The Aff’s job is to show that their plan goes against the status quo and is a better option. The Neg argues for the status quo or CP and shows that it should be upheld. Present voters and tell me why your side should win the debate. I do not flow CX time, those 3 mins are for you to clarify, not argue. If you want me to flow something from that time, bring it up in constructives.

Delivery
I believe debate is about communication first and foremost. If your opponent cannot understand your speech/debate, neither can I. Therefore, no one can adequately flow the round. Rapid fire delivery is not appreciated and often conflicts with clear communication.

Philosophy
The round is your canvas. I play the game you tell me too. Although I have argument preferences done in the numbers if you do the work it can win my vote

Delivery
This is UIL So delivery should be the focus. Spreading should be kept as necessary to survive but not to be used to outspread an opponent

Philosophy
Judge instruction is nice... don't just say it to me, tell me what to do with an argument when considering who I think won the debate. Ultimately I decide debates on spectacular and brilliant moments of thought expressed throughout. I used to be way better at going with the tech and flow of the debate, but I’m prepared and delighted to hear something new. I will do my best to follow along, and I am grateful to be here.

Delivery
Fast Debate is okay for me there’s no such thing as too fast

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

Delivery
Prefer no spreading and focus on quality of evidence. Try to maintain professional style as if you were as an advocate presenting in front of a policymaker.

Philosophy
Impact Calculus: Love impact calc, use it effectively, remember that to flow it I have to see Impact, Probability, & Timeframe. Stock Issues: I will vote on stock issues if you tell me to or if I am not given another voter. I don't have a problem voting on stock issues but give me more reason than me just defaulting. On Case: Love on case! It is so important to be specific! With that said, don't just run a laundry-list of arguments that don't link. Disadvantages: Please attempt to include, I don't demand it but it shows you're well-versed and it gives you a back-up plan. Theory/Topicality/Spec: I am completely fine with T arguments, just don't use it as a time-suck. Kritiques: Perfectly cool with Ks, just make sure you actually understand it and can clearly explain it, it is only effective if I understand what you are saying. Counter-Plans: I am fine with PICs and regular counterplans, whatever you choose to do, but you have to out-weigh the Aff's plan with a net-benefit.

Delivery
No spreading, speak clearly, make sure you speak loud enough, slow down on taglines, authors, and dates.

Philosophy
When judging a round, I consider resolution of substantive issues and communication skills to be of equal importance. In judging policy debate I will be looking for contestants to provide clear harms and present a well research plan to address them, or to establish the desirability of remaining at status quo/providing an alternate plan. I consider quality of evidence to be of more importance than quantity of evidence. That being said- if it is clear that the team has under-researched the topic that may factor into my decision.

Delivery
I do not consider spreading to be an adequate form of debate. If debaters spread I am likely to deduct speaker points and rule in the favor of a contestant who speaks clearly. I believe in good sportsmanship and expect contestants to conduct themselves in a civil manner throughout the debate.

Philosophy
Debate Judging Paradigm 1. Speed (Spread): I prefer a moderate pace. Excessive speed detracts from the clarity and depth of the arguments, making it difficult to capture the nuances. If you choose to go fast, ensure your arguments are still clear and easy to follow. 2. Critical Arguments: I value critical arguments, but they need to be explained thoroughly. I am less persuaded by dense jargon without clear explanations. Focus on the depth and clarity of your analysis. 3. Topicality: Topicality is a prima facie issue for me only if there is demonstrated in-round abuse. Merely claiming non-topicality is insufficient; you must show how the case is unfair or disruptive to the round. 4. Argument Strategy: Avoid making time-suck arguments that you plan to drop later. This wastes time and detracts from the quality of the debate. If you bring up an argument, be prepared to defend it. 5. Organization: I pay close attention to my flow. Please clearly signpost your arguments and keep your refutation organized. This helps me track the debate and evaluate your arguments effectively.

Delivery
Debate is a public speaking event and should be communicative to all listeners