2026 LD State Judges

Philosophy
LD Debate I 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
I evaluate LD debate with a strong emphasis on the clarity and coherence of the value framework. I prioritize how effectively debaters introduce and justify their value, as well as the internal consistency between their value and criterion. A persuasive case clearly explains why the chosen value ought to be upheld and how the criterion functions as a practical means of achieving it. I also give weight to the use of philosophical grounding. Debaters who accurately and meaningfully incorporate relevant philosophical schools of thought or specific philosophers to support their claims strengthen their position. However, I value clarity over quantity, arguments should be well-explained rather than merely name-dropped. Comparative analysis is critical in my evaluation. I look for clear contrast between the debaters’ values and frameworks, particularly how each side engages with and challenges the opponent’s value structure. The most compelling debaters demonstrate why their value should take precedence and how their framework better resolves the resolution. Ultimately, I reward debaters who present a well-structured, philosophically grounded, and comparative case, supported by clear reasoning and effective clash.

Philosophy
I try to be a tab judge but tend to use consequentialism / policy framing by default. Framework only matters insofar as you tell me it matters. Make good extensions and give good reasons to prefer your framework or I’ll probably just use utilitarianism to view rounds on this topic. You should generally use a value/criterion framework at this tournament but you absolutely aren’t bound to that in front of me. Kritiks, pre-standards/observations/burdens, over/underviews in constructives, plans/counterplans/disads are all fine so long as you tie it back to affirming or negating the resolution. Also feel free to make strategic concessions like agreeing with your opponent’s framework, as long as you are able to weigh your impacts under theirs. Theory is fine for setting reasonable burdens or checking abuse, but I don’t like the idea of voting on frivolous theory arguments at UIL state — use good judgment, or be prepared to lose or get low speaker points. I’m going to look at the round with respect to offense versus defense. I want you to identify your voters and your opponent’s voters and weigh them for me. If there are different layers of the round (ethics v policy, theory/topicality, etc) I want you to tell me what is most important and why I should vote for you.

Philosophy
Good luck and congrats to everyone who qualified for UIL state. I’m attaching my tabroom paradigm because it should cover everything that you need. If you have any questions before round about the paradigm feel free to ask, and I’ll try to clarify anything you may need. https://www.tabroom.com/user/judge/paradigm.mhtml

Philosophy
I tend to be fairly open to any argumentation, but I believe debaters should adhere to norms of the circuit where they are debating. This is a UIL tournament, so arguments like disclosure and theory should be avoided.

Philosophy
I am a traditional LD judge, and I make my decisions based on who argues the framework best. I was a CX debater in high school, but I do not want to hear CX arguments in LD. Be sure to give me voters and point out drops. Clearly explain to me why your value is superior and why you should win. Above all, be professional, organized, persuasive, and communicate clearly.

Philosophy
I evaluate Lincoln-Douglas debate as a value debate. I care most about philosophical coherence, logical consistency, and real-world applicability. I prefer arguments that clearly explain why something is just or unjust rather than those that rely on excessive technical tricks or speed. Please speak at a normal conversational rate. If I cannot understand your argument as it is spoken, I cannot evaluate it. Clarity always outweighs quantity. Value and Criterion The debater’s value is central to how I frame the round. I will weigh impacts through the value and apply the criterion as the method for achieving or measuring that value. A strong value should be clearly defined and justified as the most important moral priority in the round. The criterion must directly relate to the value and explain how I should evaluate which side better upholds it. If both debaters present competing values, I expect value comparison. Explain why your value ought to come first if it does. If you do not weigh values, I will default to whichever framework is better warranted and applied. Argumentation I prefer warranted arguments over card-dumping. Evidence is useful, but explanation matters more than citations alone. Philosophical claims should be clearly linked to impacts in the round. Extensions must include: The claim The warrant The impact And how it interacts with the value and criterion If an argument is dropped, I am willing to vote on it, but I still expect it to be meaningful and coherent. I am okay with traditional LD structure (Contentions → Impacts), but flexible as long as the case is clear. I do not default to utilitarianism, morality frameworks, or skepticism—those must be argued. I am skeptical of frivolous theory; theory must be clearly abused-based and explained in ordinary language.

Philosophy
I default to a traditional view of LD where philosophy and ethical reasoning should be central and arguments should be explained clearly. I don't vote on tricks or kritiks. Civility and respect are expected. Debaters should clearly explain and justify their value and criterion, including why their framework is preferable. If framework debate is underdeveloped, I will default to the most coherent and consistently used standard. Voters should be clearly outlined for the judge. While line-by-line is key, do not let that take over the entire rebuttal, you need to crystalize. Ultimately, I will vote for the debater who presents the most coherent, well-organized, and comparatively weighed arguments under a justified framework.

Philosophy
I'm interested in your case's overall narrative/story. You can run an off-beat framework, but be clear on how each of your contentions is relating back to that framing (and make sure framing is clear!). If you can give me that clear story, disprove your opponent's narrative, and uphold the flow, you'll get my ballot.

Philosophy
I will follow a philosophy of tabula rasa to (attempt to) refrain from preferring my predispositions. Generally, I lean left politically but I dislike populism on both sides. I do not accept "common sense" arguments as being a given unless you can construct a sound framework justifying your position. What I value most about debate is the development of the cognitive ability to deconstruct an issue and address it from not only your predisposed conception, but from the opposing perspective(s). Respond to your opponent's argument! Do not expect to restate your own convictions and convince an audience by sheer volume or rhetorical performance. Link to lengthier Tabroom Judge paradigm statement: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLvM14efAY0A96rGSOdU6AtwhL9pxZvtmMUdoVKTD40/edit?usp=sharing

Philosophy
I prefer traditional LD with a clear value and value criterion debate. Debaters need to provide evidence for their claims. Make sure that you also provide analysis of your evidence as time allows. It is important to understand and communicate your stance, not just read evidence. I am fine with moderate/fast speed; however, please slow down on taglines. Communication skills will be reflected in your speaker points. Clash is an important part of LD, make sure you are providing arguments against your opponent and also extending your case. A well written case matters. Please give a detailed impact calculus during the round, highlighting what you are winning and why. I appreciate debaters that go "down the flow" and not jump around the arguments that are presented. If I am spending time trying to figure out which contention or subpoint you are referencing, I am not fully focusing on the actual argument you are making. Give me a road map and I will follow!

Philosophy
I tend to be fairly progressive and will listen to any arguments you run. I am fine with condo and collapsing. Identifying the winning framing is important and should be used to justify winning your offense on the flow. I don't mind LARPING or any other strategy you may make use of, provided you do it well and understand the arguments you are running. I would prefer a rate of delivery that is slightly faster than conversational and will dock speaker points for excess speed. I will not flow arguments that are spread at UIL. will want to be on the email chain. I prefer philosophical debates, but don't mind whatever you want to throw at me.

Philosophy
Link to statement: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Philosophy
Rate of Delivery Preference: Controlled style. Spreading is highly discouraged if the student is indiscernable. Criterion Priority: It may be a factor in my evaluation depending on its use in the round. Should not be redundancy of value. Rebuttals: Encourage to follow the flow of the opponent's argument, potentially including a line-by-line analysis, statement of voting issues, or both. Deciding on a Winner: I decide who is the winner of the key, most impactful arguments in the round, not necessarily who has the most. Did the opponent drop a contention? Do the contentions support the value? Did you thoroughly analyze how an opponent did not have a proper line of reasoning for their contentions supporting their value? Are you evaluating each case presented for who best accomplishes a goal from a utilitarian mindset? Eloquent speaking skills are encouraged, but will not be the sole source of evaluation for the round. Evidence: Always necessary. Hypotheticals should be evaluated thoroughly with appropriate philosophical application or analogous situations. Note-Taking: I outline the important arguments of each debater's case as they support the value, key arguments presented in the rebuttals, and responses to CX.

Philosophy
I evaluate each round through the lens of how effectively debaters uphold and apply their stated value and criterion by consistently connecting their arguments back to that framework throughout the round. I place strong emphasis on well-developed arguments supported by sound reasoning and credible evidence. While evidence is important, it should be explained and integrated into the debater’s analysis rather than simply read. Logical consistency matters, and I reward debaters who construct arguments that are coherent and directly relevant to the resolution. Clash is a critical component of my decision-making process. I value debaters who actively engage with their opponent’s arguments through direct refutation, identifying weaknesses, and responding to key points. I look for debaters to clearly explain why their arguments matter more within the context of the round and how they achieve their value more effectively than their opponent. Finally, I value clear and effective communication. Debaters should be organized, easy to follow, and persuasive. Speed should not come at the expense of clarity. Ultimately, I vote for the debater who best upholds their framework, engages in meaningful clash, and demonstrates why their position is more compelling and justified.

Philosophy
N/A

Philosophy
I am a hybrid judge but I tend to be fairly traditional in LD. I'm not a huge fan of Ks only because most people don't know how to properly execute it and give me clear links so do run at your own risk. I prefer well thought out philosophical debate but am really open to practical policy arguments. You can run both as long as there are clear links and things are reasonable in terms of impacts. I will not be doing the work for you nor should any adjudicator so please be aware, this is upon you to craft the narrative, strats, and ensure that your evidence, logic, and analysis reflects accordingly to link to the topic.

Philosophy
I view myself as a fairly traditional LD judge. I believe all of your contention level offense should support your value/criterion (Framework). At the end of the day, I hold the Aff to the burden of proving the resolution true as a statement, and the neg to proving the resolution not true as a statement. I am fine with about any style you want to operate under though. Please be mindful that the UIL circuit does put a premium on effective communication, any speed that I feel is sacrificing clarity will see a significant drop in speaker points as a result. Adapt to the greatest circuit in the nation, I promise it will make you better. On the number scale, I always find these weird and the ends of the spectrum weirder, ask me if you have questions please.

Philosophy
Hello! I am the current debate coach for Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio (I help coach at Texas State University on the side as well). I was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits for China Spring High School, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State to multiple state and national awards and accolades. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room.

Philosophy
I will base my decision on how well each side links their value to the resolution and engages in clash, while also evaluating how effectively they incorporate and defend their key values with consistency and alignment to their philosophy.

Philosophy
I prefer rounds where the debaters connect the arguments at the contention level back through their framework to show me how they achieve their value. I also want the debaters to explain why they believe they are winning the round in the rebuttal. I need to know that the students understand how the arguments presented in round function in relation to one another.

Philosophy
I evaluate LD rounds based on clarity, organization, and comparative weighing. I am comfortable with both traditional/value debate and more progressive arguments, but I prioritize clear explanation over speed or technical complexity. Debaters should clearly articulate their framework/criterion and consistently apply it throughout the round. I default to evaluating the round through the framework established in the debate, and I reward debaters who effectively weigh impacts (magnitude, probability, and timeframe). While I will flow and evaluate line-by-line, I will not fill in gaps, so arguments must be explained and extended to be considered in the decision. I am fine with a moderate rate of delivery, but clarity is more important than speed. If I cannot understand an argument, I cannot evaluate it. I value clash, direct refutation, and strategic decision-making. I remain neutral and aim to provide fair, educational decisions based solely on what occurs in the round.

Philosophy
I am a traditional flow judge. So please keep things topical, avoid theory, Ks, etc.. - I really want to emphasize, don't read non-topical or out there arguments that are super philosophical or abstract. You are best off runing regular larp/policy arguments in front of me. I'm also not good with speed, so you shouldn't spread. I value QUALITY over QUANTITY. While I have experience with the debate, you should talk as slow as you would in front of a lay parent judge. However, I will evaluate the round based off the flow. My decision will be based on which arguments have been extended into the final speech and how those arguments are weighed against your opponents. You should be ideally be weighing your arguments in terms of timeline, magnitude, probability, etc. Although it requires more than you just saying those words, you need to explain how you are outweighing not just assert you are. It's also a good idea to give yourself as many win conditions as possible, using language such as "even if you don't buy x, then y" because you don't know which arguments I'm finding persuasive.

Philosophy
I am a traditional judge looking for a balance of effective argumentation and value-based underpinning. Speed is allowed but not at the expense of clear and concise communication. Debaters should be mindful of the resolution and operate within it's boundaries.

Philosophy
I believe that Lincoln-Douglas debate centers on the clash between values and the criteria that support them, within the framework of the resolution. Contentions should flow through a constructive speech logically, and tie back to the value and criterion. Rebuttals should cover the entire flow of the round, and dropped arguments severely weaken your case. If both sides offer convincing and thorough argumentation, the speaker who articulates clearly and fills his or her time will typically win my ballot. Sportsmanship and professionalism are paramount, and speakers are encouraged to compete passionately and courteously.

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, for example? 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. Extinction-level impacts must be inherent to the resolution position. If you make a nonsensical, vapid, weak tie to the resolution and your position, I won't even flow it. I'm not into slippery slope/butterfly effect link chains. 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
Lincoln-Douglas: Value Debate: This is THE voter, I hold the most weight to the value debate; defend it well and attack it hard. Make sure that this is representative of your entire case. Criterion Debate: Vital to attack, I want to hear why the opponent's criterion fails to uphold their value. If you use a philosophy, make sure you understand what the philosophy says and explain it well. Theory: I am perfectly fine with theory arguments in LD, feel free to change up the debate, I'll flow the debate how I'm best convinced. Clash: I NEED CLASH-- Make sure to directly attack your opponent's contentions. If an argument is dropped, you must call it out for me to flow the drop.

Philosophy
I do not come in favoring any side or style. I evaluate what is clearly explained and justified in the round. I value explanation over technical tricks. Clarity matters more than speed. I should be able to follow and understand your arguments—speak clearly, at an appropriate pace and volume. Prioritize value/criterion or framework, explain it clearly and apply it. Do not assume I will automatically accept it. I am open to all arguments, but I only evaluate what I understand. Do not assume I know your evidence or theory—walk me through it. Use clear explanation, organization, and persuasive reasoning to win my ballot. Follow UIL rules. Be respectful and professional at all times.

Philosophy
I prefer a cleanly debated topic - with comparative analysis taking place. I'm open to multiple forms of argumentation as long as they are properly linked to the topic and also structured well. Feel free to ask any additional questions you may have prior to the round starting.

Philosophy
I am more of a traditional judge in that I expect to hear a Value and Criterion from each debater and clash at that level. I prefer more traditional arguments, but am open to more progressive arguments as long as they are in addition to arguments over Value and Criterion, etc. Debate is a communication event and as such, clarity and persuasiveness are important and speed, especially spreading, are not conducive to this. I expect competitors to stand and face the judge when speaking, including during c-x, and for there not to be any rudeness. Please ask before the round if there is anything you are unsure of after reading my philosophy.

Philosophy
I evaluate Lincoln-Douglas debate primarily through the lens of framework and impact analysis. Debaters should clearly articulate a value and criterion (or alternative framework) and consistently use that structure to evaluate arguments throughout the round. I am open to a wide range of frameworks, but it is the debaters’ responsibility to explain and justify why their framework is preferable and how it should guide my ballot. Impacts are central to my decision-making. I expect debaters to clearly explain how their arguments link back to the framework and why those impacts matter in the context of the round. Extending claims without warrants or impact analysis will not be persuasive. Strong debaters will weigh impacts by comparing magnitude, probability, and timeframe, and will directly evaluate their arguments against their opponent’s. I value clarity, organization, and strategic decision-making, especially in rebuttals and final speeches. Effective collapse is important—focus on the most important arguments rather than attempting to win every issue in the round. Clear voters and crystallization help me understand why you should win. I am open to a variety of argument styles and positions as long as they are warranted, explained, and impacted within the round. Debate should be accessible and educational, so clear communication is key. Ultimately, I will vote for the debater who best justifies their framework and wins the most significant impacts under that framework.

Philosophy
I have been judging for 5 years, after I competed in high school. I don't mind speed, as long as you can articulate. I will flow your points and I take into consideration any dropped points. I value style over argument, but argument is still important. Do not think me valuing style means that you can get away with weak arguments. I love watching a charismatic speaker with incredible points. Be respectful of your opponent, do not be a be a sore loser OR winner. Shake hands with your opponent always, if they accept, if not the offer shows the judge your level of respect.

Philosophy
LD- very traditional LD is what I prefer. Philosophical and V/VC debate is key. Not a huge fan of anything Policy/CX in LD. Not a fan of progressive LD either. If you're going to run anything other than Trad, be sure you can explain it in round as if I am a lay judge. Don't assume I am familiar with any literature, phil, cards, etc. that is necessary for the argument to make sense. Spreading- In LD, 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. All debate events- Give voters when applicable. Clearly explain why you deserve the ballot. Don't name drop and assume I know what/who you're talking about, explain cards/arguments. I generally watch time but expect you to stop on your own. I will dock speaks for stolen prep time. When you stop prep time I expect you to get up and speak. Do not waste time getting all your things together, scribbling/typing out last-second notes, or going back and forth from your desk/table to where you're speaking. How you interact with your opponent matters. Being rude does you no favors and will only lose you speaker points.

Philosophy
I consider myself an "old-school" UIL-style LD judge. I will always prioritize the value/criterion debate. I like philosophy and don't really want to hear a 1 man CX round. I like a lot of clash and consider it the Neg's responsibility to bring it. I don't like speed in LD. I do judge a lot of CX and I can flow pretty fast, but if I stop typing, you are going to fast. At its heart, this is still a contest of communication, please treat it that way.

Philosophy
I evaluate LD rounds based on clear argumentation and weight. I do not require a particular style of debate. I am comfortable with traditional LD, value/criterion debate, contentions, evidence comparison, and policy-style arguments when they are clearly warranted and accessible. I flow the round and vote on arguments - I will not do the work for debaters by connecting claims that were left unexplained. Signposting, clear organization, and direct clash are very helpful. Please tell me what you are answering and why it matters. Framework matters, but it is not enough to simply win a value or criterion in isolation; explain how the framework affects the ballot and how impacts are evaluated through it. Weighing is especially important. Tell me why your impacts outweigh, come first, are more probable, or better access the standard. Be respectful to your opponent and the judge. Strong debate can be assertive without being rude.

Philosophy
Effectively communicate your points so we all understand. Roadmaps are great, visual cues (holding up 2 fingers on your second point) are great, and logical arguments get my attention. Debaters must address issues or they will flow through. I love when debaters point out what their opponents failed to address or weakly address and why I should dismiss it. I do not like outlandish theories, just logical, cogent arguments and rebuttals. Debaters should respect opponents and judges alike.

Philosophy
My judging style reflects what my background in medicine and biology. I will judge all debates in any direction you take it but you must be able to link your argument with logic and reasoning. If I can’t clearly understand what you are saying it does not exist. Spreading will make you lose the debate. I also will not make assumptions about what you mean. You must tell me exactly why your opponent is wrong and provide evidence as to why. All that to say, I love judging an intense debate and feel free to go whatever direction you deem fit. But, I have to be able to clearly understand your value, crit, and main points. If I can’t it doesn’t exist. Also, etiquette is very important to me as well so use your manners and act professional.

Philosophy
I enjoy hearing lively debates that are logically run and preparation is apparent. I feel that clash and comparison are paramount in any debate and will ultimately judge on those. I want to hear your impacts and voters. Speed is not an issue unless you are no longer communicating.

Philosophy
I prefer to use a standard "top down" approach when assessing win / loss. Which framework is stronger / winning / proven paramount. Then Contention-level. Claims should be warranted, not simply stated. Impacts should be clear, significant, and proven as legitimately possible. Debaters are well served in remembering that I am not as well-read as they are on the topic, so avoid running arguments that assume a knowledge base because I might not have it. Hypotheticals are risky to rely upon when up against cited evidence / examples. Direct clash in the rebuttals is required. Big-Picture crystallization towards the end is a strong move. Which world would I rather inhabit?

Philosophy
I have judged LD for a long time. I keep a great flow and my decision will be based on what is on my flow. I do believe in tech over truth, that dropped arguments are true arguments. I am not as rigid about this as I am in policy debate because of the different time format. This does not mean you can drop numerous arguments with no repercussions, but it does mean if your answer is on the flow somewhere else I am sympathetic for cross-applications as long as the argument was made completely wherever it was made on the flow. Value criteria debate works for me. it makes sense to be explaining how x contention accesses your opponents value and/or criteria. I have seen a few debaters engage in direct refutation of the affirmative and not read one piece of evidence to substantiate any of their complex economic arguments against globalization. It is great making smart well warranted analytical arguments, but some advanced arguments require evidence to posit the foundational reasoning as to why x increases economic growth or increases wages or stops labor abuses. I am also ok with what are referred to as progressive arguments if applied properly to the affirmative. I do not enjoy tricks debates and suggest you avoid these types of debates in front of me. You should only go for theory in front of me, if your opponent committed in round abuse that precluded you from fairly winning the debate. Impact assessments and judge instruction are both great ideas and 2 things I hope you both will engage in. Why does x precede, outweigh, happen in the short-term, guaranteed to happen, and how your key voters come first. I do not want anyone going top speed. Be clear and being quick is fine with me. You are at UIL so when it comes to speed keep it reasonable and always clear. This speed discussion does not mean I want to hear speed bad unless there is an ableist issue involved that was discussed prior to the round starting or the person was so unclear you couldn't flow or follow the debate. One caveat I will determine if they were clear in my opinion, not if they were clear to you. I can't know what you are hearing and what you are not. I will be fair and I do hold people to high standard of clarity. Be nice to each other. Congratulations on making it to state! This is about both of you debating, I am just here to sort out the debate as fairly and accurately as I can. Good Luck!!! If you have specific questions not mentioned here feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Philosophy
I am a traditional judge. Argument germane to the topic tend to be more important than generics.

Philosophy
This is a philosophical debate plus a speaking presentation. Spreading/speed highly discouraged. Create your arguments, defend you points, clash with your oppontents.

Philosophy
For LD Debate -I look for CLASH and I do not condone SPREADING. Speaker points and clarity are important.

Philosophy
In LD, I do prefer a strong V/C component of the debate. I really loathe when there are competing values and no discussion of this in the round and/or when there is a common value, but no discussion of whose criterion is the better measure. I am pretty open to any type of argument and consider myself a tab judge...BUT... 1. Do not run theory or K arguments unless you genuinely believe in the advocacy of your argument - don't just use these types of arguments as a tool for winning - they are different type of arguments 2. Don't run theory or K arguments if you just got handed an old backfile from one of your policy friends and think it sounds cool. Read the literature and understand what you are arguing. 3. I will NOT vote for offensive things like 'racism good' or 'genocide good' This is also a speaking event. I am fine with speed - but that being said, you should only be spreading during the reading of cards (if they are shared digitally or on paper beforehand). You should not spread through your analytics. Clash is key - don't make this 'two ships passing in the night' with no interaction. Be cordial to one another.

Philosophy
I feel that LD debate may center around current events or policies, but the debate itself should always be rooted in philosophy or logic. Though I am aware of a new “policy” style of LD, I place more emphasis on the value-criteria debate and feel that LD should be differentiated from CX (read: I am a traditional LD debate judge). Especially given shorter speech times, I pay much attention to physical and vocal delivery (gestures, rate, tone, clarity, and style) to create ethos and persuade an audience. Important taglines and elements of your constructive speeches should be emphasized in your delivery if you want them to stand out on the flow. I prefer that initial rebuttal speeches focus on line-by-line refutation but final rebuttals be more focused on crystalizing the round and establishing clear voters. Above all, have fun! You should be very proud of your accomplishments this year and I would like to extend a “congratulations” to all of you for qualifying to the UIL State tournament.

Philosophy
I believe in using data based argument, citing reliable sources to support statements. I think that both sides should be attention oriented to find holes in the other side's statements. Which can all only be done when the debaters know the topic well.

Philosophy
I am a true UIL LD judge. Establish your value and crit. and use your case to link to those directly. Must provide clash in the round. Impact your arguments and connect all your dots. I will not do it for you.

Philosophy
I mainly focus on the values each side emphasizes and how well they defend those values throughout the round. I look for clarity and strength in their philosophical commitments, and I want to see how their arguments connect back to their core value. Consistency and clear links to the impacts are also really important. In the end, I’ll decide based on which side shows their value is more important and does a better job of aligning their approach with the resolution.

Philosophy
I believe that the best way to win a philosophical argument is with a strong framework. A good V/C combo that is supported with clear and substantial evidence is the best way to have your arguments tracked and flowed. I believe that clash is an important aspect of the debate, but respect should always be prioritized. I care more about clear and concise speech than trying to sandbag arguments or introduce too much evidence. For AFF, 3 contentions that uplift your criterion will be the best way to support the flow of their value. For NEG, 2 contentions and a heavy clash on the AFF arguments will be a necessary combo to negate the proposed resolution.

Philosophy
LD is a philosophical debate focusing on the value and criterion framework. My decision will be weighed on who did a better job justifying their framework over the opponent. The entire case should support this framework clearly. Debaters should compare frameworks when they conflict and build arguments. I prefer clarity over speed, organized delivery, and effective signposting.

Philosophy
I evaluate rounds through the framing that is provided. Discussing one value vs the other may be the way to win. If you both are saying the same value in different ways I don't understand why we discuss my morality definition is better than theirs. Just focus on how we get to being moral and why one side is better. I see more util rounds on this topic. As a former policy person, I am good with that. A reminder that it does not have to be who has the largest impact. It is the more significant impact. There are some pretty solid ethical considerations for this topic and I miss that debate. So tell me how to vote and why through a comparison of aff and neg. It would be good to refer to your case in subsequent speeches. If the round ends up without extension of arguments then of the 6 or 7 things randomly debated I will choose. I do not have a preference of one style over the other. I have a preference for clarity and explanation. I am not against speed, but find in ld rounds it often removes from the discussion of ideas and those who do it get lost. If this is not you and you can explain things and weigh I am fine with it. This topic has tons of possibilities and I have been not thrilled with the discussions because they have been base level statistics. There is nothing wrong with that, but on such an open topic it would be nice to realize somewhere we are talking about people. New ideas help speaker points because research matters.

Philosophy
I am a current policy debater at Baylor University and a coach for Princeton's LD program. I view myself in LD as a flow-centric judge, who strongly values technical debating over communication skills. I will usually start my decision with the framework debate to isolate what offense individual competitors are winning, and use the 2NR/2AR weighing of arguments to frame what offense I should prefer so far as it is applicable under the winning framework. For these debates, it becomes very important to avoid "parallel debating": i.e., reaffirming your own case, but not exploring how your case interacts with your opponents, and how some things matter more than others, and making that clear to myself. That means weighing is also very important to me, and should start in the 1AR and move onward ideally. I am probably more okay as a judge if debates become more philosophical in nature, but clearly isolating offense and defense of individual frameworks compared to each other is paramount in these debates. I am fine for any framework you decide to run, but find that sometimes a util-based framework makes everyone's lives a little easier, but understand that isn't everyone's cup of tea. If you run more policy-leaning style arguments, you can search my tabroom paradigm, under the same name. Good luck!

Philosophy
I want to hear fleshed out arguments that tie the VC to each point. I want you to weigh out for me why you won the argument or round. I want to do as little work as possible as your audience.

Philosophy
I need you to frame the round for me. Tell me how the round will be decided and then resolve those issues through the established framework.

Philosophy
Check tabroom for longer paradigm. Do what you do best. Fine with progressive or traditional styles. I view debate through offense / defense. That means framework alone won't win you the ballot, you need to also win some offense. Speed is good. Emphasize taglines and say "and" between cards. Judge instruction is super helpful!. Write the ballot for me! Tell me what the most important arguments are in the round and why you are winning them.

Philosophy
Tabroom.com paradigm is more explicit to CX. I don’t differ except for my expectations with framework are much higher in this event. I am still Truth over Tech. Debate is not a game. Nuance controls research and thus what you present as pedagogy to be discussed. I make decisions based on clash and substance. Framework controls why I care. The more control I have on that care, the less likely you are to control my ballot. Framework is simple in that you design the answers to a test of circumstances. You must then defend why that framework is fair and/or educational. This is still a forensic activity. There’s still flow to be discerned. Toulmin Model is claim, warrant, impact; if you are missing those parts, you do not have an argument and I won’t reasonably assess it.

Philosophy
Lincoln-Douglas: As stated above, I teach the traditional format for LD Debate. I expect value, value criterion, contentions, warrants, and impacts. If you were taught policy jargon, make sure and convert it to LD Debate format. I do not want spreading. Make good sound arguments. The person who upholds their framework will win the round.

Philosophy
I am a tabula rasa judge. I try to enter a round with minimal preconceptions about what what debate should be, allowing the debaters to contest its meaning, purpose, and metrics. However, absent a proper framework debate (meta debate, debate about what debate even is and how it should be conducted), I will default to evaluating through a traditional value/criterion structure, based on comparative impacts in relation to the winning value. I am fine will all types of argumentation, except those advancing oppression and intolerance. Equity and tolerance is a prerequisite to not only fair competition, but education and democracy. The style of speaking does not matter so much as the clarity and enunciation. I am very comfortable with speed.

Philosophy
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, it is an emotional appeal 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 – 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. Kritiks - I believe that kritiks are not consistently appropriate in debate. They are arguments and briefs that are prepared with a hope of bypassing the resolution and sidestepping the Affirmative case. This bypass does not add to the educational value of the debate round, nor does it engage the topic at hand. They are often presented in a way that leaves little argumentation space for the Affirmative case, thus eliminating true clash in the round and disregarding the basic responsibility of providing clash that is inherent to the Negative.

Philosophy
All arguments should be clear. Don't assume the judge will fill in any argument or make any links that you don't make clear. Organization should be very clear. The entire round will be evaluated for RFD.

Philosophy
Obviously the value and criterion are the premier parts of the debate. I value framework debate above all else. Contentions still matter greatly. On arguments I need warrants and impacts even if the impact is conceptual. I value thoughtful debate I do not see it necessary that each card is debated as long as ideas clash. Ultimately the value and criterion are upheld through contentions so it all matters but a drop on the framework is more detrimental than a drop on contentions

Philosophy
I vote on the framework (whether traditional or critical). If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round. Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop would be much appreciated.

Philosophy
Framework matters, so debaters should clearly explain their value, criterion, and why their standard is the best way to evaluate the round. If you win framework cleanly, it will strongly shape my ballot, but if both frameworks are weak, I will default to the side that gives me the clearest and most logical path to decision-making. I highly value direct clash, meaning I want debaters to engage each other’s arguments instead of reading prewritten blocks past one another. Warrants and explanation matter more than buzzwords, so if you use philosophical or critical terminology, explain it in a way that is understandable and relevant to the round. Evidence should support analysis, not replace it, and I expect citations to be clear and representations of evidence to be honest. I am comfortable with traditional LD, policy-style arguments, kritiks, and theory, but all of them must be clearly explained and justified. I am unlikely to be persuaded by frivolous theory shells, hidden spikes, or gimmicky tricks that avoid substantive debate. Speed is fine if you are clear, but if I cannot understand you, that becomes your problem. Slow down on tags, author names, analytics, and voters. Cross-examination should be used strategically to expose contradictions and set up later speeches. Speaker points reward clear strategy, persuasive communication, and command of the round. Above all, I appreciate debaters who collapse strategically, weigh impacts, and make my decision easy. If I have to sort through a messy round and do the work for both sides, neither debater has done enough.

Philosophy
For this topic, lots of potential clash at multiple levels. Framework is essential - and there is potential conflict over even the interpretation of terms of the topic. Protectionism and Globalization are highly open to interpretation and who wins that argument can use it to set the value and criterion debate. On the other hand, there is plenty of room for contention level debate about warrants. If you can’t defend your warrants, you lose your contentions and lose. Plenty of solid warrants available about globalization and protectionism. You have to tell me why I prefer yours when warrants conflict. This topic is leaning towards policy so empirical data will tend to beat non-empirical data. Unless you can tell me a reason not to prefer empirical. Please make my job easier by giving me clear voters in your last speech. In the end, if the round is close and the winner not clear, I will drop back and pretend I am a minister of a developing country. I then ask myself, on the basis of what I heard in this round, would I affirm the resolution?

Philosophy
I am a firm believer that this event requires a value and a criterion. It is not policy debate so I will not weigh CP's or Disads. If you run a "K", just know, I am not as familiar with the literature and you will really have to work hard to ensure the link chain is there for me. I expect lots of clash CX is for clarification, not for making arguments or speeches If you speed and are not intelligible it will cost you on Speaks. If you are rude it will cost you on speaks. Have Fun and Be kind!

Philosophy
I'm a fairly traditional value/criterion judge. No value, no criterion, no good. If you mention plans,k's, etc... then you will most likely lose the round. You should have empirical evidence to support 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. Speed is fine, but spreading you opponent out of the round is not (I should not need a file share to understand the words you are saying). Don't confuse passion for rudeness--this will cost you points. Theory based arguments are not my favorite.

Philosophy
I come from a policy background, but evaluate LD traditionally with a moral framework. I enter rounds without bias and vote based on what is won in-round. I prioritize value and criterion clash, so you must clearly compare frameworks and explain why yours should guide my ballot. Simply stating a framework is not enough—weighing is essential. I rely heavily on warrants and analysis. Claims without explanation or evidence carry little weight. Extensions should include clear reasoning and impact comparison. I am comfortable with line-by-line and speed, but clarity is key. Debaters are expected to follow all University Interscholastic League (UIL) rules. Bottom line: Win the framework, warrant your arguments, weigh clearly, and explain why your value/criterion decides the round.

Philosophy
LD- Pref of true-blue value v value... don't bring progressive cases to me, don't spread. Your speech rate should match what you are valuing. Tie back to your V/C each contention. Subjectively, this debate is pure - don't muddy the water with Ks. Be respectful, learn from each other, but most of all HAVE FUN!

Philosophy
Within the framework of the value/criterion debate, I ask debaters to make sure that they identify the most relevant voting issues, the impact of those arguments overall, and the reasoning behind those arguments. If you say it (put it on the flow), prove it (evidence or logic), and apply it (impact calculus), I’ll buy it!

Philosophy
I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas debate judge. Debaters should follow all UIL rules and prioritize clear, effective communication. I evaluate rounds primarily through the Value, Criterion, and contention-level clash. The debater who best upholds their Value through their Criterion and supports their position on the resolution will earn my ballot. Framework is central. I expect clear explanation and justification of the Value and Criterion, along with consistent application throughout the round. I default to the framework that is best warranted, most clearly explained, and consistently used. Debaters should explicitly weigh impacts through their framework—I will not do that work for you. I prioritize organization, signposting, and direct clash. Arguments should be clearly structured and easy to follow. Roadmaps should be concise; if they exceed 15 seconds, I will begin timing them as part of the speech. Speed is acceptable only if clarity is maintained. I evaluate arguments based on the strength of their warrants and supporting evidence. Empirical examples should connect back to the framework, and philosophical arguments must be explained and applied. Extensions should rebuild arguments, respond to opposing warrants, and include impact comparison (magnitude, probability, timeframe, and moral obligation).

Philosophy
I judge each debate round always keeping the official LD handbook in mind, and with lots of care and precision. My goal when judging is not just to give a win/loss but to try to give a teaching moment for competitors as often as I can. When asked my paradigm, I am always very transparent about my affinity to value and criterion clash, and I love the use of philosophy within debate rounds. When judging, the first thing I look at is the attacks made on both Aff and Neg's value and criterion, and then I apply the rest of the case to those attacks. Speaking clearly, concisely, and kindly to opponents is also something I look at very thoroughly. I do not allow disrespect towards opponents during rounds, and hold that in very high regard when judging. To me, one of the biggest pillars of debate is holding yourself with high regard, and always respectfully debating your opponent. The content of the debate is obviously very important, but how you speak to your opponents and treat others is also very important to me. I debated in high school, so I like to judge in a way I would have liked to be judged when I was an active debater. To achieve this, I flow very carefully, and always keep a checklist to apply to the two debaters cases. In this checklist I look at things like the value and criterion, and whether it is upheld, the contentions, observations, and evidence within the case and if it still stands, and then I cross apply the aff and neg to see who has presented the best argument and evidence. Overall, I am very committed to fair and constructive judging that helps debaters grow while always upholding respectful discourse and continuous learning.

Philosophy
I approach a debate round with an offense/defense perspective on how to evaluate unless I'm giving clear framework explanations to go otherwise. Debaters can leverage either their own, or their opponent's v/c framework to access offense and tell me why they're winning the round. I'm open to all forms of delivery styles, but I do ask if you're on the faster end of speaking that the speech doc is shared and that your opponent is okay with it. I like debates that evaluate warrants more than round where cards are just read at each other without context, please try to give me some impact analysis or comparative worlds analytics during the rebuttals so I know what your advocating for if I'm voting for you. Debate in a style that works for you and make sure you are debating in a way that is inclusive. Feel free to look up my paradigm on tabroom if you want more info, or just ask!

Philosophy
I judge LD debate similar to policy debate. Especially on this topic I think there is a need for offense for me to vote aff/neg. I view value/criterion as the first step of impact weighing 99% of the time. Full paradigm at tabroom.com

Philosophy
LD Debate is essentially about values and criteria--please include this argumentation in ALL of your speeches. Students need to not only provide reasons why their Framework is the best choice, but also why their opponent is wrong. I am more of a traditional UIL judge. However, if you are a more progressive debater, please provide me reasons why your ideas tie to the topic AND why it is the superior choice in the round. Finally, CLASH is not just a band from the 80s. It is the goal of all debate rounds. Consider taking the last 30 seconds of your final speech to provide me voters/reasons to vote for you.

Philosophy
am a tab judge. Your best way to the ballot is to clearly convince me what I need to vote for and why. I am okay with anything (phil, K, theory), but you must understand what you are reading—if you don’t, it will show. You need to be organized. While I am listening, if you are going all over the flow sheet, it can be hard to follow and easy to miss something. That being said, I understand if you have extra time at the end of your speech and want to recover/go back to something that was missed. Also, please, please extend your arguments—don’t automatically assume that I am going to extend them for you. And please do not card dump. I’m okay with speed and spreading as long as it is still comprehensible, but if you do not know how to properly spread, please don’t. I also must be able to hear you, so please speak loudly and clearly. It will be beneficial to you if you send me the doc via email (please don’t send me anything you don’t plan on reading), just in case of any missed words. I will not tolerate any rude behavior. I will not stop you mid-speech, but your speaks will be lowered if you are being blatantly rude, racist, sexist, etc. There is a difference between being a good debater and being rude. This should be a safe space—understand that some debaters are on different levels.

Philosophy
I evaluate Lincoln-Douglas debate as a clash of values, philosophy, and logical consistency. My role as a judge is to evaluate the round based on the arguments made in-round, not my personal beliefs. I do NOT like when a debater relies heavily on AI.

Philosophy
I am a traditional LD judge. I will not penalize the aff for not having a plan. I expect strong communication and persuasion, with a focus on the value/criterion and the framing of the round. I have no interest in arguments designed to shut down debate on the topic, so if you're planning to argue disclosure theory, don't. I will not penalize a debater for not sharing their case. There is no reason in LD for either debater to need the other's case. Even progressive debaters can and should speak slowly and clearly. Learn to flow. If you are a progressive debater, I will happily listen to you and judge the round on its merits; I'm a traditional judge, but a teacher first, and I'm not a monster. I heavily prefer logic and strong communication regardless of whether you are a traditional LD debater or not. If you are a progressive debater, please be aware that I absolutely will not tolerate spreading in LD. Signpost always, make the connections, give me solid analysis. I am not an interventionist, so you have to persuade me to vote for you, and tell me why. Quality of evidence is important; just because you have a card doesn't mean it is a good one.

Philosophy
I look for clear cut impacts and heavy framework clash.

Philosophy
I evaluate Lincoln-Douglas debate based on clear argumentation, logical reasoning, and effective communication. I am a flow judge and will base my decision on what is presented in the round. I prefer a traditional LD structure with a clear value and criterion. Debaters should explain and consistently use their framework to evaluate the round. If frameworks conflict, I will look to how well each is justified and applied. I value clarity over speed. Organized speeches, clear signposting, and strong line of reasoning are important. I prefer quality over quantity—well-developed arguments with warrants and impacts are more persuasive than many underdeveloped claims. Debaters should engage directly with their opponent’s arguments through refutation and comparison. Simply extending arguments is not enough—explain why they matter and how they outweigh opposing claims. Speaker points are based on clarity, organization, persuasiveness, and professionalism. I expect all competitors to maintain a respectful and appropriate tone.

Philosophy
My debate background is predominantly in CX Debate, but have been coaching LD debate for a few years now. As a result, I do like to hear sources of evidence and statistics and facts to back up your claims. I want you to defend your value and leave the round with me deciding which value ought to outweigh the other and why. I prefer you do not speed read because I value the education that can happen in a round when you are clear and articulate.

Philosophy
I am open to any and all argumentation. I come from policy and believe tech over truth. Good for prog debate but remember where you are.

Philosophy
I prefer structured, framework-driven debates. If you want me to evaluate the round through a particular lens, make that explicit and justify it. I am comfortable with speed, but clarity always comes first. If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot evaluate it. Slow down on key points, especially when introducing new arguments or giving voters. I also appreciate great line-by-lines. In terms of decision-making, I look for clean extensions and clear impact framing. Tell me why your arguments matter under the framework and how they outweigh your opponent’s. Overall, I value clarity, structure, and direct clash.

Philosophy
I judge based on the entire debate, not just one thing. It is important to take everything the debates say into consideration. I like clash. I also do not believe that a student should spread in an LD round. I want the debates to present the case and evidence clearly. I also do not believe in being a part of an email chain. This is a speaking event; you should be able to explain to me what your case is about.

Philosophy
LD is a value centered debate. We are debating whether or not something should be done as opposed to how it should be done. Vale/Criterion is important to me and the debate can be won on framework alone. I am open to all forms of arguments as long as they apply to the resolution. Evidence is important in the round but i also value analytics as they apply to that evidence. Do not just read evidence to me. explain your arguments and how the evidence applies. The flow is important. Follow the flow of the debate, or at least signpost as you go.

Philosophy
Evaluate the round based on clear value and criterion debate. I prefer well-structured arguments, logical warrants, and comparative weighing. Clash and organization matter more than speed.

Philosophy
I evaluate Lincoln-Douglas rounds as a traditional judge, prioritizing a clear and structured decision-making process. I begin at the top of the flow by assessing the framework, as it determines how I will evaluate the rest of the round. Both debaters have the opportunity to win my ballot regardless of whether they present their own framework or choose to operate within their opponent’s. What matters is which framework is better justified and ultimately preferred. Once the framework is established, I use it as the lens through which I evaluate all arguments. Contentions and supporting evidence are weighed based on how effectively they align with and are evaluated under the winning framework. The debater who best demonstrates that their arguments carry more weight within that framework will win my ballot. Clarity and organization are essential. I expect debaters to provide clear roadmaps and consistent signposting so I can easily follow the flow of the round. Strong communication and round structure not only improve comprehension but also contribute to higher speaker points. Additionally, I value professionalism and respect in the round. Debaters should engage respectfully with one another and adhere to UIL standards of conduct.