JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A EXPLANATORY NOTES Numerical ranking questions — judges were asked to rank the following on a scale of 1-5: • Qty. Arg. (Quantity of Arguments) — 1 = Limited, 5 = Unlimited DO NOT LOSE THIS BOOKLET! • T (Topicality) — 1 = Rarely Vote On, 5 = Vote On Often • CP (Counterplans) — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable Bring it with you to each day of • DA (Disadvantages) — 1 = Not Essential, 5 = Essential competition. • Cond. Arg. (Conditional Arguments) — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable • Kritiks — 1 = Unacceptable, 5 = Acceptable Experience — 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 this booklet. 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 brief explanation of his or her judging philosophy prior to the round.

COMM. SKILLS VS. QTY. VS. QUALITY RES. OF ISSUES OF EVIDENCE JUDGE PARADIGM NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

ACEVEDO, MANUEL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC Res. Issues Quality 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team's plan to retain all stock issues and should label All debaters must speak clearly in them clearly during the debate. The negative has to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one order for me to hear all of the points issue in order to win (don't just focus on Topicality). I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient and must watch rate of delivery. I evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in can't vote on what I don't hear or order for me to hear all of the points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. There is no need can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should for speed reading any speech. vote 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. Style & Delivery Preferences

ADAMS, WALKER Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AD Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal From a philosophical standpoint, I will approach each round from a tabula rasa perspective. You can feel CX is a policy debate, not a contest free to run any argument you can conceivably link to the round’s discourse. to determine who can speak the fastest. I will not value your ability to purposefully spread without clearly articulating each argument. From a pedagogical perspective, I believe CX is meant to expose you to ideological diversity, train your rhetorical skills, and prepare you to participate in America’s unique public policy process. For these reasons, I am skeptical of many arguments that rely primarily on Kritiks. However, if you offer a viable framework, a Kritik can be just as effective as any policy-based argument, so don’t hesitate to run them Rather than judging purely off of the if you are confident in it. number of arguments an affirmative

Style & Delivery Preferences or negative team can proffer, I will base my judging decisions on the merits of those arguments.

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

ALDERSON , SCOTT Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC CD Res. Issues Quality 4 2 3 5 3 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal A clear expression of central issues of the round, why/how you're winning said issue(s) and what I don't mind a quicker delivery but I strategic impact winning these identified issues gains you in-round will be essential to winning my ballot. will not struggle to interpret a me for you. CLEAR signposts and precise application of arguments on the line-by- line is expected. Style & Delivery Preferences

ALLEN, JAMES Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC DEJ Res. Issues Quality 5 3 4 2 4 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal

I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.On that note, I do have certain Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but predispositions given my experiences: I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary. important. Excessiveness and overkill Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument. where unnecessary is not typically Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for strategic in pursuit of my ballot. me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with clear impact analysis. To get 30 speaker points: Don't be Counterplans- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for a excessively catty. Employ a smart utopian/dystopian CP. strategy in the round. Write my ballot for Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. If me. Depict a cohesive story that you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in the explains how and why I should vote. 1AR if the argument is legitimate and strategic. Analyze offense, offense, offense. Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but Style & Delivery Preferences Technical speaking skills are of equal what frivolous means is up to interpretation. importance to quality of argumentation. Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for my taste, 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 are insincere or disingenuous.

BARNES, KEASHA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 4 5 4 4 3 1 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a stock issues judge. I want to see clash with as many of the stock issue as possible including I want you to effectively DAs. I do not like spreading! I am open to counterplans but do not really like kritiks. I am not opposed communicate what you are to theory but it is not normally what will be the deciding factor in the round. attacking and link your attacks. Give me clear voters in the end. I do not like spreading!

Style & Delivery Preferences

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

BLEIKER, HILLARY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a stock issues judge, but I am willing to listen to all arguments presented. I prefer quality Be professional, courteous, and information over quantity. prepared. Communication is key. Style & Delivery Preferences

BOONE, BLAKE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC Res. Issues Quality 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My philosophy is to cover, work and win the flow. Argumentation wins, whether debating topicality or DA Speak clearly, confidently, and you want to win the argument and be more advantageous is the general argumentative space than your respectfully. I have no problem with opponent. This is an educational event, and ultimately the purpose of the very real discourse had speed, but of course you should between teams, should be to challenge both teams intellectually and embolden the value of debate. want to be understood and respectful to your opponents. Style & Delivery Preferences

BURT, WALT Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 4 1 2 5 3 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a stock issues judge, If Aff adequately defends all stock issues normal they win. I also like clash. I If you spread and I can not follow dislike spreading. Debate is about selling your case, convincing me, not about how fast you can read. your arguments, you will normally lose. I like Salesmanship Style & Delivery Preferences

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

CAFFEY, LANI Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 2 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I was raised up in traditional stock issues CX debate. The Aff must defend all five stock issues to win the I am okay with speed when a round. The Neg only has to win one stock issue. I believe in a structured topicality argument that must speaker is reading evidence, but I include standards and voters to be valid. need to be able to flow tag lines and I need to know where you are I will vote on DAs and counter plans, but they must be structured and argued well. Debaters must in the flow. You need to be very provide impact calc to persuade me that their impacts outweigh the opponents'. clear about what arguments you are addressing. Also, when a speaker I do not like Kritiks and will not vote for them. reads evidence, I need to hear analysis. How does this evidence support your claim? Explain how

I absolutely expect you to make new arguments in the 2NC. Style & Delivery Preferences the evidence proves your argument and why you should win.

CHURCH, CODY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Keep true to your stock issues during the round and I will appreciate it. I prefer less evidence and more Speed is fine, but clarity is analysis. 2NR and 1AR are critical speeches for me - I want you to point out what I see on my flow, and I important. Find the proper balance. want you to explain how you are winning arguments that you have already answered. Style & Delivery Preferences

CONYERS, RONNIE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 3 2 3 4 3 1 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal CX Debate, in my opinion, is ultimately about an exchange of ideas related to the topic. It is important I do not like spreading, especially in that the focus be on the issue in the topic. It is also important that more than opinions be exchanged. a virtual environment. I like clear, Therefore, relevant evidence needs to be used to support any claims made. I believe that it is the well organized thoughts, presented responsibility of the debaters to do the work of applying the evidence for me. They should do the work, in a professional manner. not me. I need to see how, in their minds, the evidence supports their claims. To put it another way, the round should have substance and not just be about tactics. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 4 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

CORNISH, NICOLE Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Offense/Defense Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 5 5 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe a debate round should have a balance of offensive and defensive arguments and the debaters The UIL ballot indicates I should should weigh those arguments in the round. I am not opposed to any particular argument. Its important evaluate speed as a criteria for to me that krikik alternatives clearly explain the role of the ballot. Topicality probably requires some sort assigning speaker points, and I will of abuse story or at least an explanation of what arguments you cannot make because of their 1AC follow the norms of the organization choice. I am willing to answer any specific questions you might have before the round. I'm judging for.

Style & Delivery Preferences

COUNCIL, NATHANIEL Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABE Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am generally a Tab judge, I want you to make the arguments. I am also slightly biased against I prefer a quicker than average Topicality in its present iteration. I would hope that topicality arguments are made because the Negative delivery not to be confused with is truly being kept out of the round by affirmative playing fast and loose with the resolution. Most affs are spreading. Feel free to speak topical. I will listen to any argument you make including CP, Theory and K. THERE IS NOT A UIL RULE quickly but it must be AGAINST THESE ARGUMENTS. I welcome new args in the 2 unless a compelling case is made communicative and fluent. against that. Teams are welcome to split the block. Style & Delivery Preferences

DELEON, ROSENDO Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 2 4 3 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Debate is a communication event. No spreading. Fast is necessary but if fast it needs to clear and Other than using communication skills, debate requires the us of logic and reasoning. Very important understandable.

Is the use of support (Evidence). Style & Delivery Preferences

page 5 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

DENNY, MELLESSA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a policy maker judge most often. HOWEVER, I will judge the round by what happens IN THE I can write every word my pastor ROUND and not what I think. I will vote on arguments, whatever they may be, as long as they are says in a sermon because I have proven. For instance, I am not a fan of kritiks but will vote on them if they are the stronger argument. I been flowing debates since I was want to see evidence but also analysis. 15. However, I still want to hear the arguments communicated and not just spewed. Style & Delivery Preferences

DICKSON, ALYX Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABJK Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal This is your round. Have fun! I am open to every argument. Please keep in mind this is a UIL Speed isn't an issue as long as its tournament, so you must adapt to the philosophy of the tournament when it comes to communication. At clear and the end of the day, I vote where the flow and the debate round tells me to vote. Please ask if you need any clarification. articulate. Remember, this is a UIL Academic

competition, and you must adapt. Style & Delivery Preferences

DICKSON, CHRISTOPHER Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABCDE Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 JK Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I consider myself tabula rasa. I am clean slate. I want you to tell me why a particular argument is I can flow speed. You must be clear important in the round and how I should weigh it. I think it is important to weigh arguments against each and other. I don't think you should be rude to your opponent. I think this is an event that has the ability to take you far in life. Have fun and enjoy State! Don't mistake all my 3's as a bad thing. I literally will vote articulate. However, please keep in on anything...tell me why you win it. Weigh it in the round and I will vote on it. mind this

is a UIL State event - so you must adapt to

the rules and regulations of the

Style & Delivery Preferences meet.

page 6 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

DIMMIG, BRENDEN Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABDE Offense/Defense Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I think that you should do what you want to do in a debate. The synthesis of my paradigm is I think that you should follow UIL offense/defense. Read whatever you want. Absent some sort of piece of offense made by the negative rules but do what you need to do to within the debate I will vote aff on presumption (i.e. that they do something possibly good to change the win the debate, within ethical world). means of course. Style & Delivery Preferences

DRAKE, STUART Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 2 3 4 5 3 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal When judging CX I prefer a stock issue style debate but I am open to any argument. As long as you speed is ok as long as it's make your case I will flow it and make my decision on which team makes the better case and arguments understandable, prefer substance overall. I do vote on Topicality but it's got to be a clear violation and you must win the "better definition" over speed. debate. I will also listen to K's and CP's that are ran correctly. At the end of the day which case makes the greatest REAL WORLD impact should win.

Spreading: If you spread and it is clear good for you but I will always believe in quality over quanity. If we can not understand your arguments are you really getting to the essence of SPEECH and debate? In person if i visablly drop my pen I am no longer flowing your speech, online I will simply say clear, please adjust. Style & Delivery Preferences

DUTHIE, SHAWN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 3 5 3 1 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am somewhere between a stock issues and policymaker judge. I like a clear debate. Apply your This is a communication event, so argumentation, don't expect the judge to intervene and draw the connections for you. Weigh your speed should not interfere with your arguments. Your analysis of the evidence is more important to me than how much evidence you ability to effectively communicate present during the round. Stay professional and courteous especially during your questioning period. IF with your opponent and judge. you plan to run a T-argument, please run it in the 1NC. Try not run a T-argument as a time suck. Make sure that all of the components of your DA's are clearly delineated. Generic DA's are fine with me as long as you make the LINK stick. Please leave time for impact calculus in your rebuttals. Please don't run a K-argument, I won't vote on it. If you run a CP, make sure that everyone in the round is on the same page. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 7 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

EVANS, ZANE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset. I need Voters All speeches must be clear and well and an Impact Calculus K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link articulated. Bonus points for tapping I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. Frameworks into annunciation and pathos. and observations are key to the lens of the debate. I prefer a classic UIL CX round. However, if BOTH teams agree Prioritize taglines—this makes on a progressive debate round, I will still flow and judge the round the same as an old-school CX debate. I love to see plenty of clash during the debate. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. flowing easier. It also keeps your My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts arguments, cards, and evidence AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completely organized on my flow—you’ll get a understand your planby the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. Protect and advocate for your solvency! better ballot from me. No Use fiat wisely. spreadIng. Use your prep time NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. All wisely. Utilize speaking time wisely arguments must link to the AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considers

Style & Delivery Preferences -- time management is easily stock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong with noticeable AFF’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 all arguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

EVERETT, JACOB Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AJK Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Short version: I’m pretty tab, run whatever is comfortable to you. Speaks will be docked for rudeness. speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=121829 catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as

Style & Delivery Preferences harmful in any way possible. Speed is good, I’ll say clear if you’re too quick, you should probably slow down on what you want me to write down.

FORBIS, DONNA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 5 4 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I think stock issues are most important. Affirmative needs to make this clear. Understand them and be Debate is a speaking contest. able to explain them. A roadmap is preferred to make flowing easier. With this topic, debaters should Normal speed delivery is preferred very current evidence. Do your own research. I accept voters. over rapid fire. I need to be able to hear and understand you. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 8 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

GARCIA, TENNA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 5 3 3 5 5 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Above all, CX debate is a communication event. When judging, I prefer to see professional clash. I Speed can either hinder or promote typically lean towards stock issues. an individual. Enunciate, carry yourself with grace, and always be 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 want respectful. each side to weigh their arguments and bring their arguments full circle. Style & Delivery Preferences

GARZA, KATARINA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 4 3 5 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I was a debater for four years and am now a full-time college student who still very much enjoys Policy I am open to spreading so long as it Debate. I have been judging UIL and TFA CX Debate for three years now and I've held local camps and is not excessive. I need to hear the small practices over the last few years. taglines and author and when you're switching contentions, I am very much a Tab Judge! I like coming to the debate fresh and as if I know nothing. I want you to do solvency, etc. the 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 competing virtually, spreading might become an issue because of technological issues. I'm open to all off-case arguments, but I am picky with my Ks. I do not want to hear a K as a time suck. Please, if you are

planning on running a K, let it be strategically planned. Style & Delivery Preferences

I am open to, and like, Framework arguments. Again, I'm Tab, so I will be coming to each round without assumptions, so Framework sometimes gives you a great starting point.

If you have any other specific questions just ask me!

GATTIS, JASON Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 3 5 4 3 1 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am essentially a Policy Maker type judge. However I am also a traditionalist. Kritiks are not acceptable This is a speaking contest not a at all. speed reading contest.

Topicality is good but I will only vote on it if it is legitimate and rooted in reality. I am looking for short link chains and impacts that are real. Everything does not end in nuclear war. I weigh the probability of the impact highly. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 9 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

GILLESPIE, JULIE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 5 2 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm a policy judge. I want to see well organized plans. I don't really like Kritiks. I want to see curtesy I don't mind spreading as long as I between all parties. Be specific when you argue. Remember that this is a speaking event. The other can understand you. I love a team and myself should be able to understand you. They shouldn't have to read through your case to roadmap!!! figure out what you said. Style & Delivery Preferences

GLENN, THOMAS Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Tab will default Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement policymaker Equal Equal Tab, treat me like a lay judge who understands debate terms. I’ll vote for the team that can explain the Speed is fine as long as I can voters of the round/significance. I’m willing to hear any argument, conditionality is fine, K debate fine, T understand you. If it’s not on my fine, CP fine, it’s all good (I'll Listen to New case in the 2NC/abuse claims for this, but DO NOT READ flow because I couldn’t catch it; it’s NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE REBUTTALS). Just pr not involved in the judgment. I don’t flow CX. Also reading a tag line is not an extension.

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

GREEN, AMBER Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am open to your argumentation and will vote on convincing and well-developed arguments. However, I Speed is fine, but I want to will default to stock issues if you do not convince me to follow your framework for the round. I will vote understand you. Keep it educational on well run kritiks and CP's, but I want them to be clear and well connected. Speed is fine as long as you for both sides. This is a speaking are still speaking to me. Respect is crucial. Let's keep it educational and fun! event. Let's keep that in mind. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 10 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

GREENE, EMILY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 3 4 2 2 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I would consider myself a combination of a policy maker/Stock issues judge. If all parts of the affirmative I don't mind a high rate of speed, case have not been defended well, then the affirmative cannot win. This means that if funding is not but rapid-fire isn't persuasive, nor is provided, if the affirmative has not been able to effectively prove that their case is significant, then the it an effective means on affirmative cannot win. Conversely, it is the responsibility of the negative to clash with the affirmative communication. and prove that the affirmative is either not topical, that their case causes a significant and specific disadvantage. If these basic standards are not met, then it makes it difficult for me as a judge to vote in favor 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. Style & Delivery Preferences

GREGONIS, ELISA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I tend to judge by the rules and by clash. I want to see both sides adequately addressing the other side's I prefer quick but clear speakers. points and then negating them. I also focus quite a bit on speaking elements and speaker points. Style & Delivery Preferences

GUTHRIE, KEITH Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 5 5 5 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Policy debate is one of the most challenging, yet rewarding events you can participate in during your I prefer a slower and more high school career. It is clearly important to know and understand how to use the rules and methodical debate where argumentations specific to policy debate; however, at the end of the day, I want to be persuaded. I will arguments are not only presented vote on any argument presented in the round as long as it is intentional, persuasive, and effectively but are deliberate and build from articulated. It is also vital that all debaters are respectful of their opponents and are willing to adapt to each other. However, I can flow a the mood of the round. fast-paced round if that is the direction you choose to take. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 11 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

HAGGARD , TIFFANY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 4 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a tab judge with a stock issues background. I will appreciate any arguments brought into the round I am OK with speeding as long as as long as they have concise and thorough information to back them up. I am very very big on knrespect you slow down on the tag lines, and in the round. I know that you were enunciating each word. Style & Delivery Preferences

HALL, DUNCAN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal

I am tab but will default policymaker. This means that absent other instructions, I will weigh the harms to make my I am open to different decision, but teams should still tell me how to weigh the impacts and which arguments are winners. The 2AR and communication styles. Fewer, 2NR should write my ballot for me. I am open to all arguments and I will vote for all arguments. That being said, run more developed arguments are arguments that you are comfortable with and that you know well. Reading a card alone generally won’t win you the preferrable over numerous poor round – how you use the card and your analysis will. Clash makes for great debate rounds, so be sure to listen to arguments. The best speakers are your opponents. so efficient, they don’t need I primarily argued policy so I am obviously most familiar with policy arguments, but that shouldn’t stop you from spreading to keep up with their running K or theory if that is your strategy/preference. For disads, an impact calc is a must. I enjoy T debates but I opponents. Please keep in mind think most teams spend too long on interpretations/violations. You should dedicate time explaining the impact of the this is a virtual tournament and violation and how I should vote on T. Ks should have a strong link and you should explain the story of your K clearly. clarity can be lost via It is always best to underestimate the judge’s knowledge of K arguments. For CPs, slow down when reading your Style & Delivery Preferences camera/microphone. At the very plan text. least, you should slow down when reading Ks and CPs, and while In short: the round is yours to do with it what you want. Assume I know much less than you do about your arguments doing analysis. I will stop flowing or and the topic. Connect the dots for me, tell me how to vote and have fun! yell “clear” if necessary.

HAYNES, TIMOTHY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock Issues judge. This is virtual. Some speed as long as it is understandable. Not fond of K's.

Not fond of spreading due to virtual communication and possible audio problems. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 12 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

HEAD, TRUE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 4 5 5 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am comfortable with whatever you want to run. I just think you need to make sure that you understand Do what you like what you are running if you are going to read an argument. Be specific about your impact calculus and why it matters. It always helps to ask yourself why. I am not going to do it for you so lead me as a judge where you want the ballot to go. Style & Delivery Preferences

HICKEY, JOANNA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABJ Res. Issues Quality 4 4 4 5 1 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I consider myself a policymaker judge although I do give importance to the stock issues. At the end of I can flow speed, but I don’t the round, I vote on the impacts of the competing policies. necessarily like it. I really don’t like If you run T, it must be run first in the 1NC – a new T in the 2NC is not okay. the droning style of speaking or the Kritiks should be germane and run well. I don’t like Kritiks run just to confuse the opponent. I think those style with quick breaths that sound are a bit abusive and you also risk me not understanding. I prefer an Alt that is not “reject the Aff”. like gasping. To me it is not good Framework is not a separate argument but a lens through which to evaluate the round. As long as it’s communication. If you speak fast, it not morally repugnant, i.e. white supremacy good, I am open to it. Also, you must give a way for the is imperative that you speak clearly. other side to comply or win, otherwise I will listen to abuse claims. Signposting is very helpful and Theory is okay but make sure you impact it. I am good with new in the 2NC if it is on-case. makes me happy. 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. Style & Delivery Preferences Be nice! You don’t have be overly If you are going to “kick” an argument (on the Neg), you need to let me know and I prefer that it be for a nice, but don’t be mean. good 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 tester judge so that’s not a good strategy with me. Crying abuse with no in-round impact is not likely to persuade me.

HICKS, JASON Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC Tech over Truth Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Debate is a game, but it is an important one that is, at its best, a valuable educational experience for Prepared Debaters allow for a more everyone present. educational and productive debate. Road maps and highlighted General Notes: I am tech over truth, unless presented with a compelling reason to the contrary. speeches are preferred.

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 with

warrants, and through any weighing or framing mechanism you tell me to use, so long as you tell me Style & Delivery Preferences why 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 well executed, I will be ecstatic.

page 13 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

HOBSON, KASEN Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AEJ Games Player Res. Issues Quality 4 1 5 5 5 5 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal CX Debate is a game, in my opinion. My flowsheet is the most important thing in the round so please This is UIL so I will not condone make sure you provide clear warrants, roadmaps, and signpost frequently. I love Theory but I do not spreading, even though I am more expect everyone to run it every round. Not a fan of topicality in the slightest. I will utilize any judging than capable of flowing your paradigm that you say to use in the round. spreading.

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 give MPX Calcs & roadmaps.

Style & Delivery Preferences

Include me on all email chains: [email protected]

HOFF, ROXANNE Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B It depends on Res. Issues Quality 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 Philosophy Statement what the debaters Equal Equal I still believe that CX (Policy) Debate is a communication event, so I am looking for articulate and Articulate and Persuasive persuasive speakers who have very well-organized cases and can rationally and realistically debate this year's resolution. No spreading

Style & Delivery Preferences

HUSS, REBECCA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 5 3 1 3 3 2 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am first and foremost a stock issues judge. If you're affirmative, then I will vote against you if you drop Please sign post! Read at a normal one sensible argument. I will also notate whether or not a negative team carried their arguments all the pace (a little speed is okay) and way through to the end of the round. If both teams drop an argument, I'll drop it from my flow and it will make eye contact. Explain your not count against affirmative. cards with your own words - do not make me decipher which I will accept analytical arguments if they show clear holes in the functionality of an affirmative case and argument/stock issue your card plan, but those arguments needs to be sound and must tie into that specific affirmative (nothing generic). goes with. Please do not be rude.

Style & Delivery Preferences

page 14 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

KHALEQUE, YASH Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 4 3 5 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a "games" judge, meaning I accept any and all forms of arguments as long as proper rationale is Please signpost when transitioning delivered. Although I have a high threshold on topicality. Barring anything fancy, I have a policymaker from one topic to another. No speed paradigm. I like framework arguments, as it tells me what things in the impact calc matter. I restrict new reading, especially not in the online arguments in the 2NC to oncase only. I focus less on the amount of evidence provided, and more on format. how debaters address claims and warrants. Style & Delivery Preferences

LEGGETT, JOHN-MICHAEL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC BD Res. Issues Quality 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I primarily will look closer at stock issues and plan as the framework from which to judge. I tend to be a I like a debater that is easy to judge that likes arguments to be grounded somewhat in the real world. Real World scenarios resonate understand and follow. Pacing is better with me. Not everything is a zero sum game. There are places you can take a judge where they one of the most important things for can make a decision on the best presentation and case. That being said if there is no semblance of me. If it is hard for me to follow you stock issue structure I'll default to who makes the best case and makes the offense. then it will be hard for me to listen intently while following along with the debate. Style & Delivery Preferences

LEWIS, ASHLEY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the No problem with spread, but I have debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but to be able to understand what is I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. going on. If I can’t understand then I Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the stop flowing. Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. 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. I am good with most things in a round. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 15 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MACLEOD, ROWAN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Read anything that you would like, as long as it is respectful to those in the room. It is important to make I do not really have a preference for debate an inclusive activity. I do not necessarily have a preference for specific arguments. I believe style and delivery. Speed is alright impact calculus and detailed, warranted analysis are key to any good debate round. Extend your as long as you are clear. Be kind to evidence, your warrants. Good debaters should understand their arguments and be able to everyone in the round. That does extend/explain them thoroughly. Tell me why you won the round through a policy making framework, i.e. not mean you cannot be aggressive how does the affirmative change the status quo (for better or worse)? I had some experience with K and competitive in a round. debate in high school but likely not as extensive as other judges. A thorough explanation of the alternative/solvency mechanism of the aff is key for me to vote on critical theory arguments. Topicality and theory arguments are fine with me. I do not like new in the 2NC. If you have any specific questions, I will be happy to answer them before the round. Style & Delivery Preferences

MARTINEZ-GALLARDO, Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B ELIDIA Res. Issues Quality 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I tend to lean towards traditional arguments and stock issues. Maintaining an accurate flow, and I believe Debate is a public following it, is very important to me. I do not like frivolous arguments and time sucks. Stick to the speaking event so I deduct heavily basics. I like clear extensions, tell me why the argument or point you are presenting is important to the for speed that hinders your ability to round, is it a voting issue or a key link to the impact. Please do not argue the same point over and over be understood or impacts your again. ability to speak clearly. I like to see clash in a debate. Style & Delivery Preferences

MASON, MOLLY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a stock issues judge. I support when a team can run a good DA. I appreciate brave teams that want I don't mind speed while reading to run a CP. evidence as long as you slow down for the tag. This is a speech event, so let's hear some debate! Style & Delivery Preferences

page 16 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MATTIS , MICHAEL Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am Tab. I would much rather adapt to you than you adapt to me. Just do what you do best and I will Be clear, roadmap, signpost. evaluate the round fairly. Style & Delivery Preferences

MCHATTON, CHRIS Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a tabularasa judge. If you can sell it well, I will buy it. I am not a fan of Kritiks or turning traditionally This is a communication event after policy debate into a philosophical one. If someone attempts to run a K, will need to spoon feed it and all, so needs to be understandable that may still not turn out in your favor. I weigh what is presented in the round and like structure to fall in pace, fluid in delivery, and well back on, ie stock issues. Information dumps/spreading is not a strategy I favor. organized with great analysis. Style & Delivery Preferences

MENEFEE, MELONIE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 5 5 2 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am primarily a policy coach/judge, but do have some experience with LD and PF. I have been judging Speed is ok, but at the end of the for more than 13 years and have judged on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits. day, I still like to hear good speaking. If I cannot understand I consider myself to be a policymaker judge, but what it comes down to is that the debater that what you are saying, then your convinces me is the debater that is going to get my vote. This means that I am looking for strong speaking habits are not showcasing evidence as well as good analysis. I am looking for arguments that make sense. I am looking for cases what you should be doing. I would that not only prove their own points but counter the opponent's points, as well. I strive to start the round rather hear fewer quality arguments with no preconceived notions. than to have so much crammed into your time that I am unable to see Do not make the mistake of presenting your case without arguing your opponent's. Yes, I am repeating clearly how it all works together.

that statement. It bears repeating. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 17 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MORGAN, LINDSAY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Logical arguments are preferred in a case and I will look for teams to keep a close connection to the Debate is a match in topic and reasonability. Both sides of the debate (negative/affirmative) should include offensive communication and I believe that all strategies. conventions of quality public speaking should be employed. Clear and concise speeches only. If I cannot understand what is being said, I cannot adequately judge. Style & Delivery Preferences

MORRIS, JANET Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABCDE Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 3 3 1 JK Philosophy Statement Equal Equal As this is a UIL state meet, stock issues do matter. I vote on stock issues but I am more policymaker Speed should never impede clarity. judge. Reasonability is exceptionally important in plans, counter plans, argumentation. I do not argue the Talking fast is not always equal round for you therefore if it is not on the flow it will not be judged. I judge purely off the flow. I can and spreading the flow. And if you often vote for argumentation I'm not fond of and or K's which I am also not fond of your argumentation cannot do so and be and rhetoric and the flow will determine who wins. understandable, this will be an issue for you. Style & Delivery Preferences

MORRISON, SARAH Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC BD Res. Issues Quality 5 4 2 5 4 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Cross Examination Debate allow a person to use critical thinking skills, analogies, persuasion, and be a Confident, Persuasive delivery is problem solver. Respect for others is vital. The ability to listen to others is developed and necessary. important. Speed is acceptable if Organizational skills using signposts help a debater be a successful communicator. Restating points and pace allows judge to take a flow summarizing evidence is effective. Identifying advantages and disadvantages to specific plans and and is understandable articulation- solutions demonstrates higher order thinking. wise. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 18 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MRUZ, JACK Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ADE Res. Issues Quality 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal - Debate is too serious sometimes. I enjoy fun rounds, I greatly appreciate jokes. Kindness is underrated - opponents No style or delivery preferences. are (most likely) not your enemy but rather fellow participants in a fun activity. Please treat them that way. Fine with speed, clarity is important. - 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 to decisions. In the absence of a clear dub for either team, I evaluate the flow. If I can't come to a decision based purely on my flow, I read the cards for each arg and decide whether the cards a. support the args that are being made and b. which team has better ev for each specific arg. If I still can't come to a decision based on reading cards, I'll reconstruct the debate and necessarily fill in gaps for both sides based on my understanding of the best version of each team's args. YOU DO NOT WANT THIS. There is a non-zero probability that your cards are not as good as you think 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 how frustrating it is when you catch an L after a super close debate because it feels like the judge did slightly more work Style & Delivery Preferences for 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

MUNSON, CHRISTIE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC Res. Issues Quality 4 4 1 3 3 1 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Debate rounds should be run so that the competitors are either defending the affirmative that is Delivery should be at a rate such presented or trying to negate the affirmative that is presented. Let's all debate the topic at hand instead that everyone in the room can of trying to confuse things and bring in negative arguments that do not attack the affirmative case. All of understand the topic of the debate. the tricks commonly used in the TFA circuit have no place in traditional UIL debate. When speed and tricks are thrown in to intentionally confuse or muddle the round, a fair debate cannot happen. Style & Delivery Preferences

MUSEL, DALTON Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I’m tab. Problematic speech tanks speaks. I am familar with most circuit styles. I love hearing a good debate. It’s a I am comfortable with speed, but strategy game, and should be played as such. please pay attention so any cues I 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 hear give so that you can adapt. substantial weighing on standards and voters on neg, explain how this negatively effects the round in question or the debate community as a whole. Concession of any part of the T debate is almost always a loss. Some TVAs and RVIs never 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 some framework 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 benefits are 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 it if 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 to Style & Delivery Preferences view the aff or neg, not just surface level card reading without textual analysis. The framing flow shouldn't be neglected 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 critical theory. 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!

page 19 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

NAVA, VICTOR Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AK Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 4 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am moderately open to whatever strategy you prefer to run in CX debate. Some preferences I have noticed over the Spreading does provide for a good years include: show at times and serves an 1. I am not really a fan of spreading for the sake of spreading or just getting through massive amounts of text. intimidation factor, but please make Taglines need to be perfectly enunciated at a normal speaking rate and any key sections of the text you believe are sure that you read ALL taglines at a crucial to the round must be clearly highlighted as well. Debate is a speech event and I do place emphasis on style and presence. normal speaking rate. If I didn’t 2. My biggest request for affirmative is that all taglines are perfectly read and the plan text clearly enunciated. I don’t catch what you said I’m not going to mind squirrel cases as long as you are well prepared to defend your topicality. assume and flow it. Eye contact 3. For negative you really have the freedom to run whatever strategy you want. I enjoy listening to clash on a good should be direct (kind of hard this (read: non-trivial) topicality argument, exploring the real-world implications of specific disadvantages, and year) and you should appear straightforward on-case arguments. I entertain counterplans, but the 1NC must clearly articulate the counterplan text confident and informed. Tones and any important advantage tags after. Kritiks are where I do tend to get lost because they sometimes assume a lot

Style & Delivery Preferences should show exigency and respect of background knowledge from the judge which is sometimes lacking (and debaters don’t always know how to gauge for the opponent. when 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 walk away having learned something new. Above all, take a breath, relax, have fun, and congratulations on making it to state!

OLIVER, SHERYL Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABCDE I'll judge it all, but I Res. Issues Quality 4 4 3 4 3 3 5 JK Philosophy Statement like clarity of the Equal Equal I believe that debate is a communication event. Persuasion is the heart of the event, and any attempt to I better be able to understand you circumvent debating the merits of the case are an attempt to avoid the basic communication required in in your chosen speed. If i cannot, I debate. will not award you any argument presented at such a speech. Speed That being said, I will judge the K but I look for the abundance of connection between the Aff and the K. I of delivery is not a life skill that will also judge an Aff K, but my standards are even higher for making that connection. makes the world a better place, or enhances community or improves There are times the K bears heavily upon a round, but I don't believe the false dichotomy of running a K communication. every round because the aff cannot always and automatically represent and uphold oppression or a hollow hope. It might be an appropriate argument, but the burden is heavy upon the opponent choosing

to run the theory argument to prove the necessity of the argument. And if an alternative is not presented, Style & Delivery Preferences I will never vote K or K aff.

Beyond that, Civility is of utmost importance.

PANELLA, BRENDA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 5 5 3 5 3 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I expect debaters to provide tough analysis of evidence presented in the round and may miss it if you Professionalism and courtesy are choose to spread. I judge on stock issues including Neg DA’s, and debaters really need to prove which important. Rudeness and immature stock issues are present or not. As for cards, I want to hear an explanation of why one card outweighs behavior will result in low speaker the opposing team. Don’t just say “cross apply” or “there is no link”. I want to hear the argumentation points. Always be aware of your even if you are repeating yourself. The negative side has the burden of clash, and in the event that the posture, eye contact, and volume negative fails to provide clash to the affirmative case, I will default affirmative. Kritiks and counterplans as you speak. Try your best not to should be competitive and have a clear, well-explained advocacy. I do not vote on a round based on fidget or sway as you speak. Theory. Providing a roadmap and signposts as you present your case is most appreciated. I do not mind

Style & Delivery Preferences spreading as long as you are clear on your taglines.

page 20 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

PATRIDGE, CARMEN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A I like stock issues, Res. Issues Quality 3 2 3 4 2 2 1 Philosophy Statement but will judge on Equal Equal I believe that this topic is timely. It require in depth research and analysis. That is what I look for in a I can take speed as long as I can debate round. I look for clash from both teams. I won't debate on the ballot. I will do my best to judge understand. When citing evidence, the round before me. I will give you my RFD on the ballot on the substantive issues I see. I look for recency and credibility of the author/source. Style & Delivery Preferences

PATTON, MIRIAM Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 4 3 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal The Aff will win if the plan is topical and will provide a workable, practical solution to the resolution. The Moderate speed is fine. If you go Neg will win if they show the Aff to be non-topical, the Aff plan to be either not workable or not practical. too fast, I can't process what you If the DAs outweigh the solvency of the plan and/or the advantages presented in the Aff case, the Neg are saying and so you essentially wins. I do like to see the Aff plan presented early on in the 1AC but I can adapt to other presentation didn't say it. I've got to be able to orders. flow so I know who said what when and I cannot if you go too fast. Be kind to each other, respect is very important to me. Style & Delivery Preferences

PEEK, SANDRA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABE Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 3 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In I prefer a moderately-paced debate. other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The I understand the need for speed in exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert the 1AR, and I can follow well to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an signposted fast argumentation. exceedingly 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 and However, I want to hear the text of then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or the evidence. I am not okay with email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP speed so fast that the words in the and T should always be started in the 1NC. evidence are not enunciated. KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject. DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” Style & Delivery Preferences analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them 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. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency. SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

page 21 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

PHINNEY, KADEN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 2 2 4 5 5 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal 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 as Don’t be excessively fast. you signpost

T- I don’t usually vote on topicality or theory unless it is something obviously something unfair to the debaters. but make 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 it net 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 rather Style & Delivery Preferences than 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 other questions and good luck!

PIETSEK, SETH Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 2 1 5 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am not impressed with speed or quantity. I want fleshed out arguments. Reading the name of a piece Talk to me like it's the first time I am or telling me to cross apply evidence is not enough for me to consider covering an argument. I do not hearing this debated. want to have to connect any dots in logic for you. Style & Delivery Preferences

PORTER, JAMES Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AC Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 4 5 5 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I would call myself a heavy tab judge. I will listen to any argument that you could possibly read in front of Won't be able to spread me out of me, but only if you can do so, well. Ks, K affs, theory, framework, performances, wipeout, CPs, Ts, and the round as long as you are clear. anything else you could possibly run is okay with me. My only condition is that Voters must always be If you are not then I will say clear read. I don't care how long you spend on the argument, if you don't properly cover the voters on the once and then after that anything individual argument, then I have no reason as a judge to vote for it. that does not end up on the flow does not get carried over. Explicitly sexist, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic discourse does not belong in debate, so don't engage in it. People should be nice. If you are not, then you may be looking at a low point win. I do not vote based purely on speaking style but if you are rude or offensive, then don't hope for anywhere near that 30. Other than these caveats, I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within

any framework you want to explicitly place me within. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting Style & Delivery Preferences for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. On all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

page 22 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

RAMSEY, VICTORIA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 4 3 1 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My opinion of policy debate is that it should be realistic. Link your evidence to what might happen but it I do not like spreading. I prefer an has to be realistic. I do not like far fetched ideas. I look for clash but in a polite way. Things I look for: average speed of delivery. Fast clash, topicality with creditable definitions,DA (I really like these), and possibly a CP. Just make sure enough to get everything in but that if you run a CP, that the CP solves for all of the harms set forth by the Aff. I also really like impact slow enough that I can understand calcs when it comes to a close match (the most impact will probably win). what you are saying. Style & Delivery Preferences

RAMSEY, VICTORIA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 4 3 1 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My opinion of policy debate is that it should be realistic. Link your evidence to what might happen but it I do not like spreading. I prefer an has to be a realistic possibility. I do not like far fetched ideas. I look for clash but in a polite way. average speed of delivery. Fast Things I look for: clash, topicality with creditable definitions, DA (I really like these), and possibly a CP. enough to get everything in but Just make sure that if you run a CP, that the CP solves for all of the harms set forth by the Aff. I also slow enough that I can understand really like impact calcs when it comes to a close match (the most impact will probably win). what you are saying. If I can not flow your speech because of speed, I will probably not vote for you. Style & Delivery Preferences

RANGEL, VANESSA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 1 5 5 1 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a tabula rasa judge and I will flow anything you decide to run. However, if you run any conditional I do not like spreading, I give a arguments or Aff K's you'll probably lose my ballot. max of two clears before I stop flowing your speech. You can Evidence cards are not warrants. Reinforce your warrant tag at the end to show me the implications of speak quickly but make sure you whatever you just read. I don't flow warrantless arguments because they aren't substantial enough to be are still coherent, this is a weighed on impact calc. They are also just claims at that point, not arguments. communications event after all.

If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 23 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

ROBERTSON, JONATHAN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal It is not the duty of the judge to compare what they think the team should have done to what they did, This is a speaking event. Do not but rather to evaluate the merits of argumentation of each team argued against their opponents. The exceed 350 words per minute. I judge's ballot should reflect what happened in the round, not what the judge wishes had happened in the prefer communicative debate over round. so called progressive debate which has carried that stale title for over It is the duty of the judge to award the better team, nothing more. This should be done in a professional 50 years. and constructive fashion.

No new in the 2 only covers off case. You should know your case. New on case arguments in the 2 are fully acceptable. Style & Delivery Preferences

SAUVE, COFFEY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AK Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 3 1 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My biggest concern is impacts. I want an explanation of how the plan is either beneficial or has harms. Be careful about letting speed These impacts need to be throughly explained and clearly linked. Solvency is also very important, the dominate your performance. I need plan must be feasible. In the end, debate is an educational activity. When we walk away from the round to be able to clearly understand we should have all gained some knowledge. your arguments. Style & Delivery Preferences

SLOANE, KIMBERLY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 4 4 2 4 1 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a firm believer that UIL debate is about stock issues. I prefer that debaters split the negative block Debate is first and foremost a instead of using the 2NC as a rebuttal that repeats the 1NC. In the end, evidence is important, but persuasive speaking event. Do not common sense/logic is acceptable in certain instances. Affirmative should remember they have the just read fast to me. Slow down, burden of proof. talk, and persuade. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 24 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

SMITH, JIMMY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AD Res. Issues Quality 4 5 1 5 4 1 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal This is a communication event. I must understand what you are saying. Communicate to me Style & Delivery Preferences

SOWELL, EMILY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABCDE Res. Issues Quality 4 5 2 4 3 1 5 JK Philosophy Statement Equal Equal REMEMBER TO FOLLOW ALL UIL RULES AT ALL TIMES. Please do not give me any reason to I do not mind speed, however, I suspect you are using the internet to do research during the rounds. This virtual platform is new, but we want to clearly understand must compete following rules as we normally would. everything that is spoken. If you are going too fast for me to flow, it is I would consider myself an "old school" judge. I like traditional arguments that create clash in the round, too fast. Please keep cameras on T, D/A's, attacking planks, solvency, inhereny, harms... I will listen to any argument but I VERY rarely the entire round, but mute during will vote on a K or CP. prep time and while others are speaking. I do not mind if you time I do not care for rudeness at any point during the round, especially during the cx period. If you ask a yourself, but I am the offical time question, allow it to be answered. Be professional and confident in your speaking. keeper. If a roadmap becomes a

Style & Delivery Preferences speech, I will time it. I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC but please point them out for me if you are splitting the block.

SPINKS, SHARON Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 2 2 5 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My leading paradigm is that of Stock Issues. I want to hear clear arguments framed around the stock Decorum in actions, speed that is issues at the core. Absent of clear arguments in these areas, my supporting paradigm is that of Policy understandable, and skills in Maker, judging decisions based on the policy position argued. I like to hear debaters logical, critical persuasion as a speaker that analysis of evidence and of arguments evident in their speeches. I expect decorum and speed that is include eye contact, passion, and understandable. Speaking with focus, passion, and emphasis is more pursuasive than speed. emphasis/inflcetion in voice. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 25 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

STRAUS, BOB Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABD Res. Issues Quality 4 3 1 3 3 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock Issues; HATE and will take speaks for speed. I have what you want my ballot. Roadmap and I want to hear well organized signpost Counterplans are like penguins: so and fluffy but they really can't fly. Kritics are the spawn of argument that are easily flowed by Satan. Aff must prove a prima facie case so all voters are equal weight. voters. Speed kills Style & Delivery Preferences

SULLIVAN, SUE JANE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Stock issues do Res. Issues Quality 3 3 2 4 2 2 5 Philosophy Statement come into play-- Equal Equal It may be that many competitors may not have debated as many rounds as they would have in a non- Argue with passion but with rational pandemic year. That is a consideration because usually at this level I would expect seeing a polished thought--I am NOT impressed with AFF case and tried and true DA's that would have been tested during the course of fall competition. simplistic sound bytes that sound That simply may not be the case for many, especially smaller schools. good but demonstrate little more than shallow knowledge. Debate is However, that does not mean that I don't expect competency in the round. I want to see preparation, not a rally; it is an exercise in knowledge supported by solid evidence, and the clash that shows debaters are listening to each other's communication, researched arguments. evidence, and persuasion.

Thank you all for competing in an event that demands a great deal of time and research. You are to be

commended for that! Style & Delivery Preferences

THEURET, LISA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 2 2 3 3 1 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a traditional CX debate judge that bases my decision on the stock issues & the flow. I like the Some speed is okay, but the words speeches to be highly organized with stock issues labeled clearly so that I can flow arguments. need to be enunciated and clear. Disadvantages must link to the case and address uniqueness. I rarely judge a round just on a topicality Avoid fillers like "um" & don't argument unless the case is really bizarre, but I will consider it with the other stock issues & the flow. apologize for mistakes. Just pause & get back on track. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 26 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

TUCKER, KELLEY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 4 5 3 3 2 2 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am primarily a stock issues judge, but will vote on whatever issues are brought up in the round. I Communication is important. expect clash against the affirmative case/plan not just off case arguments. Speed is not generally an issue. As long as I can flow, it is fine. Style & Delivery Preferences

VANDENBERG, MATT Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC A Res. Issues Quality 3 2 3 3 2 1 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Debate is a clash of ideas -- I want to know why a policy is the best or why it should be discarded in The purpose of debate is to allow favor of the status quo. Reasons a policy should not be adopted include (but are not limited to) that it students to develop useful does not achieve what it intends to, that there are significant defects or unintended consequences communication and persuasion associated with the policy, or that there is a better policy that would be supplanted by the proposed skills. I look for communication that policy. reflects this understanding. No spreading. Eye contact is also In determining whether I agree with arguments of the types identified above, I will look to the strength of important. evidence marshaled to advance an argument. One compelling argument may be sufficient; more plausible, but not compelling, arguments may also be convincing. A smattering of dubious arguments will 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 an Style & Delivery Preferences argument. Arguments are also not compelling if they are not specifically tailored to the policy.

VINCENT, KELSEY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock issues judge. No spreading--if I can't understand you, I can't judge what you say. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 27 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

WARE, JEFFREY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 2 1 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am primarily a policy maker, but I routinely revert to stock issues when my philosophy is not adhered to Speed must never take precedence by debaters. I expect the aff to make a strong indictment of the status quo. Neg should either defend over communication. I weigh status quo, defeat aff plan, or present a better counter-plan. I will vote on Topicality, but only if I buy the speaker points very carefully. counter definition and the neg's assertion of violation (based on their standard). I will vote on DA's, but give me real life impacts. If everything ends up in nuke war, I am not voting on your DA. I also require link, brink, and impact threshold to be clearly presented by the neg, or I will not accept it. I do not accept K's. Style & Delivery Preferences

WHITE, JOHN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC ABE I'll consider policy Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 5 5 5 2 Philosophy Statement arguments. Equal Equal I'm a stock issues judge, but I will entertain policy arguments. I dislike speed. I like to hear claims, warrants, and evidence. I I treat topicality as jurisdictional. If a case can be reasonably anticipated, I will consider it on educational consider whether the evidence grounds regardless of the arguments raised. I will also consider topicality, even if it isn't perfectly raised. supports the claim. If you are too In rare cases, I will rule on topicality when not raised if the case appears so non-topical that I have no fast for me to do this, I won't apparent grounds for jurisdiction over it. consider the claim.

I do not weigh dropped issues. I consider the overall persuasiveness of the arguments. Even if an argument is dropped, I won't give it weight if I find it unpersuasive. Style & Delivery Preferences

WILLIAMS, JIMMY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC AB Res. Issues Quality 4 5 5 5 3 2 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Debate is about influencing the judge to agree with your arguments. If your delivery is unclear and pace Speed is fine as long as you are that is not understandable, then you may not effectively communicate your points. I generally lean effectively communicating your toward stock issues, but will accept most well-formulated arguments. I am not a fan of spreading but am points. Don't just read cards, but tell fine with speed as long as long as it is within reason. I am also not a fan of K's that are far-fetched. If you me why they matter to your run a DA, be sure that all elements are present. I will also vote on T's. Analytic arguments are best when argument(s). Please provide road- supported by evidence. Neg, be sure to link your arguments directly into the aff. Aff, be sure to cover maps before your speech to allow every argument made by the neg. for a better flowing of the round. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 28 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2021 — 1A, 2A, 3A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

WOODS, CASSIE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks 2NC B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 3 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am an UIL judge. I flow the round and pay close attention to stock issues. I want to hear Solvency, In a virtual world it is imperative to Harms (Adv), Inherency (barrier), Topicality, significance, I want to hear signposting, I do not want to get slow down enough, so we are able lost in semantics or definitions. Let's debate the resolution. I am not a fan of Ks. I am okay with new in to actually debate. Spreaders be the 2 as it is a constructive speech, I find CPs acceptable. aware of how an online tournament can cause lacks in the feed. We are state qualifiers, I want to hear your case and see your talent and abilites. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 29