2026 CX State Judges

Philosophy
As a policymaker, I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages and will vote 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 throughout 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 the speeches.

Philosophy
As a policymaker, I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages and will vote 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 throughout 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 the speeches.

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.

Delivery
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.

Philosophy
I vote on clarity, clash, and impact weighing. I flow carefully, if I don’t hear it, I can’t evaluate it.

Delivery
Comfortable with traditional and progressive arguments; explain framework clearly.

Philosophy
I generally consider all types of argumentation but I'm suffering from impact fatigue. I think we all are. Please make the debate center around real dialogue and not 8 races to exctinction.

Delivery
Clarity matters. If I'm not writing, it's not counting.

Philosophy
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 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. 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. Be logical. What you’re saying has to make sense rather than just be a bunch of ideas strung together. I believe stock issues are essentially just parts of an argument, so i don’t really look at them as individual voting issues, but without them, I think it’s nearly impossible to have a strong case. All time is either speech time or prep time. I don't provide extra time for sharing cases/evidence/etc.

Delivery
I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know. The last speech should include crystallization and specific arguments telling me why you win. Quality over quantity here. Aff should be explaining why the sqo needs to change and how aff solves. Neg should be focusing on the opposite of that in some form. All time is either speech time or prep time. I don't provide extra time for sharing cases/evidence/etc.

Philosophy
I vote on impact calculus when it comes to policy and value debate just to keep simple and for both sides to achieve an identifiable goal. I don't particularly like or feel conditionality arguments are necessary when you already have established burdens on both sides. I find it ironic that we vote on scenarios and impacts that only exist in the debate world using objective arguments with judges with subjective biases. I try to keep my biases outside of the room and instead just focus on the arguments presented on the round. I like clear voters, good extensions and I am ok with new evidence in the rebuttal as long as it connected to an old argument presented in the constructives.

Delivery
I prefer delivery that is clear, concise, with great road maps to know where to go in my flow. Nice, loud and clear with good diction, pronunciation, tone, projection and with a moderate rate of speed.

Philosophy
At its core, I view policy debate as a speaking and argumentation contest. My primary goal as a judge is to evaluate which team does the better job of clearly presenting, organizing, and warranting their arguments within the structure of the round. Clarity is extremely important to me. I want to understand you. That means clear organization, clear signposting, and clear explanation of how your arguments function. Maintain the flow and help me maintain it with you. I will flow the round, but I will not make connections for you. If an argument matters, you need to explicitly extend it, weigh it, and explain why it wins you the ballot. I evaluate the round based on the arguments that are made and warranted in the debate. You must tell me how to resolve the round and give me clear voters at the end—why you win and why that matters. Do not assume that I will infer impacts, weighing mechanisms, or dropped arguments on my own. If it is important, articulate it. Organization and comparative analysis are key. I appreciate debaters who: Clearly identify the flow they are on Extend arguments with warrants and impacts Weigh impacts comparatively (magnitude, probability, timeframe, etc.) Provide a clear ballot story in rebuttals I will not intervene to fill in gaps. If a response is missing, underdeveloped, or not clearly extended, I cannot vote on it simply because it “should” have been there. The debate is decided by what is said and explained in the round. Ultimately, the team that does the better job of clearly explaining and comparatively weighing their arguments—while giving me a coherent reason to vote for them—will win my ballot.

Delivery
Spreading is fine, but slow down and enunciate tag lines and signposting.

Philosophy
I prioritize articulation over spreading. I value the stock issue approach to judging the rounds. Clear line by line refutation and explicit argumentation are essential.

Delivery
Do not spread when presenting the constructive speeches; it will be difficult to flow the round. Please do give off-time roadmaps for line by line refutation. Also present voters, specifically weighing impacts. If the AFF can convincingly meet all the burdens from the NEG, AFF Wins. NEG can win round by convincingly win on any one stock issue.

Philosophy
- I want to hear clash. - Continue to flow it across the board and extend/elaborate on it. - 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 - 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

Philosophy
I am a tab judge. I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you explain why it leads to a winning ballot. Tech > truth in most cases. 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. Theory/T: Any theoretical conflict is up for debate. T has to be well-developed with a proper shell. I do have a pretty high standard on topicality violations since I usually lean aff as long as they have a reasonable response to the argument. I probably wouldn't be convinced with an RVI, but you can try. DA: DA's are fine with me. Make sure to extend in later speeches CP: I am not a huge fan of counterplans but I will usually vote on it as long as it is ran properly. Kritiks: I am not super well-read on K literature, so make sure that everything is well explained, defined, and specific on the link debate. If the K is too messy or incoherent, I will default policy.

Delivery
Make sure your reading is clear and comprehensible. I don't really care how fast you go as long as you share your doc and slow down/emphasize taglines. 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. Tell me how your arguments impact the round.  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. It's not the gotcha y'all think it is. 

Philosophy
I walk into any debate round with a clean slate. All preconceived notions and opinions I have are left at the door. The students do not need to know what I believe. They need to be able to build their case against their opponent in order to convince me that they have the right of the resolution over the other side. Competition with respect and embodying the strength of character it takes to do these speech and debate events properly is the root of what these events are. That is my expectation, no matter what event is being judged.

Delivery
Spreading and super speed are not conducive to an actual debate, and they will not help your case in your rounds. Using resources, clarity, ethical competition, and respectful decorum are my expectations for a quality debate. The essence of a great debate is listening and speaking to make your points against another who has done the due diligence to compete thoughtfully and without bias or malice.

Philosophy
I would consider myself a policymaker judge. I want to hear a strong, well-thought-out policy from the affirmative. I want to know exactly what your plan does and why you are doing it. For the negative, I appreciate a mix of on-case and off-case arguments. I like to see impact turns. I really enjoy CPs and DAs. I enjoy topicality arguments as well. In the 2NC, please avoid reading new arguments. I find this to be unfair to the affirmative. Overall, I am fine with most arguments you want to run, with the exception of anything that is inappropriate in any context. I really want strong analytics in the debate. A strong debate has a combination of evidence and analysis.

Delivery
I like to see strong organization in the round. Please signpost and explain your analysis to me. Do not be rude to your opponent. As for spreading, I am totally fine with it. Please slow down on anything important for the flow. Make sure you still articulate your words and are understandable. I want to also hear analytics. You should not spend the whole round reading off evidence. I want to hear from you as a debater. Please communicate with your audience and your opponent.

Philosophy
I was a CX debater in the 1990s, so I grew up with stock issue debate, and still think that those are important. I will also vote on DAs and counterplans, but I don’t buy Kritiks. I want aff cases and neg arguments to be organized and clearly labeled. If I can’t follow you, I cannot vote for you. Always tell me where you are on the flow and why your arguments matter. Impacts are key.

Delivery
I want to be persuaded to vote for you. Don’t just talk at me, communicate with me. Explain your evidence and arguments. I understand the need to read and speak quickly, but do not forget that your goal is to communicate effectively to show me exactly how you should win the round.

Philosophy
I am open to any argument if it is communicated well. That means counterplans and Kristin’s are fine, but they need to be presented clearly. Where evidence is concerned quality is more important than quantity. However if you have a large quantity of evidence that is of good quality and communicated well, you will be fine.

Delivery
I do not like spreading, I don’t care what the dominant paradigm is. This is a speech contest and effective communication is important.

Philosophy
I evaluate debates through comparative worlds lens: which advocacy produces the better outcome given the arguments and evidence presented in the round. I default to policy maker framework if no other framework is given I value clarify, organization, and explanation over argument quantity. Speech organization matters, I need to know where arguments are on the flow and where they are new, extended, or answered. If I cannot clearly identify an argument, I cannot vote on it. Impact calculus is critical. Debaters should explain why their impacts matter more, using timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Arguments that stop at claims or warrants without explaining why they affected the ballot are incomplete. I am comfortable with voting on analytics if they are clearly explained and impacted. On the negative I am open to any position being ran as long as it is explained. Cross examination matters, concessions and admissions should be used as warrants in later speeches. Speed is fine, but not at the expense of clarity.

Delivery
I prefer debaters to be cleanly spoken, I want taglines clearly read. If they are going to spread let it be during card reading. Please explain arguments in your own words

Philosophy
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
I evaluate rounds through a policymaker lens, meaning I determine which advocacy produces the best overall real-world outcome. I compare the affirmative plan to the status quo or negative alternatives by weighing advantages, disadvantages, and impacts, prioritizing magnitude, probability, and timeframe. Clear impact calculus and direct comparison are essential to my decision. I strongly value clear, respectful communication. Debaters should speak loudly, enunciate, and remain understandable. Speed is acceptable only if clarity is preserved. Basic speaking courtesy is expected—no rudeness, hostility, or snobbery. Professionalism makes arguments more persuasive. I am most comfortable evaluating topicality and disadvantages, and I enjoy well-developed, strategic debates in these areas. Clear signposting and organization are very important so I can easily follow the flow of the round. While I will listen to a wide range of arguments if they are explained and impacted, I am generally not receptive to kritiks, especially if they lack clear real-world implications or policymaking relevance. Ultimately, I vote for the side that presents the most beneficial and best-justified policy option, supported by clear reasoning, strong evidence, organized delivery, and respectful engagement.

Delivery
I believe debaters should avoid spreading. A strong speaker communicates loudly, clearly, and with proper enunciation so the audience can fully understand the argument. Debaters should also maintain basic speaking courtesy—being respectful, professional, and never rude or snobby toward opponents or judges.

Philosophy
I'll fall back on speaker points in the event of a "tie". Be professional; be polite.

Delivery
Policy maker, who has the better world. Don't spread if you can't be articulate; my pen can't flow what my ears can't understand.

Philosophy
As a UIL CX debate judge in Texas, I evaluate rounds based on clear argumentation, strategic clash, and effective communication. I prioritize line-by-line engagement, comparative analysis, and warranted impacts over sheer quantity of arguments. Technical execution matters, but debaters should remain persuasive, organized, and respectful. I default to evaluating the flow unless instructed otherwise, and I expect teams to clearly explain standards, voters, and how I should weigh the round. My role is to reward the team that best defends a coherent advocacy and demonstrates why they should win under their framework.

Delivery
Confident and organized arguments go a long way. Speak to the best of your abilities and be confident in your approach as AFF or NEG.

Philosophy
I reward teams who clearly explain how the round should be evaluated and why their arguments justify my ballot. I prioritize explanation, comparison, and link-level analysis; links matter, and I will not fill in missing warrants or construct arguments for either side. I am comfortable judging policy, critical, and framework-oriented debates. I will vote on framework when it is clearly explained and impacts round evaluation, but it is not presumptively decisive. Clarity, internal coherence, and warrant-level analysis matter more than speed or quantity of evidence. I value evidence quality, but I also expect impact calculus and direct comparison. Cross-examination should be used to clarify assumptions, solvency, and links. Topicality, theory, and counterplans are legitimate, but I prefer developed abuse stories to purely technical claims.

Delivery
Speak clearly. Signpost your transitions between arguments and cards.

Philosophy
I'm a policymaker, I will vote for whatever policy I think has the best outcome. Framing is huge for me, so please give clear voters. I default to utilitarianism, but I am open to any framework you give me.

Delivery
I'm ok with some speed, not a fan of spreading. Please give clear taglines and be able to summarize your evidence in your own words. PLEASE give roadmaps and tell me where to flow!

Philosophy
I do not enjoy debates with new arguments in the 2NC. To win my ballot you will need to win an offensive reason to vote for your side. Purely defensive reasons to vote against the plan are not likely to win by themselves. Please ask if you have questions.

Delivery
At UIL state I feel like you should slow down.

Philosophy
I primarily evaluate rounds through the lens of the stock issues. I will sometimes approach with a traditional policy making perspective if stock issues are not addressed. The affirmative has the burden to clearly establish significance, inherency, solvency, and advantages. If one of those core components is not sufficiently proven or is effectively refuted, that is often decisive in my evaluation. I value clear plan texts, organized case structure, and direct clash on the core issues of the resolution. Strong impact comparison is important. Solvency matters a great deal to me. I need to understand how and why the plan resolves the harms presented. Likewise, inherency should be more than assumed; it should be clearly demonstrated. On the negative, I am comfortable evaluating disadvantages, counter-plans, and traditional policy arguments. I appreciate well-developed case attacks and solvency arguments. I am less persuaded by highly technical or frivolous theory debates. I will vote on procedural arguments if they are clearly warranted and impacted, but I do not default to them over substantive clash. I prefer debate that centers on the resolution rather than highly abstract or kritik-heavy approaches. If critical arguments are run, they need to be clearly explained and tied to the resolution in a way that fits within a policy-making framework. Above all, I reward organization, clarity, direct refutation, and strong crystallization in final rebuttals.

Delivery
I value clear, structured communication. Speed should not hinder diction. While I can follow fast rounds, I appreciate debaters who signpost, slow slightly on tags and key analytics, and make argument interaction easy to track. Organization, clarity, and use of debate terminology are imperative. I’m fine with passionate speaking, but not at the expense of clarity or respect. If I can’t understand an argument, I can’t evaluate it. Good line-by-line work, clear voters, and direct clash go a long way in my decision-making.

Philosophy
I am a tabula rasa judge, but I do consider stock issues to be of some importance. I will not entertain spreading or constant declarations of abuse by the other team. If either one of these are done excessively, I will flow to your opponent. I look for clash and a clean debate supported by evidence. Dropped arguments will lose you the round.

Delivery
If you spread to the point that I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.

Philosophy
Link to Tabroom Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121858

Delivery
Link to Tabroom Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121858

Philosophy
Debate is a a communication event. Structured speeches are a must. Persuasive skills are also essential for the debate.

Delivery
I want to see communication, reasoning and analysis.

Philosophy
I want to hear the stock issues. However, I also want to debate what is brought up in the round. I will weigh each element of the round as it is refuted/presented in the round. Give me voters, tell me why you win the round. DEBATE the entire round, don't give up and more importantly, if you believe you have won the round, don't stop debating. Be poised, polite and professional the entire round.

Delivery
Rate of delivery is not a problem for me as long as I can easily understand you. Go down the flow and debate the pertinent arguments.

Philosophy
Clash is key, and the 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 mix of policymaker and stocks. I prefer lots of signposting, organization, and like direction to be given in the round, specifically about prioritization of issues/clash points, comprehensively how you are adherent to the resolution with your links and analysis, and a clear reason why you ought to win the round based upon your obligations. Aff has the burden of proof to prove the resolution to be true or reasonably true and neg has the burden to clash. I like teams that take a clear and clean strategy to the ballot without a lot of chaos. Counterplans are always accepted though you do then have a burden to prove the offense and net competitiveness comparatively against the aff plan. DAs are always favored, Ks are rarely bought because most teams don't know how to effectively argue them, but clash is what I'm looking for in a great debate round.

Delivery
I prefer clarity over speed as that is accessibility in this activity for all debaters, adjudicators, and audience members. Conciseness is appreciated to fit within time constraints and fluency is valued. I prefer my speakers to deliver loudly without shouting and be able to have decorum for all with sportspersonship behavior. Please be kind to other beings.

Philosophy
When judging CX I prefer a stock issue style debate but I am open to any argument. As long as you make your case I will flow it and make my decision on which team makes the better case and arguments overall. I do vote on Topicality but it's got to be a clear violation and you must win the "better definition" debate. I will also listen to K's and CP's that are ran correctly. At the end of the day which case makes the greatest REAL WORLD impact should win.

Delivery
Prefer a more persuasive delivery with speed being understandable.

Philosophy
I value quality of arguments much more than quantity. Consequentialism is my go to unless I’m given a different framework.

Delivery
Articulate words in a professional manner. Be respectful to opponents. I’m ok with speed but it has to be eligible.

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. Apply your argumentation., don't expect the judge to intervene and draw the connections for you. Weigh your arguments. Your analysis of the evidence is more important to me than how much evidence you present during the round. Stay professional and courteous especially during your questioning period. If you plan to run a CP or T argument--run it in the 1NC. Try not to run T as a time suck. Make sure that the compenents 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 for Impact Calculus in the rebuttals. Don't run a K. I won't vote on it. If you a CP, make sure that everyone in the round is on the same page.

Delivery
This is a communication event, so speed should not interfere with your ability to be an effective communicator. Slow down on the TAG LINES and slow down on the most vital arguments and I should be able to hang with you.

Philosophy
Cx debate i prioritize solvency/cp discussions. Not big on k or theories unless there is actual abuse in the round. Im however, highly open to anti kant kritiks. Very tech centered the winning team must be able to demonstrate the basics and fundamentals rather than just spewing out 30 cards.

Delivery
Inherently cx isnt about how one person performs. In cx i would like both teams to show clear leadership and organization. Likewise i like to see when the entire team is putting in work rather than just the anchor. Obviously there will still be skill gaps. Stay confident and poised just like any other event.

Philosophy
My philosophy of debate is that the person who runs a structured argument and takes the argument to the final rebuttal should win the debate. As long as you tell me what to vote on, I have no restrictions. Be creative, run an argument nobody has ever heard of, respond quickly to an argument you are unfamiliar with. Think critically. Have fun! This is the best competition, what a privilege to be here!

Delivery
I believe that signposting and following a structured argument are key. Do not run a DA if you do not provide all necessary arguments. Same with T, etc.

Philosophy
thorough paradigm https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=98723 I predominantly subscribe to a policymaker paradigm but enjoy Ks and theory arguments. I love a good T debate. Topicality is top-level. Impact calc from the round guides my ballot, but I'm not going to buy "ignore human rights bc nuke war." Arguments need to be extended to be weighed. Tagline extension is not sufficient. Arguments need warrants for their claims. Analysis of how flows interact with one another is my favorite. I will have a very difficult time buying into a scenario that is not probable, but this is easily overcome with specific and warranted evidence. I think debate skills are more important than speaking skills, so I won’t weigh speaking skills before the substance of the round. Additionally, I have no tolerance for disrespecting or belittling your opponents. Feel free to ask questions.

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

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=389450

Delivery
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=389450

Philosophy
Stock issues are the core issues of the affirmative case and I hope that you make those clear for me and the negative team. Arguments should be based on clarity and evidence.

Delivery
This is a speaking contest. Speaker points awarded to clarity and delivery of speeches.

Philosophy
I consider myself a tab judge because I expect each team to provide/clearly communicate some sort of framework from which I should evaluate the round. It should be clear why you are asking me to evaluate your position above that of your opponent. I will consider any argument as long as it’s coherent and structurally sound.

Delivery
Use whatever style and delivery you see best fit. Roadmaps and signposts highly encouraged.

Philosophy
I am mostly concerned with effective policy. When it comes to evidence, I would like debaters to clearly explain why their evidence supports their claim, logic, and argument as a whole. I vote mostly based on clash, if you were able to dismantle arguments against your case and clearly explain to me why that argument is not effective then I am much more likely to vote for your side as you demonstrate argument interactions. I have a background in speech communication and theater and so I pay attention to presentational aspects as well.

Delivery
I can keep up with speed. I prefer brief and accurate road maps. I want debaters to explain to me how the arguments evolved during the course of the flow and demonstrate to me why their argument and evidence is superior.

Philosophy
CX debate should be educational, I want to listen to a round where both sides are presenting good arguments and are debating with good decorum. Neg needs to bring several arguments and affirmative needs to address them all. I am a stock issues judge, so that is what will win my vote. I like when debaters share a brief roadmap before beginning their speech, and I think it is essential that you explain in your own words the importance of a piece of evidence that has been read. Don't just read the evidence. Don't just tell me to vote for you, but explain why I should vote for you.

Delivery
This is a communication contest. Communicate clearly-- speaking should be clear and the speech should be organized and easy to follow. I do not like spreading.

Philosophy
I judge policy (CX) debate as a flow-based, comparative activity. My role is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round and determine which team better supports its position through clear claims, warrants, and impacts. I do not intervene or rely on personal beliefs; if an argument is not made, extended, or clearly explained, it will not factor into my decision. Clash is essential. Debaters should directly engage with opposing arguments and explain why their positions outweigh, turn, or mitigate the other side. Impact calculus matters, and I value clear comparisons on magnitude, probability, and timeframe. Speed is acceptable as long as clarity and organization are maintained. If an argument cannot be flowed due to lack of clarity, it will not be evaluated. Strong signposting and organization are key to effective advocacy. I am open to a wide range of arguments, including DAs, CPs, T, K, and theory provided they are clearly explained and well-developed. I reward strategic decision-making, clear communication, and effective comparison of arguments. The team that best explains why they win the round, based on the flow, will be best positioned to earn my ballot.

Delivery
Clear organization and signposting are strongly preferred. Debaters should be easy to follow and clearly indicate where arguments begin and end. Speed is acceptable, but clarity takes priority over pace. Effective delivery includes appropriate emphasis, explanation, and engagement with the opposing team’s arguments. Speakers should avoid excessive jargon and clearly articulate impacts and comparisons. Professionalism and respect toward opponents and the judge are expected throughout the round.

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
Judge on communication skills, clear topic, ability to question opponents speech effectively.

Delivery
Effective and clear communication staying on topic.

Philosophy
I value clarity over speed. I prefer clear, confident speaking rather than rushing through arguments. If I can’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.

Delivery
I prefer a clear, confident, and intentional speaking style over speed for the sake of speed. Debaters should prioritize clarity, organization, and strategic explanation rather than rushing through arguments. I value well-developed analysis that makes decision-making easy. While efficiency is appreciated, spreading without clarity will affect speaker points and argument evaluation. I reward debaters who demonstrate command of the material, explain warrants, and communicate persuasively. Slow down, articulate and make your impacts matter. Confidence, control, and coherence will always outweigh sheer velocity in front of me.

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 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 will judge this round through a stock issues framework. I value clear communication, clarity and well-structured arguments. Clash is essential. I want to hear direct responses to opposing arguments, extended impacts and logical integration of evidence into analysis. Solvency is a key issue for me.

Delivery
Articulation is critical, if I can't understand you, I can't flow it or judge on it. Rudeness is not acceptable at all. I expect t hear roadmaps and voters .

Philosophy
CX debate is a balance of aggressively advocating your policy position and communicating in a clear and logical manner to convince the judge. It requires respect for yourself, opponent, and the debate. Facetious or silly arguments or overt and unneeded rudeness don’t belong. Stock is a real thing and these issues should be fully and completely addressed and covered. Off topic argument is part off debate generally, but it needs to make sense to be part a particular debate. Raising and answering disads is a significant part as well. Don’t head down paths you get lost on, it better make it back to the point. Show me where you’re going, tell me when you get there, and explain it when you’re done. Make your case and make your argument why you won. Really cover harms and solvency, like really cover it. If you don’t do that work, I can’t do it for you.

Delivery
The question isn’t how I am with speed, it’s how you are. If I can’t actually follow what you’re saying because of slur or skip then what was the point. Go as fast as you actually can. Be polite, courteous, and respectful. It’s an academic debate and it is intended to resolve a policy issue in a realistic manner. If we wander too far away from that into hyperbole or games, you might get lost. Style is about speaking well and in an organized professional fashion. A little personality goes a long way and too much gets in the way. The CX debater is a deliverer of an argument, the argument is still the most important factor.

Philosophy
For the NEG, I will listen to every argument but a K. I love when teams signpost. This is imperative for the NEG when trying to break Advantages. For the AFF team, I just want you to defend the Advantages of your plan. FIAT is also acceptable to me, but if your Budget is too large, I won't vote for the AFF.

Delivery
I like clear speakers who are strong. Be confident in your voice and presentation. Be professional in cross and in AC/NC speeches.

Philosophy
For the NEG, I want to hear every argument that you can come up with. I am EXTREMELY against arguments that lead to nuclear war and extinction. Nuclear escalation is fine, but I do not believe that AFF plans lead to imminent death. CP, K, Theory, DA, T, etc... are all acceptable. For the AFF, stick to your Advantages. That's one thing that I am big on. I also want to know that your plan benefits humanity. Lastly, do not rely on FIAT to fix all your detailed needs.

Delivery
I enjoy listening to clear speakers. I don't care if you speak fast, but I need to hear every word you are saying. I don't want to hear condescending speakers, I don't want speakers to be rude, but it is okay to point out the other team's mistakes.

Philosophy
Policy debate should center on policy. All off case arguments need to be clearly linked to the affirmative plan. Impacts are crucial but must have high probability. Counter plans are optional. Topicality is a key issue, but I only vote on it if there’s actual in round abuse. I prefer debate on the issues to debate on the rules.

Delivery
Debate is a public speaking event. It should be clear, communicative, and passionate.

Philosophy
I approach rounds as a policy maker who defaults to stock issues and comparative cost–benefit analysis. My ballot goes to the team that best explains why their advocacy solves a real problem better than the alternative. I am flow-oriented and value technical execution, but persuasion still matters—arguments should be warranted, impacted, and clearly weighed. Framework matters when it is explained and applied. In later speeches, I expect strategic collapse, impact calculus, and clear ballot framing. Debate should be competitive, professional, and educational.

Delivery
I prefer clear, organized policy debate with an emphasis on stock issues—topicality, significance, inherency, solvency, and disadvantages. Speed is acceptable, but clarity matters more than sheer pace; I will not evaluate arguments I cannot understand. Signpost consistently and explain how your impacts connect back to the stock issues. Evidence comparison and impact calculus are critical. I value strategic collapse in later speeches and expect teams to extend warrants, not just taglines. Professionalism, clarity, and logical decision-making will always outweigh performative delivery.

Philosophy
I do not come in favoring any team, argument, or style. You must explain your arguments clearly and tell me why they matter. All debaters are expected to follow UIL rules. I value explanation over technical tricks. Simply saying an argument was “dropped” is not enough—you must explain why that argument means you should win the round. Impact comparison and clear weighing between both teams’ arguments are important. I am open to all types of arguments, but I will only evaluate what is clearly explained and connected to the round. Do not assume I know your evidence or theory—walk me through it. Professionalism and respect are expected at all times. Confidence is welcome, but rudeness is not. In short: clear explanation, good organization, and persuasive reasoning will win my ballot.

Delivery
Communication means that I can clearly understand you. I don't prefer speed, but I mostly value clarity. I should be able to follow, flow, and comprehend your arguments throughout the round. Signposting is essential as you move through your arguments. Clearly label arguments, transitions, and responses so that I can track the structure of your speech. In addition to technical execution, I value persuasive explanation—tell me why your arguments matter and why they win the round. Be mindful of your volume and pace. You should speak loudly enough to be clearly heard and at a pace that allows comprehension. If your speed or delivery prevents effective communication, it will negatively affect both evaluation of arguments and speaker points. Professionalism and politeness are expected.

Philosophy
My judging philosophy for CX debate is grounded in a policymaker perspective. I evaluate the round by considering which team presents the most credible plan or advocacy and whether it would produce the greatest net benefits compared to the status quo or the opposing side. That said, I am absolutely willing to vote on strong stock issues arguments when they are clearly developed and impacted, particularly if they demonstrate problems with significance, harms, solvency, or topicality. I place a high value on the quality of evidence over the sheer quantity of cards read. Well-warranted, credible sources that are explained and contextualized are far more persuasive to me than large volumes of underdeveloped evidence. I expect debaters to do more than simply read cards; I want you to explain the warrants, connect the evidence to your claims, and clearly articulate why it matters in the round. Analysis and comparison are critical. Tell me how your evidence interacts with your opponent’s arguments and why your impacts should be prioritized. Ultimately, I reward teams that are organized, clear, and intentional, demonstrating both strong preparation and an ability to communicate the significance of their advocacy in a practical, real-world policymaking context.

Delivery
I prefer a style that emphasizes clear communication over speed. Strong speaking skills are important to me, including good diction, confident projection, and consistent eye contact with the judge rather than reading with heads down. I do not value rapid-fire delivery; arguments are more persuasive when presented at a measured pace that allows for clarity and emphasis. I also expect debaters to be well organized, with clearly structured and signposted arguments that are easy to follow throughout the round. I am most persuaded by competitors who demonstrate preparation, confidence, and respect for the communication aspect of debate.

Philosophy
Unknown

Delivery
Unknown

Philosophy
I expect the debaters to tell me how to evaluate the round. If you don’t give me a clear framework I will will make my decision based on who wins the round with the least amount of judge intervention. In other words, I will default to the side that does the best job of providing a coherent, self-contained explanation of why they should win without me having to fill in gaps or make interpretive leaps. Ultimately, the final rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) should write my Reason for Decision (RFD) for me. If something isn’t clearly extended, impacted, and weighed in those speeches, it will not be part of my decision calculus Due to space limits, my complete judging paradigm is posted on Tabroom; students and coaches are encouraged to review it prior to the round. Extension & Weighing: Any argument you want me to vote on must be extended in every relevant speech and weighed at the end of the round. Impact calculus is crucial: tell me why your impact, framework, or advocacy outweighs your opponent’s. Evidence Quality: I value well-explained evidence over blippy cards read at high speed. You should still tell me what your evidence says and why it matters.

Delivery
I’m fine with speed as long as it’s clear. If I can’t flow it, I can’t evaluate it. Clarity > speed.

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 tolerated but not preferred. If you are going to spread, make sure to slow down on tags and citations -- and I do expect to hear citations for any evidence used. This is a communication event and should be persuasive in nature. Just reading a piece of evidence is not making an argument.

Philosophy
While the majority of my thoughts about debate below still ring true for UIL. I think you should somewhat adhere to the norms of the circuit you are debating on. UIL is meant to be the most accessible format of policy debate. Do with that info what you will. 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. I will flow on paper if space allows it. If I do open a speech doc, its to read evidence as I follow along but I'll only flow what I hear you say. 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. For more depth and argument breakdown, look me up on tabroom.com

Delivery
CLARITY COMES FIRST. Making fewer, more effective arguments that I can hear; is always preferred to a lot of sketchy arguments I can't understand. I think there is a place for spreading, I don't judge enough super fast nat circuit rounds to be accustomed to it right off in my first round of the tournament. But, I do think I can adapt rather quickly. I'm flowing on paper, so do with that what you will.

Philosophy
I 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. Debate the way you debate and most important, have fun!

Delivery
I prefer debaters to own their style and delivery choice, so be confident. There are some style and delivery choices that are preferred for UIL State. Professionalism and courtesy shown with your debate partner, opponents, judge(s), and audience. Face the judge(s) for cross-examinations, as opposed to facing your opponent. Rapid delivery is fine with me, if you slow down for tags and sources. Conversational delivery for overviews, underviews and voters is effective. Have fun!

Philosophy
I care primarily about thorough, well-researched and well-communicated arguments that make sense in concert with each other. I believe debate should be educational.

Delivery
I prefer crisp delivery at a pace in which the average person could understand.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=934873 I have my official Paradigm on Tabroom.

Delivery
I prefer speakers that are able to provide a healthy argument, substantial evidence, and citations to back it up while also being able to present themselves in a comprehensible manner. Debaters that just rattle off as fast as they can and are incomprehensible are not fulfilling the presentation aspect of the Debate. However, all flash and attitude will not trump the student that has done the research and has the better evidence while lacking in their presentation skills. I ask all debaters to find the balance to the best of their ability.

Philosophy
Stock issues are the roots of the debate. As the aff you should up hold the stock issues and thouroghly prove that your case is necessary through each stock issue. As the Neg you should tear down the Affs case by targeting the stock issues. That being said if one side fails to communicate to me the importance of their arguement (even if the evidence was solid) i will flow to the side that best communicates the issue. Debate is public speach and you should be able to describe your own arguements to a high degree. Kritiks can be good but only use it if ABSOLUTELY necessary.

Delivery
I dont mind spreading as long as its audible, this is a form of public speaking so act as you would if you were trying to convinvce a counsil. For cross examination I perfer consise statements in their own words, using cards when necassary.

Philosophy
I will listen to any argument but am technical about structures of arguments. If off-case (disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks) are going to be run, they need to have the necessary components. If a debater does not understand the structure of an argument, they do not need to run the argument. This is a communication event so I do not want to be on any email chains, have evidence flashed to me, or be included in the SpeechDrop. I can read. The point of this event is that you communicate the information to me. Since this is a UIL event, I am a UIL judge. Habits/behaviors picked up on other competition circuits should be left out of the round if they are against traditional UIL standards of competition. There is never a reason to be rude in the round (either verbally or non-verbally) and absolutely no reason to be misusing electronics.

Delivery
I am alright with speed, but not spreading. My perception of "spreading" is that it usually sounds like an asthma attack and you cannot understand the person doing it. Debaters should speak faster than average people having a conversation, but not so fast that all quality of communication is lost.

Philosophy
Clarity and organization are my top priorities. I prefer debates delivered at a conversational or moderately paced speed. If I cannot clearly understand an argument, I cannot evaluate it. I value well‑explained claims, strong warrants, clear evidence comparison, and direct clash. Please signpost, roadmap, and make it easy for me to follow where arguments go on the flow. I reward teams who explain why their arguments matter and how they should shape the round. I generally default to a policy‑making paradigm and compare which side provides the better overall plan or policy outcome. I will evaluate theory or other frameworks, but they must be slow, clear, and directly tied to the round. Professionalism, respectful conduct, and educational focus matter. My decision is based on the flow, the clarity of your arguments, and the comparative weighing you provide.

Delivery
I am a judge who values clear, well‑organized arguments over speed or technical complexity. I prefer debaters who explain their points thoroughly, support claims with solid evidence, and clearly extend arguments throughout the round. Slow down on tags and analytics and make sure key points are easy to follow. I evaluate based on the strength of arguments, comparative analysis, and overall persuasion. Respectful, professional delivery matters. If I can’t understand it, I can’t vote on it. Help me see why your position wins.

Philosophy
I am a flow judge. I like to vote on what is presented, extended, and debated within in the round. I am a stock judge. I will listen to off case arguments, but they need to be well explained. All evidence needs to be explained. No spreading.

Delivery
I like clear and concise speaking. Respectful to Judge and Opponents.

Philosophy
Debate is about clear thinking and persuasive communication. I believe the round should reward the team that best explains, supports, and weighs their arguments—not the team that simply speaks the fastest. I value organization, strong warrants, and clear impact comparison in rebuttals. I am open to a wide range of arguments, but they must be explained in a way that makes sense in the round. Be strategic, be respectful, and tell me why your arguments matter most.

Delivery
I value clarity over speed. If I can’t understand it, I can’t vote on it—so slow down on tags, plan text, and voters. Explain your arguments and impacts clearly instead of assuming I’ll fill in gaps. Weigh your arguments in rebuttals and tell me why you win. I’m open to policy arguments, T, theory, and kritiks, but they must be explained well. Use cross-ex to set up speeches. Be respectful and professional. The most clear and persuasive team wins.

Philosophy
I am a tab judge. I let the debaters frame the round. I will default stocks if the debaters do not frame the round another way. I like a lot of clash. I do not like it when debaters turn on their debate brain and turn off their logical brain. There is always room for both! I value quality and quantity of arguments equally. I do believe that topicality is important, and I find myself often voting on T because there is little else substantive on the flow. However, I don’t like rounds that hinge on T. I prefer more real clash. I am neutral on CPs. I vote often on DAs. I do not like conditional arguments and almost never vote on them. I do not like Ks, but I will flow them. They must be run to perfection for me to vote on them. I have no problem with new in the 2, in fact I would say, I prefer it as it is still a constructive speech.

Delivery
I can flow pretty fast, but if you are talking so fast you can't breathe then I can't flow it. If I stop typing, you are going too fast. At its heart, this is still a communication event.

Philosophy
Be kind

Delivery
Speed fine make sure to be clear

Philosophy
Above all else, I want both teams to address every point made by the other. It is incredibly frustrating to watch a debate in which both teams simply talk past each other. At that point, it isn't a debate, it's just a solipsistic exercise for both teams. As such, clash is preferred, although I understand not being able to clash if one team simply won't address any points made by the other. In my personal opinion, a winning team is one which addresses every criticism/point thrown their way, dismantles the other team's position through hard evidence (rather than semantics or logical fallacies), and platforms their position and its pros every chance they get.

Delivery
I would prefer if teams do not spread. Don't forget to enunciate, and speak loud enough for me to hear you!

Philosophy
I'm a very "easy" judge in the sense that I think that you should do what you're best at. If that's a K, that's fine. If it's policy affs with heg advantages, I'm fine with that too. Blatant racism, sexism or homophobia is an easy way to lose my ballot. I'm also not huge on making fun of your opponents; it's not persuasive. Full paradigm available under Isabella LoCicero on tabroom.

Delivery
I can handle speed. I would match the speed of your opponents - if one of you is spreading and the other isn't, it does affect speaker points. Make sure to be clear and slow down on tags and analytics so my flow will be as clean as possible.

Philosophy
I think debate should be about debate and clash over a topic and not an all or nothing style case.

Delivery
I prefer pronounced debate over spreading and clash.

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.

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.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.

Philosophy
I will listen to anything you present in the round and will vote on just about anything, as long as it is presented and defended well. For the affirmative, you should know your case and be able to defend it, particularly when it comes to stock issues and on case. On negative, I like stock issues and disads, but have voted on counterplans and kritiks before and enjoy them when appropriate and well-run.

Delivery
Speed is fine, as long as I can understand you. This is a communication event, so I expect communication to be clear and when speed impedes communication, your outcome will suffer. I won't judge on anything that hasn't been said in the round, so don't anticipate I'll draw big conclusions or read the speech drop.

Philosophy
My role is to evaluate the round based on what is said in the debate. If it’s not on the flow, it doesn’t exist. I lean tech over truth. Aff must defend the resolution through a topical plan and demonstrate why the plan is a net improvement. Neg has a tollbox of ways to win if done correct.

Delivery
If I can't understand what you are saying, it will not make it to my flow. If it is not on my flow, you didn't say it. Delivery needs to be clean and increased speed needs a cadence to make

Philosophy
You can check on Tabroom if you like but I live in an offense/defense argument kind of world. I am looking for a comparative advantage Aff/Neg Debate I have a high threshold for voting on Topicality and Theory and must include Definition Violation and Standards for why your interp is better than the opponents.

Delivery
My preference for debate is an organized line by line debate that includes you extending and engaging with each others arguments. I would prefer you to resolve why your arguments are better

Philosophy
I am very tab. I would much rather adapt to you than you adapt to me. Do what you do best and I look forward to seeing that.

Delivery
Just be clear. I can handle speed as long as you are capable of being clear.

Philosophy
None

Delivery
None

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

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

Philosophy
If you argue it well, it will weigh in the round. I am a tabula rasa judge. Will vote on stock issues and policies. I believe K and framework changes a policy debate to a more LD value driven discussion, hence my dislike for them.

Delivery
This is a policy debate and I prefer arguments of that nature. Ie no k or framework please! Delivery can be fast, but should be clear and fluent as this is a speaking competition. Signpost and emphasize so important stuff makes it on the flow. I am not one to be on the evidence chain to go read what I missed in poor delivery.

Philosophy
I believe that I should be adapting to debaters. You tell me how to vote and I will. That said, without instruction, know that I will evaluate the round as a policymaker. It's offense vs. defense. I don't mind any particular arguments and don't really have any inherent biases. Be willing to tell me how your arguments function in terms of a ballot at the end of the round.

Delivery
I do like it when debaters remember the presentational aspect of debate. But, I also know there are some functional limits there. My preference is that you handle the technical side of debate efficiently and just have (respectful) fun while you debate.

Philosophy
I am a Stock Issues judge. Those arguments will be my main focus and likely determine how I vote. DAs must have a clear link to the AFF plan. CPs need to focus on outweighing the Impacts of the AFF or I will not vote for them. I will not vote on Kritiks.

Delivery
I value clear communication above all. Organization and signposting are key. Do not make it my job to label your arguments. Excessive speed has a negative impact on debate.

Philosophy
I put a lot of emphasis on stock issue debate but I am open to all kinds of arguments as long as they are run correctly.

Delivery
I don’t love spreading but as long as I can understand you I am ok with speed.

Philosophy
**Please ignore the numbers (the scales do not make sense) and look at my full linked paradigm for more detailed info** https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=103845 I'm a tab judge but default to an offense-defense heuristic. The best thing you can do for me is provide very explicit judge instruction. Tell me explicitly what to evaluate and how to evaluate it. K: I'm more comfortable evaluating policy v. policy and policy v. k rounds than k v. k rounds, but again, I want you to debate however you debate best. Assume that I am probably not familiar with your specific K literature; provide a clear explanation of the thesis of the criticism. I expect a coherent explanation of how your alt resolves the link. Again, this explanation should not be contingent on me having background knowledge on the specific literature you're reading. Topicality/theory: I default to competing interps but will evaluate the reasonability argument as it's given. I have a very high threshold for RVIs -- unless the neg is reading a truly absurd number of frivolous t/theory shells, this is just an argument that I am not likely to find persuasive. If you have a question you don't see the answer to, ask me.

Delivery
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=103845 My goal is for you to debate in whatever way you debate best! Spreading is fine as long as taglines and analytics are clear/slow. Please be nice to the people you're debating. Being rude won't help you win and will hurt your speaker points. Being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, or otherwise demeaning/discriminatory towards other students in the round will result in a loss and 20 speaks.

Philosophy
I approach CX debate from a fairly traditional, policy-focused perspective. I value clear advocacy, strong evidence comparison, and logical decision-making. Debate should reward teams who explain why their arguments matter and how they interact with their opponents’ positions, not just those who read the most cards. Speed is fine, but clarity is required. If I cannot hear or understand an argument, I cannot flow or evaluate it. Signposting and clean taglines matter. I am open to theory and kritiks, but I am skeptical. Kritik arguments must be clearly explained, grounded in the round, and tied directly to the affirmative or negative advocacy. Generic or underdeveloped kritiks will not be persuasive. I am unlikely to vote on arguments that prioritize jargon over explanation. Ultimately, I vote for the team that best tells me why their impacts outweigh, turn, or resolve the core issues in the round.

Delivery
Clarity is essential. Arguments should be clean, logically structured, and easy to follow on the flow. Taglines must be clearly articulated so their claims and impacts are immediately understood. Speak quickly enough to be efficient, but not so quickly that I cannot understand you. Arguments should progress logically from claim to warrant to impact, with clear transitions between arguments. Effective delivery prioritizes precision, organization, and audience comprehension over speed or volume.

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

Delivery
Im good for speed, but if you are unclear I won't flow. https://www.tabroom.com/user/judge/paradigm.mhtml

Philosophy
I was raised on stock issue debate. However I do maintain an open mind on philosophical areas and outside of the box thinking. I do maintain a preference for true stock issue debate.

Delivery
Clear and organized communication is important to me. Having a clear set of negative and positive stances with support is key for me.

Philosophy
I lean toward traditional stock issues. BUT I do not discriminate against progressive or non-traditional arguments. If you win your framework and explain it clearly, I will evaluate under it. My ballot is simple: tell me how to vote. Clarity > speed. If you spread: Signpost clearly. Structure each argument. Identify clear voting issues. If I cannot clearly flow it, I cannot evaluate it. I need clear extensions of offense and direct refutation and clash. Do not assume I will connect arguments for you Debate is persuasion and comparison. Be clear. Be structured. Tell me exactly why I sign your ballot.

Delivery
Arguments must be conveyed clearly and directly. If you are spreading, you must provide bullet points outlining each argument. Every argument should be broken down into distinct, organized points. Clarity and structure will be prioritized in evaluation.

Philosophy
I prefer to watch rounds with scholars who do original research to craft positions and use the flow to make strategic decisions. Comfortable with all arguments.

Delivery
Deliberate articulation usually no more than 120wpm is preferred

Philosophy
Statement I prefer to watch rounds with scholars who do original research to craft positions and use the flow to make strategic decisions. Comfortable with all arguments.

Delivery
Deliberate articulation usually no more than 120wpm is preferred

Philosophy
I feel very comfortable judging UIL style policy debate, as well as evaluating a variety of critical arguments. In terms of what I like to see in round: *Clash - I really enjoy rounds where the teams are engaging directly with each others arguments, not simply reading cards/speech docs that were prepared for them by coaches not in the room. Just because something says AT:XX doesn't mean that it links with every single debate where XX is being run - please use analytics to connect your cards to what is actually happening in the round. *Education focus - At the end of the day, we should all hope to learn from rounds, whether we are the judge or the competitor. I love when I leave a round having learned something new or with a better understanding of something. To this end, sarcastic comments, snippy CX periods, or attempts to make others feel stupid are just not conducive to having an educational experience. You can be a fierce competitor and an excellent CXer without making others feel stupid. I will vote on ALMOST anything as long as it is well-argued, applicable to what is happening in the round, and isn't morally offensive (please don't argue offensive positions like racism good or stuff like that). The flow is where I decide the round, so make sure that you have your arguments ON THE FLOW and that you are doing explicit extensions of the arguments you want me to go for. Also, for the love all that is good, please have clear roadmaps, clear tags, and organized approach. Speech doc sharing is awesome - I definitely want to be on your speechdrop during round.

Delivery
I think that, at its core, debate is a communication activity, but what that communication looks like varies across debate formats, circuits, etc. Just like in life, it is critical that you evaluate your audience and adapt according to norms/expectations in your setting. As this is UIL, I do expect to see cases that address stock issues, clear citation and arguments, clarity of speaking, polite interaction between competitors, etc. Not that this doesn't happen in other settings, but I definitely expect these things at UIL State. I feel very comfortable judging UIL style policy debate, as well as evaluating a variety of critical arguments. As an aside, if it helps, extemp is my FAVORITE event...so clearly speaking well matters to me.

Philosophy
Debate is a communication event. Speakers are to treat debate as if it were a conversation but a conversation where you provide solutions to an issue and then try and convince me the judge that your solution is the best way to go and why.

Delivery
Debaters should form their delivery in a traditional speech format. Give an introduction, answer questions who what when where why. Summarize and explain arguments and give a concise conclusion. Delivery should be clear and concise.

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

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

Philosophy
I am a high school debate coach who values respect and educational debate. I believe rounds should be competitive yet constructive learning experiences. Respect toward opponents, partners, and judges is essential. I prioritize clear argumentation, organization, and clash over speed. I reward debaters who weigh impacts, explain voting issues, and demonstrate professionalism. Debate should challenge ideas, not people, and at the end of the round everyone should leave having learned something.

Delivery
I am a traditional UIL judge who values clear argumentation and persuasion over speed. Speak at a pace that is understandable. Signpost clearly and tell me where you are on the flow. Weigh impacts, compare arguments, and explicitly explain how I should vote and where to sign the ballot. I will not connect arguments for you—clarity and organization matter. Excessive speed that sacrifices understanding may hurt speaks.

Philosophy
I will base by decision on clarity, logical coherence, topic engagement, effective rebuttals, organization, delivery, evidence use, critical thinking, and respect. Use of quality evidence outweighs quantity. I look forward to seeing a well-structured round. Signposts are helpful for flowing.

Delivery
I prefer speaking to be that is clear, confident, well-organized, respectful, persuasive, engaging, and responsive, emphasizing clarity, logical structure, poise, respectful tone, enthusiasm, and attentive listening.

Philosophy
As a debate judge, I look for clash in communication. Debate is a elevated level of communication and critical thinking applied through logic and persuasion. Sound reasoning, critical thinking, and effective rhetoric are what I am looking for in each argument. I will judge any argument -- not opposed to progressive arguments if they demonstrate the foundations I am looking for. I have awarded wins on each. However, because K/Aff K are fundamentally a protest against the philosophy of the debate event, or an outcry against perceived bias or unfairness of the topic/framers/system or other core tenet of Policy Debate, the debater in these arguments must overcome this deficit with a clear alternative to the alleged biased system or philosophy. If you refuse to engage on the topic of the round you must give voters along with your alternative. Clash is all important, but civility is vital to winning my vote for your arguments. Unprofessional behavior will net a loss in speaker points. Don't make your arguments personal, period. There are plenty of ways to question the fairness or bias of something without somehow straw-manning your opponent into the embodiment of such a bias. Rapid delivery is tolerated insofar as I can keep up. If I stop typing or disengage from the ballot, you are going too fast. If I can't hear or understand you, I can't flow the argument to your team. 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. Final weighing of the round in the rebuttals 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. Have fun, be respectful, and great job for working this hard

Delivery
Your style should be formal and professional. Your speed should enhance your argumentation strategy. Extreme spreading is not a speaking skill that I consider worthy of best practices in debate. Rapid delivery is fine - if I close my laptop, I'm not keeping up.

Philosophy
Traditional STOCK issues judge. I am well versed in topicalities, disadvantages, and counterplans, but am less familiar with kritiks. Be careful as to not cherry-pick your evidence, because if something is called into question about the validity of your claims, I will check to see whether what you are claiming, is true. If going to split the neg block, be sure to keep all arguments made thus far on the flow. If the affirmative is expected to do it, I will hold the negative to the same standard.

Delivery
I am okay with spreading, however, you’d better have exceptional enunciation skills, unless you want your speaker points to suffer. If I cannot understand you without having to follow along in your case file, then I cannot adequately judge you. Keep the flow very nice and clean, with specific signposting and direct application of attacks- I will not guess where you are applying arguments. Provide clash. Be respectful, always.

Philosophy
My philosophy involves three aspects: (1) Debaters should definitely focus on the stock issues, their meaning, and poiont out where appropriate for affirmative and negative. For me, stock issues become voting issues which makes it easy to determin the winner of the round. (2) Both sides should create clash with each other in a structured, coherent, logical manner. When issues are dropped by either side, they should be pointed out, thereby, potentially giving that team an advantage. (3)There must be a balance between the number of issues brought to the table with quality of evidence. Over innundating oipponents with an extensive number of issues will not guarantee either side a win.

Delivery
Students should be articulate with structured arguments and a coherent rate of delivery that can be understood all. Rapid fire delivery style personally is acceptable, but needs to be balanced with the quality of the arguments raised. Students should also be professionally dressed which is part of the non-verbal communication style.

Philosophy
Although I am primarily a policymaker judge, I still feel that the stock issues are an important part of policy debate. 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 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. I 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. Finally, remember to crystalize the round in your rebuttals.

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. Please go for depth over breadth. Sign posting and road maps are also important. Finally, please keep gesturing and sarcasm to a minimum.

Philosophy
I am a policy maker. If the neg only argues stock issues and the aff never reminds me I am a policy maker, then I assume you are debating under a stock issues paradigm. You have a responsibility to tell me why I should vote for you as a policymaker. Do what you do well. I don't have a preference on what you read. Tell me why you win at the end. Bonus points for extending case all the way through. My soapbox is roadmaps. please be brief aff case then off case is fabulous. i dont need each individual argument and an explanation of why that argument is not good in the roadmap. If you are making arguments in the roadmap, i start time because you already started debating. off case then case, the disad then case, those are simple and effective roadmaps. be polite if possible...

Delivery
Be clear. That's the rule. I dont expect everyone to be a perfect speaker. I do expect clash and politeness. I don't worry about speed. I worry about clarity. I am not the uhh and umm police. I worry about the substantive issues in the round.

Philosophy
Debaters can run whatever argument they want as long as it does not perpetuate or open up room for harmful rhetoric. I want people to read the story they wanna tell in round, and defend what matters to them. In round practices become out of round ones through imagining new futures.

Delivery
Debaters can do what they need to do. I am not picky.

Philosophy
Debate is a verbal activity - I will not read case or evidence - but judge on what is said clearly enough to be flowed I am a tabula rasa judge - I will judge on what is said by debaters, not my own thoughts, knowledge or logic

Delivery
Professional Presentation Point by point refutation - organized, well developed arguments Linking arguments to opposition rather than simply reading brief Don’t care how fast - but must be understood clearly and have good speaking skills while speaking I prefer arguments on topic vs debate theory or source (unless well presented and key to arguments)

Philosophy
The debaters job is to convince me as a judge that their aff plan SHOULD be made a reality, inverse for the neg. I am less concerned about whether or not it will be passed and generally accept fiat arguments as long as I agree that the given branch or branches should logically accept the plan. I take all forms of argument equally including appeals to ethics, finances, international policy, or utilitarian principles. If the debater can make the best evidence supported argument for their claim I will generally flow that way. I do also take the rules of UIL CX Debate seriously and will make decisions based on topicality, fairness, or new in the 2.

Delivery
I am alright with spreading as long as the speaker enunciates well and is understandable. I expect all debaters in the round to speak to the judge at all times not facing their opponents. Given that they are clearly made, quality of arguments will always be weighted over style and delivery.

Philosophy
Objective observer: I dont walk in with a side chosen. I make my decision based upon what is said in the debate, not what I know already about the topic.

Delivery
I prefer that people speak with a clear voice and not talk so fast that you cannot understand what they are saying. Arguments matter not if I cannot understand. I focus on the big picture and the points you emphasize. If you spend most of your time on one argument, I assume it is the most important one.

Philosophy
Longer paradigm on tabroom. For the most part just debate how you are most comfortable debating. Run whatever you want if you think you can do it well. I will do my best to adapt to you. I default to offense / defense under util if given no other weighing mechanism for the round. Teams that do the best in front of me usually condense in the last speeches and write my ballot for me throughout the round. If you have questions for how I evaluate a specific argument, ask before round or check the tab paradigm.

Delivery
Speed is good. Sign post between flows. Say "and" between cards. Slow down on analytics.

Philosophy
Debate is work. It’s the most reflexive activity in its ability to shine light on who is working to teach and who is learning. Therefore, it is not a game. I default that Offense and Defense controls my views of argument. I think framework is germane, even if it is not explicitly stated by either side in the debate. I am an advocate for debate being the norm in how classrooms are managed, and extended, in the daily lives of students. My pedagogical goal is to be open to all interpretations that are set by the educators in the room until the end of the debate when it becomes my job to discern whose teaching sets the precedent for a better orientation to the prior sentence. That orientation is a sacrilege for how it is possible to experience the work of a student in their attempt to teach information and create activity through their pedagogical whims. If you wish to have more knowledge on my philosophy and experiences of debate, you can find my paradigm on tabroom.com

Delivery
On tabroom.com, I have a paradigm with my style and delivery preference strictly omitted for the sole purpose of leaving that decision up to the debaters. If I cannot flow your arguments due to delivery and style, you will see it in my expression and lack of moving pen on paper. Thus, I will not be able to flow your arguments if I cannot understand them. I encourage creativity in the constructive. I encourage organized and combative questions in cross-examination. I encourage extemporaneous engagement with the flow of the debate and extension of evidence in the rebuttals.

Philosophy
Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means -clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow. -no spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you! -you are courteous to your opponent. -you make it clear why I should vote for you.

Delivery
I prefer debates that focus on clear delivery of the issues and contain lots of clash. The rate of speech needs to be such that both I and the other team can realistically flow the arguments presented. I do not prefer debate teams who are condescending to others.

Philosophy
Be considerate and consistent throughout the round. If evidence is dropped at the beginning of the 1AC, then ALL evidence should be dropped at the beginning of the speech. Do not run a K as an aff. If you are neg you can run On-case, T's, CP's, DA's, and K's. Please just make sure that you have the required parts and that you can make a plausible link. If it is too far of a link or connection, I will not give it to you. Make sure and hit each point that is brought up by the neg team each time you speak. Sometimes you need to bring new arguments in the 2NC because of clarification issues but please be mindful of the fact and the aff will definitely attack all that you brought up. If you are splitting the neg block, you have to tell me that at the beginning of the 2NC. If the other team does something wrong, then YOU need to point it out. I may catch it but I will not give you credit for it unless you catch it and tell me about during EACH speech. I like dates...make sure you point out the dates of the card you are combatting with the new date you have supplied. All evidence should be relevant and recent. I like all impact calcs... especially probability.

Delivery
Slow down for each tag and then you can speed up for the card. Do not go too slow or I get bored but if you go too fast I do not have time to flow. Tag each argument and card with title and/or summary line with author and date. If you are going to run certain arguments, make sure that you have all of the required parts for the argument.

Philosophy
I approach each round as a Tabula Rasa judge, a perspective grounded in my experience judging since the 1994. I default to a policymaking framework unless the the round a different lens (tabula rosa). I find that rounds distil down to one or two arguments and everything else drops or is a scattershot of shallow claims that fails to land. Civility is mandatory; I will vote down participants for hostility or ethical violations. Ultimately, provide a clear, warranted roadmap to the ballot. My flow is the final arbiter.

Delivery
I value clarity over pure velocity. I can handle a faster pace, your primary burden is ensuring every argument is intelligible; if it isn't on my flow, it won't impact my decision. Clear signposting and explicit transitions are non-negotiable for an organized round. I appreciate professional delivery that balances technical proficiency with persuasive communication. Please emphasize warrants over simply reading tags. Strategic, respectful cross-examination is the best way to learn something but also give your partner free prep time. I expect a civil atmosphere where arguments—not personalities—take center stage. Quality of impact calculus always beats quantity of cards.

Philosophy
I am a tabula rasa judge. I try to enter a round with minimal preconceptions about what what debate should be, allowing the debaters to contest its meaning, purpose, and metrics. However, absent a framework debate, I will default to evaluating as a policymaker. This means evaluating the best policy that creates the best world through traditional utilitarian calculus. I am fine will all types of argumentation, except those advancing oppression and intolerance. Equity and tolerance is a prerequisite to not only fair competition, but education and democracy.

Delivery
The style of speaking does not matter so much as the clarity and enunciation. I prefer speed to be about 75%

Philosophy
CX: I am a policy maker judge. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (Anna.m.rhea@gmail.com), 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
I have no particular requirements for style or delivery.

Philosophy
This is Policy debate. Too many analytical arguments will make me think that you should be a Value debater. This is especially true in rebuttals. Reference the evidence that has been presented in the round. Cover all arguments. On case arguments in the two are logical. If the Affirmative argues that they are not , it leads me to believe that the affirmative does not know their own case. I will probably not vote for an Affirmative K. Decorum wins. State all parts of an argument and label them correctly. This is true for the affirmative and the negative. Use your technology well. Don't look like you just bought your computer yesterday. Exchange evidence well. I'm a district technology coordinator; no cute tricks. I love UIL debate, treat it with care.

Delivery
Speak clearly. Reference evidence. Sign post. Road map. Be organized. Label and use debate terminology. Do not be crude or vulgar. I do not appreciate vain references to the deity. Don't speak over 300 words per minute. Try not to use filler words.

Philosophy
I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. 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.

Delivery
Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

Philosophy
I look for an effective persuasive presentation with clear and concise communication skills. I look to see if the debater limits the number of "fillers" used like "you know", "uhs" or "ums" throughout the debate by each debater. Does the debater drop arguments or emphasize the opposition's point with logic and evidence stated?

Delivery
Effective communications skills, to include persuasive communication skills along with logic and deductive reasoning are essential for my style of judging. The presentation along with the most current evidence on the topic are a plus for me. The arguments must flow throughout the debate.

Philosophy
I am a policy maker judge. I believe that the affirmative has the burned of proof and the Neg has burden of clash. I do not like time suck arguments. If you are running topicality please make sure that it is warranted.

Delivery
I have no issues with speed but if your diction suffers because of speed i will not flow your speech and your arguments will not matter. I am ok with K, CP and DA. Make your impacts realistic.

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

Delivery
https://www.tabroom.com/user/judge/paradigm.mhtml

Philosophy
Focused on clash, argument comparison. I will vote for whichever teams upholds the burden under the resolution. Direct refutation of arguments are crucial to my judging preference. Organization and road maps are preferred. I would evidence to be explained not just read.

Delivery
Clear speaking, eye contact, and organization. Be confident and respectful

Philosophy
I try to enter round with minimal preconceptions about what debate should be, allowing the debaters to contest it's meaning, purpose, and metrics. However, absent of framework debate, I will default to evaluating a policy maker. This means evaluating the best policy that creates the best world through traditional utilitarian oppression and intolerance.

Delivery
Traditional policy judge, communication over technical aspects of debate . Interested in Policy conflict more than jargon. If you explain it clearly you will do fine. I don't care for theory or tricks debate at all. Please only stick to the substance of debate.

Philosophy
This is a communication event, I must understand what you are saying. PLUS, I'm a stock issue judge, explain to me why you should win each argument.

Delivery
Communication is key to winning my ballots

Philosophy
I was trained on Stock Issues for policy debate when I was in high school and that is how I judge today. It is the burden of the Aff to present a Prima Facie case with inherent & significant harms, a topical plan that solves, and that has unique & significant advantages. If the Aff fails to do this in the 1AC then I am already voting Neg. If they succeed, then it is the duty of the Neg to present arguments that undermine at least 1 of those stock issues. I will vote Neg if any of the stock issues fall, but knocking one down is not as easy as it sounds if the Aff has built and presented their case well. Special notice is given to debaters who summarize and roadmap each speech with those issues in mind. Speaker points are deducted from debaters who only read cards and arguments without explaining to me how it relates to the larger issues in the round.

Delivery
I come from a persuasive extemp and theatre background and I place a good deal of importance on persuasive speaking strategies. Content, evidence, and arguments obviously matter, but if you sound more like a text to speech bot than a human trying to convince me of your position, then you are giving your opponents a huge advantage. Project, enunciate, and try to adopt a conversational tone of voice rather than a "presentational" one.

Philosophy
If you say it (put it on the flow), you can prove it (provide evidence and reasoning to support your claims), and you apply it (explain to me the impact of the argument(s) and why it/those mean you win the debate), then I’ll buy it. Just because I will accept most arguments doesn’t mean it’s time to experiment. Please run the best arguments available that help your side the most in that round. Be strategic.

Delivery
Please be clear, but I’ve managed to flow almost everyone I’ve ever judged. I base your speaker points on quality of responses rather than being a “good” speaker! If debaters say a lot of pretty things that don’t mean anything strategically in the round, then those debaters get less speaker points than the more competent, less eloquent debater.

Philosophy
First and foremost, all debaters are expected to follow UIL rules. Any argument or practice that violates UIL guidelines will not be evaluated. I will not intervene to save teams from rule violations—know the rules of the activity you are competing in. I will determine what counts as a roadmap versus what is timed. A roadmap should consist only of the order of the speech. If a debater provides more than the order of the speech before starting time, I do not believe this is fair and will be timed. I do my best to judge rounds as a Tab judge, that said, I coach and am most familiar with a traditional policy debate style, and that is often where my ballot ends up when teams do not clearly frame the round for me. This does not mean you must debate traditionally to win my ballot. It does mean that debaters should clearly frame, contextualize, and weigh the round in a way that makes sense for their chosen strategy.

Delivery
I value professionalism and politeness in debate. Confidence and assertiveness are welcome, but do not cross into rudeness or dismissiveness. If you ask a question—especially in cross-ex—you should allow your opponent time to answer it. Speed is acceptable, but clarity is essential. I must be able to clearly hear, understand, and flow your arguments. If your speed results in gasping, loss of clarity, or makes flowing difficult, you are going too fast and will be penalized accordingly. Clear signposting and consistent pacing are appreciated. Strong explanation, organized structure, and strategic emphasis matter more to me than raw speed alone.

Philosophy
I love debate. I want to see clash. My philosophy is that I will vote for the strongest debaters; the ones that give me the best reason to vote for them. I believe debate is meant to have clash with dignity, argument with evidence, and proof with commentary. Don't assume anyone knows anything. It's the debaters' responsibility to tell the judge(s) what they know and how they know it. The resolution has two sides. If you prove your side better, then I will vote for you. Do your research! Explain your research! Tell me why I should vote for you. I believe debate is an experience that all students should have. It shows students how to defend an argument, research, think fast, and publicly speak. These are lifelong lessons they will take with them into the future.

Delivery
I am a stock issues judge, but am familiar with pretty much everything. I don't really enjoy spreading, but I will listen if I can understand what is being said. Be sure to use evidence and commentary. Don't be snide or condescending, but I do like clash.

Philosophy
Please see my paradigm on Tabroom.

Delivery
Please see my paradigm on Tabroom.

Philosophy
I have evolved into a hybrid judge: stock issues are still tried and true but policy and advantages are a focal point, too.....you can argue funding, but do not crutch out on it as your only negative strategy unless you can truly provide the numbers/analysis. Topicality could come in to play as well--a little thing that, if argued well, might sway a round. But what I truly enjoy is the clash between the status quo problem as presented by the AFF plan and how the negative responds--either with a better option or persuading me with evidence/analysis that the plan is not workable/wise/solvent. To me, this is real world debate and what we should aspire to do on a practical level: fix problems prudently where they exist.

Delivery
Looking for genuine communication skills that reflect knowledge of the topic and knowledge of UIL debate fundamentals.

Philosophy
Debate how you want, just tell me why its good. In debate the only rules are the speech times and speech formations so whatever you got throw it at me. If you are going to run K run it right, I'll give grace but you gotta get close!

Delivery
Talk as fast as you want for warrants, Slow down on analytics, tags, authors, and years. This aint my first rodeo, I can handle.

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. Don't just ask me to vote for you but please explain why I should vote for you.

Delivery
This is a speaking event, not a reading event. You as the debater must listen and speak clearly. I must be able to understand you in order to judge you. No spreading please. Please provide organized arguments. Let me know where you are going and stay on track.

Philosophy
Strike First, Strike Hard, No Mercy

Delivery
No preference

Philosophy
I will vote on stock issues & dropped arguments. Whatever the debate centers around will be the most important arguments, but don't drop anything. You can kick out of a neg argument but you need to state that.

Delivery
Don't spread. I will ask you once to slow down. After that, I stop flowing & you have probably lost.

Philosophy
I’m a stock issue judge, and I like to see clash in a round.

Delivery
Style and delivery are important. I need to be able to understand and follow the speeches.

Philosophy
I look at a round in real-world terms of logic. Outside of the debate bubble, do the arguments, ideas, and analysis make sense? Do the ideas connect? I like to see arguments developed with critical analysis. Have the WHY's and HOW's been answered? Neg, what is 'wrong' with Aff's case to merit this particular argument? What does your argument show in terms of Aff's violation? How does this argument connect to your others? Aff, why does your case need to be enacted? How will it work? How do you show your case is stronger than Neg's attacks?

Delivery
Deliberate. Intentional. Like a professor, a lawyer, a politician. NOT an auctioneer or medical warning ad label reader on tv commercials. (Don't spread, I won't flow.) Including, banging fists in the air to keep time, bouncing on your heels to keep time, gasping between paragraphs, reading to yourself without looking up, or holding the timer at your face.

Philosophy
My CX judging philosophy emphasizes clarity, logic, and strong delivery. I value confident eye contact, clear volume, and well-enunciated speed—go fast if you’re clear. Topicality is important. Affirmatives should present a clear, well-defined plan and address all stock issues thoroughly. Negatives should use sound logic to link arguments directly to the affirmative case while building and supporting their own position. Direct refutation, organized structure, and persuasive communication matter. Topicality, clarity and logical clash win rounds.

Delivery
I value strong eye contact and confident presence. Debaters should clearly link their arguments to their opponent’s case using sound logic and direct refutation. Speed is welcome, as long as it is well-enunciated and understandable. Clarity always outweighs sheer pace. Volume and projection matter.  I appreciate organized, persuasive speakers who engage both their opponent’s arguments and present with clear, intentional communication.

Philosophy
I view debate as an educational exercise in persuasive advocacy. While I am comfortable with technical arguments, I believe the burden of proof lies with the debater to clearly articulate their position. I am a "tabula rasa" judge in theory, but in practice, I lean toward a Policy Maker framework: I am looking for the most effective, well-reasoned policy option presented in the round.I am fine with a brisk pace, but I do not value "spreading" (rapid-fire delivery) if it sacrifices clarity. If I cannot understand your warrants, I cannot flow them. Please slow down on taglines and citations. This allows me to record your evidence accurately. This is UIL. I expect professional decorum, eye contact, and a level of polish that makes the round accessible to a layperson while remaining intellectually rigorous. I am perfectly fine with CPs. Please ensure you clearly explain the mutual exclusivity and the net benefit. I am less inclined toward "generic" Ks. If you run a K, you must be able to explain the link to the affirmative's specific case and provide a clear, functional alternative. Avoid overly dense jargon; if you can't explain the philosophy simply, you probably shouldn't be running it. I pay close attention to CX. It is the best time to show your command of the topic. Use this time to set up your next speech, not just to bicker over minor details. Be assertive, but avoid being rude. Hostility does not equal winning.

Delivery
I value clarity over quantity. * The "Slow-Down" Rule: If you are speaking so fast that I cannot flow your warrants, those arguments won’t make it onto my ballot. Use vocal inflection to highlight your "taglines" and key impacts. If everything is delivered at the same volume and speed, nothing stands out as important. I look for a confident, professional demeanor. Being assertive is great; being condescending to your opponent is a quick way to lose speaker points. Please provide a brief off-clock roadmap. It helps me keep my flow organized and shows you have a strategic plan. In the final rebuttals, I prefer a shift away from line-by-line reading toward "voters" or "weighing mechanisms." Tell me exactly why you won the round. The most stylish thing you can do is impact calculus. Don't just tell me your argument is true—tell me why it matters more than your opponent's argument. A polished delivery of a well-weighed impact will win my vote every time.

Philosophy
I evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented in the round. I look for clear advocacy from both sides and expect teams to directly respond to their opponents. I will vote for the team that best supports and compares their arguments through evidence, analysis, and clash. I especially appreciate clear signposting and impact comparison. Evidence and Analysis Evidence is important, but explanation matters just as much. I value debaters who clearly explain how their evidence supports their claims rather than relying only on reading cards. Strong impact comparison and clear extensions help me most when making my decision.

Delivery
I prefer clear and understandable delivery. I can follow moderate speed, but if I cannot understand the speaker, it may affect my ability to evaluate the argument. Confidence and professionalism are persuasive. There is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive.

Philosophy
I'm interested in the better world post round. So I really appreciate impacts. I prefer disadvantages and counterplans. However, all arguments will be considered as long as they consist of proper parts. Tell me why it matters (i.e. voters). I will vote on theory and kritiks as long as you give me a reason to. Not a fan of topicality but it's mostly because it's seldom run in a meaningful way. Affirmative must improve the status quo and give clear voters.

Delivery
Speed is acceptable as long as there is clear organization. Sign posting is essential. Rude, pretentious or inappropriate behavior will be heavily penalized in speaker points but not RFD.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=245921

Delivery
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=245921

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... I work to diligently keep a clear flow of the debate, but also work to reflect my speaks based upon the circuit and since this is UIL State that is the scope at which I will view speed in these rounds.

Philosophy
I am a flow judge and vote for the team that best explains why they win. Clear analysis and clash matter more than the amount of evidence. I am open to all arguments if they are explained well. Speed is fine if you are clear. If I can’t understand it, I can't flow it, and therefore I can’t evaluate it. Be respectful.

Delivery
I prefer that you don't spread. Don't be rude to your opponent or I'll dock your speaks.

Philosophy
I’d say I lean policymaker, but I’ll default tab if there is not a clear impact calculus in the debate. I am okay with any kind of argument, but make sure there are warrants and analysis to claims. I do not like a debate where each team just reads cards at each other, so please engage in depth the the arguments in the round.

Delivery
Speed is fine, but clarity matters. Make sure tag lines are clear. Do what makes you the most comfortable, but technical debate is also important.

Philosophy
I'm primarily an old school policy judge & I tend to vote for the side that presents the best policy argument. I weigh the advantages vs disadvantages and vote more on the quality of the argumentation rather than the quantity or speed of the argumentation. Counter-plans are okay IF it is a viable option & it is properly presented however, any framework or kritiks ran in the round will not be weighed as a voting factor. Also when arguing topicality please make sure that it is presented with both standards & voters. In the end my decision will be based heavily on the team who is the most polite, professional, & persuasive in presenting their case.

Delivery
I'm an old school debater from 1982-85 & have taught speech & debate in north Texas for 20 years. I don't like spreading, game playing, kritiks etc. Please stick to the standard academic UIL form of CX debate.

Philosophy
Stock issues are important, but it is important to consider arguments on the basis of government policy making and practicality of issues.

Delivery
No spreading. Style and delivery are very important. Arguments should be strong in refutation and organization.

Philosophy
I want you to tell me why you are winning and what you want me to put on the ballot to showcase that you are winning. Make it clear. Make it easy for me.

Delivery
I need to be able to understand you. Not a fan of speed.

Philosophy
All arguments ran should be fair, educational to the round, and applicable. Focus more on the quality rather than the quantity of the arguments. Don’t run more than one “fluff” argument. Have fun in the round, but maintain respect and credibility in the round.

Delivery
Delivery is very important. Make sure can understand you. If I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you.

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

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

Philosophy
I prefer that debaters do what they do best. In other words, I enjoy when debaters lean into the style and strategy they are most comfortable with, and can execute best. I particularly enjoy in-depth case debate and strong evidence comparison. Direct engagement with the substance of the resolution and your opponent's case will always be rewarded. I am comfortable evaluating disadvantages, counterplans, and kritiks. I will vote on topicality and theory when they are well-developed, clearly structured, and impacted. Avoid overly blippy analytics and instead provide clear standards, voters, and comparative analysis. Regardless of the positions you choose to run, I value organization, clear signposting, and comparative analysis. Explain how your arguments interact with your opponent’s arguments, do not just extend claims in isolation. Impact framing and impact weighing are critical. Tell me why your impacts matter more, happen sooner, control the direction of the ballot, or outweigh on magnitude, probability, or timeframe. I am especially persuaded by teams that engage in warrant comparison rather than simply repeating taglines or extending cards. Ultimately, I reward clash, strategic efficiency, and debaters who demonstrate control of the round through clear explanation and direct comparison. The team that best explains why their arguments take precedence over their opponent’s will earn my ballot.

Delivery
I am comfortable evaluating a variety of debate styles. Speed is acceptable if it is clear and well-articulated. That said, clarity is essential. If I cannot understand you, I cannot evaluate the argument. It is your responsibility to maintain a pace that allows me to flow accurately. I do find it more impressive when students are able to win debates without spreading. I think that speaking clearly, confidently, and at a pace that an informed adult can understand are important communication skills, particularly at the UIL State Championships.

Philosophy
I am a tabula rasa judge that leans towards the stocks. I view CX as a communication event and therefore expect you to communicate clearly at whatever rate of speed you choose. If you mumble or can/will not annunciate clearly speaking at a faster rate of speed, then slow down. Talk to me - not at me. If I can't understand you, I can't put it on my flow. If the argument does not make it to my flow, it will not be in my RFD.

Delivery
CX is first and foremost a communication event. I am ok with speed as long as you can annunciate and communicate clearly what needs to be said. If you can't be understood, then the arguments will not make it to the flow.

Philosophy
I am a true Tabla Rasa judge--I have no problem with any particular argument. More than anything, I want to hear clear, well-organized arguments. The primary goal of any debate is to learn--engage with the topic and your opponents, and we'll all have a good round.

Delivery
I prefer clear communication and well developed arguments. Speed is not necessarily an issue. HOWEVER, if I cannot understand you, I cannot flow you--and the argument might as well not have happened.

Philosophy
I believe that all thoughts need to be heard and given consideration to. CX Debate is one more avenue we have in education to give students opportunities to become credible in their writing and speaking.

Delivery
Speed is not a factor but clarity is. I prefer no mumbling, or "gibberish." Respect to opponents is a non-negotiable.

Philosophy
My debate philosophy focuses mostly on the stock issues. I look closely at harms, inherency, solvency, and significance, so teams need to clearly explain how they meet those areas. I really like strong disadvantages with clear links and clear impacts. Topicality is very important to me and should be clearly defined and supported in the round. I value extensions, but if an argument is not dropped, you do not have to heavily extend it for me to keep it on my flow. I am not a big fan of Kritiks or heavy theory debates. Counterplans can work well if they are competitive, clearly explained, and run effectively.

Delivery
In this debate, I am comfortable with spreading, but clarity is key—especially on taglines and the plan text. Make sure your tags are clearly emphasized and that the plan is easy to follow and well-explained. I prefer non-aggressive cross-examination focused on gathering information and setting up arguments rather than confrontation. You can be more intense in speeches if needed. I appreciate roadmaps for organization, though they are not absolutely necessary in rebuttals.

Philosophy
As a policymaker, I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages and will vote 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 throughout 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 the speeches.

Philosophy
Again, I feel like it isn't the speakers jobs to adapt to the judge; rather it is a judges responsibility to adapt to the debate. I will vote on any argument IF you make the argument easily understandable. I don't deep dive into philosophy, so if you are running a Kritikal argument, you will need to CLEARLY explain it to me. I also am a firm believer that constructives are for constructing arguments. I don't want to hear the same arguments throughout the whole round. No New In The 2 is not a good strat with me.

Delivery
I believe that it is my job to adapt to you, not the other way around. That being said, If I can't understand you it doesn't matter if you have the winning argument or not. There is a way to communicate without gasping and spitting.

Philosophy
I will adapt to you as long as your arguments are clear and you tell me why you want me to vote a certain way. If I see that your evidence does not support what your tag says it does, I reserve the right to vote accordingly - even if the opposition does not address it. Direct Clash is vital

Delivery
There is a big difference between hearing and understanding. TAG and NUMBER your arguments. Be specific in why you want me to vote on items; if you leave it up to me, who knows what I will vote on. Spitting and gasping are not communicative and will be deducted from speaker points. I will not tell you to clear, and your partner may not either - read the room.

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(25-26), 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 h

Delivery
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... Since this is UIL State, my speaks will adhere to the UIL expectations and that is designed to prioritize SPEAKING so I would encourage you to prioritize clarity over quantity of arguments in your rounds. (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.

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
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 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. 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. Be logical. What you’re saying has to make sense rather than just be a bunch of ideas strung together. I believe stock issues are essentially just parts of an argument, so i don’t really look at them as individual voting issues, but without them, I think it’s nearly impossible to have a strong case. All time is either speech time or prep time. I don't provide extra time for sharing cases/evidence/etc.

Delivery
I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know. The last speech should include crystallization and specific arguments telling me why you win. Quality over quantity here. Aff should be explaining why the sqo needs to change and how aff solves. Neg should be focusing on the opposite of that in some form. All time is either speech time or prep time. I don't provide extra time for sharing cases/evidence/etc.

Philosophy
For more info, look up my paradigm on Tabroom.com I consider myself a policy judge by default, but I'm open to other frameworks if that's what you're going for. I feel at my best judging policy or theory debates. Kritiks and K affs are also fine. I generally don't like tricky, 'gotcha' debate, and while I -may- vote on such arguments in prelims, it will probably hurt your speaker points, and I'll probably look for a way to vote against you in those types of rounds. Neg: I would like to see a well thought out 1NC strategy. I don't want new negative arguments in the 2NC/1NR unless they are a continuation of the 1NC arguments. I don't like 2NRs that go for too many voters -- please collapse to your best arguments. Aff: I want the aff to extend case in every speech. I like 2ACs that are well-prepared and don’t steal all their partner’s prep time. I like 1ARs that are strategic and make good time management decisions. Dropped arguments are true arguments ONLY IF you extend them properly. Give me lots of instruction, and explain to me why you are winning the round.

Delivery
I don't mind speed. I will say "slow" if I am struggling to hear you. I like good signposting in general, and I NEED good signposting on quick arguments like perms, theory standards, analytics, etc. -- just give me extra pen time. I expect you to flow the round, and use your flow in your speeches. I want to be on the email/speechdrop, and I love a well-organized speech doc. I am not impressed with disrespectful behavior, clash avoidance/'gotcha' debate, or 'pretty speaking' that fails to resolve substantive issues in the debate. I like clash!

Philosophy
I’m a pretty traditional policy maker judge. I want to see big impact calcs and a lot of weighing between the different impacts on the flow. I prefer a precise collapse in the 2nd rather than going for every argument.

Delivery
Speed is fine so long as you slow down for taglines. I also prefer a slower speed of delivery in the rebuttals.

Philosophy
I vote on impact calculus when it comes to policy and value debate just to keep simple and for both sides to achieve an identifiable goal. I don't particularly like or feel conditionality arguments are necessary when you already have established burdens on both sides. I find it ironic that we vote on scenarios and impacts that only exist in the debate world using objective arguments with judges with subjective biases. I try to keep my biases outside of the room and instead just focus on the arguments presented on the round. I like clear voters, good extensions and I am ok with new evidence in the rebuttal as long as it connected to an old argument presented in the constructives.

Delivery
I prefer delivery that is clear, concise, with great road maps to know where to go in my flow. Nice, loud and clear with good diction, pronunciation, tone, projection and with a moderate rate of speed.

Philosophy
My philosophy for this event is that every round is unique and specific to the students competing. At most we should always value education and respect as an outcome of this event and that no matter what student’s experience is what matters.

Delivery
I have no preferences for style and delivery. I’ve judged and seen all types of styles and deliveries.

Philosophy
I believe that policy debate is a cornerstone of the debate community. Students who chose this style of debate should be concerned with the rules and nuances that are specific to CX and should use their time and speeches in the manner in which they were designed. Failing to do so will result in a negative outcome in round because that is what debate is for. I do not enjoy rounds that require judge intervention. My role in the room is to evaluate the quality of arguments, clash, and performance.

Delivery
I prefer that your delivery style be clear and persuasive. This tournament is unlike other Cross Examination tournaments and you should be practicing and performing in a manner consistent with the philosophies of the environment in which you are competing. Speaking quickly is fine, superspreading is not. I should be able to flow your arguments and extensions with no assistance from the file share for max speaks.

Philosophy
I walk into any debate round with a clean slate. All preconceived notions and opinions I have are left at the door. The students do not need to know what I believe. They need to be able to build their case against their opponent in order to convince me that they have the right of the resolution over the other side. Competition with respect and embodying the strength of character it takes to do these speech and debate events properly is the root of what these events are. That is my expectation, no matter what event is being judged.

Delivery
Spreading and super speed are not conducive to an actual debate, and they will not help your case in your rounds. Using resources, clarity, ethical competition, and respectful decorum are my expectations for a quality debate. The essence of a great debate is listening and speaking to make your points against another who has done the due diligence to compete thoughtfully and without bias or malice.

Philosophy
I am an open judge. Pair your arguments down to your best by the final speech and offer clear clash.

Delivery
I am okay with spreading as long as it still understandable. Prefer good communication standards over just pure spreading information dump, but at the end of the day it doesn't decide my ballot.

Philosophy
I have debated all sorts of types of debate and in each type of debate I like to let the round decide itself. I do not like to intervene in arguments and when I write my ballot I vote on the argument that causes the least amount of judge intervention. I find all arguments fun and good I just hope that it is debated well and will evaluate whatever the kids want.

Delivery
I prefer a clean and decisive style that gets the argument on the table and articulates them in a way that creates more depth to the round and discusions.

Philosophy
I am an educator and view the purpose of debate is to educate on the topic in order to make sound real world policy decisions. I believe ideas should be communicated in a way that is accessible for listeners. I like to hear words like Solvency (I'm old school like that), but ultimately, weigh your impacts for me and I'll generally vote accordingly.

Delivery
Signposting is critical, roadmaps preferred. I do not enjoy a full spread - I want to be able to process what is being said at a reasonable rate. (It can be a healthy pace, just not auctioneer level). Also, I do not want to see speed or Ks run against a more novice team as a tactic for a ballot, which just makes for bad debate. I expect debaters to behave professionally toward one another with no ad hominem attacks or rudeness/condescension. Please keep attacks about about the arguments. In addition, I like debaters to verbally "show their receipts" - certainly with UIL debate rules of evidence citation guidelines, but beyond that, I like when debaters cite authors' credentials. (Why should I listen to Smith '25 vs. Davis '25)?

Philosophy
Judging Paradigm: Policy Maker | Logic Centered | Quality over Quantity | No Spreading I evaluate rounds through a policy maker lens and I am a firm proponent that flowing helps to make a clear final judgment. I compare the world of the Affirmative plan to the world of the Negative and vote for the team that presents the stronger, clearer, and more logical policy option. I value QUALITY over QUANTITY, strong reasoning, solid evidence, and well explained impacts. If you make a claim, you must defend it and prove it. It lets me know that the debater understands their arguments and are not just regurgitating what is on their “papers.” I appreciate traditional policy debate: clear harms, logical links, solvency that makes sense, and real world impact comparison. Disadvantages, counterplans, and topicality are welcome when they are explained, not causally mentioned. Kritiks are acceptable only if they are clearly connected to the plan and grounded in real world implications. I appreciate when the clash presented is justifiable and not time wasting. I only count dropped arguments that were clear, explained, extended, and impacted. If an argument was too fast, unclear, or undeveloped, it cannot be considered dropped. Reminder: DO NOT SPREAD. At the end of the round, I ask these questions and review my flow sheets for the answers: 1. Which argument is more logical and better supported? 2. Which team defended their claims with evidence and reasoning? 3. Which impacts were clearly explained and weighed? 4. Which team maintained clarity, organization, and professionalism? If you debate clearly, logically, and respectfully, you will do well in debating before me.

Delivery
Delivery matters. Please stand when speaking. I DO NOT accept spreading. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow or evaluate your argument. Speak clearly, at a reasonable pace, and with intention. Clarity always outweighs SPEED. Volume is important especially during CX. Remember to speak directly to me and not hold a conversation with the other team. I do not allow Open CX. Special Note: I will ask for a BRIEF ROADMAP before each speech as it helps me to flow.

Philosophy
I go into each round wanting to ensure a fair, productive, and equitable debate for all debaters. I emphasize accessibility while also enjoying the love of the game. I am comfortable with any arguments, as I myself have run some outlandish arguments in my time. I believe that at its heart, debate is an educational experience and I want to promote good sportsmanship and emphasize camaraderie, so I do take that into account for speaker points. Students, coaches, and judges alike should do their best to progress and utilize debate as an everchanging and evolving event, as that is the only way to truly broaden our horizons as academics and provide the best support to debaters and peers. Students should leave their debate classrooms with innate skills that outline productive and capable adults, and fostering that growth is essential to building a well equipped future. As someone who was very recently on the other side of this competition, I have a thorough understanding of the inner emotions that come with debate, and applaud each and every single student for getting up and choosing to do this. Debate is an extremely rewarding experience that comes with intense perseverance, self reflection, and personal and academic growth, and as a judge I want to make sure I am doing my best effort to use my knowledge to facilitate this.

Delivery
I am perfectly fine with speed as I was a speed debater throughout high school and college, but it has to be clear. I do ensure that all debaters are comfortable with speed before the round and let them lead in that aspect. I am comfortable with all arguments, as I was a K debater myself throughout college, but tend to vote in favor of stock issues. I appreciate a clear CBA and I believe final speeches are vital in outlining the round.

Philosophy
As a UIL CX debate judge, I see debate as a learning experience that builds thinking, research, and communication skills. I reward debaters who speak clearly, explain their ideas, respond respectfully to opponents, and show why their arguments matter. My decisions focus on what is presented in the round, with an emphasis on fairness, understanding, and student growth.

Delivery
No spreading. I value clear speaking, organization, and direct comparison of arguments. I decide rounds based on what is explained in the debate and prefer a speed that remains understandable.

Philosophy
I have been a policy debater for three years and a policy judge for one but I have gone to a LD debate camp and I understand the mechanics of it.

Delivery
I don’t have a certain preference it comes down to the debater to make a compelling argument

Philosophy
I think a judge's place in debate is as an adjudicator, nothing more. It is not my job to determine whether you are good communicators, but rather who wins the arguments. With that being said, run anything you want. Obviously, my preferences are listed and I can't promise I will understand everything being said once we get into the super tech rounds, but my role should not limit the scope of debate for this topic or in a given round. All I ask is that you make the round an inclusive place for everyone and make sure you are able to run whatever arguments with the breadth they deserve.

Delivery
I think demeanor towards opponents is the most important in this category. If I can understand what you're saying, I don't feel the need to critique based on arbitrary preferences. Please be respectful towards every participant in the round; if not, you will be docked speaks. Try to make sure your speed doesn't get in the way of your clarity, and please clear it with everyone in the round, but otherwise go ham.

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

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

Philosophy
I'll fall back on speaker points in the event of a "tie". Be professional; be polite.

Delivery
Policy maker, who has the better world. Don't spread if you can't be articulate; my pen can't flow what my ears can't understand.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=8348

Delivery
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=8348

Philosophy
I evaluate debate from a tabula rasa perspective. I enter each round without predispositions about my argument types, styles, or ideologies. My ballot reflects what is won on the flow-not my personal beliefs, assumptions, about debate, or preferences for particular schools of thought. Debaters must lead me throughout the debate with presented information to judge their round. I do not default to policymaking, utilitarianism, or any framework unless it is conceded or won. Debate is comparative argumentation. Dropped arguments are true if they are warranted and impacted. Clear line-by-line refutation and extension are critical. I will not intervene to save arguments or fill in analytical gaps. I am open to all positions-policy arguments, kritiks, theory, topicality, performance, etc. The team that explains their advocacy, links, impacts, and ballot story most clearly under the winning framework will win. Nothing is automatically illegitimate. You must do the weighing for me. Magnitude, probability, timeframe, and turns analysis matter. If you do not compare impacts, I will evaluate based on what is explicitly done in-round. Be clear, organized, and respectful. Slow down on analytics and theory blocks. Strategic depth and strong clash improve speaker points. My role is not to shape the debate-it is to evaluate the debate you give me.

Delivery
I respect that a certain amount of spreading is necessary at this level to fulfill the purposes of the debate adequately. However, if it exceeds the normal human ability to understand, then I award speaker points to levels accordingly. The information can be presented in a passionate and heated way without belittling or disrespecting the opposition. Fight it out with information and knowledge of the topic at hand. Adapt. Regroup. Think outside the box if need be.

Philosophy
Substance. The below is not a comprehensive judging philosophy. It is a list of points that may influence how you see me as a judge. Please do not be put off by the grumpy tone in some places, I love debate, but I want to be clear about how I see certain issues. 1. How to win. "Horizontal debating,” or “micro-debating,” is line-by-line on specific arguments. “Vertical debating” is explanation of the relationships among arguments. On paper, horizontal debating is flowed on the same page. Vertical debating involves multiple pages. Horizontal debating wins arguments. Vertical debating wins ballots. Excellent vertical debating wins tournaments. Quality impact calculus is a component of good vertical debating.

Delivery
Watch me. Respect for "tech over truth" does not mean "become a potted plant." If I look like I'm lost, I'm lost. You should slow down a notch until I look un-lost. If I seem displeased, consider whether the argument you are making is optimal. In other words I have become Dallas Perkins in my old age.

Philosophy
As a flow judge, I will be judging the round based on what you argue and extend. Default policy framework. I will consider kritiks, counterplans and theory debates. However, both sides need to clearly develop them, and show clear impact. Debate is a competitive game with educational benefits. I will give points for technical concessions. But you'll lose points if you fail to game appropriately, think strategically, and/or communicate effectively. Make arguments at a reasonable speed, but don't sacrifice clarity. I will only call "clear" once. Signpost clearly, number your arguments, and don't make me recreate your flow for you. CX is binding. Use it with strategy. On theory: there is a high bar to cross before I vote procedural. Abuse has to be pretty clearly present. Show me in-round harm, don't just claim potential for abuse. On kritiks: I know basic literature (cap, security, biopower) but don't assume I know everything your author has ever written. Lay out your alternative for me. Quality of evidence matters, but I care more about your explanation of the evidence, how you connect it to your warrant, and what you do with your cards. I will read evidence if the line is contested or if it's a close round. But don't bank on me reading your cards. I reward efficiency, clash, and strategy. I penalize rudeness, time suck, and lazy extensions.

Delivery
I keep pace with speed but clarity overrides speed-cite tags, theory slow down. Be sure to signpost clearly-let me know where you are on flow and number your arguments, I'll drop the word "clear" once if needed. Cross is meant to be binding, use it wisely-not for clarification purposes. I'm a flow judge, more interested in how you analyze evidence than the cards themselves (unless they're challenged). Debate aggressively, don't be disrespectful. On average i judge 28.5 speaks- give yourself some bonus points for efficiency and deduct points for being sloppy.

Philosophy
I want to hear arguments about the topic, and I am generally not a fan of arguments that try to squirrel out of the topic and find niche, arguably unimportant, arguments that distract from the core issues the framer's intended us to debate. While I do think dropped arguments play an important role in winning a debate, I do not want to hear a dozen bad warrants that your opponent just doesn't have the time to respond to. Being able to read faster doesn't make you a better debater. As almost every judge says, bring clash to the debate.

Delivery
Be respectful to other debaters. I like to be able to verbally flow your arguments so slowing down on taglines and important details will be key to winning the round. Please signpost and roadmap your arguments so I can clearly and concisely follow the round.

Philosophy
I primarily evaluate rounds through the lens of the stock issues. I will sometimes approach with a traditional policy making perspective if stock issues are not addressed. The affirmative has the burden to clearly establish significance, inherency, solvency, and advantages. If one of those core components is not sufficiently proven or is effectively refuted, that is often decisive in my evaluation. I value clear plan texts, organized case structure, and direct clash on the core issues of the resolution. Strong impact comparison is important. Solvency matters a great deal to me. I need to understand how and why the plan resolves the harms presented. Likewise, inherency should be more than assumed; it should be clearly demonstrated. On the negative, I am comfortable evaluating disadvantages, counter-plans, and traditional policy arguments. I appreciate well-developed case attacks and solvency arguments. I am less persuaded by highly technical or frivolous theory debates. I will vote on procedural arguments if they are clearly warranted and impacted, but I do not default to them over substantive clash. I prefer debate that centers on the resolution rather than highly abstract or kritik-heavy approaches. If critical arguments are run, they need to be clearly explained and tied to the resolution in a way that fits within a policy-making framework. Above all, I reward organization, clarity, direct refutation, and strong crystallization in final rebuttals.

Delivery
I value clear, structured communication. Speed should not hinder diction. While I can follow fast rounds, I appreciate debaters who signpost, slow slightly on tags and key analytics, and make argument interaction easy to track. Organization, clarity, and use of debate terminology are imperative. I’m fine with passionate speaking, but not at the expense of clarity or respect. If I can’t understand an argument, I can’t evaluate it. Good line-by-line work, clear voters, and direct clash go a long way in my decision-making.

Philosophy
Link to tabroom paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121858

Delivery
Link to tabroom paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121858

Philosophy
I have been coaching and judging for over 26 years. Debate has changed a lot over the years. While I enjoy progressive debate, I still am still a bit more on the traditional side. I like full coverage, line by line refutation and like argumentation with merit, not running things just because you can, or because it is cool on the circuit. Please make sure you are thorough and give me voters with impact calculus to weigh the round. Clash with your opponent, this is imperative, we need solid refutation with warranting and fully developed arguments. My time is valuable so please do not use DA's or K's for shock value or as a time suck...this is educational debate and should be reflect in your case, strategy and overall argumentation. I look forward to seeing great rounds at the state meet!

Delivery
Structure is very important and keeping the arguments organized down the flow. Make sure that you are extending, deeper level analysis and not just reading to me. I like sign post within text so I know where you are in the flow. Clear and concise responses, that fully articulate why with justifications. Eye contact in rebuttals where you can make more of a connection as you synthesize the voters. Speed is fine if justified, but only if you can do it with clarity. I do not like to see you sacrifice information for speed or the quantity of arguments.

Philosophy
See paradigm on tabroom.

Delivery
See paradigm on tabroom.

Philosophy
I approach each round as a tabula rasa judge. I vote off the flow and will not intervene to fix arguments, fill in missing warrants, or make connections that debaters do not explicitly explain. My role is to follow the framework presented in the debate, so it is important that teams clearly explain how I should weigh arguments and impacts. The team that best explain, warrants, and weights their offense within their framework will win my ballot. Clarity and organization matter. Speed is acceptable, but spreading is not. If delivery sacrifices clarity, the argument will not carry much weight. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I cannot evaluate it on the flow, and unclear arguments are unlikely to factor into my decision. Strong signposting and structure help a great deal. I default to the explanation of evidence rather than just the taglines, and I value direct evidence comparison when there is a dispute. Impact calculus is essential. Teams should clearly weigh magnitude, probability, timeframe, and other relevant factors so I know how to resolve competing claims. Topicality is evaluated as presented, and I look for clear interpretations, violations, standards, and voters. However, do not use T's as a time grab. For Counterplans, I find that they are the most effective when there is a clear benefit to prefer the CP over the affirmative. I will reason that the affirmative produces more benefits if there are not convincing grounds to vote on the CP. For K's, I expect well-explained links, impacts, and alternatives, along with a clear description of how the alternative functions. CX is binding if it is referenced in later speeches. Speaker points are based on clarity, strategic decision-making, clash, and professionalism, and they may be reduced for rudeness or consistently unclear delivery. Overall, assume I know nothing. Explain your arguments fully, weigh them clearly, and tell me exactly how to vote.

Delivery
Speed is acceptable, but please do not spread. Slow down on taglines, authors, and dates. I cannot weigh the argument properly if I do not understand. Signposting helps a lot with the flow.

Philosophy
I am a policymaker who still likes to see a good POLICY debate. I will, however, vote on anything that is brought up in round. I am not going to tell you what you can and cannot do. If you know how to run the argument and can answer questions from the other team well, then run whatever you want. But if you just read a bunch of stuff from open case list and have no clue what you are talking about, you are not necessarily going to win because you read more things that the other team. I love a good debate with actual clash

Delivery
I can flow most of everything that is said. I just prefer you not to spread just for spreading sake. If you are going to do so, you should not have time left at the end of your speech.

Philosophy
I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments. Spin control is extremely important to me, and compelling explanations and/or examples will certainly be rewarded. Quality and quantity of arguments are not exclusive, but make sure you condense your strategy in the final rebuttals (you obvi don't have to win EVERYTHING on EVERY FLOW to win a debate). Strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons (beyond just "we outweigh on mag, prob, and TF") will get you pretty far, so be clever -- I love seeing debaters be clever. You can look at my paradigm on tabroom for more info.

Delivery
Debate is for the debaters! I have no real preference regarding style, but I am familiar and comfortable with contemporary trends such as speed, conditionality, and kritiks. Style should be dictated by content and strategy. Do what you’re good at. Go as fast as you like (sorry not sorry, UIL) without sacrificing clarity OR CONTENT, so don't be blippy. I do like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged -- it helps to keep my flow neat. I am not going to “read-along” with the speech doc during constructives. I still flow on paper. There's a fine line between intensity and being rude, so please be mindful of this.

Philosophy
I am a hybrid judge that likes stocks and also policymaker. I think that can easily be accommodated for and it is up to you to tell me how to eval the round and the clash. Specifications win rounds. T isn't always a voter with me. I'm open to CPs however, you take more of a burden here proving net competitiveness against the plan. All arguments should be properly formatted and also need to have uniqueness and clear links. Open to Ks however you must know how to properly run one otherwise I'm not going to be happy it was used as a strategy. Easiest way to the ballot is my preference.

Delivery
Clarity over speed always. Be organized and be able to tell me the order of arguments. Weigh the round cleanly. Always label your arguments and give me voters.

Philosophy
I believe that the team who explains why each issue is preferred and flowed across to their team should win the argument. I want to hear outweighing of arguments and critical analysis of the information, not just throwing card after card for quantity sake.

Delivery
I prefer students to articulate their arguments through persuasion and intimidation tactics rather than spreading and losing clarity within the round. Diction, Articulation and Volume are all key to a strong delivery and speech.

Philosophy
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=389450

Delivery
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=389450

Philosophy
I like clear precise arguments, and I want both sides to able to tell me why I should vote for their them. How and why I should weigh anything. Really emphasize your points. I don't flow as well as I used to, so make sure I don't miss an important point. I prefer stock issues/policy, but I have been open to vote like a tab judge if you are persuasive enough.

Delivery
I prefer to hear good communication skills and persuasive speech especially refutation skills, but I understand if some speed is needed to answer arguments or to get the case on on the flow. I want to know you understand what your reading and how its applicable in the round.

Philosophy
I consider myself an old-school policy judge grounded in the stock issues. I evaluate rounds primarily through harms, inherency, solvency, advantages, and disadvantages. For the affirmative, your burden is to clearly establish the stock issues, especially inherency and solvency. If you can demonstrate that a significant harm exists, that it is inherent in the status quo, and that your plan effectively solves that harm, you are in a strong position to win my ballot. For the negative, your path to the ballot is to effectively challenge and dismantle the stock issues. If you can convincingly demonstrate that the affirmative fails to meet even one key stock issue, particularly solvency or inherency, I am inclined to vote negative. I am less persuaded by newer or highly theoretical arguments (such as certain Kritiks or theory debates) unless they are clearly explained and directly tied to the resolution. I prefer substantive engagement with the plan and the traditional policy framework. Above all, I value clarity, organization, and direct clash. Show me where you win, explain why it matters, and make the decision clear.

Delivery
I prefer clear, organized, and well-paced debate. I am not a fan of excessive spreading. I want to be able to understand and flow the round comfortably. Please enunciate, signpost clearly, and slow down on important arguments, especially on solvency and inherency. I value depth over quantity. I would rather hear fewer, well-developed arguments than many shallow or under-explained positions. Clash and clear impact comparison are important. I appreciate debaters who directly explain why I should vote for them. Tell me how your arguments win the round.

Philosophy
I am concerned primarily with technical adjudication. You are welcome to read any argument you choose, but several factors will influence your success: 1. Does the argument reflect reasonable, serious scholarly consensus? 2. Is it explained clearly enough that I can restate it to myself before the round ends? 3. Do you identify the primary pieces of offense and defense in each area of the debate? 4. Do you make framing arguments about which impacts or methodologies should be prioritized? 5. Do you deliver your arguments in a way that is easy to flow, slowing down where nuance is necessary? The ideal debater consistently demonstrates awareness of these elements throughout the debate. However, even attending to a few of them intentionally will put you in a strong position. If necessary: (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=378279)

Delivery
I’d appreciate it if debaters focused on persuasion rather than just the quantity of arguments, although both are important. You should think of me as an informed judge on general world events, but not an expert on the specific subject matter of the topic, and try to convince me of a reasonable proposal or alternative. I enjoy debates that quickly centralize around the core issues and strongly fall into the “depth over breadth” camp in the large majority of instances.

Philosophy
I judge policy (CX) debate as a flow-based, comparative activity. My role is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round and determine which team better supports its position through clear claims, warrants, and impacts. I do not intervene or rely on personal beliefs; if an argument is not made, extended, or clearly explained, it will not factor into my decision. Clash is essential. Debaters should directly engage with opposing arguments and explain why their positions outweigh, turn, or mitigate the other side. Impact calculus matters, and I value clear comparisons on magnitude, probability, and timeframe. Speed is acceptable as long as clarity and organization are maintained. If an argument cannot be flowed due to lack of clarity, it will not be evaluated. Strong signposting and organization are key to effective advocacy. I am open to a wide range of arguments, including DAs, CPs, T, K, and theory provided they are clearly explained and well-developed. I reward strategic decision-making, clear communication, and effective comparison of arguments. The team that best explains why they win the round, based on the flow, will be best positioned to earn my ballot.

Delivery
Clear organization and signposting are strongly preferred. Debaters should be easy to follow and clearly indicate where arguments begin and end. Speed is acceptable, but clarity takes priority over pace. Effective delivery includes appropriate emphasis, explanation, and engagement with the opposing team’s arguments. Speakers should avoid excessive jargon and clearly articulate impacts and comparisons. Professionalism and respect toward opponents and the judge are expected throughout the round.

Philosophy
I believe in Prima Facie. The 5 stock issues should be upheld by the affirmative and if the negative can disprove or "knock down" one of the stock issues they are awarded the win.

Delivery
I believe strongly in quality over quantity. There needs to be a big emphasis on how your evidence is presented. It should be clear and direct. A logical order of the evidence that just makes sense for how real policies are implemented and with a style that communicates these key points.

Philosophy
Not a huge fan of K debate. Plan text should be more specific than current standards. DA's are my favorite negative position.

Delivery
I prefer a slower pace now. I struggle with more than 4 positions.

Philosophy
I am a Tabula Rasa judge. I am open to teams running the arguments they believe are strategic for the round, whether that is policy, counterplans, or critiques.My biggest priority is clarity. I am fine with speed, but I need clear articulation and understandable links. If I cannot understand an argument or if a link feels underdeveloped or like a time grab, I won't give it much weight. Clear explanation matters more to me than technical tricks. For counterplans, I find them most persuasive when there is a clear net benefit or reason to prefer the CP over the affirmative. If there isn't a compelling reason to do the CP instead of the aff, I am inclined to belive that the aff produces some benefit. I am open to Ks. Ks are most effective when they are clearly tied to the affirmative or negative advocacy and that explain what the problem is and how the alternative resolves or reframes it. I value application to the specific round rather than generic criticism. I am not a strict policymaker, but I do care about impact framing and comparison. I like to see Affs that explain how their plan improves conditions or produces a meaningful change, and by Negs that clearly explain why the aff fails to do so or causes greater harm. I do not have a preferred strategy. just explain your arguments clearly, make your links and warrants explicit, and help me understand why you should win the round.

Delivery
Clear speaking matters more to me than speed or technical tricks. I’m fine with spreading as long as words are articulated and arguments are understandable. Please slow down on tags, author names, and analytics if needed. Signposting and clear organization help a lot.

Philosophy
I judge based on who's extended the arguments that have the must weight to them at the end of the round.

Delivery
I prefer a slow speed and quality over quantity.

Philosophy
The debate is about argumentation and making a case as to why your side creates a better world or has more advantages than the other side. I am not going to down someone based on a drop, but if a drop is important, make the case. I like counterplans, but not required. I don't like Kritiks because I feel then you are fighting the resolution and not the opponent.

Delivery
I hate spreading. I think debate should be about argumentation, persuasion and crystallization.

Philosophy
You run it I’ll consider it! I don’t want to have to intervene so make the ballot as clear as you can! Weigh the impacts and tell me the better world

Delivery
I can handle speed but make sure your organized and clearly sign posting I don’t rely on the doc only so make sure I can understand the speech!

Philosophy
See judge philosophy on Tabroom.

Delivery
See judge philosophy on Tabroom. Please note (3) which speaks to speed - I am fine with speed but I should be able to hear every word, even if it's quick. I don't think you're obligated to slow down if the other team requests that you do so.

Philosophy
I value clear, concise communication and meaningful resolution of the stock issues in the round equally. I evaluate whether debaters’ organization and speed interfere with their arguments, meaning I should be able to easily follow what is presented. I am open to all types of arguments as long as they are clearly explained and supported by sound evidence and reasoning.

Delivery
Style: I consider myself a relatively laid-back judge who adapts to the region or competition's style. I can buy most arguments. Speed/Spreading: I believe that speech and debate competitions are designed to develop your communication, critical thinking, and argumentation skills; therefore, I don't believe speeding and spreading are appropriate. Your goal is to deliver clear and concise arguments with good documentation and well-thought-out points. If you do this, there is no need to speed. How do you know if you are speeding? If you are gasping for air, you are going too fast! If I can't take notes, you are going too fast.

Philosophy
Tech > Truth I have most experience with the kritik on both sides. I have also mostly taught and coached the kritik. My experience in topicality debates is also a result of this. I have good experience with plans, counterplans, and disads. Condo is up for debate. Any # of arguments is allowed.

Delivery
I am able to handle most if not all levels of speed. It’s important to slow down on tags and analytics. I prefer arguments be ordered in level of importance.

Philosophy
Overview: I have been coaching CX and LD for nearly ten years. Paradigm: I will write key arguments and focus on clear policy. I will listen for quality of evidence but will not flow every piece of technical information- your argument must make sense to a lay person. Speed: Moderate speed is fine but I need to be able to flow with your speech. Kritiks: I find that theory arguments can get a bit muddled- the framework needs to be solid, but if it makes sense go ahead and run it! Misc: This is an academic pursuit and a learning opportunity- keep it civil!

Delivery
I do not believe that spreading is the purpose of debate. If I cannot understand you, I cannot rule with you. I can understand reasonably quick pacing, but if I can't flow as you speak that will be a problem.

Philosophy
First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament. Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows: 1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF. 2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round. Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric. The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Delivery
Spreading is acceptable, but if you want me to flow something make sure to speak concisely so I can write it down. Be respectful of one another in the round.

Philosophy
I am a policy judge so I will weigh which position makes the most pragmatic policy proposal. Please provide impacts to be weighed in the round.

Delivery
Organization is crucial in the round so please sign post and keep the flow as clean as possible. Style also matters so be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Be kind to your partner and your opponent.

Philosophy
Policy debate should center on policy. All off case arguments need to be clearly linked to the affirmative plan. Impacts are crucial but must have high probability. Counter plans are optional. Topicality is a key issue, but I only vote on it if there’s actual in round abuse. I prefer debate on the issues to debate on the rules.

Delivery
Debate is a public speaking event. It should be clear, communicative, and passionate.

Philosophy
Strong, precise, aguments delivered with confidence and sincerity will prevail.

Delivery
I am also a Theatre Director. I want to hear stong clear voices, and hear and see the passion for the proceedings.

Philosophy
see tabroom

Delivery
see tabroom

Philosophy
I expect the debaters to tell me how to evaluate the round. If you don’t give me a clear framework I will will make my decision based on who wins the round with the least amount of judge intervention. In other words, I will default to the side that does the best job of providing a coherent, self-contained explanation of why they should win without me having to fill in gaps or make interpretive leaps. Ultimately, the final rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) should write my Reason for Decision (RFD) for me. If something isn’t clearly extended, impacted, and weighed in those speeches, it will not be part of my decision calculus Due to space limits, my complete judging paradigm is posted on Tabroom; students and coaches are encouraged to review it prior to the round. Extension & Weighing: Any argument you want me to vote on must be extended in every relevant speech and weighed at the end of the round. Impact calculus is crucial: tell me why your impact, framework, or advocacy outweighs your opponent’s. Evidence Quality: I value well-explained evidence over blippy cards read at high speed. You should still tell me what your evidence says and why it matters.

Delivery
I’m fine with speed as long as it’s clear. If I can’t flow it, I can’t evaluate it. Clarity > speed.

Philosophy
Tabroom paradigm

Delivery
Tabroom Paradigm: