2025 LD State Judges

Philosophy
I am a traditional LD judge. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate, evidential support is needed. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery.

Philosophy
I believe that LD debate is philosophy debate and not one-person policy debate. Therefore the value/criteria debate is an important one on my flow. Don't let it be an afterthought in a round. You don't have to have a plan or solve at the end of the round.

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

Philosophy
With a background in Communication, it is essential that you communicate with me exactly what to flow in the round. Organization of your speeches is important. I believe LD is a values debate and listen for philosophy. The contestant who upholds their Value/Criterion (Framework) and contentions wins the round!

Philosophy
I try to be very flow based and I vote based on offense and defense. Resolutions like this are propositions of fact, not value, so please direct me as to how to use your framework and how I should vote. I like clear extensions and weighing. Read more about my paradigm on tabroom.com if you would like. You are probably not going to go too fast for me but I will shout “slow” if you are. Outside of that I will do my best to adapt to you.

Philosophy
I'm fine with however you want the round to be, I have experience in policy debate (my preferred style of debate even in LD) and am comfortable with a more traditional value/criterion setup. I'm going to vote off what you label as the key issues in the round, I won't intervene to make a decision you don't want me to make. Overall in the round do what you do best any argument or style that isn't based in rhetoric that is racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic etc. I will vote for. Check out my more detailed notes on my tabroom paradigm.

Philosophy
I am traditional in LD. Value debate is key in weighing offense and comparing the worlds. Voters are critical for the judge. I only vote off of offense, though defensive arguments help in the round. I am accepting of most logical arguments but every claim must have a warrant.

Philosophy
LD at UIL is typically about moral and ethical discussion, but I am not opposed to progressive arguments. I try to enter the judge as tab, but that's only an ideal; no judge is truly "tab," so understanding the judges innate biases (and your own) is generally a good strategy. Communicate and debate effectively, thoroughly, and succinctly. More of my paradigm is on Tabroom if you look up my name in the paradigm flyout menu. I am fine with speed, any rhetorical style, and whatever level of debate you are at; I will meet the debate where it is.

Philosophy
I am a traditional LD judge. I focus on framework issues and emphasize the clash of ideas when deciding the round. The winner debater is the one who more thoroughly advanced their value in the round through their criterion and contentions.

Philosophy
LD is a value debate. Sure, debate each other on your facts, but i really want to see you prove that your case better achieves or upholds your value and criterion, and of course that you have a better value. Prove your side of the resolution by using your contentions but they must uphold your framework.

Philosophy
I prioritize clear frameworks and strong value-criterion links. Depth beats breadth—well-explained arguments matter more than spreading. Weighing impacts comparatively (magnitude, probability, timeframe) is key to winning my ballot. Theory and analogies are fine if justified, but unnecessary theory/tricks are discouraged. Speed is okay if clear. Cross-ex should be strategic, not filler. Above all, clash ideas, not people—respect matters.

Philosophy
I believe a student should show firm understanding of the topic and the evidence. Students should communicate the information clearly and concisely. A winning debate case is ethical and well organized showing a firm grasp on the use of pathos, logos, and ethos. Evidence should be correctly represented and verbally cited. Debaters should show professionalism and decorum in every speech.

Philosophy
Overview:I am a tab judge and will vote on whatever FW you put in front of me. If I need to default in stock situations, I will default to a comparative justification framework, prioritizing offense and defense. Across all events, I tend to remain the same on most issues, particularly theory. I tend to put theory at the top of the flow and view it as a procedural argument. Furthermore, I tend to prefer more abstract phil arguments, so if you want to run Ks, go for performance, or ask me to engage in a particular role as a judge, I am alright with that. Please use vcrowson24@gmail.com for email chains and any questions. Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts. Clipping Cards: I consider clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence as intentionally altering the text or highlights in such a way as to detract meaning from the card. I realize that is a pretty broad definition, so if you would like to run some sort of indict and theory argument, here are the standards I hold the card to. Is the alteration of the text germane? Is the alteration of the next meant to recontextualize the article from a different conclusion? I also consider the effects of the change to determine intent. The smaller the difference and impact of the clipping, the more sympathetic I am to the argument that the debater made a mistake. If you are paraphrasing instead of cutting cards in LD or PF for a more traditional judge or tournament, I am okay with that. Especially if I am the odd judge out on a panel, please do not feel like you need to adapt away from this more traditional style. I would ask that you have the articles accessible if I need to access them to check evidence indicts. Troll Theory:I would argue 99% of the time, students know what they are doing when they run a more troll-type theory strategy (League Theory, Shoe Theory, Font Theory, ect.). I understand there is value in running these extreme arguments to draw attention to issues in the debate community or a particular debate circuit. However, I also feel that these arguments are run against unsuspecting competitors as an easy way to the ballot. Unless you have, IN FRONT OF ME, asked both your opponent and me if it is okay to run this type of theory, and we have both consented to it, then the round will be a tough uphill battle for you, and I will most likely give you an auto vote down. Extreme Arguments:I am not very sympathetic to extreme arguments like spark or wipeout. Running these extreme impact turns seems to be a strategy that is used to make an easy way to the ballot when facing a newer competitor or one that comes from a more traditional circuit. Also, I am uncomfortable with allowing students to advocate for things like nuclear war or genocide, so even if your opponent cannot handle the argument on a tech level, I will still most likely vote you down. Trad and UIL Style LD: I try my best to adapt to students insofar as letting them the types of arguments they would like to run. However, I would discourage you from running highly technical arguments in a traditional LD setting. I totally get that winning on tech is an easy way to the ballot. However, I think especially at smaller tournaments; keep in mind this may be one of the few tournaments your opponent may get to attend within the year. Value Framing: I have four standards when considering values as a functional for framework: 1)It's an end in itself and necessarily apropos to another value. This generally means the value should have more terminal impacts (not necessarily existential) coming out of the 1AC. 2) I am generally sympathetic to intrinsic links to the resolution as a form of offense for the debate. I think debaters ought to qualify this offense by telling me what they are bringing to the debate and using that value to meet the intrinsic part of the resolution. 3) Values should impact a world generator, meaning I should have a clear idea of the world I will live in when I sign my ballot. 4) Values should have some inherent competitiveness towards other frameworks unless you go for some permutation or link turn on framing. Furthermore, values are inherently abstract as they seek to generate space or a world. However, unless you want me to go straight off/def for the round or plan to collapse, I think providing some sort of phil framing for a lens to your impacts is a good idea. Criteria Opposite to the value, I think the criterion for one particular framework should be specific. Generally speaking, I would argue this revolves around the brightline of the criterion. Totally understand that bright lines are controversial, and some would even say that criteria do not produce a specific brightline, or if they do, interps and definitions vary. With that being said, here is how I evaluate a brightline: 1) Brightlines should be active as they either decrease or increase sunstance. In other words, criteria should have a verb to describe the action of the framework to achieve the value. 2) The brightline ought to be measurable, even if abstract. Using terms like increase, decrease, and maintain is totally fine; however, I need a metric to determine if the ball moved. The less work I have to do, the more inclined I am to pull the trigger and avoid interference. 3) The criterion should be intrinsic to the value. I think if you do not go for an intrinsic link, I am much more sympathetic toward link turns as a method for gaining access to the framework. Standard: I am okay with standards; just be sure you give me a way to pref your offense under the standard. In other words tell me why my ballot approving the proof is a net good.

Philosophy
Upholding the value and criterion should be the priority with adequate explanation of impacts supported through contentions. Debaters should follow the flow and give impacts for dropped arguments rather than simply stating they were dropped. Debaters should use information obtained through cross examination to support rebuttals.

Philosophy
Debate Paradigm: I am about as traditional as traditional can be. I typically won't disclose, please don't ask about it. I am not a fan of: -the k debate -plans/counterplans in debates other than CX -not standing when you are speaking or during CX -disclosing before the debate starts -talking fast unnecessarily -being a part of email chains, I shouldn't have to read your evidence, I should be able to hear it and understand within the confines of your speech -the only tricks I like is the cereal I prefer: -a slower more methodical debate -actual discussion on the topic/resolution -standing up when speaking -understanding what the debater is saying

Philosophy
N/A

Philosophy
I will focus mostly on what the debaters present and/or refute. I will not infer outside information, as the opponent must be the one to point out fallacies. Both debaters must be courteous and prompt in their CX. Points will be docked for unprofessional behavior.

Philosophy
I believe that Lincoln Douglas Debate should strive to emulate the value focused clash of ideas found in the original Abraham Lincoln vs. Stephen Douglas debates that they are named for. Ideas are powerful and persuading others through the use of values is an amazing skill for students to develop. When I judge a debate, I want to see students develop a strong argument about the resolution centered around a well-developed value. I also want to see a clear relationship between the value and the criterion for the case. I prefer to see debaters have strong ideas that directly deal with the resolution than to see overly complicated jargon be used. I prefer quality of thought over quantity of words. Overall, I want to see the ideas presented compete with the ideas presented by the opposition and wish for the best ideas to win.

Philosophy
I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate. I would consider myself tab. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand. Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I feel like LD is a value and criterion debate at it's core where we discuss, debate and create clash regarding philosophical issues.

Philosophy
I believe LD debate is value debate. The value must be measured by the criteria (or criterion). I appreciate debaters who know which is plural and which is NOT. The best contentions are the ones that are linked back to the V/C. They cannot stand in isolation. Further, the ability of a debater to weave philosphy clearly is a plus, and I would expect to see some of this at state. We must debate the resolution. While I solute the debater who wants to advoate for other ideas, an LD round, with a specific resolution, is not the place to do that, especially at state. I LOVE LD, and I LOVE keeping a beautiful flowsheet. If you choose to spread, and that prohibitss my or your opponents ability to flow, we are not debating. LD is a thinking event as much as it is a speaking event. Give us time to do that. Rapid-fire can come across as manipulation and not true argumentation. I want roadmaps, and voters and all the things that make LD GREAT!

Philosophy
Let your voice be heard!! primarily tab. speed is fine as long as i don't have to look at a document to understand you...heavy tech over truth especially since 95 percent of rounds come down to technical issues for me anyway so make sure your solid on fundamentals and structure not just relying on being a pretty speaker...I vote heavy on framework, there are tons of ways to find offense/defense through your framework so don't be afraid to have unique argument...please have clear voters....I am fine with more progressive styles. that being said I do vote theory if reasonable and will weigh counter plan the same if not greater than framework....in close debates I will default tangibility of impacts and framework offense.

Philosophy
*LD Stuff: Value/criterion debate is top level. v/c debate serves as the framework I use for evaluating the round and determines how I weigh contentions/advantages/disadvantages. I'm likely to approach v/c as framework/impact calc because of my policy/cx background. *Debate Stuff: Arguments need warrants for their claims. They should also be impacted out and weighed. Evidence is important, but good evidence also needs to be analyzed/contextualized and used properly. Argumentation>speaking. I will never weigh speaking skills before the substance of the round. I feel no particular way about spreading; do whatever you are comfortable with as long as you are clear – I encounter more problems with enunciation than speed. It is probably smart to spread analysis slower than evidence; I may lose some nuance with what I miss on my flow. Roadmaps, signposting, and popping tags are great for structure and making sure I know where you are. I'm rusty on debate jargon (e.g., "vote on presumption"); if you use the proper context I should follow, but it's probably not a good idea to hinge a huge part of the round on it without being explicit. Time constraints mean some arguments won't make it to the end of the round, so I don't think dropping arguments is important (a caveat is if you don't counter offense before dropping).

Philosophy
I am familiar with both traditional and progressive styles of LD debate. However, it is crucial to remember which circuit you're competing in and what's expected from the tournament you're attending. The organization details are key to me for getting high speaks. Please ensure your extensions are well executed, provide a signpost, and follow your roadmap. I evaluate framework first, but frameworks must be comparative. Tell me why your framework is better or should be prioritized. If no framework is clearly established or if the framework debate is a wash, I default to impact calculus. I enjoy philosophical arguments, especially when they're used to justify or enhance the framework. Observational and burden arguments go at the top of the flow and must be addressed. I have no issues with speed as long as you're clearly signposting. Dropped arguments must be extended and explained—just saying “they dropped this” isn’t enough for a voter. You need to tell me why it matters and what it means for the round. New arguments in rebuttals are okay only if they are legitimate extensions of prior arguments. I will call to look at evidence after a round if there’s a powertagging argument. I'm fine with case disclosure and don’t mind flashing cases but prefer paper disclosures in traditional circuits.

Philosophy
The Value debate is extremely important to me. I like to judge off my flow, so please go down each argument instead of jumping all over the place, and announce when you do jump somewhere. -While I can keep up with speed moderately well I was not a Policy kid, so please do not spread to fast. In LD I would like to see a certain level of lay appeal. -I will evaluate K's, framework, and other similar strategies. If it's something that your common parent judge has not heard of please ask me before you run it. I don't believe tricks sway a round too much, so I will likely not consider them. I will evaluate theory but I'd prefer not to, at the end of the day I always prefer you respond to the topic. If you are running this kind of stuff I would have a backup LD-centric case. -ALWAYS extend and weigh until the final focus. Even if you believe you won an argument in summary I want to hear you give a brief reference to it in your final speech. Extending the argument will increase the chance I will evaluate it. -Impacts are crucial to me in round. -Don't steal prep it will be noticed. -I'll let you know when the time is over. After around 5-10 seconds overtime I will likely ignore any arguments brought up in that period. Please stand up when you speak. .

Philosophy
Clash of values is important in LD. Clearly define your value and criterion. Contentions should be supported by evidence and examples. While content is most important, I also appreciate clear and confident delivery.

Philosophy
I like to see clash in the rebuttals and clear analysis as to why you think you're winning the round in your final speech. Engage with the topic and with each other's cases. Avoid simply reading a constructive and extending.

Philosophy
I am a traditional judge. I want to hear/understand all arguments and be able to render a decision based on which side most effectively supports/opposes the current resolution. Concise argumentation applied in context is crucial for a favorable decision.

Philosophy
This should be on my judge form I filled out yesterday. I am just making sure that UIL knows I am the judge to fulfill our LD requirement

Philosophy
I am a traditional, value-debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. I want why your value matters more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective. Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it? Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value. K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case. Disclosure theory is not a thing. Don't do it because I won't vote on it. If I feel you're power-tagging, clipping or otherwise misrepresenting your arguments, I'm not going to be persuaded by it. At the end of the day, I still have to be the one that's persuaded by you. I'm not going to debate you on the ballot about the importance of your evidence, but I definitely am still a human and won't be convinced by evidence that doesn't say what you say it does. Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan. My judging thought process in weighing an LD round: 1) Whose value has been proven as more vital? 2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value? 3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?

Philosophy
My background lies in policy debate but over the years, I have become more familiar with LD. I am more of a tradition LD judge meaning I really want the debate to focus on the Value/Criterion debate. With that being said, I will need a deeper explanation of your value and criterion to ensure I understand the framework of your case. If I am lost or do not understand your framework, I will default to just weighing impacts. I am ok with speed but really value clarity so if you know your clarity suffers when you increase speed, keep that in mind. If any clarification is needed, please feel free to ask.

Philosophy
LD is a value debate. I must see that the topic is upheld through your value and weighed or achieved through your criterion. Each value must be supported by your contentions with evidence and logical analysis. There must be clash. I prefer to see the strong refutation and rebuilding of each stance Whichever side shows me this wins the round.

Philosophy
Debate Judging Paradigm 1. Speed (Spread): ♣ I prefer a moderate pace. Excessive speed detracts from the clarity and depth of the arguments, making it difficult to capture the nuances. If you choose to go fast, ensure your arguments are still clear and easy to follow. 2. Critical Arguments: ♣ I value critical arguments, but they need to be explained thoroughly. I am less persuaded by dense jargon without clear explanations. Focus on the depth and clarity of your analysis. 3. Organization: ♣ I pay close attention to my flow. Please clearly signpost your arguments and keep your refutation organized. This helps me track the debate and evaluate your arguments effectively. 4. Framework: ♣ In Lincoln-Douglas debate, emphasize your value and criterion. These are central to your case, and I expect you to tie your arguments back to them consistently. Make it clear how your arguments uphold your value and criterion better than your opponent’s. In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

Philosophy
I believe that LD debate should primarily be grounded in a philosophical approach to the topic Contentions should support the application of the philosophy to the topic. Arguments should have an impact. Contentions should be well supported by qualified sources. CX should be a discovery period that is carried thru into your speeches. Arguments initially presented in rebuttals other than refutation carry less weight than constructive arguments. Speed in delivery has no place. Leaving time on the clock is opportunity lost.

Philosophy
I prefer a more "traditional" style of LD debate but am open to more "progressive" arguments. However, I expect to hear a Value and Criterion from both debaters and clash at that level. I expect to hear sources for any evidence given. Remember that the CX periods are for asking question to set up future arguments, not to debate. I expect debaters to stand when speaking (unless there is a good reason not to). I can flow relatively fast speaking but I prefer a slower rate of delivery (i.e., not spreading). Analytical arguments are acceptable but arguments backed by evidence are stronger. Please ask if you have any questions.

Philosophy
I love traditional Lincoln-Douglas Debate! Communication: Articulate, Clear, Expressive, No Spreading Content: Pertinent to the case, evidence supportive of valid points, quality over quantity Use persuasion and logic to convince me who has the best Value, supported by the most apt Criterion, backed by the most valid Contentions and case arguments. Enjoy!

Philosophy
Please speak clearly and at a pace I can follow. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your arguments. Signpost where you are in your speech and clearly label your contentions and responses. This helps me follow the debate more easily. Keep the round civil and professional at all times. I assign points based on clarity, organization, strategic decisions, and overall conduct. Being clear, kind, and focused will help you earn higher points. I'm here to listen, learn, and give you a fair evaluation. Help me help you by making your arguments accessible and compelling. Good luck and have fun!

Philosophy
Very traditional LD is what I prefer (UIL style). Philosophical and V/VC debate is key. Not a huge fan of anything Policy/CX in LD. Spreading- definitely don't use it as a weapon. Keep in mind, I prefer more traditional LD so don't overdo the speed. Spreading against trad/new LDers is not going to be a good look. Being rude or unnecessarily aggressive in round is a bad look and will effect your speaker points. There is absolutely no need to be yelling, especially at a state level tournament. Give me voters, don't expect your judge to connect all the dots for you. Please, please, I am begging you, please, do not call out "drops" that don't exist. You start to lose credibility in round if you are saying something was dropped when it wasn't. If I can flow the round and clearly see something was covered by your opponent, you should also be able to track that. You not hearing something does not constitute a drop. Value and VC- do not just introduce this at the beginning and never bring it back up again... This is LD debate and V/VC are how you are telling me to judge/vote. Make sure it actually is relevant to what you are arguing and present throughout the round.

Philosophy
Evidence/Ethics Challenges: Not-so-good experiences are related to this, so please know exactly what you are calling someone out for and be ready to explicitly prove it. This is serious, not just for the team calling out someone else, but for the team that is getting called out. It gives them a moment to learn and understand if they truly didn’t know what was happening. Don’t clip or misrepresent evidence on purpose, that’s unethical and bad education/debate. I will take this challenge seriously, don’t use it as a route to a free win/clout. Tech > Truth, unless an alternative framework is provided, but I hope if you are technically winning, you are also truthfully winning (but it doesn’t really affect my judging, just take it on face value: tech over truth). I am a tab judge, but default policymaker unless told otherwise. Tell me how to view the round and how to vote in the round: write the ballot for me. Keep the debate organized, muddied rounds make everything more complicated than it should be for both me and your opponent(s), so signpost, slow down on tags, say “and” between cards, etc. I flow on paper, so speed is fine, but don’t overdo it. On a scale of 1-10, with one being incredibly slow, and 10 being extremely fast, I’ll rank at a 6/7 for speed. On analytic, theory, standard, or block debate (basically anything you don’t normally think to put in a speech doc), slow down a little to give me time to process the argument and flow too. But as a preference, just send me a speech doc with all of it in it, if you wish to do so. If you are worried about me keeping up with your speed, ask to give me a test run before the round, that way I can let you know. I won’t evaluate a round-based off on CX, but I’ll definitely do my best to listen to it. I think the CX period sets up the upcoming speeches in some sense. Don’t talk over one another, don’t be rude, and don’t be condescending either. Speaks: I did a number of speaking events and found lots of success with it. In policy debate, I hardly ever walked out of a room with under 28 in speaks, and always went for 30s (and I found a lot of success with that, with both speaker awards and even sometimes breaking merely because of high speaks). That doesn’t mean I want you to live and breathe being a perfect speaker, but I take importance in clarity of speech. I will evaluate speaks with as much rigor as I evaluate the actual debate part of the round. Although I won’t sit here and tell you debate is a communication event, learning and improving your speaking ability is what is most important in the real world, outside of debate, no matter what you are talking about. Few more important general things: 1): explain the claim, warrant, and impact to every argument- this helps me evaluate a round as effectively as you want me to 2): be clear in your position, I debated a lot, but that doesn’t mean I know/understand every argument in existence: I’m confident in voting for politics DA’s and common T’s, CP’s, and K’s (ie. USFG T, States CP, and Cap K), but for something that is a nuanced case-specific DA, T, or CP, please explain. 3): a comparative analysis is important, that’s how I can weigh your argument 4): persuasion and passion matter too, it’s easier for me to vote for you if you are truly convincing me to do so because debating includes speaking as well 5): tell me how to vote in your rebuttal speeches especially, and tell me how and why you win 6): please mark your own cards, and send the doc if asked to do so In-depth (Policy): T’s- I was a T debater (obviously read in tandem with other arguments), but T was always the easiest part of the debate round for me. As the aff, I would always jump at the opportunity to answer T and would sometimes solely talk about T in a rebuttal on the neg. I have full confidence in going for a T and winning the round, I’ve done it multiple times before, so because of that, I have full confidence in voting for a T in the 2NR. The same goes for a T against the K aff. On the aff, I firmly believe T has 7-9 parts in its answer. I have watched teams take T as a joke and not answer it diligently and lose the round for something that can be answered effectively and efficiently. T should be answered with we meet, an answer to the violation, a counter definition, a counter standard for every standard provided, its own voters, and reasonability. If you are going for T, it should be the only thing in the 2NR and be explained clearly without being unnecessarily repetitive. Quality of definition matters, make sure your definition has the intent to define, is from a source contextual to the topic, and is specific to the topic at hand. It makes the debate more favorable for you and prevents an unnecessary time suck. DA’s- I loved PTX DA’s, and a majority of the neg rounds I have won were because of the PTX DA solely. Granted, DA’s as a whole can be and are a strategic argument in policy rounds. I am confident in voting for politics DA’s any day, given that you answered it or debated it properly. Aside from politics DA’s, I understand most DA’s pretty easy, but if it’s an incredibly nuanced DA, give a few sentences of explanation to make me and your opponents feel more comfortable in hearing it. Case-specific links are always better to debate, but generics are perfectly fine and winnable too. Focus on the link debate, given that it inevitably shapes the winning status of the DA. That doesn’t mean ignore the uniqueness, as it is equally important. Explain internal links and show how the impact actually happens, not just because the cards say so in the tags. Say “DA outweighs the case” + your reasoning why, and on the aff say “Case outweighs the DA” + your reasoning why, it makes it easier for me to vote and more persuasive. Turns case arguments give you an advantage in any round, given that you aren’t countering yourself and are reading them correctly. Turns case arguments don’t mean I automatically sign the ballot for the negative, but it’s a convincing argument. Specific impact calculus is important to me in weighing your DA. Be as reasonable as possible and tell me why everything leads to nuclear war, not in a large-scale, not probable way, but in a specific scenario. CP’s- I am familiar with the common CPs, but tell me how the CP works, why it’s mutually exclusive, and how it solves the aff and avoids the DA, (talk about net benefits too). If there are multiple planks to the CP, explain the viability and importance of each one. For me to vote for the CP, if the aff doesn’t perm or give me a reason as to why the CP doesn’t solve, I’ll vote for it. Obviously, the perm debate is the most important with CP’s for me to decide who outweighs in argument. Feel free to give multiple perms, but unless the other team doesn’t attack any of the perms, consolidate in the rebuttal speeches to a perm. I’ll kick the CP only if you tell me to. Unless told otherwise, I assume the CP is unconditional. K’s- Although I understand the fundamentals of this debate, I was not a K debater in high school. I occasionally debated K’s, primarily the Cap K. I am familiar with Cap and Neolib, so anything besides that should be explained. I’ll try to catch on as quickly as possible as I have read K literature, I just never ran them in round aside from Cap and Neolib, although I have debated against them. K vs. Policy rounds are easier for me to judge because I have the most experience with these types of debates. K vs. K aff debates aren’t out of the blue for me, just not something I lived and breathed during my debate career. If you are reading a K you think I might be unfamiliar with, I probably am, so explain the thesis of the criticism and how your K resolves the links presented. I vote on the K based on framework then the K proper. Don’t card dump or analytic/block dump in your speeches, be clear and efficient in your argument. The link debate and alt debate frame how I view the K in the round. Tell me how the alt solves/happens, what the ballot does for the alt, and who engages with the alt. On the link debate, use resolution or case-specific links and tell me how each and every link actually interacts with the aff, not just saying “there are 8 links the aff doesn’t answer,” without being explicit about it. Although I understand what floating PIKs are, I don’t quite fully understand how they function in a round just yet. So if floating PIKs are your thing, don’t pref me. I’m not a fan of them because I think they skew the debate and deck education/fairness in the round, but if you get away with it, I’ll vote for it. Aff’s- I love plan-based policy affs, as I am more familiar and understanding of how arguments interact with this type of aff. I read the EB5 aff on the immigration topic, Taiwan aff on the arms sales topic, Sentencing Guidelines and Secret Service on the CJR topic, and the Columbia River Treaty aff on the water topic (it’s obviously what I know best). I’m fine with K aff’s, but it comes down to the framework debate for me here. I have no problem voting for the neg on K Aff Bad T if the debate effectively leads me to do so. The framework debate is the debate I am most comfortable with here and is what I enjoyed the most. I’ll definitely need K aff’s to be explained more throughout the flow of the round and probably have them read at a slower speed. I am unfamiliar with performance affs completely, I haven’t interacted with one in a debate round for me to tell you to read one in front of me. I understand how they function, but I also do know they have a number of nuances to them too, so if you want to read performance, don’t pref me. Theory- If you have a legitimate reason to run theory, go for it. Don’t use it as a time suck, it makes the debate a drag. Having discussions about how a specific action detrimentally affects the debate space is a good thing. I’m fine with condo bad, especially if you are reading more than 3 counter-advocacies. My vote depends on the amount of in-round abuse happening. Be clear in interpretations and analysis.

Philosophy
I first and foremost appreciate a well-organized case and a debater who communicates that with road mapping and itemized transitions from one point to the next. Speaking skills are as equally important as resolution of substantiative issues, but it is the clash in value that a debater creates and drives home that will sway me one way or the other. Additionally, A debater who can keep up with their opponents case and provide factual and logical rebuttals to each contention and subpoint will be strongly favored.

Philosophy
Mostly a tabula rasa judge (“clean slate”) which means I don’t try and insert my opinions and beliefs into the round. If the debater says “the moon is green” then I must believe that unless the opponent says otherwise. On the other hand, if you are running a low probability argument (like Nuc War), I'm not going to be easily convinced of it. Stock judge...I want to hear the stock issues debated...framework in LD, Topicality, Inherency, Solvency and Significance in CX. I believe that this is a full body/mind exercise. In that vein, I expect for everyone to stand when speaking, judiciously use facial and hand gestures, as well as tone of voice, display proper etiquette (“is opponent ready?) and refrain from rude behavior. Cross examination is a critical component of debate. In my opinion, perhaps the MOST critical, as it truly reflects the knowledge, thinking and skills of the two debaters. Students should spend almost as much time preparing for Cross as they do their constructive speeches. I expect a spirited cross. As to LD, I don’t believe that values debate can be completely divorced from the real-world aspects of their decisions. Spreading: Speed, tone and modulation of voice are all aspects of the art of persuasion. Vomiting out arguments in an unending, unbroken, and unmodulated stream of verbiage does NOT appeal to me.

Philosophy
I believe LD Debate should be 100% topical. On this spring's topic, in particular, I do not want to see plans, counterplans or kritiks. LD should be philosophically-grounded with strong framework. Arguments should be impacted out in the context of the framework you are using. I am more interested in seeing nuanced arguments based on critical thinking and depth of analysis rather than hearing debaters read card after card. Debaters should strive to demonstrate real-world impacts using empirics whenever possible.

Philosophy
I’m a traditional LD judge. I want a value and criterion and judge on impact of arguments. I do not like speed but can adjust. I flow every round and will stop if I don’t understand it. I tend to be a line by line judge but last speech can be big picture.

Philosophy
Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him) Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics Value/Criterion debate: I do not think that winning the value/criterion debate is an independent reason to vote for you. You must do some weighing and impact calculus as to how your offense means you achieve your value. K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them andif they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it. DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX. Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument). Speaker Points: 30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job. 28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example) 27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most 26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down 25-26: arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this). 20:Racist/sexist/other bigoted statements All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community. Full Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=119942

Philosophy
Add me to the email chain:cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him) Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX. Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument). FW: Util unless otherwise told Speaker Points: 30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job. 28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example) 27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most 26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down 25-26: arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this). 20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

Philosophy
I have a lot of experience which means I am old. I guess that makes me a “traditional judge” or so I am told. If cases have a value and criterion then I like for the contention level of the case to link them or what is the point of having them. If neither side has them then let’s go straight impacts. While I don’t really like Kritiks I will listen to them and expect them to be answered. I am open to counter plans and disads. Here is the thing, Don’t assume I have read any of the literature on anything. Don’t assume I know any of the topic jargon. EXPLAIN it to me. I prefer quality over quantity. It has to make sense. I am open to almost anything but if you run it you have to explain the relevance in the scope of the round. What is the story? Impact it for me. Why should I vote for it? As far as speed goes most probably won’t like me. I can handle an up tempo delivery when compared to normal conversation but I just can’t keep up anymore if you are spreading and spewing down. If I am working so hard to flow it chances are I am not really evaluating it. You have a better chance of slowing down and explaining fewer arguments than speeding up and getting too many in the round. There is a fine line here because I know NC has to enact some strategy and I know the 1AR has to cover. Signpost and give me a slight pause after a tag line so I can get it and then I will be ready for that evidence. Write the ballot for me. Give me clear voters. Weigh the round for me. Drops matter but you have to extend them and impact them. Be professional in the round. I still like to think that presentation matters.

Philosophy
LD Debate is fundamentally value and philosophy driven. As such a value and criterium should be established through analysis and evidence. Communication skills are not as important as resolution of substantive issues.

Philosophy
I am increasingly a "traditional" judge in that "traditional" is including more and more of the recent past. I do not need a quote at the top of the case, but I do value the framework of value debate. Speed is detrimental if it impedes with the ability for the judge to process the information at first blush. I do not know the details of the topic as well as the debater does, so taking the time to ensure that I can make sense of the argument you are saying (because it's the first time I'm hearing any arguments on the topic) is a good strategy. That said, I don't need you to go at a pedestrian place. A good clip is fine. 350 wpm is likely not. I try to vote on the biggest argument first and then work my way down. As such, I will likely vote on the framework before I vote on the contention level. I will vote on impacts before I vote on an internal link. I do not believe that affirmatives need to provide plans to solve any negatives they bring up. In the real world, one first needs to figure out if a situation is in need of change before detailing how the change would / should occur. As such, LD (especially in a "fix it" type of topic such as this) can explore whether or not a plan should be developed as a result of the affirmative or negative winning the moral / ethical debate about the current situation. Explain, weigh, impact, and clash. Again--more and more "traditional." But, such is life. :-)

Philosophy
Value should be grounded in wording of the topic. I'd rather you read less cards that have actual claims, warrants and impacts than a bunch of blippy cards strung together to form a contention. I'd rather have two well-developed contentions than 4 shallow ones. Negative strategy should be based on the style of the topic. Policy arguments should only be read on policy topics. Cross-ex questions matter! Plan them in advance and use them to set up your strategy. Don't let small, technical disagreements define the debate - take a big picture look at the issues that matter in rebuttals. As I say to my students: good luck, have fun, learn things!

Philosophy
I judge lots of LD debates. When I competed, many years ago, there was only traditional value, criteria, & contention debate. I have coached and judged continuously since I debated so I have evolved some as LD has... I am still totally ok with traditional LD debate. I also am ok with progressive debate, as well. Clearly, there will need to be a debate about how I evaluate the debate. Do I evaluate the value/criteria first or would I default to consequentialism/utility? Judge instruction is important. Tell me what you are winning and why that wins the debate. Do impact assessments/comparisons (magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, turns the case/value/contention/the DA impact, etc). Even if you are going for structural violence you can do impact comparisons/assessments. On this topic I find a couple of specific examples that demonstrate your arguments are very helpful since these values, criteria, and contention arguments are many times similar, specific examples help flush out the distinctions between these similar internal links. Make sure you make complete arguments, that your claims have 1 or more (hopefully more) warrants to substantiate/bolster your claims/arguments. I flow a ton of what is said in every speech in the debate and my decisions will "hopefully" always come from what is on my flow. I do believe in tech over truth. Dropped arguments are true arguments. Contested arguments have less risk of happening than conceded/dropped arguments. The 1NC includes the responsibility of responding to the affirmative case after reading the negative case. Do not confuse this with kicking out of arguments. Dropping an argument is like you answer their contention 1 but the timer goes off and you never got to contention 2. You dropped contention 2. You can still later on in the negative rebuttal go for all of your answers to contention 1 or still kick out of some of the answers you did make against contention 1, but you can not go back and make new answers to contention 2. You can try to make arguments to make new arguments on contention 2, but it will be an uphill battle and you will need to answer your opponents arguments as to why you dont get new arguments. Everything is open to debate, but these are general tendencies for me as a judge. If you win your value and criteria you still have to win a contention and answer your opponents answers to win the round, in most instances. A few observations about rate of delivery. This is UIL State and there are norms against going as fast as you humanly can, but there is not a rule that if you go x speed you lose. Sometimes in LD when debaters choose to go uber fast the speed is actually faster than in fast policy debate because in LD there are fewer pieces of evidence read and the cards are shorter so there is less time between arguments to flow. Compounding that analytical arguments are more prevalent in LD and these analytical arguments seem to have gotten shorter, but students are reading them faster and faster. Math is not in your favor. At some point even the fastest flowing judges in the country can't keep up with you. I do not want anyone going as fast as they humanly can even unless your fast is everyone else's medium or slow. If you are clear and making complete arguments then I doubt I will have a problem with your rate, quick is ok with me. If there is a disability disclosed and an accommodation requested then my position on quickness and clarity might deviate based on the disclosure and if any accommodation was implemented.

Philosophy
I am a traditional UIL LD Debate Judge. Your framework is important, and the case should reflect that along with your argumentations. I will not connect the dots for you. You will need to tell me my your arguments are better and why they win you the round. I fully believe that debate is a communication-based event. So if you see me not flowing, that means you are going too fast. Make sure to provide clash against your opponent's case and arguments. At the end of the day, debate is a persuasive activity. Persuade me that you are the winner.

Philosophy
In rounds, I prioritize clarity, logical coherence, and well-warranted argumentation over pure technicality. I view debate as an educational activity centered on persuasion. Value/criterion debate matters significantly to me. I expect debaters to clearly weigh impacts back to the framework they provide. If no clear weighing happens, I default to comparative impacts and philosophical consistency. I am tabula rasa to a degree — I will evaluate any argument if it is properly warranted, but I prefer rounds where arguments are clearly impacted and crystallized. I highly value philosophical engagement, not just card-throwing. Speed is fine if it's clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow you. Spreading without clarity is just bad debating. I appreciate strategic creativity but I will not evaluate new arguments in rebuttals or new advocacy shifts unless dropped earlier. Theory and kritiks are acceptable but must be substantive and well-developed — frivolous theory will get little traction unless clearly justified. Above all: Explain why you win. Tell me how your arguments interact with your opponent’s and provide voters.

Philosophy
Be respectful and keep the flow nice and clean. I won’t guess where you are applying your arguments so make your attacks and defenses very specific.

Philosophy
LD is founded on a clash of ideas and values (Lincoln vs Douglas). Participants should come prepared, listen and respond to their opponent and directly link their cases to the resolution. Speed is not an issue so long as the speaker is intelligible (if I cannot understand you, then I assume your opponent cannot either).

Philosophy
LD is a value debate. Each debater should be able to defend their v/c with logic and reasoning backed by research. I prefer clarity and effective communication at a nice pace.

Philosophy
Do what you do. Do it better than your opponent. I need some type of framework. use it. Value criteria are preferred. If yours is the same as your opponents we can agree on the value. You can debate the criterion level. defs not needed unless you are using a word differently, read if you like. weigh values or which side reaches the same value better. roadmaps are not debate time. it is simply ac/nc or nc/ac. even framework my case their case voters. all good. If I hear arguments in the roadmap the clock starts. I prefer people being nice to being mean. dont stare down your opponent in cross. Explain and differentiate arguments. I am ok with the last 2 speeches being just voters. I tend to not like it because there are invariably arguments hanging out there that I have to evaluate on my terms. If you like to give just voters explain why the opposition arguments are not worth voting for. Congrats on being awesome. Good luck.

Philosophy
I want to be walked through fully fleshed out Claim-Warrant-Impact arguments. I don't want to work to understand. I am listening for who can reach their value through the standard and application of their criteria and how it resolves or negates.

Philosophy
Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in the most recent and academically legitimate topical research of any kind. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind. For UIL LD: I will vote for the debater that controls the strongest link to the most significant impact, as argued by the debaters in the round. I would prefer that debaters spend more time justifying and weighing one or two arguments in the final rebuttals than extending everything from the constructive.

Philosophy
I’m not too particular. It is absolutely essential to cover all portions of your case and opponents case in every response. No dropping arguments. Values should be clashed head to head. Remain respectful and professional.

Philosophy
I am pretty and tab and feel comfortable judging whatever style of debate you feel most comfortable doing. Just do whatever you do best. I come from a policy background but judge a ton of LD rounds. When judging I am looking for clear warrants, arguments that are impacted out, and line by line. Give me some type of framework with which to filter offense through and tell me why you are winning under that framework. I find that debaters are more likely to get my ballot when they are clearly able to explain what they are winning, why they are winning it, and why it should result in them winning the round. Try to write my ballot for me! If you have any questions before the round don't hesitate to ask! There is some more information on my tabroom paradigm but you should just have the round you're most confident in having. Congrats on making it to state and good luck!

Philosophy
I believe that Ld debate requires the debaters to establish why their value and criterion are superior. They can or should use their contentions to further this. They need to clash with their opponent in the cx questioning period and in their constructive speech and rebuttals. They need to tell the judge the voters they have won in the round. They need sound arguments that are based on evidence .

Philosophy
overall tabula rosa judge, fine with all levels of speed and skill. judging since 1994. try to write good commentary for the kids that's positive and constructive. Love the setup and flow of LD and how criteria links together with the values and resolutions to form a cohesive argument for and against.

Philosophy
I am a tabula rasa judge. If you want to read policy or other progressive arguments, that's fine, just read a real framework. By framework I don't mean V/C, but explain what is and is not acceptable within the round and why, provide a role of the ballot, and you can set it towards anything. Absent that proper framework debate, I'll default to a more traditional V/C judge, weighing access to the values.

Philosophy
I prefer traditional Value and Criterion debate for LD. However, I am generally open to arguments outside that framework, so long as clear justification is provided for why I should evaluate other arguments. I also frequently judge policy debate and am familiar with all of those arguments.

Philosophy
Speed: I will never down a debater simply because they spread, while I ask that you meter your speed to the point that individual words are intelligible, I understand that there is a large gulf between speaking normally and spreading. If you are going to spread, consider the following: 1) You understand your own limitations, do not spread if you know you'll be incoherent. Enunciation is a skill and you need to develop it if you intend to spread. 2) If you are going to spread, I expect you to make your case available for your opponent to review. Blitzing your opponent with tons of content and no means to follow along beyond flow makes for a non-competitive round. 3) Signpost clearly. Either slow down or clearly indicate transitions from argument to argument or even card to card if you feel it necessary. Specific Arguments: As far as I am concerned, I am a tab judge. Feel free to make whatever arguments you think are the most competitive so long as you are confident that you can articulate them. You will never be voted down purely because I didn't like the type of case you are running and it is entirely up to your opponent to refute any arguments you may make. I’ll even buy a kick the judge arg if it makes sense and your opponent fails to refute. Technical Language/Skill: While understanding of more progressive styles of argumentation is important, in a round where one opponent may not have the same vocabulary base as their opponent, I will not down a competitor simply because they confuse similar terms so long as their argumentation is sound. (e.g. harm vs. impact, CP vs. Alt, etc.) Argument over style every day of the week. Flow: I will not down a competitor on a dropped argument if their opponent fails to highlight the dropped argument. Beyond that, If your opponent drops an aspect of your case, you need to articulate the effect this dropped argument has on the round. So tell me how dropped argument x means they have no ground to refute impact y rather than just saying "my opponent dropped my argument so that means I win thank you judge" LD Specific Paradigms: As a judge, I am incredibly framework heavy. I am open to alternative frameworks in the event of Kritiks without a value/criterion but generally speaking, I prefer to see a value criterion in addition if at all possible. With regards to framework, I like to see explicit links for how each argument you make links/upholds your specific framework. Don't reshape you whole constructive around this but major points for factoring framework links into your rebuttals.

Philosophy
I believe that strong argumentation is essential for a strong debate. As such, I feel debaters must use the fullness of the Toulmin model of argumentation that encourages clear claims, well support arguments (evidence) and clear impacts. Claims with only evidence will likely not be as convincing to me. For a full persuasive effort, debaters must impact the arguments and use sound reasoning based on evidence and logic. I believe that clash is essential. I am not averse to some speed, but I do not believe excessive speed is beneficial to the persuasive process. I often feel that excessive speed is meant to persuade the judge of expertise that is otherwise lacking if the arguments were fully heard. I also do not believe this trains debaters to use these valuable argumentation skills in the real world since there are few venues or occupations that appreciate a rapid-fire style of delivery. Value criteria should be clear and fair. Kritiks should be used only when warranted and should not eliminate the ability for the opposition to continue in the debate. A Kritik that presents a no-win scenario for the opponent will be seen as abusive since the goal of debate is to debate for the entire round, not define or set up arguments that preclude an opponent from having any ground to win. Decorum and respect in the round are tantamount. In a world where derogatory statements and personal attacks have become too normative, I expect that academic debate can and should transcend these problems and set an example for others in the social and political realm. Be respectful, enjoy the game that is debate.

Philosophy
I have competed in, coached, or judged collegiate debate since the 1980's. I have been on the IPDA Governing Board since 2019 and currently serve as the Managing Director of IPDA, which is the largest collegiate style of competitive debate. I have coached a highly successful collegiate debate team for the last seven years. I believe the best arguments are supported by all three parts of the Rhetorical Triangle - Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. Ethos- Over reliance on any one area of persuasion will likely be less effective in persuading me. I value solid, accurate research and believe it can be an excellent source of "borrowed credibility". In my view, it is a bonus to the speaker's credibility but not a replacement for the other areas of rhetoric. Logos - I also feel that any evidence is only as good as the reasoning that connects it to the argumentation. Without a clear warrant or solid reasoning, a piece of evidence is not effective in making an argument. Evidence is a tool but the speaker must have the skills to properly use that tool. Pathos - at its best, an emotional appeal is a conduit to connect the speaker to the audience. It appreciates the fullness of the listener and acknowledges they have unique feelings and beliefs about the topic at hand. I believe there is a proper and needed place for an emotional appeal in matters of contention BUT should never be used for manipulation. If I feel there is an excessive attempt at emotional manipulation, I will likely not be persuaded. Speed - I strongly feel that the best debate is meant to mirror real-world speaking and persuasive situations. As such, excessive speed will not be persuasive since it is not a real-world skill outside of the debate arena.

Philosophy
I am a more traditional judge and appreciate the traditional nature of UIL LD. I allow some speed, but should be able to understand anything you are saying without the help of a speech in hand for me to read. I expect debate to be engaged in with civil discourse. We are here to learn to have intellectual disagreements without losing the purpose of the event which is critical thinking and discourse.

Philosophy
I am more of a traditional judge who wants to see civil discourse in action. Once speed or behavior becomes too aggressive, we are no longer fulfilling the duties of the event or debate as a whole.

Philosophy
I am a traditionalist LD judge who values a classic, values-based approach to debate. My primary focus in evaluating a round is on the strength of the value clash. For me, the debater who best upholds their value or effectively shows how they can achieve their opponent’s value through their own framework will win the round. I expect clear frameworks and well-developed criterion that logically support your value. Comparative analysis between frameworks is crucial—don’t assume I will do that work for you. I want to see debaters engage with each other’s value structure and weigh impacts accordingly. I do not prefer kritiks, performance arguments, or other non-traditional styles of LD. While I will flow everything presented, arguments outside the scope of traditional LD are unlikely to persuade me unless they are clearly tied back to the value structure in a meaningful way. Presentation is extremely important to me. I value clarity, poise, and professionalism. Please avoid speaking at an excessive rate—I prioritize quality over quantity. Rudeness, sarcasm, or dismissiveness toward your opponent will count against you in my evaluation.

Philosophy
Basics: Aff must affirm topic and neg must clash. Framework: Value and Criteria level debate are usually the main determinates of round. Other Framework level debate issues are highly subject to interpretation and must be argued vigorously and effectively in order for me to understand why they should be considered primary voting issues. In other words, telling me to vote for you because you won the value/criterion debate is very clear to me. Telling me they lose because they don't have a plan (or other such framework issues) is going to require you to convince me that you it is primary voting issue. Contentions: Solid contentions are key and they need solid warrants to back up any claims made. Don't read things to me that make unsupported claims and try to claim them as a solid warrant. Vague warrants (ST harms equity because x.y.z) are easily outweighed by quantifiable warrants (study found national math scores went up 3 points for minority after ST implemented), assuming they are argued and applied correctly. Voters: Please summarize voting issues in last speech. Finally: Everything I said above expects for you to actually say it. I don't automatically reject anything. If your opponent makes a bad argument, you still have to address it. I won't automatically toss it out even if I see it's flaws. You have to tell me. Overall: I'm doing my best to listen to and understand whatever you present without bringing my biases and predispositions to the round. But the notes above give you some idea of the kind of arguments I tend to vote on.

Philosophy
LD: I am a traditional value/criterion judge. No value, no criterion, no good. If you mention a plan, solvency, kritiks, start spreading, etc... you will lose the round. Even though it should go without saying, you should have evidence backing your claims. I expect there to be a "so what" to your contentions i.e. impacts. If something is dropped, why does that matter? No new in the 2.  Speaker clarity and pronunciation are valued highly. I appreciate passionate CX and rebuttals, but do not confuse passion for yelling and verbal abuse. Varying speech rate and tone/volume will score you points. Speak like you care.

Philosophy
LD debate should center around the resolution, value, and criteria. I desire a clear flow of arguments with clash between the cases. Debaters should develop arguments well, speak clearly, and demonstrate how their value and criteria are upheld through the arguments in the debate. I respect the art of LD debate and value a moderate persuasive rate of delivery. Slow down and communicate. I am more interested in your ability to develop clear arguments and reason as argumentation occurs throughout the debate. Make sure arguments are drawn across even when your opponent fails to argue them. I want to be shown how the arguments in the debate support and uphold the value and criteria. No plans.

Philosophy
I hate speed. I don't mean that you can't talk fast because I certainly there are times where you just need to get information out. My problem is in the summary of this evidence. Once you have presented your claim and warrant, for the Impact, spoon-feed me. Keep it simple, tell me why the impact of the argument is so important. Persuade - don't rely on info dumping or moving cards around a chess board. I feel UIL LD Debate ought to be an event that prioritizes speaking and persuasion. I love unique cases. Cases that take a slightly different slant on the resolution compared to what everyone else is running. But only if you can actually defend it and help me better understand it. I flow - and I consider it. But what I vote on more than direct lines of flow are overall big arguments.

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

Philosophy
I come from a background in philosophy, and this significantly shapes how I evaluate rounds. I prioritize philosophical argumentation over purely empirical evidence, and I prioritize empirical evidence over anecdotal claims. The most persuasive cases, in my view, will integrate all three: a philosophical foundation, supported by empirical data, and grounded in concrete, real-world examples. I value depth of explanation over name-dropping. Simply referencing philosophical figures or broad theories is insufficient; debaters must clearly articulate the philosophical assumptions underlying their arguments and demonstrate their relevance to the resolution at hand. I expect thorough explanation and application of philosophical concepts within the specific context of the debate. Although I personally lean toward structuralist and post-structuralist interpretations of knowledge and language, I am open to evaluating other epistemological frameworks — provided they are constructed with a physicalist rather than a purely metaphysical conception of reality. Round Requirements: In my evaluation, the framework (value and criterion) is the foundation of the round. Debaters must not only present a clear value and criterion but also explicitly establish the connection between them. To win my ballot, you must prevail in the framework debate. A superior case at the contention level will not overcome a failure to establish dominance at the level of value and criterion. Also, I will not extend arguments for debaters. It is the debater’s responsibility to crystallize the round and explain why they have won. If you cannot articulate why your arguments outweigh and outmatch your opponent’s in the final rebuttals, you should not expect me to do that work for you. Final Notes: Respectful and professional conduct is expected at all times. If you are hostile, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate you have already lost the debate. I also highly value clear communication. I can follow rapid delivery, but you must maintain clarity with an ear toward effective rhetoric.

Philosophy
Congratulations on making it to the state tournament! I consider myself traditional in my LD judging approach. Follow all UIL rules and remain professional and polite. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered and please keep in mind that I am the official time keeper and determine what is considered prep. Use your value/criterion/contentions/etc. to prove why your stance on the resolution is where I should vote. Remain organized and make sure to present clear voters. Make sure to create clash and signpost as you move through the round.

Philosophy
I'm open to any approach to debating that both debaters are comfortable with, but I will default to a few things if I'm not provided with a reason not to. I will evaluate the round from an offense/defense paradigm if given no other alternatives but I will default to a more tabula rasa approach otherwise I think that value/criterion framing is necessary to establishing how the judge should evaluate the impacts of the round, but simply because a debater is losing under their own framework does not mean they are unable to win by utilizing the framework of their opponent If debaters are going to engage in rapid delivery, I think it is ideal for them to share their case with all parties participating in the round to avoid any confusion I prefer a round where I am presented with a clear explanation of the harms established by the case and how those are mitigated by either the aff or neg case Evidence should preferably establish the links to harms and the unique harms caused by the resolution issue so there is a clear establishment of what the judge is doing when they submit their ballot

Philosophy
Email chain preferred: sykes.tx @ gmail.com & coppelldebatedocs @ gmail.com This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise. Clarity is important to me. I prefer not to look at the speech doc until after the debate. I'm also working to adjust speaker points to keep up with inflation. I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others. I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I considered myself a flex debater, and I’m willing to evaluate all arguments. I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands. Policymaking The older I get, the more I see shades of grey with respect to uniqueness. Risk, for me, isn't as unidirectional as it used to be. I generally tend to determine that uniqueness debates are "close" and find I prefer warranted explanations of link vs. link turn in this relationship. If forced by lack of comparison to default on framework, I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative plan. Theory/Topicality I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, and I don't think that should necessarily be exclusive of other positions. The resolution is a starting point. On questions of framework, T-USFG, etc., I strongly recommend grounding arguments in academic literature whenever possible. I am particularly interested in how debate shapes agents of change. Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations. Counterplans/Counter-advocacy I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory. Kritiking The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application. A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy." Rebuttals/How to win You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else. I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison. Lincoln Douglas, specifically While my background in policy debate leads me to a more "progressive" or policy-oriented perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional LD debates as well. You do you. I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Philosophy
LD debate is a value focused debate. The debators need to show the importance of their value and prove it with their value criterion/supporting contentions.

Philosophy
Aff case holds unless negative can prove otherwise. It’s LD NOT CX so ability to persuade is as important as facts and statistics. Philosophy over details. Stay on flow for organizational purposes. Value and criteria are important.

Philosophy
This debate topic has strong arguments on both sides. The winner will have the stronger framework, clash with the other side in a stronger way, and be more persuasive. I will want to hear how your contentions tie to your value and support it in a meaningful way.

Philosophy
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. I will say that I don't have much experience for "progressive debate" so keep that in mind when developing arguments. If I can't understand it, I can't vote on it. Speed : Know your circuit and the expectation. I don't want to hear spreading in a UIL round. Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. Aff/Neg or Neg/Aff. Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING SPEAKER DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.

Philosophy
My paradigms are very traditional. Stock issues are paramount. I will only consider what is argued and refuted in the round. If according to my flow, any argument is dropped by a debater, that is a voter for the opponent. Since this is UIL, I expect CX to be done with both debaters standing, facing me, and spreading is non-existent. Debaters will need to speak clearly and concisely as well as be courteous and professional.

Philosophy
Framework of the debate is very important. Make sure that you extend your value and criterion throughout the debate and continue to explain how it is carried through each contention. I do not prefer spreading.

Philosophy
Here are a few things you need to know about me that you're probably not used to: 1. All time counts. Either it's a speech or it's prep. No, there's no off time roadmaps. 2. No, I don't want to be on the email chain. 3. This is an oral communication activity, not a read-along. 4. Don't waste time, just debate. 5. If I want to see the card, I'll ask for it. I probably won't ask for it. 6. No, I won't disclose. I wrote you a ballot for you and your coach to read. I'll vote on anything if you give me a good reason, a clear framework, and weighable impacts. I'm not likely to vote on arguments spurious to the resolution, so please debate the topic as presented. I'm not particularly interested in debates outside the scope of the topic. I do believe strongly that debate should be publicly accessible- while I can handle most arguments, a general audience should be persuaded as well as I am. As much as the line by line matters, it is how you use it to build a compelling narrative to vote for your side that really counts. I love a good framework debate- tell me what this round is about, what the central issues are, and why you won them. Evidence- I'm not normal when it comes to evidence. Just because you have a card doesn't mean the card is gospel. Look for the warrants. Challenge the logic, whether it has cards or not. I do not flow author names- if you say "extend the Warren card", I will have no idea what you're talking about. I very rarely ask to read evidence after the round and I'm ok with paraphrasing evidence as long as the full text is available in round. I have zero tolerance for waiting for evidence to be exchanged- if you're going to use an email chain, use it. Have all of your evidence ready to exchange the moment it is asked for. All time counts- either it's speech time or it's prep time. There's no such thing as 'off time roadmaps' and 'waiting to see the card'. Speed kills- don't spread. You can go faster than normal conversation, but not by much. This is a communication activity after all.

Philosophy
I am pretty tab. I will flow whatever you put in the round as long as you make it make sense. I think the most important thing is being able to prove through the lens of the framing which impacts happen, how important they are, and why they matter. I will flow CP, T, K, or any other “progressive argument. I will advise that it is probably not in your best interest to run K with me as your judge. I will flow it, but I am unlikely to enjoy it. Have fun, be respectful.

Philosophy
When I judge UIL LD, I will look at the value - criterion debate first. I want to hear arguments on which value is more appropriate for the topic. I also want each debater to compare the criteria. How does your criterion achieve your value? Can your criterion achieve the opponent's value? Which value-criterion is a better lens with which to view the world and apply to standardized testing / educational policy? You should be using the contentions to prove the value-criterion debate. I look at this topic through two levels. There is a practical level i.e. what are the effects of standardized testing in the real-world? There is also a philosophical level i.e. how does standardized testing uphold your value and what other morals or ideologies are related? The best debaters will be able to clearly tell these two stories, how these two levels of the debate interact, and how the evidence and examples from your contentions prove your value framework.

Philosophy
I prefer a traditional LD round. Value/criterion need to be clear and weighed throughout the round. Organization is key, signpost as you go. Any speed is fine as long as you are clear. In rebuttal, crystallize the round while identifying voters. Good luck!

Philosophy
LD debate is my first love in all the debate events. I believe that Lincoln Douglas debate is essential in teaching communication and persuasive communication. This debate is built on the core values of a society and the criteria is the standard for those values. I believe that philosophical tenets are essential, as well as evidence. I want debaters to persuade me that their ideas, values, arguments uphold high standards. The affirmative needs to prove that the resolution is true. The negative needs to be able to show how the affirmative does not meet their burden. Good communication is not necessarily good fast reading. Spreading is not necessary in a good debate round. Being clear,concise and exact (in delivering facts) is essential.

Philosophy
LD Debate is fundamentally value and philosophy driven. As such a value and criterium should be established through analysis and evidence. Communication skills are not as important as resolution of substantive issues.

Philosophy
Address for the e-mail chain: joshua.wimberley@midlandisd.net Most of this paradigm is specific to traditional debate rounds including Policy, LD, and PF. However, if you have found yourself in a round with me as a Congressional Debate scorer or parliamentarian you can probably get a good feel for what I'm looking for in your speeches. I will say that I have yet to attend a tournament where there weren't enough topics to go around. Please do not be the 8th negative speech on any piece of legislation. The odds of you having something truly unique to say that doesn't get filed as rehash is incredibly slim. Save your precedence and move on to the next item on the agenda. I would much rather have speakers 1-8 cover the first bill and then let 9-16 handle the next one. We get more debate on a broader selection of topics and infinitely less rehash. There is nothing magical about getting the fabled "extra speech" in a round. I am not going to move you up in the rankings just because you were lucky enough to land at the top of the precedence list. However, trying to squeeze in an extra speech that you don't have a strong position on or that is just a retelling of someone else's points made previously can hurt your ranking. Do with that information what you will... Debate is a game designed to build a specific set of communication skills. At the end of the day you are a salesman trying to get me to buy your idea. If you don't sell me on it you can't expect to win the round. That being said, if you think you can sell me anything more than a bus ticket at 250+ words per minute you are grossly mistaken... Leave that life to the auctioneers, we are here to communicate. I will judge the debate you want to have to the best of my abilities. I would say you are better to debate what you are good at debating, than change for me in the back of the room. I do, however, have some predispositions and beliefs regarding debate that you should know. Absent a framework set-up during the debate, I will default policymaker. I prefer to watch debates with good evidence and oriented around a policy action. What makes evidence good is the analysis of the person putting it in action. Theory Debates: I do not like to watch theory debates because they are generally just taglines with out of context sound bites and impossible to flow. Having said that, I understand the importance and strategy of engaging in a theory debate. I recognize that sometimes you just have to deal with what you're given. If you go for theory in the debate, go deep and slow to analyze the debate. Continuing to read front-lines with no depth of explanation will be bad for you. Try to make the debate about in-round implications and not centered around potential abuse or "how" debate should be in the future. In general, if you haven't caught on by the descriptions, I tend to find education arguments more persuasive than fairness arguments. But fairness is important. Framework/Performance (or the like) debates: If the debate is a debate about framework or how I should evaluate the debate, please don't forget to talk about the other arguments in the debate. In other words, there should be something "productive" that comes with the way you want me to vote. Debates about how we should debate are interesting, but make sure you engage in some sort of debate as well. Reading scripted/blocked out front-lines is very unimpressive to me. Make it about the debate at hand. Topicality: I do not vote for T very often but I do think it is a voting issue. If you read a T argument make sure to talk about "in-round" implications and not just potential abuse arguments. With the caselist, disclosure, and MPJ, I do not find potential abuse arguments very compelling. Linking the T to other arguments in the debate and showing the Aff is being abusive by avoiding core neg ground in the debate is what works best. Discussions about predictable literature outside of the in-round implications do not carry much weight because in most instances the Neg knew about the case and researched a good strategy. The exception is when an affirmative breaks a new 1AC, then the neg should be allowed to make potential abuse arguments--they didn't get disclosure and the caselist to prep. I generally prefer depth over breath education claims. Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific the better. The Link is very important. Please make evidence comparisons during the debate. I dislike having to call for 20+ cards to access uniqueness on a Politics DA (etc) when they are highlighted down to one or two lines. Read the longer, more contextual cards than the fast irrelevant ones. I tend to not give a risk to the DA. You need to win the components to the DA to have me weigh it against the Aff. Counterplans: I do not like Consult CPs, please choose another type of CP. PIC and Agent CPs are OK, but are better when you have contextual literature that justifies the the CP. Advantage CPs are cool. Affirmatives should not be able to advocate the permutation; however, theory abuse arguments can be used to justify this action. Condo is OK, but you shouldn't go for contradictory arguments in rebuttals. Case Debates: I like case debates; however, these debates tend to turn into "blippy extensions" and force me to read cards to understand the arguments and/or nuances of the case debate. Debaters should make these explanations during the debate and not rely on me to read the cards and make it for you. I tend to try and let the debater arguments carry weight for the evidence. Saying extend Smith it answers this argument is not a compelling extension. Warrants are a necessity in all arguments. Critiques: I generally consider these arguments to be linear DAs, with a plan meet need (PMN) and sometimes a CP (often abusive) attached at the end. Yes, I will vote for a K. When I was in college I read a lot of this literature and so I liked these debates. Now that I am almost 20 years removed from school, I tend to see bad debates that grotesquely mutate the authors intent. This is also true for Framework debates. Your K should have as specific literature as possible. Generic K's are the worst; as are bad generic aff answers. While I think condo is OK, I find Performative Contradiction arguments sometimes persuasive (especially if discourse is the K link)--so try not to engage in this Neg (or Aff). General things you should know: 1. I like switch-side debating. While you are free to argue this is bad, it is a strong disposition I have to the game. **Read-Affirmatives should have a plan of action and defend it. However, because of this I usually give more "latitude" to affirmatives on Permutations for critical arguments when they can prove the core action of the aff is a good idea. 2. Potential abuse is not very persuasive. Instead, connect the abuse to in-round implications. 3. Engage in good impact analysis. The worst debates to judge are ones where I am expected to weigh the impacts without the debaters doing the work in the speeches. Sidenote: Don't expect me to weigh impacts you didn't analyze effectively. 4. Research: I am a big believer that what separates "policy debate" pedagogically from other forms of debate and makes it a better form to engage in is the research and argument construction that flows from it. Hence, I like good arguments that are well researched. 5. Don't steal prep-time! If you are paperless, prep stops when you hand the jump-drive to your opponents, not when you say I am ready. Any questions, just ask.

Philosophy
I am a traditional LD Judge, Value/criterion are important, but not absolutely necessary. I am open to all arguments as long as they are relative to the topic. Evidence is important but I value argumentation and interpretation of the evidence even more. Do not just read evidence. Explain why it is relative. I can handle speed, but any speech where the delivery makes the speech unintelligible, will be ignored.

Philosophy
I am a traditional style LD Debate judge. Value/Criterion is important but not necessary. I value logic as much as evidence in the round. obviously cited evidence is more affective, but logical arguments can be used to counter evidence. Speed is ok, but fluency is a most. Debate is a speaking event. your ability to convince is affected by your speaking style.

Philosophy
As a judge, I tend to favor cases that are organized and easier to follow as the debate goes on. I believe all speakers should be confident in their cases and their self. Delivery should be polished and impactful. Questioning blocks should be aggressive while maintaining respect toward opponent. I enjoy judging student that are good extemp in the rebuttal blocks.