• cp (counterplans) — 1 = unacceptable, 5 = acceptable • t ...booklet. new judges and expanded...

EXPLANATORY NOTESNumerical ranking questions — judges were asked to rank the following on a scale of 1-5:• Qty. Arg. (Quantity of Arguments) — 1 = Limited, 5 = Unlimited• T (Topicality) — 1 = Rarely Vote On, 5 = Vote On Often• CP (Counterplans) — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable• DA (Disadvantages) — 1 = Not Essential, 5 = Essential• Cond. Arg. (Conditional Arguments) — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable• Kritiks — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = AcceptableExperience — A = policy debater in high school, B = coach policy debate in high school, C = coach policy debate in college, D = college NDT debate,E = college CEDA debate, J = college LD debate, K = college parliamentary debate

IMPORTANT NOTE: Some judges’ philosophy statements may be too long to fit completely in the box, and there may be some new judges who do not appear in thisbooklet. New judges and expanded printouts for those with longer philosophy statements will be posted in the assembly room. Debaters may ask any judge for a briefexplanation of his or her judging philosophy prior to the round.

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A

QTY. VS. QUALITYOF EVIDENCEPARADIGM

COMM. SKILLS VS.RES. OF ISSUESJUDGE NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

DO NOT LOSE THIS BOOKLET!Bring it with you to each day ofcompetition.

Stock issues Comm. SkillsRes. IssuesEqual

QuantityQualityEqual

As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team's plan to retain all stock issues and should labelthem clearly during the debate. The negative has to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least oneissue in order to win (don't just focus on Topicality). I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficientevidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly inorder for me to hear all of the points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear orcan't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I shouldvote for them. I do not form part of an email chain. I do not like reading speeches. If it's important to you,make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

3 4 3 4 2 2Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks

Philosophy Statement

ACEVEDO, MANUEL

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s All debaters must speak clearly inorder for me to hear all of the pointsand must watch rate of delivery. Ican't vote on what I don't hear orcan't understand. There is no needfor speed reading any speech.

22NC

Tabula rasa Comm. SkillsRes. IssuesEqual


From a philosophical standpoint, I will approach each round from a tabula rasa perspective. You can feelfree to run any argument you can conceivably link to the round’s discourse.

From a pedagogical perspective, I believe CX is meant to expose you to ideological diversity, train yourrhetorical skills, and prepare you to participate in America’s unique public policy process. For thesereasons, I am skeptical of many arguments that rely primarily on Kritiks. However, if you offer a viableframework, a Kritik can be just as effective as any policy-based argument, so don’t hesitate to run themif you are confident in it.

3 4 4 4 3Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks


ADAMS, WALKER ADSt

yle

& D

eliv

ery

Pref

eren

ces CX is a policy debate, not a contest

to determine who can speak thefastest. I will not value your ability topurposefully spread without clearlyarticulating each argument.

Rather than judging purely off of thenumber of arguments an affirmativeor negative team can proffer, I willbase my judging decisions on themerits of those arguments.

52NC

page 1

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3APARADIGMJUDGE NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCEEV. QTY./QUAL.COMM./RES. ISSUES

Policymaker Comm. SkillsRes. IssuesEqual


A clear expression of central issues of the round, why/how you're winning said issue(s) and whatstrategic impact winning these identified issues gains you in-round will be essential to winning my ballot.



ALDERSON , SCOTT CD

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I don't mind a quicker delivery but Iwill not struggle to interpret a me foryou. CLEAR signposts and preciseapplication of arguments on theline-by- line is expected.

52NC



I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.On that note, I do have certainpredispositions given my experiences: I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatictheory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary. Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument. Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument forme to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DAalong with clear impact analysis. Counterplans- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for autopian/dystopian CP. Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. Ifyou are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in the1AR if the argument is legitimate and strategic. Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, butwhat frivolous means is up to interpretation. Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for mytaste, will revolve around argumentative agency. Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you areinsincere or disingenuous.



ALLEN, JAMES DEJ

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 butprefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is mostimportant. Excessiveness and overkillwhere unnecessary is not typicallystrategic in pursuit of my ballot. To get 30 speaker points: Don't beexcessively catty. Employ a smartstrategy in the round. Write my ballot forme. Depict a cohesive story thatexplains how and why I should vote.Analyze offense, offense, offense.Technical speaking skills are of equalimportance to quality of argumentation.

32NC



I am a stock issues judge. I want to see clash with as many of the stock issue as possible includingDAs. I do not like spreading! I am open to counterplans but do not really like kritiks. I am not opposedto theory but it is not normally what will be the deciding factor in the round.



BARNES, KEASHA B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I want you to effectivelycommunicate what you areattacking and link your attacks.Give me clear voters in the end. Ido not like spreading!

42NC

page 2




I am a stock issues judge, but I am willing to listen to all arguments presented. I prefer qualityinformation over quantity.



BLEIKER, HILLARY B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Be professional, courteous, andprepared. Communication is key.

32NC



My philosophy is to cover, work and win the flow. Argumentation wins, whether debating topicality or DAyou want to win the argument and be more advantageous is the general argumentative space than youropponent. This is an educational event, and ultimately the purpose of the very real discourse hadbetween teams, should be to challenge both teams intellectually and embolden the value of debate.



BOONE, BLAKE

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speak clearly, confidently, andrespectfully. I have no problem withspeed, but of course you shouldwant to be understood andrespectful to your opponents.

32NC



I am a stock issues judge, If Aff adequately defends all stock issues normal they win. I also like clash. Idislike spreading. Debate is about selling your case, convincing me, not about how fast you can read.



BURT, WALT B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s If you spread and I can not followyour arguments, you will normallylose. I like Salesmanship

42NC

page 3




I was raised up in traditional stock issues CX debate. The Aff must defend all five stock issues to win theround. The Neg only has to win one stock issue. I believe in a structured topicality argument that mustinclude standards and voters to be valid. I will vote on DAs and counter plans, but they must be structured and argued well. Debaters mustprovide impact calc to persuade me that their impacts outweigh the opponents'. I do not like Kritiks and will not vote for them. I absolutely expect you to make new arguments in the 2NC.



CAFFEY, LANI AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I am okay with speed when aspeaker is reading evidence, but Ineed to be able to flow tag linesand I need to know where you arein the flow. You need to be veryclear about what arguments you areaddressing. Also, when a speakerreads evidence, I need to hearanalysis. How does this evidencesupport your claim? Explain howthe evidence proves your argumentand why you should win.

52NC



Keep true to your stock issues during the round and I will appreciate it. I prefer less evidence and moreanalysis. 2NR and 1AR are critical speeches for me - I want you to point out what I see on my flow, and Iwant you to explain how you are winning arguments that you have already answered.



CHURCH, CODY A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speed is fine, but clarity isimportant. Find the proper balance.

52NC



CX Debate, in my opinion, is ultimately about an exchange of ideas related to the topic. It is importantthat the focus be on the issue in the topic. It is also important that more than opinions be exchanged.Therefore, relevant evidence needs to be used to support any claims made. I believe that it is theresponsibility of the debaters to do the work of applying the evidence for me. They should do the work,not me. I need to see how, in their minds, the evidence supports their claims. To put it another way, theround should have substance and not just be about tactics.



CONYERS, RONNIE AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I do not like spreading, especially ina virtual environment. I like clear,well organized thoughts, presentedin a professional manner.

42NC

page 4


Other Comm. SkillsRes. IssuesEqual


I believe a debate round should have a balance of offensive and defensive arguments and the debatersshould weigh those arguments in the round. I am not opposed to any particular argument. Its importantto me that krikik alternatives clearly explain the role of the ballot. Topicality probably requires some sortof abuse story or at least an explanation of what arguments you cannot make because of their 1ACchoice. I am willing to answer any specific questions you might have before the round.

Offense/Defense 3 4 5 5 5 5Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks


CORNISH, NICOLE A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s The UIL ballot indicates I shouldevaluate speed as a criteria forassigning speaker points, and I willfollow the norms of the organizationI'm judging for.

12NC



I am generally a Tab judge, I want you to make the arguments. I am also slightly biased againstTopicality in its present iteration. I would hope that topicality arguments are made because the Negativeis truly being kept out of the round by affirmative playing fast and loose with the resolution. Most affs aretopical. I will listen to any argument you make including CP, Theory and K. THERE IS NOT A UIL RULEAGAINST THESE ARGUMENTS. I welcome new args in the 2 unless a compelling case is madeagainst that. Teams are welcome to split the block.



COUNCIL, NATHANIEL ABE

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I prefer a quicker than averagedelivery not to be confused withspreading. Feel free to speakquickly but it must becommunicative and fluent.

52NC



Debate is a communication event. Other than using communication skills, debate requires the us of logic and reasoning. Very important Is the use of support (Evidence).



DELEON, ROSENDO B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s No spreading. Fast is necessary butif fast it needs to clear andunderstandable.

32NC

page 5




I am a policy maker judge most often. HOWEVER, I will judge the round by what happens IN THEROUND and not what I think. I will vote on arguments, whatever they may be, as long as they areproven. For instance, I am not a fan of kritiks but will vote on them if they are the stronger argument. Iwant to see evidence but also analysis.



DENNY, MELLESSA B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I can write every word my pastorsays in a sermon because I havebeen flowing debates since I was15. However, I still want to hear thearguments communicated and notjust spewed.

42NC



This is your round. Have fun! I am open to every argument. Please keep in mind this is a UILtournament, so you must adapt to the philosophy of the tournament when it comes to communication. Atthe end of the day, I vote where the flow and the debate round tells me to vote. Please ask if you needany clarification.



DICKSON, ALYX ABJK

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speed isn't an issue as long as itsclear and articulate. Remember, this is a UILAcademic competition, and you must adapt.

32NC



I consider myself tabula rasa. I am clean slate. I want you to tell me why a particular argument isimportant in the round and how I should weigh it. I think it is important to weigh arguments against eachother. I don't think you should be rude to your opponent. I think this is an event that has the ability totake you far in life. Have fun and enjoy State! Don't mistake all my 3's as a bad thing. I literally will voteon anything...tell me why you win it. Weigh it in the round and I will vote on it.



DICKSON, CHRISTOPHER ABCDEJK

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I can flow speed. You must be clearand articulate. However, please keep inmind this is a UIL State event - so you mustadapt to the rules and regulations of themeet.

32NC

page 6




I think that you should do what you want to do in a debate. The synthesis of my paradigm isoffense/defense. Read whatever you want. Absent some sort of piece of offense made by the negativewithin the debate I will vote aff on presumption (i.e. that they do something possibly good to change theworld).

Offense/Defense 3 3 3 3 3 3Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks


DIMMIG, BRENDEN ABDE

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I think that you should follow UILrules but do what you need to do towin the debate, within ethicalmeans of course.

22NC



When judging CX I prefer a stock issue style debate but I am open to any argument. As long as youmake your case I will flow it and make my decision on which team makes the better case and argumentsoverall. I do vote on Topicality but it's got to be a clear violation and you must win the "better definition"debate. I will also listen to K's and CP's that are ran correctly. At the end of the day which case makesthe greatest REAL WORLD impact should win. Spreading: If you spread and it is clear good for you but I will always believe in quality over quanity. If wecan not understand your arguments are you really getting to the essence of SPEECH and debate? Inperson if i visablly drop my pen I am no longer flowing your speech, online I will simply say clear, pleaseadjust.



DRAKE, STUART B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s speed is ok as long as it'sunderstandable, prefer substanceover speed.

12NC



I am somewhere between a stock issues and policymaker judge. I like a clear debate. Apply yourargumentation, don't expect the judge to intervene and draw the connections for you. Weigh yourarguments. Your analysis of the evidence is more important to me than how much evidence youpresent during the round. Stay professional and courteous especially during your questioning period. IFyou plan to run a T-argument, please run it in the 1NC. Try not run a T-argument as a time suck. Makesure that all of the components of your DA's are clearly delineated. Generic DA's are fine with me aslong as you make the LINK stick. Please leave time for impact calculus in your rebuttals. Please don'trun a K-argument, I won't vote on it. If you run a CP, make sure that everyone in the round is on thesame page.



DUTHIE, SHAWN B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s This is a communication event, sospeed should not interfere with yourability to effectively communicatewith your opponent and judge.

42NC

page 7




SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset. I need Votersand an Impact Calculus K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. Frameworksand observations are key to the lens of the debate. I prefer a classic UIL CX round. However, if BOTH teams agreeon a progressive debate round, I will still flow and judge the round the same as an old-school CX debate. I love to seeplenty of clash during the debate. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completelyunderstand your planby the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. Protect and advocate for your solvency!Use fiat wisely. NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. Allarguments must link to the AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considersstock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong withAFF’s SOLVENCY if there aren’t any DAs. I prefer UNIQUE CPs that cannot be PERMED. BOTH: watch out for drops! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own. Carry allarguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them asvoters.



EVANS, ZANE A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s All speeches must be clear and wellarticulated. Bonus points for tappinginto annunciation and pathos. Prioritize taglines—this makesflowing easier. It also keeps yourarguments, cards, and evidenceorganized on my flow—you’ll get abetter ballot from me. NospreadIng. Use your prep timewisely. Utilize speaking time wisely-- time management is easilynoticeable

32NC



Short version: I’m pretty tab, run whatever is comfortable to you. Speaks will be docked for rudeness.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121829



EVERETT, JACOB AJK

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s speaks are awarded based onperformance, strategy, comfort, andyour ability to bs without mecatching you. Average speakerpoints for me typically come out tobe a 27-28, stellar speakers rangefrom a 28.5-29, and perfectspeakers get 30s. Speaks will bedocked if you’re mean, rude, or saysomething that comes out asharmful in any way possible. Speedis good, I’ll say clear if you’re tooquick, you should probably slowdown on what you want me to writedown.

52NC



I think stock issues are most important. Affirmative needs to make this clear. Understand them and beable to explain them. A roadmap is preferred to make flowing easier. With this topic, debaters shouldvery current evidence. Do your own research. I accept voters.



FORBIS, DONNA B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Debate is a speaking contest.Normal speed delivery is preferredover rapid fire. I need to be able tohear and understand you.

12NC

page 8




Above all, CX debate is a communication event. When judging, I prefer to see professional clash. Itypically lean towards stock issues. I will vote on DAs and CPs. I am not a big fan of Ks. However, if reasonable I will vote on a K. I wanteach side to weigh their arguments and bring their arguments full circle.



GARCIA, TENNA AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speed can either hinder or promotean individual. Enunciate, carryyourself with grace, and always berespectful.

52NC



I was a debater for four years and am now a full-time college student who still very much enjoys PolicyDebate. I have been judging UIL and TFA CX Debate for three years now and I've held local camps andsmall practices over the last few years. I am very much a Tab Judge! I like coming to the debate fresh and as if I know nothing. I want you to dothe connecting and show me exactly why I should vote for. I'm good with spreading as long as you're sign posting. Just be mindful that since you are competingvirtually, spreading might become an issue because of technological issues. I'm open to all off-casearguments, but I am picky with my Ks. I do not want to hear a K as a time suck. Please, if you areplanning on running a K, let it be strategically planned. I am open to, and like, Framework arguments. Again, I'm Tab, so I will be coming to each round withoutassumptions, so Framework sometimes gives you a great starting point. If you have any other specific questions just ask me!



GARZA, KATARINA A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I am open to spreading so long as itis not excessive. I need to hear thetaglines and author and whenyou're switching contentions,solvency, etc.

22NC



I am essentially a Policy Maker type judge. However I am also a traditionalist. Kritiks are not acceptableat all. Topicality is good but I will only vote on it if it is legitimate and rooted in reality. I am looking for short linkchains and impacts that are real. Everything does not end in nuclear war. I weigh the probability of theimpact highly.



GATTIS, JASON AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s This is a speaking contest not aspeed reading contest.

52NC

page 9




I'm a policy judge. I want to see well organized plans. I don't really like Kritiks. I want to see curtesybetween all parties. Be specific when you argue. Remember that this is a speaking event. The otherteam and myself should be able to understand you. They shouldn't have to read through your case tofigure out what you said.



GILLESPIE, JULIE B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I don't mind spreading as long as Ican understand you. I love aroadmap!!!

22NC



Tab, treat me like a lay judge who understands debate terms. I’ll vote for the team that can explain thevoters of the round/significance. I’m willing to hear any argument, conditionality is fine, K debate fine, Tfine, CP fine, it’s all good (I'll Listen to New case in the 2NC/abuse claims for this, but DO NOT READNEW ARGUMENTS IN THE REBUTTALS). Just pr

In terms of "threshold," my threshold is if you actually gave me a reason to vote.

Tab will defaultpolicymaker



GLENN, THOMAS A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speed is fine as long as I canunderstand you. If it’s not on myflow because I couldn’t catch it; it’snot involved in the judgment. I don’tflow CX. Also reading a tag line isnot an extension.

52NC



I am open to your argumentation and will vote on convincing and well-developed arguments. However, Iwill default to stock issues if you do not convince me to follow your framework for the round. I will voteon well run kritiks and CP's, but I want them to be clear and well connected. Speed is fine as long as youare still speaking to me. Respect is crucial. Let's keep it educational and fun!



GREEN, AMBER AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speed is fine, but I want tounderstand you. Keep it educationalfor both sides. This is a speakingevent. Let's keep that in mind.

52NC

page 10




I would consider myself a combination of a policy maker/Stock issues judge. If all parts of the affirmativecase have not been defended well, then the affirmative cannot win. This means that if funding is notprovided, if the affirmative has not been able to effectively prove that their case is significant, then theaffirmative cannot win. Conversely, it is the responsibility of the negative to clash with the affirmativeand prove that the affirmative is either not topical, that their case causes a significant and specificdisadvantage. If these basic standards are not met, then it makes it difficult for me as a judge to vote infavor of one side or the other. It is also the job of the debaters to be as persuasive as possible;rudeness, sarcasm, rapid-fire, and yelling are not persuasive.



GREENE, EMILY B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I don't mind a high rate of speed,but rapid-fire isn't persuasive, nor isit an effective means oncommunication.

42NC



I tend to judge by the rules and by clash. I want to see both sides adequately addressing the other side'spoints and then negating them. I also focus quite a bit on speaking elements and speaker points.



GREGONIS, ELISA B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I prefer quick but clear speakers.

22NC



Policy debate is one of the most challenging, yet rewarding events you can participate in during yourhigh school career. It is clearly important to know and understand how to use the rules andargumentations specific to policy debate; however, at the end of the day, I want to be persuaded. I willvote on any argument presented in the round as long as it is intentional, persuasive, and effectivelyarticulated. It is also vital that all debaters are respectful of their opponents and are willing to adapt tothe mood of the round.



GUTHRIE, KEITH AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I prefer a slower and moremethodical debate wherearguments are not only presentedbut are deliberate and build fromeach other. However, I can flow afast-paced round if that is thedirection you choose to take.

42NC

page 11




I am a tab judge with a stock issues background. I will appreciate any arguments brought into the roundas long as they have concise and thorough information to back them up. I am very very big on knrespectin the round.



HAGGARD , TIFFANY A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I am OK with speeding as long asyou slow down on the tag lines, andI know that you were enunciatingeach word.

32NC



I am tab but will default policymaker. This means that absent other instructions, I will weigh the harms to make mydecision, but teams should still tell me how to weigh the impacts and which arguments are winners. The 2AR and2NR should write my ballot for me. I am open to all arguments and I will vote for all arguments. That being said, runarguments that you are comfortable with and that you know well. Reading a card alone generally won’t win you theround – how you use the card and your analysis will. Clash makes for great debate rounds, so be sure to listen toyour opponents. I primarily argued policy so I am obviously most familiar with policy arguments, but that shouldn’t stop you fromrunning K or theory if that is your strategy/preference. For disads, an impact calc is a must. I enjoy T debates but Ithink most teams spend too long on interpretations/violations. You should dedicate time explaining the impact of theviolation and how I should vote on T. Ks should have a strong link and you should explain the story of your K clearly.It is always best to underestimate the judge’s knowledge of K arguments. For CPs, slow down when reading yourplan text. In short: the round is yours to do with it what you want. Assume I know much less than you do about your argumentsand the topic. Connect the dots for me, tell me how to vote and have fun!



HALL, DUNCAN A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I am open to differentcommunication styles. Fewer,more developed arguments arepreferrable over numerous poorarguments. The best speakers areso efficient, they don’t needspreading to keep up with theiropponents. Please keep in mindthis is a virtual tournament andclarity can be lost viacamera/microphone. At the veryleast, you should slow down whenreading Ks and CPs, and whiledoing analysis. I will stop flowing oryell “clear” if necessary.

32NC



Stock Issues judge. Not fond of K's. Not fond of spreading due to virtual communication and possible audio problems.



HAYNES, TIMOTHY AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s This is virtual. Some speed as longas it is understandable.

22NC

page 12




I am comfortable with whatever you want to run. I just think you need to make sure that you understandwhat you are running if you are going to read an argument. Be specific about your impact calculus andwhy it matters. It always helps to ask yourself why. I am not going to do it for you so lead me as a judgewhere you want the ballot to go.



HEAD, TRUE A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Do what you like

22NC



I consider myself a policymaker judge although I do give importance to the stock issues. At the end ofthe round, I vote on the impacts of the competing policies. If you run T, it must be run first in the 1NC – a new T in the 2NC is not okay. Kritiks should be germane and run well. I don’t like Kritiks run just to confuse the opponent. I think thoseare a bit abusive and you also risk me not understanding. I prefer an Alt that is not “reject the Aff”. Framework is not a separate argument but a lens through which to evaluate the round. As long as it’snot morally repugnant, i.e. white supremacy good, I am open to it. Also, you must give a way for theother side to comply or win, otherwise I will listen to abuse claims. Theory is okay but make sure you impact it. I am good with new in the 2NC if it is on-case. I am not a fan of performance. I won’t automatically vote against it, but I am biased against it. I usually don’t count flashing as prep if you don’t abuse it. I will let you know if I’m going to start prep. If you are going to “kick” an argument (on the Neg), you need to let me know and I prefer that it be for agood reason. If you kick in the 2NR, I will not be happy and will be open to abuse claims by the Aff. I do not like conditionality, as in multiple worlds or contradicting arguments. I am not a hypothesis testerjudge so that’s not a good strategy with me. Crying abuse with no in-round impact is not likely to persuade me.



HICKEY, JOANNA ABJ

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I can flow speed, but I don’tnecessarily like it. I really don’t likethe droning style of speaking or thestyle with quick breaths that soundlike gasping. To me it is not goodcommunication. If you speak fast, itis imperative that you speak clearly.Signposting is very helpful andmakes me happy. Be nice! You don’t have be overlynice, but don’t be mean.

32NC



Debate is a game, but it is an important one that is, at its best, a valuable educational experience foreveryone present. General Notes: I am tech over truth, unless presented with a compelling reason to the contrary. To this point, the flow largely takes precedence in my evaluation. If you win an argument on the flow,and it is an argument weighed with enough importance, you will win the round. I will not do extensions,analysis, nor weighing for you however. You must do these yourself. Your claims must have warrants, otherwise I have nothing to evaluate. I will evaluate anything withwarrants, and through any weighing or framing mechanism you tell me to use, so long as you tell mewhy I should prefer yours over your opponents'. I also enjoy learning new things, and if your argument is something I've never heard before, and it is wellexecuted, I will be ecstatic.

Tech over Truth 3 4 4 5 3 3Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks


HICKS, JASON

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Prepared Debaters allow for a moreeducational and productive debate.Road maps and highlightedspeeches are preferred.

32NC

page 13




CX Debate is a game, in my opinion. My flowsheet is the most important thing in the round so pleasemake sure you provide clear warrants, roadmaps, and signpost frequently. I love Theory but I do notexpect everyone to run it every round. Not a fan of topicality in the slightest. I will utilize any judgingparadigm that you say to use in the round. MPX Calc is the most important thing to me. Debate how you are comfortable; do not make my paradigm your priority -- just make sure you giveMPX Calcs & roadmaps. Include me on all email chains: [email protected]

Games Player 4 1 5 5 5 5Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks


HOBSON, KASEN AEJ

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s This is UIL so I will not condonespreading, even though I am morethan capable of flowing yourspreading.

42NC



I still believe that CX (Policy) Debate is a communication event, so I am looking for articulate andpersuasive speakers who have very well-organized cases and can rationally and realistically debate thisyear's resolution.

It depends onwhat the debaters



HOFF, ROXANNE B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Articulate and Persuasive No spreading

32NC



I am first and foremost a stock issues judge. If you're affirmative, then I will vote against you if you dropone sensible argument. I will also notate whether or not a negative team carried their arguments all theway through to the end of the round. If both teams drop an argument, I'll drop it from my flow and it willnot count against affirmative. I will accept analytical arguments if they show clear holes in the functionality of an affirmative case andplan, but those arguments needs to be sound and must tie into that specific affirmative (nothing generic).



HUSS, REBECCA A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Please sign post! Read at a normalpace (a little speed is okay) andmake eye contact. Explain yourcards with your own words - do notmake me decipher whichargument/stock issue your cardgoes with. Please do not be rude.

52NC

page 14




I am a "games" judge, meaning I accept any and all forms of arguments as long as proper rationale isdelivered. Although I have a high threshold on topicality. Barring anything fancy, I have a policymakerparadigm. I like framework arguments, as it tells me what things in the impact calc matter. I restrict newarguments in the 2NC to oncase only. I focus less on the amount of evidence provided, and more onhow debaters address claims and warrants.



KHALEQUE, YASH A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Please signpost when transitioningfrom one topic to another. No speedreading, especially not in the onlineformat.

32NC



I primarily will look closer at stock issues and plan as the framework from which to judge. I tend to be ajudge that likes arguments to be grounded somewhat in the real world. Real World scenarios resonatebetter with me. Not everything is a zero sum game. There are places you can take a judge where theycan make a decision on the best presentation and case. That being said if there is no semblance ofstock issue structure I'll default to who makes the best case and makes the offense.



LEGGETT, JOHN-MICHAEL BD

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I like a debater that is easy tounderstand and follow. Pacing isone of the most important things forme. If it is hard for me to follow youthen it will be hard for me to listenintently while following along withthe debate.

32NC



CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If thedebaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, butI will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument.Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why theAffirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clearthis burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmativeplan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly. I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. Iam good with most things in a round.



LEWIS, ASHLEY A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s No problem with spread, but I haveto be able to understand what isgoing on. If I can’t understand then Istop flowing.

2NC

page 15




Read anything that you would like, as long as it is respectful to those in the room. It is important to makedebate an inclusive activity. I do not necessarily have a preference for specific arguments. I believeimpact calculus and detailed, warranted analysis are key to any good debate round. Extend yourevidence, your warrants. Good debaters should understand their arguments and be able toextend/explain them thoroughly. Tell me why you won the round through a policy making framework, i.e.how does the affirmative change the status quo (for better or worse)? I had some experience with Kdebate in high school but likely not as extensive as other judges. A thorough explanation of thealternative/solvency mechanism of the aff is key for me to vote on critical theory arguments. Topicalityand theory arguments are fine with me. I do not like new in the 2NC. If you have any specific questions, Iwill be happy to answer them before the round.



MACLEOD, ROWAN A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I do not really have a preference forstyle and delivery. Speed is alrightas long as you are clear. Be kind toeveryone in the round. That doesnot mean you cannot be aggressiveand competitive in a round.

22NC



I tend to lean towards traditional arguments and stock issues. Maintaining an accurate flow, andfollowing it, is very important to me. I do not like frivolous arguments and time sucks. Stick to thebasics. I like clear extensions, tell me why the argument or point you are presenting is important to theround, is it a voting issue or a key link to the impact. Please do not argue the same point over and overagain.



MARTINEZ-GALLARDO,ELIDIA

B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I believe Debate is a publicspeaking event so I deduct heavilyfor speed that hinders your ability tobe understood or impacts yourability to speak clearly. I like to seeclash in a debate.

22NC



I am a stock issues judge. I support when a team can run a good DA. I appreciate brave teams that wantto run a CP.



MASON, MOLLY A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I don't mind speed while readingevidence as long as you slow downfor the tag. This is a speech event,so let's hear some debate!

52NC

page 16




I am Tab. I would much rather adapt to you than you adapt to me. Just do what you do best and I willevaluate the round fairly.



MATTIS , MICHAEL B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Be clear, roadmap, signpost.

52NC



I am a tabularasa judge. If you can sell it well, I will buy it. I am not a fan of Kritiks or turning traditionallypolicy debate into a philosophical one. If someone attempts to run a K, will need to spoon feed it andthat may still not turn out in your favor. I weigh what is presented in the round and like structure to fallback on, ie stock issues. Information dumps/spreading is not a strategy I favor.



MCHATTON, CHRIS AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s This is a communication event afterall, so needs to be understandablein pace, fluid in delivery, and wellorganized with great analysis.

32NC



I am primarily a policy coach/judge, but do have some experience with LD and PF. I have been judgingfor more than 13 years and have judged on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits. I consider myself to be a policymaker judge, but what it comes down to is that the debater thatconvinces me is the debater that is going to get my vote. This means that I am looking for strongevidence as well as good analysis. I am looking for arguments that make sense. I am looking for casesthat not only prove their own points but counter the opponent's points, as well. I strive to start the roundwith no preconceived notions. Do not make the mistake of presenting your case without arguing your opponent's. Yes, I am repeatingthat statement. It bears repeating.



MENEFEE, MELONIE

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speed is ok, but at the end of theday, I still like to hear goodspeaking. If I cannot understandwhat you are saying, then yourspeaking habits are not showcasingwhat you should be doing. I wouldrather hear fewer quality argumentsthan to have so much crammed intoyour time that I am unable to seeclearly how it all works together.

42NC

page 17




Logical arguments are preferred in a case and I will look for teams to keep a close connection to thetopic and reasonability. Both sides of the debate (negative/affirmative) should include offensivestrategies.



MORGAN, LINDSAY B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Debate is a match incommunication and I believe that allconventions of quality publicspeaking should be employed.Clear and concise speeches only. IfI cannot understand what is beingsaid, I cannot adequately judge.

12NC



As this is a UIL state meet, stock issues do matter. I vote on stock issues but I am more policymakerjudge. Reasonability is exceptionally important in plans, counter plans, argumentation. I do not argue theround for you therefore if it is not on the flow it will not be judged. I judge purely off the flow. I can andoften vote for argumentation I'm not fond of and or K's which I am also not fond of your argumentationand rhetoric and the flow will determine who wins.



MORRIS, JANET ABCDEJK

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Speed should never impede clarity.Talking fast is not always equalspreading the flow. And if youcannot do so and beunderstandable, this will be anissue for you.

12NC



Cross Examination Debate allow a person to use critical thinking skills, analogies, persuasion, and be aproblem solver. Respect for others is vital. The ability to listen to others is developed and necessary.Organizational skills using signposts help a debater be a successful communicator. Restating points andsummarizing evidence is effective. Identifying advantages and disadvantages to specific plans andsolutions demonstrates higher order thinking.



MORRISON, SARAH BD

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Confident, Persuasive delivery isimportant. Speed is acceptable ifpace allows judge to take a flowand is understandable articulation-wise.

52NC

page 18




- Debate is too serious sometimes. I enjoy fun rounds, I greatly appreciate jokes. Kindness is underrated - opponentsare (most likely) not your enemy but rather fellow participants in a fun activity. Please treat them that way. - I am very uncomfortable with being asked to adjudicate things that occurred outside of the round - 50/50 in Plan v. K debates, 50/50 in Planless aff v. T debates - Rather than tell you what I think about specific issues, I think it may be more helpful to disclose how I come todecisions. In the absence of a clear dub for either team, I evaluate the flow. If I can't come to a decision based purelyon my flow, I read the cards for each arg and decide whether the cards a. support the args that are being made andb. which team has better ev for each specific arg. If I still can't come to a decision based on reading cards, I'llreconstruct the debate and necessarily fill in gaps for both sides based on my understanding of the best version ofeach team's args. YOU DO NOT WANT THIS. There is a non-zero probability that your cards are not as good as youthink and potentially a very large probability that filling in the gaps works out better for the other team. To avoid this,DO GOOD COMPARISON. Compare ev quality, risk of impact scenarios, EVERYTHING. I understand howfrustrating it is when you catch an L after a super close debate because it feels like the judge did slightly more workfor the other side. You do not want this. - Here's a link to more extensive thoughts about common debate issues https://docs.google.com/document/d/11e2kdNULktZv-sqHoT3HDav6J3OEmpCW7MyewhBtBuY/edit?usp=sharing



MRUZ, JACK ADE

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s No style or delivery preferences.Fine with speed, clarity is important.

52NC



Debate rounds should be run so that the competitors are either defending the affirmative that ispresented or trying to negate the affirmative that is presented. Let's all debate the topic at hand insteadof trying to confuse things and bring in negative arguments that do not attack the affirmative case. All ofthe tricks commonly used in the TFA circuit have no place in traditional UIL debate.



MUNSON, CHRISTIE

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Delivery should be at a rate suchthat everyone in the room canunderstand the topic of the debate.When speed and tricks are thrownin to intentionally confuse or muddlethe round, a fair debate cannothappen.

42NC



I’m tab. Problematic speech tanks speaks. I am familar with most circuit styles. I love hearing a good debate. It’s astrategy game, and should be played as such. T: T is a priori as a voting issue in round unless framed otherwise by the affirmative, so I'd suggest that. I want to hearsubstantial weighing on standards and voters on neg, explain how this negatively effects the round in question or thedebate community as a whole. Concession of any part of the T debate is almost always a loss. Some TVAs and RVIsnever hurt anybody. I would suggest some consolidating of the 2NR, but that's up to you, not me. DA: Disads are cool, Strong link chains are very necessary. Neg and Aff please do some impact calc. Do someframework when running against soft left/k affs please. Other than that, there's not much to say about disads. CP: CP's are best used to compound existing arguments such as turns and external net benefits. Internal net benefitsare cool too. Be ready for some theory if you're running a PIC. Theory: Please do some work on theory. Reasons for even valuing the theory is often neglected by both sides. Use itif you want to, don't if you don't. Framework: This is a make it or break it. I LOVE a good, in-depth framework debate. I want to hear a clear lens toview the aff or neg, not just surface level card reading without textual analysis. The framing flow shouldn't beneglected in favor of anything, I treat it as a pre-fiat argument. K: K debates are my personal fav. This is not a go ahead to just run the cap k without being familiar with criticaltheory. Strong link chains, analysis, and framing are necessary. Alt debate is key. On Case: No question, you need it. Even just some generic solvency is better than nothing. K Affs: Go for it!



MUSEL, DALTON A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I am comfortable with speed, butplease pay attention so any cues Igive so that you can adapt.

32NC

page 19




I am moderately open to whatever strategy you prefer to run in CX debate. Some preferences I have noticed over theyears include: 1. I am not really a fan of spreading for the sake of spreading or just getting through massive amounts of text.Taglines need to be perfectly enunciated at a normal speaking rate and any key sections of the text you believe arecrucial to the round must be clearly highlighted as well. Debate is a speech event and I do place emphasis on styleand presence. 2. My biggest request for affirmative is that all taglines are perfectly read and the plan text clearly enunciated. I don’tmind squirrel cases as long as you are well prepared to defend your topicality. 3. For negative you really have the freedom to run whatever strategy you want. I enjoy listening to clash on a good(read: non-trivial) topicality argument, exploring the real-world implications of specific disadvantages, andstraightforward on-case arguments. I entertain counterplans, but the 1NC must clearly articulate the counterplan textand any important advantage tags after. Kritiks are where I do tend to get lost because they sometimes assume a lotof background knowledge from the judge which is sometimes lacking (and debaters don’t always know how to gaugewhen they might need to stop and break down the technicalities and details of their position). 4. Though I don’t flow CX, I do pay attention to it and feel it gives insight to your confidence and ethos Aside from that, I believe CX should be an educational experience for everyone in the room and hope to always walkaway having learned something new. Above all, take a breath, relax, have fun, and congratulations on making it tostate!



NAVA, VICTOR AK

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Spreading does provide for a goodshow at times and serves anintimidation factor, but please makesure that you read ALL taglines at anormal speaking rate. If I didn’tcatch what you said I’m not going toassume and flow it. Eye contactshould be direct (kind of hard thisyear) and you should appearconfident and informed. Tonesshould show exigency and respectfor the opponent.

12NC



I believe that debate is a communication event. Persuasion is the heart of the event, and any attempt tocircumvent debating the merits of the case are an attempt to avoid the basic communication required indebate. That being said, I will judge the K but I look for the abundance of connection between the Aff and the K. Iwill also judge an Aff K, but my standards are even higher for making that connection. There are times the K bears heavily upon a round, but I don't believe the false dichotomy of running a Kevery round because the aff cannot always and automatically represent and uphold oppression or ahollow hope. It might be an appropriate argument, but the burden is heavy upon the opponent choosingto run the theory argument to prove the necessity of the argument. And if an alternative is not presented,I will never vote K or K aff. Beyond that, Civility is of utmost importance.

I'll judge it all, but Ilike clarity of the



OLIVER, SHERYL ABCDEJK

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I better be able to understand youin your chosen speed. If i cannot, Iwill not award you any argumentpresented at such a speech. Speedof delivery is not a life skill thatmakes the world a better place, orenhances community or improvescommunication.

52NC



I expect debaters to provide tough analysis of evidence presented in the round and may miss it if youchoose to spread. I judge on stock issues including Neg DA’s, and debaters really need to prove whichstock issues are present or not. As for cards, I want to hear an explanation of why one card outweighsthe opposing team. Don’t just say “cross apply” or “there is no link”. I want to hear the argumentationeven if you are repeating yourself. The negative side has the burden of clash, and in the event that thenegative fails to provide clash to the affirmative case, I will default affirmative. Kritiks and counterplansshould be competitive and have a clear, well-explained advocacy. I do not vote on a round based onTheory.



PANELLA, BRENDA A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Professionalism and courtesy areimportant. Rudeness and immaturebehavior will result in low speakerpoints. Always be aware of yourposture, eye contact, and volumeas you speak. Try your best not tofidget or sway as you speak.Providing a roadmap and signpostsas you present your case is mostappreciated. I do not mindspreading as long as you are clearon your taglines.

12NC

page 20




I believe that this topic is timely. It require in depth research and analysis. That is what I look for in adebate round. I look for clash from both teams. I won't debate on the ballot. I will do my best to judgethe round before me. I will give you my RFD on the ballot on the substantive issues I see.

I like stock issues,but will judge on



PATRIDGE, CARMEN A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I can take speed as long as I canunderstand. When citing evidence,I look for recency and credibility ofthe author/source.

12NC



The Aff will win if the plan is topical and will provide a workable, practical solution to the resolution. TheNeg will win if they show the Aff to be non-topical, the Aff plan to be either not workable or not practical.If the DAs outweigh the solvency of the plan and/or the advantages presented in the Aff case, the Negwins. I do like to see the Aff plan presented early on in the 1AC but I can adapt to other presentationorders.



PATTON, MIRIAM B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Moderate speed is fine. If you gotoo fast, I can't process what youare saying and so you essentiallydidn't say it. I've got to be able toflow so I know who said what whenand I cannot if you go too fast. Bekind to each other, respect is veryimportant to me.

52NC



EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. Inother words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. Theexception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revertto policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and anexceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg. ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts andthen signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive oremail chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CPand T should always be started in the 1NC. KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to havea clear alternative beyond reject. DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the affarticulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die”analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I considerthem in my impact calculus. TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter. INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. Idon’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency. SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.



PEEK, SANDRA ABE

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I prefer a moderately-paced debate.I understand the need for speed inthe 1AR, and I can follow wellsignposted fast argumentation.However, I want to hear the text ofthe evidence. I am not okay withspeed so fast that the words in theevidence are not enunciated.

42NC

page 21




I'm a college debater so you can consider me a tab judge. I'm good with any arguments and speed is fine as long asyou signpost T- I don’t usually vote on topicality or theory unless it is something obviously something unfair to the debaters. butmake sure to somehow impact out your t if you are going to make it a voter CP- Cp’s are fine. pic cps are cool but not a fan of conditions cp. if you choose to run one make sure you do it right.biggest thing is that people do them wrong. Also you have to win on every part of the counterplan for me to vote on itnet benefit’s solvency etc K- Kritiks are fine but don’t let them distract you from the debate world to where it becomes a theory debate ratherthan it being a “policy debate” K aff are cool too just make the framework clear DA/OC- easiest way to get my vote is to prove case outweighs or solvency issues.Dont be afraid to ask any otherquestions and good luck!



PHINNEY, KADEN AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Don’t be excessively fast.

12NC



I am not impressed with speed or quantity. I want fleshed out arguments. Reading the name of a pieceor telling me to cross apply evidence is not enough for me to consider covering an argument. I do notwant to have to connect any dots in logic for you.



PIETSEK, SETH

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Talk to me like it's the first time I amhearing this debated.

32NC



I would call myself a heavy tab judge. I will listen to any argument that you could possibly read in front ofme, but only if you can do so, well. Ks, K affs, theory, framework, performances, wipeout, CPs, Ts, andanything else you could possibly run is okay with me. My only condition is that Voters must always beread. I don't care how long you spend on the argument, if you don't properly cover the voters on theindividual argument, then I have no reason as a judge to vote for it. Explicitly sexist, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic discourse does not belong in debate, so don'tengage in it. People should be nice. If you are not, then you may be looking at a low point win. I do notvote based purely on speaking style but if you are rude or offensive, then don't hope for anywhere nearthat 30. Other than these caveats, I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument withinany framework you want to explicitly place me within. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to votingfor the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. On all portions of the debate I tend to usethe heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact toevaluate and compare arguments.



PORTER, JAMES AC

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Won't be able to spread me out ofthe round as long as you are clear.If you are not then I will say clearonce and then after that anythingthat does not end up on the flowdoes not get carried over.

32NC

page 22




My opinion of policy debate is that it should be realistic. Link your evidence to what might happen but ithas to be realistic. I do not like far fetched ideas. I look for clash but in a polite way. Things I look for:clash, topicality with creditable definitions,DA (I really like these), and possibly a CP. Just make surethat if you run a CP, that the CP solves for all of the harms set forth by the Aff. I also really like impactcalcs when it comes to a close match (the most impact will probably win).



RAMSEY, VICTORIA B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I do not like spreading. I prefer anaverage speed of delivery. Fastenough to get everything in butslow enough that I can understandwhat you are saying.

32NC



My opinion of policy debate is that it should be realistic. Link your evidence to what might happen but ithas to be a realistic possibility. I do not like far fetched ideas. I look for clash but in a polite way.Things I look for: clash, topicality with creditable definitions, DA (I really like these), and possibly a CP.Just make sure that if you run a CP, that the CP solves for all of the harms set forth by the Aff. I alsoreally like impact calcs when it comes to a close match (the most impact will probably win).



RAMSEY, VICTORIA B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I do not like spreading. I prefer anaverage speed of delivery. Fastenough to get everything in butslow enough that I can understandwhat you are saying. If I can notflow your speech because of speed,I will probably not vote for you.

32NC



I am a tabula rasa judge and I will flow anything you decide to run. However, if you run any conditionalarguments or Aff K's you'll probably lose my ballot. Evidence cards are not warrants. Reinforce your warrant tag at the end to show me the implications ofwhatever you just read. I don't flow warrantless arguments because they aren't substantial enough to beweighed on impact calc. They are also just claims at that point, not arguments.

If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts.



RANGEL, VANESSA A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I do not like spreading, I give amax of two clears before I stopflowing your speech. You canspeak quickly but make sure youare still coherent, this is acommunications event after all.

12NC

page 23




It is not the duty of the judge to compare what they think the team should have done to what they did,but rather to evaluate the merits of argumentation of each team argued against their opponents. Thejudge's ballot should reflect what happened in the round, not what the judge wishes had happened in theround. It is the duty of the judge to award the better team, nothing more. This should be done in a professionaland constructive fashion. No new in the 2 only covers off case. You should know your case. New on case arguments in the 2 arefully acceptable.



ROBERTSON, JONATHAN B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s This is a speaking event. Do notexceed 350 words per minute. Iprefer communicative debate overso called progressive debate whichhas carried that stale title for over50 years.

32NC



My biggest concern is impacts. I want an explanation of how the plan is either beneficial or has harms.These impacts need to be throughly explained and clearly linked. Solvency is also very important, theplan must be feasible. In the end, debate is an educational activity. When we walk away from the roundwe should have all gained some knowledge.



SAUVE, COFFEY AK

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Be careful about letting speeddominate your performance. I needto be able to clearly understandyour arguments.

12NC



I am a firm believer that UIL debate is about stock issues. I prefer that debaters split the negative blockinstead of using the 2NC as a rebuttal that repeats the 1NC. In the end, evidence is important, butcommon sense/logic is acceptable in certain instances. Affirmative should remember they have theburden of proof.



SLOANE, KIMBERLY AB

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Debate is first and foremost apersuasive speaking event. Do notjust read fast to me. Slow down,talk, and persuade.

52NC

page 24




This is a communication event. I must understand what you are saying.



SMITH, JIMMY AD

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Communicate to me

12NC



REMEMBER TO FOLLOW ALL UIL RULES AT ALL TIMES. Please do not give me any reason tosuspect you are using the internet to do research during the rounds. This virtual platform is new, but wemust compete following rules as we normally would. I would consider myself an "old school" judge. I like traditional arguments that create clash in the round,T, D/A's, attacking planks, solvency, inhereny, harms... I will listen to any argument but I VERY rarelywill vote on a K or CP. I do not care for rudeness at any point during the round, especially during the cx period. If you ask aquestion, allow it to be answered. Be professional and confident in your speaking. I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC but please point them out for me if you are splitting the block.



SOWELL, EMILY ABCDEJK

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I do not mind speed, however, Iwant to clearly understandeverything that is spoken. If you aregoing too fast for me to flow, it istoo fast. Please keep cameras onthe entire round, but mute duringprep time and while others arespeaking. I do not mind if you timeyourself, but I am the offical timekeeper. If a roadmap becomes aspeech, I will time it.

52NC



My leading paradigm is that of Stock Issues. I want to hear clear arguments framed around the stockissues at the core. Absent of clear arguments in these areas, my supporting paradigm is that of PolicyMaker, judging decisions based on the policy position argued. I like to hear debaters logical, criticalanalysis of evidence and of arguments evident in their speeches. I expect decorum and speed that isunderstandable. Speaking with focus, passion, and emphasis is more pursuasive than speed.



SPINKS, SHARON B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Decorum in actions, speed that isunderstandable, and skills inpersuasion as a speaker thatinclude eye contact, passion, andemphasis/inflcetion in voice.

32NC

page 25




Stock Issues; HATE and will take speaks for speed. I have what you want my ballot. Roadmap andsignpost Counterplans are like penguins: so and fluffy but they really can't fly. Kritics are the spawn ofSatan. Aff must prove a prima facie case so all voters are equal weight.



STRAUS, BOB ABD

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s I want to hear well organizedargument that are easily flowed byvoters. Speed kills

52NC



It may be that many competitors may not have debated as many rounds as they would have in a non-pandemic year. That is a consideration because usually at this level I would expect seeing a polishedAFF case and tried and true DA's that would have been tested during the course of fall competition.That simply may not be the case for many, especially smaller schools. However, that does not mean that I don't expect competency in the round. I want to see preparation,knowledge supported by solid evidence, and the clash that shows debaters are listening to each other'sarguments. Thank you all for competing in an event that demands a great deal of time and research. You are to becommended for that!

Stock issues docome into play--



SULLIVAN, SUE JANE B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Argue with passion but with rationalthought--I am NOT impressed withsimplistic sound bytes that soundgood but demonstrate little morethan shallow knowledge. Debate isnot a rally; it is an exercise incommunication, researchedevidence, and persuasion.

52NC



I am a traditional CX debate judge that bases my decision on the stock issues & the flow. I like thespeeches to be highly organized with stock issues labeled clearly so that I can flow arguments.Disadvantages must link to the case and address uniqueness. I rarely judge a round just on a topicalityargument unless the case is really bizarre, but I will consider it with the other stock issues & the flow.



THEURET, LISA B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Some speed is okay, but the wordsneed to be enunciated and clear.Avoid fillers like "um" & don'tapologize for mistakes. Just pause& get back on track.

42NC

page 26




I am primarily a stock issues judge, but will vote on whatever issues are brought up in the round. Iexpect clash against the affirmative case/plan not just off case arguments.



TUCKER, KELLEY A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s Communication is important.Speed is not generally an issue. Aslong as I can flow, it is fine.

52NC



Debate is a clash of ideas -- I want to know why a policy is the best or why it should be discarded infavor of the status quo. Reasons a policy should not be adopted include (but are not limited to) that itdoes not achieve what it intends to, that there are significant defects or unintended consequencesassociated with the policy, or that there is a better policy that would be supplanted by the proposedpolicy. In determining whether I agree with arguments of the types identified above, I will look to the strength ofevidence marshaled to advance an argument. One compelling argument may be sufficient; moreplausible, but not compelling, arguments may also be convincing. A smattering of dubious argumentswill not be. Irrespective of the number of arguments, if they are not sufficiently developed, explained,and defended under scrutiny, then they will not weigh strongly in favor of accepting or rejecting anargument. Arguments are also not compelling if they are not specifically tailored to the policy.



VANDENBERG, MATT A

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s The purpose of debate is to allowstudents to develop usefulcommunication and persuasionskills. I look for communication thatreflects this understanding. Nospreading. Eye contact is alsoimportant.

22NC



Stock issues judge.



VINCENT, KELSEY B

Styl

e &

Del

iver

y Pr

efer

ence

s No spreading--if I can't understandyou, I can't judge what you say.

22NC

page 27




I am primarily a policy maker, but I routinely revert to stock issues when my philosophy is not adhered toby debaters. I expect the aff to make a strong indictment of the status quo. Neg should either defendstatus quo, defeat aff plan, or present a better counter-plan. I will vote on Topicality, but only if I buy thecounter definition and the neg's assertion of violation (based on their standard). I will vote on DA's, butgive me real life impacts. If everything ends up in nuke war, I am

• cp (counterplans) — 1 = unacceptable, 5 = acceptable • t ...booklet. new judges and expanded...

Documents