JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2018 — 4A, 5A, 6A 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

ACHTSAM, BEN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Use evidence or logical warrants to back every assertion and avoid hyperbolic statements and generalizations such as "This argument Be clear and precise in both spreading and is just dumb." In addition to the individual arguments, please give holistic arguments concerning the entire round including but not argumentation. Maintain a collegial limited to: giving voters, weighing the different issues against each other, and explaining what you think the role of the ballot should atmosphere in the round. be. Style & Delivery Preferences

ADAMS, CLINT Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 5 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I try to be as neutral in the round as I can possibly be. With that being said, I have a life outside of debate. I do not read theory or If you are spitting and gasping, chances are I author cards for fun. It is your job to make sure I know your argument without having studied it myself. I appreciate direct clash, and am not flowing. Tag your arguments and want to see definitive links. Tag your arguments and do not expect me to flow based on author cards, tell me where you are on the keep the flow clean. flow. Style & Delivery Preferences

ADAMS, JENNIFER Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 5 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I enjoy CX and know a fair amount about education. I will conform to you. I keep a rigorous flow and will weigh the round accordingly. Quality over Quantity. Hearing and listening That being said, I do not teach debate full time, I do not read cards for fun and do not know your authors. It is your job to sell the are different animals. I may hear your argument as if I am unfamiliar with your sourcing. Quality over Quantity in sourcing and argumentation. argument, but if you do not give me time to process it, I may not vote on it. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 1 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

AGHO-OTOGHILE, Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B CLEMENT Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Tab judge; clarity is of the utmost importance! I do not yell clear! Style & Delivery Preferences

ALANIZ, JOSE A.P. Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 4 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm partial to the K, if its done well. Good link and impact stories go a long way with me. Please tell me how and where to vote so I Be clear, slow down a little when reading your don't have to make that decision myself. taglines and be nice, but not too nice. Style & Delivery Preferences

ALCALA, ROGELIO Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Hypothesis Tester Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Hypothesis tester: Really slow down on the tag lines please.

Believes that the purpose of debate is to determine the probable truth or falsity of the debate resolution, in much the same way that a critical philosopher or research scientist would apply the scientific method to any other hypothesis. Style & Delivery Preferences

ALIM, MOHAMMAD Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 2 4 5 5 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am primarily a tab judge, but I will default to policy argumentation as this is policy debate. I don't love theory or T but I will listen to it Slow down on your tags, and I mean actually and flow it if you present the argument well and it's explained correctly. articulate when you read a tag and author. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 2 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

ALONZO, AUSTIN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 5 1 4 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a stock issue judge, so I prefer for there to be full arguments on topicality, and both sides should be prepared to advocate their Do not just read the cards also try to explain positions. I believe that the main parts of the case should be set up first thing, so the round can move forward. Explain how the case is why they are important and how it relates. I relevant to the resolution. I like for the importance of the case to be related, so it can show why or why not the status quo is not would like to see some sign posting to know working. I am able to weigh the round by seeing a summation of the arguments to deliberate. I do not like to see the negative try to run which direction we are going in, and for the their own cases. I do like to see some frame work arguments to be able to set up the structure of the case. Try to provide me with cards that are read to be applied. Please compelling reasons for voting for your side. refrain from spreading. Be confident and know your information, so you should be able to answer any question raised. Style & Delivery Preferences

ANDERSON, JOHN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm fine with any arguments so long as they aren't blatantly offensive. Disadvantages aren't necessarily essential, regardless of the I am fine with speed, but I ask that you indication above, but if you are telling me to reject the affirmative as a policy option, you do need a reason why the action results in respect the conventions of the tournament. I more bad than good. I evaluate case attacks in the same manner as disads: I am concerned with whether the plan makes the world like impassioned delivery but I’m not better or worse. It is NOT enough to claim the aff might not solve for all of their harms; so long as they are reasonably able to solve for impressed by you being rude, and I’ll dock some, I will vote aff, and I will vote on risk of solvency if there is no consequence of doing the plan. Impact weighing is essential. you speaks with no hesitation. I start you off Kritiks need to have time spent on alt and framework. I am not particularly well read on some literature, so feel free to ask beforehand. at 27.5, which I consider being the average T can be run as a timesuck but if you want me to vote on it, extend standards, voters, and violation. I default competing interpretations. state qualified debater, and adjust from there. If you don’t know what that means, probably don’t go for T in the 2NR. Please don't read new offense in the 2NC. New evidence on Debate is first and foremost a technical event, 1NC offense, or new case defense, etc. are all fine, but I have a very low threshold for 1ARs answering entirely new turns and off- and as such, I value technical skills over case. Affs should extend their case in every single aff speech. Negatives should split the block: this means I see the 2NC and the 1NR delivery. as essentially the same speech, and I don’t want that speech to repeat itself at all. For more, look me up on the judge philosophies wiki, and feel free to ask any questions before the round. Style & Delivery Preferences

ANDRADE, REYMUNDO Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABE "REY" Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 4 1 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Impact calculus is key in the round and whoever can prove that has the best chance of getting the W on the ballot. I need to be able to I have a master's in Communication from follow your argumentation in the round so tag all your arguments and link them to your evidence. Analyze cards and weigh their UTSA. I value good delivery, speech relevancy in the round. Stay away from time suck arguments. Don't waste tour time throwing mud at the wall to make it stick. Just be dynamics, projection, poise and tone. clear, persuasive and have clear impacts. Be the advocate in the round. Spell it out and don't be cute or ambiguous.Provide road maps, voters, etc. Quality arguments are preferred to quantity arguments. Style & Delivery Preferences

ARONOWITZ, JACOB Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Kind of a mix of Res. Issues Quality 4 5 5 5 4 4 Philosophy Statement Tab and Equal Equal This is my first time judging the activity in a minute, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms associated with this topic yet, so don't Keep in mind this is UIL and I expect all UIL assume I will know them. rules to be followed, so whatever you want to do within those confines is fine

Stock issues are important, but I place a heavier emphasis on the substantive role they play as opposed to a the theoretical structure of the case.

CP's are fine but I'm not as friendly towards abusive counterplans and topical CP's

K's are ok, but if I don't understand the philosophy that you are talking about then there's very little chance I will vote for you regardless of whether the aff is technically losing the flow - I don't like k's that only have a discoursive impact Style & Delivery Preferences

DA's are fine page 3 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

AUSTIN, MICHAEL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 2 2 4 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a Tab-Stock Judge. I ask is that you slow down at the tag lines so Generally, I can judge anything and everything. However, there are a few points that I am picky about. I rarely vote on kritiks or I can understand what your card is saying. counterplans, so this area might be a waste of your time. I also don't usually vote on Topicality unless the Aff is REALLY untopical and I give speaker points on a ranking system: it is an obvious abuse issue. In this case, I take Topicality very seriously. 1st=30, 2nd=29, 3rd=28, 4th=27. This will For the Aff to win the debate, they must at least hold ALL stock issues. If the Neg wants to win, they need only prove one of these to only change if I really had difficulty be insufficient. If the Aff meets all stock issues, then I will weigh Advantages vs Disadvantages during the impact calc. understanding your points. No New in the Two: I will not consider ANY new off-case arguments in the 2NC. However, you may bring in new evidence for your current arguments as well as new on-case arguments. Style & Delivery Preferences

BALDERRAMA, JESSICA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My judging style is very tab. I see cx debate as an educational safe haven. With that being said, I will listen to any argument you like. I Speak in the way that you think will be most will vote and judge the round based on want you'd like for me to vote on. You set the framework. I appreciate a good impact calculus, beneficial to you in round as long as tags are so I will default to policymaker otherwise. I gave kritiks and disads a 5 because I think that those arguments bring good discussion and clear for flowing purposes. substance into the debate. I gave topicality, and counterplans a 3 because I do not see that same substance being brought into the round. But I will vote on these arguments. These arguments are not "me" but if they're "you", go for it! Other than that, run your favorite arguments. You control the way the round goes. Style & Delivery Preferences

BARRINGTON, EMMA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 4 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal There's nothing I won't vote on on principle, however, topicality and generic disadvantages are weighed less than other theoretical Quality of communication is important to me, arguments and well constructed disadvantages. I want to see clash. No speed preference. Please ask questions. but it matters more that you are arguing successfully. Spreading is okay, but if you are unintelligible I will not be able to flow. Style & Delivery Preferences

BARSHOP, NOAH Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 3 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a blank slate. Debaters should tell me how I should vote on substantive issues and how I should evaluate the round. With Be clear. Be civil. Be respectful. topicality and theory you will have to grease the wheels extensively to get me to vote on potential abuse (really do work on how x practice undermines the a critical community value); otherwise, to win T or theory point out specific in-round abuse and disadvantages. I am open to all types of arguments from cps to ks, DAs and T, plan flaws, critical case args, non-linear dAs, w/e. For kritiks, I often find that debaters come up short the most on explaining the alternative and how that resolves k/case impacts. if you want to win a K, you need to do work on that front.

Additionally, Neg flex is cool until someone points out that it isn't. That being said, both sides should be wary of performative contradictions and be wary to point them out. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 4 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

BENAVIDES, JASMYN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 3 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal TAB Judge that leans Policy -- open to any/all arguments, but at the end of the day, I really want you to highlight all the I'm "okay" with a little speed, but don't take advantages/impacts of each argument of the round. Need you to really tell me the roll of the ballot - make my job easier and keep me that as an excuse to reed 100000mph. please very up-to-date with all drops/concedes/impacts/etc. try to CLEARLY communicate your arguments in the round -- if i can't get it down, it won't be flowed.

Super hate time-suck arguments -> if you run something and you kick it at the last minute, that's gonna flow aff and really hurt your ground. Also, please don't be incredibly rude in round - hurts your speaks real bad. No need to be a jerk to win. Style & Delivery Preferences

BERRYHILL, REBEKKA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 4 4 4 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe the debaters should set up the framework of the round. I prefer a lot of clash within the round. I am able to flow anything as I can flow anything - however, if your speed is long as what you are running is run well. such that it is unintelligible I will say clear once and then flow to the other team. Style & Delivery Preferences

BONE, ARTHUR Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 2 3 5 5 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal First of all, no spreading. This is, after all, a speaking event. You do not, however, have to speak really slowly. I can follow a fair rate Clear with a reasonable speed. rather easily.

I am a tab judge, and I try to come in with an open mind. Find a few good arguments rather than throwing a bunch against the wall to see what sticks. If you find an opening, take it. I will judge you on what you say. I may think of something obvious that would win your round for you, but I won't use it unless you actually say it. If it is something that is common knowledge, I reserve the right to consider that.

Do not expect to get a win just because your opponent did not address a worthless point you made, and you won't lose on a minor technicality. Make a good case. Style & Delivery Preferences

BOREN, JUSTIN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm big on stock issues, but will default to policy-maker and what is best for the U.S. Stay away from K's and focus on T, CP's, DA's, Let me know if you're giving a brief off-time and especially impacts and solvency. I expect impact calc on both sides to prove to me who should win. I can appreciate a really great road map beforehand. I don't mind spreading. DA that links with an extinction clause. Don't sound like a dead fish. Signposting is key. We will conduct ourselves with respect and honor in cross-ex. We will abide by the UIL rules for cross-ex. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 5 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

BOYD, JANE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 5 4 3 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Policy debate paradigm Speed is not usually a problem, but clarity is the issue. I will say clear, several times, but if My paradigm is pretty simple: it isn't on the flow, I won't vote on it.

First: I try to judge the way you ask me to, but if it is not clear, then I am a policymaker.

Second: I am open to multiple negative stances but putting 7 off-case for the sake of seeing what stick still causes me some hesitance. If you do that then start making choices early.

Third: I am not a theory fan, but I love a good topicality debate. If you intend to go for theory - I need to understand the position from the beginning. RVI's: Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though Style & Delivery Preferences unless you have a compelling reason why.

BRANDON, CHUCK Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDE Res. Issues Quality 4 3 3 4 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal BACKGROUND - Have been involved in debate as a student, high school debater, college debater, high school coach or a college PRESENTATION coach since the Nixon administration. Yes I actually cut Watergate cards. So pardon my smile when asked how I feel about speed etc. Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". Make a clear PHILOSOPHY- Try to be Tab as much as possible. But like all judges I have some personal preferences listed below: distinction between your taglines and and your cards. TOPICALITY - is a voter, don't usually vote on it unless it is mishandled or extremely squirely. Make sure to have a violation, standard and voter in shell. Haven't previously voted on a RVI on T. THEORY - Tend to look at in round abuse. KRITIKS - They are fine, but make sure you understand the literature, spend a lot of quality time on the link and have a clear alternative. PREP TIME - I count flash as prep time.

OTHER ISSUES - Will vote you down for being rude or sarcastic. Proper decorum is a must. I will vote against sexist, racist et al. Style & Delivery Preferences arguments. CONCLUSION - I was fairly succinct on this paradigm, so feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Also debate should BRANNEN, CHRISTOPHER Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 3 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Brannen%2C+Christopher On Communication: First, I'm a little deaf, be loud and clear. As a result of being a little I am a judge that cares most about the big picture.What is the practical outcome of what we are doing in the round? Does it impact deaf, speed is tough if you can't speed and real people in real ways? Put the word “reasonable” in your head. speak clearly. Debate to me is as much about communication as about the arguments you On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework.In the absence are making. Spreading would not benefit you of framework debate, I default policymaker. with me anyway because I’m looking at, in the end, on the key issues in the debate. Plus, it’s On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward bad for competition and accessibility. (If your that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it opponents spread anyway, I’ll buy an ableism rarely provides a good warrant. It would always be better for you to default to over explaining (as I will let you know you can proceed) K on the matter) Please signpost clearly and rather than under explaining. slow down for tags. Style & Delivery Preferences

BRENNER, KYLE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I enjoy debates where students engage in substantive issues. Feel free to run anything you want, but you are going to need to clearly If I can understand you, we're good. explain how each argument is relevant in the round. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 6 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

CAMPAGNA, BENJAMIN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 3 4 4 5 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am between a stock-issues judge and a tabula rasa judge. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is I am fine with spreading as long as the important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their taglines are delivered clearly. I prefer argument. analytics to be delivered more slowly to allow me to follow the debaters' reasoning. If using Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a net- debate jargon ("perm," "K," etc.), I would positive to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. prefer that the team use the complete correct term at least once first, before shortening it for The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. This will usually be done by defending the the rest of the round. status quo (i.e., the stock issues), but counterplans are fine too. The Negative will need to establish that the counterplan is a net- positive over both the status quo and the Affirmative plan (I am perfectly fine with conditional arguments here). I will vote on a Kritik if the Negative explains in-round why it should be a voting issue; otherwise; I will treat it as being outside of the scope of what the debaters came to discuss. Like disadvantages, I believe Kritiks must be unique, and therefore there is a high bar to clear for a Kritik aimed at the resolution rather than at the specific Affirmative case. Style & Delivery Preferences

CAMPBELL, CODY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 3 4 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm a stock issues judge. The affirmative must fulfill of their burdens. If the negative effectively proves that the affirmatives lacking in I like clear and concise delivery. Rude and any of the one issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. I prefer presentations of issues to be well spoken and clear. I dislike overly aggressive debaters are frowned arguments that that don't relate to the topic. I like a mixture of on-case and off-case arguments; DA's, T's and CP's are fine but K's are Upon. Keep it civil and sportsman like. Let not. Arguments that are being run need to be concise and explained, not just read cards and analytics without claims/warrants. you Arguments and understanding if material be the focus of the round Style & Delivery Preferences

CANON, MATTHEW Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 4 4 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal For starters, I will say that I am a traditional judge and I am open to listen to any argument you would like to run. I as judge focus on When it comes to any debate round, I first the quality of the evidence, I bottom line listen to why I believe you should win the round and not your opponent. I am unbiased and want to be able to clearly understand you. will listen to see what skills/ tactics are used in round. I love a good debate that is professional and that has a great flow, and above Articulation is a big key for me. I am not a big all debates on the topic. Do not just spit out a bunch of information and not touch on it whatsoever. My judging philosophy is based on fan of fast debate. When debaters are going following all rules and being able to debate on the topic. By the end of the debate I should be able to clearly understand the one hundred miles per hour of an overload of importance of your position to the resolution. information, your argument to me starts to become unclear and unimportant--focus on what is needed to win the round. Spreading for me can be a good and bad thing. If you do spread, be clear and articulate, do not let your words run all together. Follow UIL Guidelines. Style & Delivery Preferences

CARMONA, JUAN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe that policy debate should teach students essential skills that they will need in college and in keeping with that belief I feel that I prefer a clear and concise presentation it must include a fair amount of research on the topic at hand. Also, students should learn how to properly present an idea before an which is at a normal pace and which includes audience, thus I look to debate for clear presentations that are on topic and fall within the stock issues of traditional debate. more than just reading but analysis of the plan and topic at hand. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 7 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

CARPENTER, DAVID Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I prefer to be a policy maker and default there but will evaluate the round differently if given a good reason. I appreciate good theory I view debate as primarily a critical thinking and topicality debate but have a fairly high standard for what it takes to earn a ballot. Kritical arguments are welcome but do not activity so any presentation that does not assume I am familiar with your author. interfere with comprehension is okay. Style & Delivery Preferences

CARPENTER, LARRY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 3 3 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I consider myself a tabula rasa judge who, in a very close round, will lean toward stock issues. I look for good clash of arguments and Organized and a rate that I can flow. depth of analysis within given cases. Rate of speech only becomes an issue if you are going too quickly that I cannot flow your case. If I can’t flow you, then I cannot accurately assess your team’s position. Be organized! Please do not use fillers just because you have time left on the clock. Use your time wisely with meaningful, accurate points. Style & Delivery Preferences

CEDILLO, GERALD Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Stocks and Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Policymaker Equal Equal Stock issues judge but this doesn't mean debaters should presume I will make arguments for them. Clearly constructed and weighted Lastly, speed kills. debate should be about impact calculus usually takes the round for me. communication and understanding. The more complicated and complex argumentation That being said, if arguments are clearly linked and developed, I will vote on what you tell me to vote on. requires the more patient and gifted speaker, not the fastest. stay polite or your speaker points will suffer. Thank you

Topicality requires a higher degree of scrutiny but if run correctly, I will always consider this. I am adept and understand K but it must clearly link and be well defined. Style & Delivery Preferences

CHANG-GU, BRUCE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe that the debate should resolve/discuss the topic. I have experience in both traditional and critical debate so feel free to debate in positions you are most comfortable with.

Although I will listen to any argument, debaters should make clear why I should evaluate the argument (this applies to both traditional and kritikal debate) in order for me to determine the purpose of my ballot. If not given a reason, I will default to simple impact calculus.

Ask before round if you have any more questions about my paradigm. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 8 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

CHAO, ISAAC Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 5 2 5 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe that debate is a game where most rules are up to dispute by the debaters in question. As such, I attempt to adjudicate rounds Spreading is no substitute for quality of with as few preconceived notions as possible. arguments (and quality of warrants especially).

My typical decision calculus goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the I'm flexible on style and delivery. I am framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that inflexible on the norms of showing your framework. My goal is to make the decision that requires the least amount of intervention so that the prior clauses (a/b/c) are ideally opponent(s) respect and keeping the round resolved via the arguments debaters make in round. accessible and educational, particularly if you are much better than they are. Aggressive argumentation is recommended; rudeness and disrespect, however, are unacceptable. I will vote off any argument so long as it qualifies as an argument (i.e. it has a claim which is warranted and implicated). See my paradigm on judgephilosophies for a more detailed description of what I believe about debate. Style & Delivery Preferences *Caveat - below, I marked "Topicality arguments" as a 2, indicating that I rarely vote on them. This is not because I have paradigmatic objections to T; rather, I just find that debaters rarely go for that flow. Read it if you'd like; I won't hack against it.*

CHAPA, VANESSA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 5 5 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal As a tab judge, it is very important for the debaters to give me voters and weigh the round. Ks are not my favorite arguments, but I will Communication is key. I do take style and take them into account and vote on them when asked to. 1 or 2 new arguments in the 2NC are acceptable, but it should not be a time delivery into account, however, the arguments to run a whole new neg strategy. Do not waste my time running several off case and on case arguments in the 1NC and then kick out themselves carry more weight. Speed should of half of the arguments during rebuttals. Many times, this just leaves me with a messy debate to figure out rather than fully developing not interfere with your ability to communicate fewer arguments throughout the round. Roadmaps and signposts are appreciated. clearly. Style & Delivery Preferences

CHEN, YAO YAO Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABDE Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I will adapt to your style and argumentative preferences. I am very flow centric. Generally, I am tech over truth, but an argument must Clarity matters more than speed be sufficiently extended and warranted for it to matter. Style & Delivery Preferences

CHRISTENSEN, DEANNE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 4 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a stock issues judge primarily but will default policy maker. I do not like K. I expect the debaters to do the work for me and do not I expect the debaters to be polite to each like to intervene as a judge. That said, if you force me to do the work for you then you risk me using my paradigm. If affirmative does other and the judge. I want a slightly faster not uphold the burden of proving that the SQ does not solve then I will vote negative (unless they run a counter plan and then the than normal conversational rate-this is a negative must uphold the same burden). I don't like arguments ran as a time suck- if you are going to make the argument then there communication event not a auction. Please should be merit to it. I expect you to extend your case and to tell me the significance of why it matters. It is not enough to just say you don't waste time in the round-we have a win an argument-tell me why the argument is important. I like clear links and analysis. I like solutions that are workable and not just schedule to keep so come with your pre-flow hypothetical. Give me impact calculus and clear voters. done, your materials clearly labeled and easily accessed for flashing or providing to opponent. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 9 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

CLEVELAND, SARAH Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock issues, traditional. Prefer clean crystallization over line by line. presentation is key, traditional clean & clear debates are best

Don't make me do the work for you. If you want it judged, you must clearly articulate & weigh Style & Delivery Preferences

CONTRERAS, ELIZABETH Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 2 4 4 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Having done policy on both TFA and UIL in high school, I am comfortable with a wide variety of arguments on this topic. I tell Signposting, and slowing down on tag lines competitors before round that I will vote on literally any argument- as long as they can back it up with evidence and convince me of the and authors is critical to my understanding of magnitude and impact of the harms of passing or not passing. I like for partners to be consistent in what they're saying in CX and in the argument. speeches. i was taught policy by a rule following coach, and I therefore like to see the standards being upheld in round. Style & Delivery Preferences

COPPEDGE, ANNA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 3 4 5 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Policymaker, but I’ve evolved from a stock issues background. I weigh the round so an impact calculus is a requirement and I’m fine Speed should not sacrifice clarity or with generic DA’s. I don’t have a problem with CP’s or K’s as long as they are run well. I feel like K’s should be over explained as to persuasiveness. Speed doesn’t bother me as really make them a worthwhile argument. long as you signpost and the tag lines are stressed, since I still flow by hand. Debate is a communication contest, so once you’ve read the evidence tell me why it is important – persuade me. Style & Delivery Preferences

CORNISH, ANDREW Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should evaluate it. This also means the I think you should adhere to the norms of the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions. organization for which you are competing. I I tend to only vote for some offensive reason for your side of the debate (coupled with defense usually helps), but I have a hard time will punish excessive speed by docking voting for only solvency defense, inherency, etc. speaker points, but can flow it and will I err neg on CP theory and towards competing interpretations on topicality. evaluate the win by the arguments I think new arguments in the 2NC is not strategic and I don't enjoy those debates. themselves. Please ask any questions you have. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 10 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A 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 AB Offense/Defense Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe a debate round should have a balance of offensive and defensive arguments and the debaters should weigh those The UIL ballot indicates I should evaluate arguments in the round. I am not opposed to any particular argument. Its important to me that krikik alternatives clearly explain the speed as a criteria for assigning speaker role of the ballot. Topicality probably requires some sort of abuse story or at least an explanation of what arguments you cannot make points, and I will follow the norms of the because of their 1AC choice. I am willing to answer any specific questions you might have before the round. organization I'm judging for. Style & Delivery Preferences

CRAIG, RYAN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 5 5 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal CX debate should be strictly policy argumentation. I value good arguments over the number of arguments. I am pretty open to all This event is a communication event, so arguments except Kritikal arguments. K's have no place in CX debate, in my opinion. I will listen to it, but I will not vote on it. To win speak clearly. I can understand you going the round, tell me what to do. As the judge, I'm not supposed to intervene in the decision, so make it crystal clear why you win the fast, but if your words are jumbled and I can't round. Impact calculus is a great tool to utilize in the round, and chances are it will be one of the deciding factors in the round. understand you, then why even be in the round? Style & Delivery Preferences

CRAWFORD, DAN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 3 4 1 2 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal 1. I want teams to "hit the HITSS." (Significance not so much since that is part of harms and disads.) NO SPREADING. 2. Show me that you understand and can extend what you are reading in your constructive. 3. No tolerance for spreading. I value quality, well-developed arguments over blurt in out a massive volume of info. 4. I don't require negative to present a counter-plan Style & Delivery Preferences

CZARNEK, HALEY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 4 3 4 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I want to be told exactly why I should vote. Be very clear about what I’m weighing and what I should value most highly. If you’re It’s important to me that education is running a T or another argument based in rules or morality, tell me what the role of the ballot is. prioritized in the round. I take into account Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. If you spend the vast majority of your time reading it is unlikely clarity (I’m only okay with spreading cards) as you are articulating your framework or giving me reasons to vote. Signposting is also vital; tell me what you’re responding to, down to well as courtesy. I do not like badgering in CX the subpoint or specific card, and show me the clash. The more work I have to do for you, the less likely the round is to go the way you or teams purposefully withholding information want it. til the last second. Also, I am unlikely to know The only arguments I am picky about are CPs. I strongly prefer that they be non-topical, and that teams only run one if they have a every obscure acronym or fact; if it’s strong understanding of its competitiveness. important to the round, make sure it is explained fully and clearly. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 11 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

D'AMICO, NICHOLAS Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks D Res. Issues Quality 1 4 4 4 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Metaphysics. My worldview is that I see Education from the perspective of being a social change activity and one designed to help I will look for the qualities and quantities students become future leaders prepared to deal with our society's future problems, both predictable and unpredictable. mentioned above. Less is more. It is not how much the debaters say, but how well they say it, considering both verbal and non verbal language. Epistemology. Student must know their topic and understand it, not just memorize, read, or regurgitate words.

Axiology. I value all points of view, even those I may not agree with; as a judge I will be objective and not biased.

Logic. I will vote for the the winner based on the consistency and logical connections of arguments presented. Style & Delivery Preferences

DAMM, VICTOR Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ADE Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a policymaker by default. Don't be mean. Have fun. I am more likely to enjoy the round if it looks like you are enjoying the round. Style & Delivery Preferences

DANIELS, JOHN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I need to be able to understand you. Tell me how to weigh the round, and tell me the real-world implications. Don't overload the aff I need to be able to hear and understand you. with 10 off-case arguments. There should be real CLASH in the round. Neg, bring on-case arguments. I will not flow Kritiks. I will not flow spread/rapid-fire. Speed is ok, as long as you're understandable. Style & Delivery Preferences

DARBY, BRIAN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Tell me what to vote for and I will. I evaluate the round and arguments as you present them. I need link stories and impact calculus... if Slow and steady going for theory I need you to explain and show abuse. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 12 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

DAVIES, TIMOTHY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AC Res. Issues Quality 4 4 3 4 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I have a lot of experience judging and debating Lincoln Douglass and policy debate. I flow and judge the round however it is presented I am fine with any sort of delivery, including to me and can adapt to varying debate styles. I prefer to listen to arguments based in empirical evidence with lots of impact calculus. spreading. Kritiks have to have strong links for me and alts that have realistic solvency. I am a huge fan of good theory debate, but don't call rampant abuses in the round. I have a higher threshold for earning '30' speaker points than many and you must not only be a clear communicator but an effective communicator and player of the debate game to earn these points. For my decisions, I place a lot of weight on theory/topicality, and then examine the substance of the solvency and impact debate. Style & Delivery Preferences

DAVILA, MICHELLE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 5 5 5 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I consider myself to be a traditionalist in both Policy Debate and Lincoln Douglas debate. I am a STOCKS judge, so I want to see well I do not like spreading, or double breathing. I formed, well articulated arguments that are supported by evidence. I don't appreciate information dumps, or giving a preponderance of want to be able to understand your speech, evidence without really understanding your claims. Students should know their cases very well at the State level and be prepared to as this is a speaking event. If you are unclear defend their affirmatives. I am open to non-traditional negative positions such as both topical and non-topical counterplans. I will hear I will tell you so and stop flowing. a kritik, but it must be original and not a rehashed kritik we've all heard before, used for this year's topic. I want to see a true, clean traditional debate with significant clash on real issues. Style & Delivery Preferences

DAVIS, GEORGE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 2 4 3 3 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal As a policymaker, I want to hear reasonable and convincing arguments with links and warrants. I am not interested in your burying Do not spread. Do not speed read. You are a your opponent in a mountain of cards. Cards should be the support for your argument not the sole basis of your case. Know what your debater and should have some style to your position is and be able to discuss it, explain it in your own words. Explain the logic of the argument and the plan. Arguments and plans presentation. This is persuasive speaking. that skew the resolution to the obscure will not get my ballot. Plans with effective argumentation and support that speak to the heart of Convince me. Signpost your arguments along the resolution or to logical, reasoned positions or responses will earn my ballot. I would enjoy hearing creative or innovative cases that the way. Promote engaging discussion and speak to the issues. However, I am not interested in emotional or frivolous pleas or positions. Emphasize your tags, warrant your debate. Keep time for yourself to know where arguments. I want to hear clash in the round. I am okay with counterplans as long as they are run well. I am not fond of jargon for the you are in your arguments. Speaking style, sake of impressing your opponent or your judge. Don't insult my intelligence nor that of your opponent. Do not play games. Don't tone of voice, variance of pitch, and emphasis waste my time or yours with insignificant arguments. of key points all influence my ballot. I have degrees in psychology, education and mathematics. Style & Delivery Preferences

DE LOS SANTOS, RENE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 2 4 5 3 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal No Spreading. I want to hear the Argument develop and extend the Logic Flow. Slow and Methodical Style & Delivery Preferences

page 13 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

DE LOS SANTOS, RENE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 2 4 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I want to hear the argument Develop and be defined first then argued. Students should go into the round and not assume that a judge No Spreading- I want to hear articulation has heard the argument before. The Student should be about to state a case from an idea. Style & Delivery Preferences

DELEON, ROSENDO Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 2 4 2 4 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I like clashes in the debate. I want to see great analysis and reasoning. Communicative style of delivery. I think that speed often gets in the way of I also like to hear a very well constructed case with support . Do not attack the debater but attack the the case. I want to hear cases communication. that strongly are rooted on the stock issues and deal strongly on the topic. Style & Delivery Preferences

DENNY, MELLESSA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I will vote on any issues brought up in the round. However, I am relatively traditional and like stock issues and good policy makers. I I believe debate is a communication sport so I like direct clash. I like good analysis of evidence not just reading of cards. want to hear good communication. I can flow well and do not mind speed as long as you are communicating well and using your time. Style & Delivery Preferences

DENNY, STEVEN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 4 4 3 4 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I think communication is important but I can flow quickly. I want to see clash in the debate. I want to hear analysis not just the reading To me, communication is important but it is of cards. I lean towards being a policymaker but I also like to see stock issues. I will judge the round on what happens IN the round, not what wins the round. I look at substantive not what I think or know. Thus, I will vote on any arguments that are brought up--Ks, CPs, etc.--if you do what you need to do to prove issues and who proves what. you win that argument. I have not judged much this year in CX because I am running for office to be a district judge. But I know CX Style & Delivery Preferences

page 14 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

DICKSON, ALEX Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AK Res. Issues Quality 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 tournament, so you must adapt to the Speed isn't an issue as long as its clear and philosophy of the tournament when it comes to communication. At the end of the day, I vote where the flow and the debate round tells articulate. Remember, this is a UIL Academic me to vote. Please ask if you need any clarification. competition, and you must adapt. Style & Delivery Preferences

DICKSON, CHRISTOPHER Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I consider myself tabula rasa. I am clean slate. I want you to tell me why a particular argument is important in the round and how I I can flow speed. You must be clear and should weigh it. I think it is important to weigh arguments against each other. I don't think you should be rude to your opponent. I think articulate. However, please keep in mind this 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 is a UIL State event - so you must adapt to vote on anything...tell me why you win it. Weigh it in the round and I will vote on it. the rules and regulations of the meet. Style & Delivery Preferences

DIPIAZZA, PHILIP Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDE Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its Like every judge, I look for smart, well- theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments. reasoned arguments. I have no real Spin control is extremely important to me, and compelling explanations and/or examples will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity preference regarding style, but I am familiar and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I and comfortable with contemporary trends also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged. such as speed, conditionality, and kritiks. As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I prefer strong internal link Style should be dictated by content and stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; strategy. Do what you’re good at, and I will if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary do my best to render a careful, well thought- which means more than just presenting a counterplan, alternative, or methodology that solves better. Please be sure to explain your out decision. position and its relation to the other arguments in the round. I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution. Framework is debatable, but I prefer substantive arguments that respond to the level of criticism underwriting the 1AC. Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) I think there is a difference between intensity and rudeness. Please be mindful of this. Style & Delivery Preferences

DO, HANH Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AJ Stocks and Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 2 1 Philosophy Statement Policymaker Equal Equal I'm a stocks/policy maker. I'm not big into the K debate. I prefer you to debate directly on the issue although I will entertain theory as Speak clearly and concisely. Don't sacrifice well. I just need links to be strong, easy, uncomplicated and most of all argumentation needs to be UNIQUE AND PROPERLY clarity for speed EVER! FORMATTED!! Please make sure DAs,T's CPs, have all their pieces together and DO THE WORK. I am not here to make assumptions. My first voter is to down based on burdens, Aff has burden of proof, Neg has burden to clash. The other team must identify this and call it out. I need you to impact the round eventually on a macro level and clear narratives are welcome. Impact it and write my ballot for me. You also ALWAYS NEED TO PRIORITIZE THE ARGUMENTATION AT THE END OF THE DAY to control how you ballot. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 15 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

DONALD, KANDACE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 2 2 3 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a tabula rasa judge, so I come in with an open mind to all arguments. However, I prefer the traditional style of debate and I strictly Speed and spreading are two separate follow the UIL rules and guidelines. When the round becomes difficult to frame, or neither team shows a clear warrant for the win, I entities. Debaters typically speak faster than default to stock issues. Although the negative team should always create arguments against the affirmative case, the affirmative team someone would while having a normal is required to present a prima facie case regardless of whether or not the negative team approaches each stock issue. The affirmative conversation, so speed is acceptable to some should present an affirmative case complete with all five stock issues in the first affirmative constructive. Ideally, each team will extent. Spreading, or speed that gets in the continue to uphold their arguments throughout each speech during the debate. way of effective communication, will prevent the debater from receiving the maximum amount of speaker points. Debaters should always maintain a professional and respectful demeanor. I prefer traditional debates and discourage teams from running a performance debate. Style & Delivery Preferences

DONALDSON, MICHAEL Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a tab judge who is willing to listen to any argument that you want to throw out into the round. If I am not given a specific weighing Please give clear tag lines and be explicit with mechanism or framework to view the round through, I will default to a policy maker outlook. I want debaters to work to provide a clear your organization. and organized round that includes analysis of their ideas - don't just read evidence...USE IT as a tool to help make a point. I enjoy rounds that have a lot of clash and clear offense. No argument is off limits for me, but I don't like it when arguments are left underdeveloped or are not clearly labeled. I value pretty much all arguments on the same level - so go with whatever strategy that you feel most comfortable with. Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you are confused! Style & Delivery Preferences

DOOLEY, MATT Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a blank slate. I enjoy all types of arguments. I'm willing to entertain virtually any argument (within appropriate reason) so long as I have no preference as long as I can you're giving me a reason as to why I should vote off of the argument. The clearer you make things, the more likely I am to vote for understand and follow you. you. There's only a few specific things I want to touch on. I don't mind spreading as long as I can understand you. I want a strong strategy/advocacy and clash. While I'm familiar with things like Ks, DAs, Plans/CPs, etc., I'm not great at evaluating theory and topicality debates. I will evaluate them, but run them at your own risk. Style & Delivery Preferences

EDWARDS, KAY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I have no prior leanings towards any style of argument; you go to state, now do they kind of debate that you are most skilled at/find the I don't have any specific delivery preferences; most enjoyable. do what you are comfortable with and best at. Any stylistic questions would be best broached before the round for clarification.

I prefer to be given a framing mechanism for the round. Absent a framing mechanism, I will probably evaluate on an offense/defense paradigm and will give preference to higher levels of debate (i.e. if the neg reads T, that is the highest layer because it is a meta question about how debate should function). The above being said, I really would prefer to be given a weighing/framing mechanism.

(Note: I placed a 3 on Topicality because it is on a "vote on" scale not an "unacceptable/acceptable" scale. I vote on T the same way I do anything else; it needs to have substantive impacts and a weighing mechanism, not just "T is obviously good, so vote neg.") Style & Delivery Preferences

page 16 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

ESPARZA, CHRISTOPHER Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 3 4 4 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe that strategic organized strategy is a large component in the execution of building a successful case and neg strategy. While I score highly on clarity and fluency. While the kritiks and counter-plans can be successful in the negative strategy, the MUST be ran appropriately and explained thoroughly. When nature of policy debate leans towards a rapid warranting claims on either side, I believe recency and merit of the author outweigh in evidence. Theory arguments are acceptable as delivery, loss of clarity due to mumbling and well but must have background on philosophy or standards to be weighed in the round. I believe in equal distribution of work to be breaths will be weighed into account. done by both competitors in a particular team with a substantial amount of knowledge on evidence and information that is presented. Style & Delivery Preferences

FLORES, JOSE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 3 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'll vote on any argument, provided you give me a good enough reason why (voters, impacts, etc.). I like weight and impacts for your I'm okay with speed if you have to do it, but arguments (why does it matter?)with analysis and refutation skills. I want clash and I like line by line debates. If not given a good since this is UIL, I will also be evaluating your reason to vote for your argument, I will vote on the best policy option, or real world policy option. speaking skills. I want you to PERSUADE me, and not just read to me. Key tag lines and plan text. Also, I do not like rudeness. Style & Delivery Preferences

FUGLER, JP Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABJ Res. Issues Quality 3 2 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I describe myself as a tab judge. However, that doesn't mean I prefer critical argumentation. I have less experience with that type of i prefer your rate of delivery is either normal argument. While I will still vote on it, you'll need to explain the literature and why voting there is justified. or slightly faster. I tend to have a high threshold on T. I'm most comfortable with DAs and case debate. Counterplans are welcome. You'll notice I selected mostly 3s for types of arguments. That's because I don't necessarily have a preference one way or the other. Use what I said above as a guide as opposed to the listing provided. In rebuttals, I want to hear how I'm able to vote for you. Show me you understand how the different arguments left at the end of the round function together. I'm looking to make a decision that requires the least amount of intervention as possible. Style & Delivery Preferences

FURTICK, ANGELA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 5 5 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am willing to believe any reasonable argument, so s long as you have the evidence to back up the claim. Voters are important... Tell me why you should win the round. I do believe stock I appreciate good speaking skills, a roadmap issues are important as well. or sign posting when possible and debaters who are courteous and well prepared. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 17 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

GARCIA, ALEJANDRO Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 2 3 3 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I do not count flashing as prep. If you spread, please ensure that you articulate your words so that I can understand you.

A few notes on types of arguments. If you run Topicality, make sure to provide some definitions or standards. CP's are great, just really focus on how the CP's outweigh the aff's plan. I'm fine with Kritiks and Framework arguments, as long as the reasoning is made explicit to me. In other words, don't try to assert, for example, that the opponent is advocating for ideology x without clearly proving it. When debating stock issues, evidence is important.

Lastly, enjoy debating and remain calm. Style & Delivery Preferences

GARCIA, JAYCOB Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 4 4 4 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Tab and Flow judge. Ok with all forms of argumentation. Must have strong links if you use K's. Ok with Counter plans for neg. Spreading is just fine as long as tag lines are clear. Looking for good quality speaks.

Vote on the Flow. Style & Delivery Preferences

GARDEA, IRENE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Tab judge- any argument is valid as long as it is thoroughly explained and you tell me where it applies on the flow. No excessive Tags should be clear and please stay in the roadmaps. order of the flow Style & Delivery Preferences

GARDINER, DAVID Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 4 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am getting older so I can not keep the pace as well as I use to in the day. I enjoy hearing the stock issues debate, but DA's are fairly Speed is ok in the constructive's but you need necessary in my world. The K debate is something I am not a fan of as most of the link stories are trash. to slow it down in the rebuttals and clean it up. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 18 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

GARZA, LUIS Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 3 4 3 3 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I primarily look at stock issues and the plan as the framework from which to judge. I tend to be a judge that likes argumentation to be I have to be able to understand you, and that grounded somewhat in the real world as Real World scenarios resonate better with me. Not everything is black and white/a zero sum means for me that Speed and Spread is not game. Because of this, the best presentation and case grounded in real world scenarios will take precedence. That being said, if there ideal. If I can't understand you, I can't flow, so is no semblance of stock issue structure, I'll default to who makes the best case and makes the offense (Tab). I'll have to listen for what I can hear from the rapid delivery and give voters appropriately. Style & Delivery Preferences

GILL, COLIN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe that CX debate is best conducted with the mindset that both debaters are legitimate policy makers - should both sides agree I believe that decorum in debate rounds is to pure policy. Policy enactment is tricky, and I am okay with fiat considerations while keeping in mind that fiating advantages/impacts essential to keeping debate education and is not something that you get to do. Uniqueness and solvency are incredibly important criteria for me. If your plan/CP/advocacy is not approachable by all. For lack of a better way uniquely designed to address the status quo, it will be difficult for me to vote for you because I do not prefer generic "one-size-fits-all" to put it - If you are a jerk, I am not inclined to policies. Education is more important to me than any voter in rounds with topicality considerations. This means approach T with great vote for you. Never say anything in a round care. If you run a T-shell with the intent to time-suck, this is a very clear RVI for me. that would make you never want to speak to your opponent again. Style & Delivery Preferences

GOREE, BRIDGET Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 5 4 5 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I lean towards ‘policy making’ as my decision-making paradigm. That means that ‘stock issues’ will be my filter & ‘net benefits’ will be Tend to value quality and substance over my criteria for decision-making. Respect for the principles of debate and respect towards the opposition is important to adhere to at all speed. It is imperative that debaters do not times. add additional cards to fill time. Style & Delivery Preferences

GRANDSTAFF, RACHEL Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCEK Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I consider myself a tabs judge and have voted on every kind of argument at some point in my career. However, most debates lend Speed is best when very clear (articulation themselves best to the viewpoint of a policymaker, and given no other arguments about debate theory or a kritik I will default to this and slowing down for key points and taglines type of analysis. I appreciate it most when debaters do the work for me and directly answer one another's arguments - I will tend to is key). Cramming a lot of arguments in a make the decision that causes me to intervene as little as possible. speech can be good, but balancing quantity with quality and persuasion is best. Crossing the line from spirited argumentation to rudeness or personal attacks will cost That being said, all arguments benefit from being explained as thoroughly as possible. For example, running a T shell with generic speaker points. standards and voters is not appealing for me as a judge. Make arguments specific to that particular round, rather than a patently generic strategy, and I will be impressed. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 19 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

GRAYSON, REESE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Most of my experience is in a progressive format of LD. However, I started out in policy and that is where most of my foundations as a slow down on tags and authors. Try not to debater has come from. Most of my debate operates in critical arguments with obviously the usual policy args. Being very clear about spread on theory and topicality. I prefer what offense matters and why it matters more than opposing offense is important. I regularly dealt with theory and topicality when I slightly slower, but overall spreading is okay. debated and when I judge. However, it was one of my weaknesses as a debater. So, it is better if you go slower in theory and I would try to avoid putting all of your eggs into a theory debate to win the round. Feel free to ask me questions before the round... I usually try to be very clear about what I can and cannot evaluate comfortably so you can tailor your arguments as you see fit. Style & Delivery Preferences

GREGG, MARY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I have extensive experience in high school and college debate - but UIL is a game with rules and I try my best to adhere to them as a I should be able to understand every word judge. In terms of arguments, I am comfortable judging most positions, including CPs, Ks, DAs, T, etc. that you say. Speed-reading will result in deduction of speaker points, as per UIL rules. Tell me why you win the debate - the most successful debaters in front of me write the ballot. Why did your arguments overcome your I will give non-verbals so you know if you opponents' objections? need to slow down. Style & Delivery Preferences

HAREN, DEBBY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks BD Res. Issues Quality 3 1 5 3 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a recently retired high school CX coach of many years experience. Debate is a public speaking activity. Debaters with poor speaking skills will lose speaker points, but I will not use delivery as an RFD unless your delivery makes it impossible for If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker. me to understand your arguments.

When I judge a CX round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you MUST speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive. Stock issues still matter to me. Style & Delivery Preferences

Don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor. HARVEY, MIGUEL Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal 300 words is not sufficient to describe the entirety of my judging philosophy. I am generally open to whatever types of arguments Debaters should not feel as though they have debaters wish to present. I am fine with stock debate, disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks, topicality and theory arguments, and to stylistically adapt to me; everyone in our conditional advocacy. I expect debaters to weigh their arguments. This does not mean I default to utilitarianism, but if you don't give community has value. I generally coach my me your own impact calculus I will likely use offense/defense (which in the absence of weighing by the debaters is sometimes as own students to debate in the "progressive" simple as "which impact is 'bigger'." Please do not be rude or abusive. I don't like to, but will intervene if one team is racist or otherwise style. bigoted/oppressive. If it's your thing, a more thorough version of my judging philosophy can be found on either Tabroom or the NDCA wiki. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 20 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

HAYNES, TIMOTHY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks BD Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock Issues If I understand what you’re saying, speed is fine. If not——don’t do it. Style & Delivery Preferences

HEAD, TRUE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I want the debate to fun and education for the debaters. As long as you are polite and respectful you can do whatever you do best. I appreciate a good speaker but wont judge Don't assume that I know what you're talking about though. I was more of a policy guy and my partner was the kritik guy so you may the round based on it. Probably will just give just have to dumb down the theories for me and how they effect the round. Which you should know how to do. I love it if you can do you a pat on the back and a nice job. some good internal link work and control those. Also have a healthy amount of offense in the debate. Good luck Style & Delivery Preferences

HEARD, JACKSON Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 3 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am fine with any kind of argument as long as you defend your position well. Voters are very important to me you need to make clear If you become unclear in spreading I will say to me what I'm voting on, if I don't hear any voters, I will default to policymaker. "clear". Style & Delivery Preferences

HEBRON, FORREST Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 5 2 5 3 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am open to basically any type of argument. I'm tab, but that means the responsibility is on you to give me a way to evaluate the Be clear and concise. Give roadmaps and round. Untraditional arguments need a framework, or some sort of way given to evaluate them. signpost. If you are an un-organized person, At the end of the round I evaluate my flow by seeing who has more offense. Generally, the team that does the better job articulating number your arguments. Extend arguments. this, weighing, mitigating, giving their own analysis wins. I'm not the type of person to call for cards at the end of the round, so Explain arguments, and how they function in accurately represent your ev. to me, and pull out the warrants. the round-- this makes it easier for me to vote Theory is a meta-debate, but can be fun to engage in. I will listen to any theory argument, but default to competing interns to evaluate for you. Always point out mistakes your Theory and Topicality args. Topicality I don't vote on as much as I think I could be, but that's a reflection of debaters not being all that opponents have made. Make cross-x much into going for it, so no issue here if you don't want to run it as Neg. Never really had a firm opinion on New in the 2NC. interesting and useful. Doing these things will give you better speaks. Good strategy wins Kritiks- Feel free to run them. Don't assume I know the intricacies of the argument, esp. if it's something uncommon. Tell me how it rounds! Not every argument has to be carded, functions in the round (see:Framework); CPs and conditional args- I start at the beginning of the round assuming they're ok unless a but MAY help. theoretical objection is presented. That being said, my own opinion is they're 100% OK--however, if you can present a good argument that they're not, I'd be willing to vote on it; Disads- Run them if they're part of your strategy. Otherwise utilize some other sort of offense--case turns, K's, etc. Case debate- I've always liked it when teams prioritize the case. Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=hebron Style & Delivery Preferences

page 21 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

HENSLEY, CALEB Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 2 4 5 3 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe a high school CX debate should be respectful above all else because a lack of mutual respect results in an impossibility of I prefer debaters to abstain from "spread" informed debate. tactics, if possible. Though some nervousness is expected, debaters naturally excel when they exude confidence. Style & Delivery Preferences

HERNANDEZ, MATTHEW Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AK Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a current parli debater at the University of North Texas and prior to that, I debated at Athens for 4 years. I try to intervene as little if you are unclear or too fast I will call "clear" as possible and I want to adapt to you instead of the reversal. twice. After that, I will stop flowing and resume once the debater speaks clearer. When reading multiple cards, debaters should indicate distinctions between tag and -I am a tab judge. I am fine with whatever arguments you prefer to read since this is your show and I am the audience. If you are into evidence like an "and/next" or tonic change if performance, cool! (Contextualize it to the topic) If you have me on a panel with more traditional judges who like stock issues, I have a you plan to go quick. background there as well.

- I tend to be more comfortable with policy-centered arguments, but that should not discourage you from reading your favorite argument that falls outside the contour of my preferences. By the end of the debate, just be sure I know how the arguments function and don't leave me to evaluate them on my own... Style & Delivery Preferences -Explaining your argument properly+ correctly applying it + weighing it=formula for a good flow and higher speaker points. Line-by-line is also imperative for me to evaluate arguments properly.

HERNANDEZ, MAURO Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 2 3 4 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm a mix of Policy Making/Game Model paradigms. I usually sum up arguments presented on both sides and compare them to see The clearer the better. what side "won", assuming those arguments were properly presented. Style & Delivery Preferences

HERRERA, JONATHON Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 5 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My expectation is for the teams to decide what issues in the round are important AND why they are winning those arguments. I am Speed for the sake of speed is bad. Always willing to consider all arguments except theory since most debaters fail to spend sufficient time giving me any compelling reason to know your limits for how fast you can speak consider voting on theory alone. I also strongly dislike any debater who repeats the same argument multiple times during their speech. while effectively communicating. State the argument once and then move on. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 22 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

HERRERA, STEPHEN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 3 3 2 3 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I will primarily weigh my decision on the stock issues and believe it is up to the debaters to tell me what is and is not important in the Debaters must be clear as I cannot vote on round. I teach Government classes at school, so I am most interested in the way a plan is to be implemented and that the issues that I cannot understand. I should not argumentation for that plan is solid. There must be sufficient evidence to back any claim, so clarifying that for me is essential. have to work to understand you, so be clear and civil. Style & Delivery Preferences

HOLLAND, JUSTIN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 2 4 5 1 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a traditionalist. I prefer stock issues but will consider DA’s when voting. I will vote on Counterplans. I do not like to vote on I hate spreading. Anyone should be able to topicality unless it is a huge issue in the debate round and not just a filler argument. walk in and understand what you are saying. Style & Delivery Preferences

HOLLAND, ROBEY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal You should look at my paradigm online on the debate judge wiki. I can flow speed, however, I prefer pen time on tags/authors/dates. If you spread through theory blips I will likely get lost and that's on you. In short, read the sort of arguments that you are best at and I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you.

I'm more comfortable deciding rounds in which teams go for the substance of the debate (of either policy or k arguments) rather than going for theory. Topicality is fine, however, and will look to vote based on which team does the best job of resolving the standards/voters debate.

I default tech over truth and competing interps over reasonability. I can be flipped on both of those positions if you do the work on the flow. Style & Delivery Preferences

HOLMES, DAVY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I don't require strict adherence to my preferences. You've prepped the arguments that you've prepped, and it probably isn't in your This may sound like a contradiction since I best interests to drastically alter your preferred approach to debate. However, some arguments are an uphill battle with me. First, I generally think that tech > truth, but I do not generally think the aff should defend the topic. If your aff doesn't link to "regulating or funding schools is bad," then you probably have keep the most technical of flows. I will some work to do if the neg goes for framework/topicality. Second, I don't think fairness has to be an internal link to something. probably flow on my laptop, but I am pretty Fairness can be an impact. I think the neg should get a decent amount of predictable ground. Third, I will vote on topicality. I wouldn't bad at abbreviating and sometimes take a call myself a hack, but I am probably more likely than some other folks to vote on topicality. Don't take this as an invitation to go for 13 while to process what I am listening to. I would recommend not going at your absolute minutes of T in the block, but I am saying that topicality is a viable option in front of me. I probably err towards competing fastest pace, especially when reading interpretations rather than reasonability. I can be convinced otherwise; however, “we are reasonably topical” does not make sense. complex kritikal arguments or multi-point Finally, explain your k alternative. I'm sure your argument isn't that this particular round or my ballot is key to breaking down or theory blocks. Other than that, have fun. eliminating whatever it is that you're kritiking, so please be specific about what it is that you expect me to vote for. I am not familiar with or necessarily interested in a lot of kritik literature, so you probably need to do more thesis explanation than you might usually do. If I am going to vote for an argument I need to be able to put in my own words what I am voting for. I think it is your job to make sure that I am able to do that. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 23 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

HOPSON, CAROL Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 3 4 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal For me, the primary purpose of debate is persuasion that one's "side" is better than the other's. Speed for its own sake is unnecessary. Sarcasm and rudeness have no place in a debate round.

I can follow a spread, but such arguments should be purposeful and directly associated with the opposing arguments.

I am not a fan of arguments about "fairness" for one side or the other. Debaters should play the hands they're dealt.

See preferences below. Style & Delivery Preferences

HOUGHTON, ROSLYN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 3 2 4 5 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal The purpose of the debate should be the cultivation of the student in two chief areas: first, the student should learn to effectively I cannot flow what I cannot understand. If you communicate and persuade using well-evidenced claims. Second, the debater should be cultivated in such a way as to develop an must speed, your diction had better be ability to logically respond to arguments that are brought up. Likewise, the role of evidence is to back up claims, it is not sufficient to be flawless. You must do internal signposting an argument in and of itself. In short, the focus of the debate should be creating clash using well-reasoned and persuasive and slow down for the tag lines. argumentation. Argumentation that is designed to purposefully avoid clash (Kritiks, overly squirrelly affirmative cases, overly generic Disadvantages, etc.) is highly discouraged in the round. Style & Delivery Preferences

HUGHES, DUDLEY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 1 5 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a stock issues judge but they are guides and not absolutes. I am impressed with good " on case" arguments and very seldom do I I like good speaking that can be understood. consider K or CP Respect for everyone in the round is a must. I like good speaking and courteousness throughout the debate. I like it when there is a real world aspect to the arguments Style & Delivery Preferences

JIMENEZ, VALENTIN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 3 3 5 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I approach CX for its face value in that a policy needs to be addressed in the round. I am traditional in that stock issues become I prefer for the competitors to be concise in important throughout the round and line-by-line has an equal footing as the overall big picture. Evidence is crucial in policy debate their presentation by have a moderate pace and linking it to an argument thus becomes necessary. Avoid generic arguments for the sake of "wasting time". and explaining the evidence presented. Do not cross-apply a card over and over just to make a response. Tell me how the card links or answers an argument. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 24 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

JOHNSON, CLARK Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABDE Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Do what you do best, I have no preferences for what kinds of arguments I want to hear, if you weigh and impact it out I'll try to vote on speed is fine, but with it being UIL I will anything. reward you for adapting to the competition

FOR THE ARGUMENT RATINGS 1-5 since they are all rated differently for some reason, just assume that a 5 means I will listen to and vote on an argument without an issue.

Here's a link to my tabroom paradigm for more specific thoughts on things https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=clark&search_last=johnson Style & Delivery Preferences

JONES, JOSH Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 1 5 3 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Judging in so many different circuits at so many different levels, I am familiar with just about anything. In high school, my comfort zone I want the pace respectful of your opponent. was in the critical side of debate, but I am also a HUGE fan of a well-run policy strat. With that said, I hope you feel free to run That means if you are capable of spreading a whatever you enjoy running, and you should feel confident that it will all be flowed and judged accordingly. million miles an hour, but your opponent is not remotely comfortable spreading, please adjust accordingly. Style & Delivery Preferences

JORDAN, RICK Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 4 1 2 2 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I do not like spreading. I prefer stock issues and clear clash. Speaking clarity is very important. If you run topicality, advantages, and I believe CX is a communication event and disadvantages need to follow clear formats. should be treated as such. I like clear professional style. Style & Delivery Preferences

KAY, DUSTIN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 2 4 5 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe CX debate is an open book. Aff maintains the burden to provide an effective policy that addresses the topic and the negative I prefer direct, medium speed delivery. I can must provide sound reasoning the policy is ineffective or a bad choice. keep up with some elevated speed, but I must be able to decipher each element of your argument.

Speed should be slowed down to provide quality arguments over a quantity of arguments.

I am open to some K styled arguments, but they must complete and explained completely. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 25 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

KAYO, STEVEN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 2 5 3 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I try to be as tab as possible but I'll default policymaker if no framework and role of the ballot are presented and extended. Some Debate how you want. general points: - T is fine as long as it's not an obvious time suck (please don't run time suck arguments) - K's are totally cool, I'm a philosophy major, but you need to assume I haven't read your author and explain every facet of your argument to me as if I'm five. Also, if you want to run a K you need to give me a framework and distinct role of the ballot and probably win both to win the round (there are a couple of really specific exceptions to that last part but don't gamble your W on them). - I'll listen to any performance argument, just win framework and role of the ballot - Tech is important for both speaks and the W, don't get lazy with your extensions/cross applications - Sarcasm is cool, being straight up rude is not. Don't make the room uncomfortable by being a jerk or your speaks will suffer and I'll look for reasons to down you. - Racism, sexism, and vulgarity are grounds for zero speaks and an immediate loss. - If you actually debate warrants instead of throwing tags at me and saying "and that's why that argument falls" I might just cry tears of joy - I'll give detailed critiques after the round and disclose unless the people paying me say otherwise Specific questions just ask in the room Style & Delivery Preferences

KELLEY, LOGAN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABK Res. Issues Quality 4 5 3 4 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Mostly see debate's on Offense/Defense paradigm - and would like to vote this way as to minimize the amount of judge intervention I Be clear. Be civil. Be respectful. Go as fast as have.. I am fine with all sort's of debates and would prefer you to whatever you do best. you want.

Aff’s – I would prefer to have the affirmative be at least in the direction of the topic. However, I stand strong on the idea that if debate was never a space that defended you, you should not have to defend anything that you don’t want too. T/Theory – I will default to competing interps because I think it will result in the least amount of intervention. However, if I am given arguments that indicate otherwise or even that I shouldn’t evaluate T, that is a debate to be had on the flow. I have voted for and against framework debates about the same amount of times. I am particularly compelled to vote on case list/topical version of the aff’s and offensive standards, so take from that what you will. DA’s – I think uniqueness frames the direction of the link usually, please feel free to tell me why I am wrong in round. I really enjoy good politics debates almost as much as I enjoy really specific DAs. Style & Delivery Preferences CP’s – I really like DA/CP debate and will always view the CP through the lens of net benefit’s unless told otherwise. Creative counter plans are fun, but so are good counterplan theory debates.

KLEIN, MARTIN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 5 2 5 5 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My paradigm is an issue to be debated. I default to policymaker if neither side debates the paradigm issue. Warrants are key. The I expect professionalism and courtesy. Be paradigm question asks if I vote on T often -- I don't, but that is not a reflection of how I view its importance. I'm open to a wide range nice. Please signpost. Don't ask me if I'm of argumentation -- critical, theory arguments are all fair game. I don't evaluate arguments before hearing them. I try to keep an open okay with speed unless you're going to mind. demonstrate. Style & Delivery Preferences

KOHLEFFEL, ADAM Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 1 5 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I think clash and argumentation are the most important issues. I think stock issues are important, and I prefer the quality of evidence Clarity of speech is important, and I prefer over the quanity of evidence. medium speed. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 26 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

KUBICEK, JACEY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 5 4 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal As a judge I encourage creativity but I also encourage clarity. Blow me away with the creativity of your case. Teach me what your case It is in your best interest that I can understand looks like in the big picture. Shock me with how well you have thought out every detail. you. Reading quickly is fine and even necessary, don't spread.

While I will flow during your debate and align arguments with counterarguments, it is also important that you are making your connections on a macro-level. The debater’s job is to write their ballot for me. Make it clear. Explain your evidence thoughtfully; or else it is just words. You should be pointing us towards new and better experiences and policy. You must hit your impacts, hard, and make me believe that what you’re proposing (or negating) is important to YOU.

The quality of your evidence and the way that you convey your information is much more important to me than sheer speed reading. It is in your best interest to make sure that I can understand you. Style & Delivery Preferences This year’s resolution is extremely relevant with lots of available resources, therefore, please make sure that your arguments and evidence are current. Recency of solid evidence is usually going to win out for me.

LANGSTON, JASON Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 2 4 4 5 1 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Policy Maker Paradigm; I want to vote on impact calculus but will do no work on the flow for either team. If you want response flowed, Adhere to the spirit of UIL Policy Debate. be very clear where on the flow you want me to put it because I will not make that decision for you. Delivery is considered appropriate at elevated conversational. If delivery is unclear or too fast for the spirit of the competition, I will put my pen down. This is UIL Policy Debate; no spreading, no K's, counterplans are fine but should be run unconditionally or kicked correctly. Otherwise, don't run them.

Topicality is a voting issue.

Unethical arguments, arguments run for shock value, cursing, open cx, or rudeness are all causes for a dropped ballot. Style & Delivery Preferences

LAURENCE, RANDY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 5 5 5 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal The burden of the affirmative is to bring forth a plan with supporting planks that is topical under the resolved. The affirmative also Rapid delivery will not be flowed or provides supporting evidence that describes harms under the status quo, the inherent barrier prohibiting solving the harms in the considered in the decision of the round. status quo, and solvency provided by the plan for the harms presented. The negative then provides clash by discrediting the affirmative claims on the stock issues, providing disadvantages to the adoption of the affirmative plan, or providing an alternative solution to the harms. Dropped arguments are considered conceding an argument, but I need to have those dropped arguments called by the opponents. Style & Delivery Preferences

LEWIS, BRYCE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 3 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am overall looking for solid clash in the round that is unique to the round and fits the arguments made. I am not a fan of generic I do not mind spreading as long as you slow "filler" arguments just to have a longer speech or make the affirmative have to answer more. I do not like when topicality is ran just to down and speak clearly for taglines. Be be kicked first thing in rebuttals, but I understand the need for topicality. I have never seen a K be ran successfully but if I run into one respectful during CX time and stay standing that is successful I will vote. Impact calcs and voters are a must for rebuttals. the whole time. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 27 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

LEWIS, JULIE Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 5 1 5 5 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am mathematically minded. I like statistics and facts. I enjoy of flow of logical steps to reach a conclusion. Please do not assume You may read through cards quickly, but slow that I know something. I like it when you read a card, and then explain the card. Tell me exactly how your information fits into the down when you are explaining the card. If I case. I enjoy an impact calculus. Tell me why I need to vote for you plan or why the affirmative's plan will do harm. Be as specific as put my pen down, then your words are too possible. mumbled, and I cannot understand what you are saying. Style & Delivery Preferences

LEY, NOLAN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 2 3 4 5 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I prefer a debate in which clash from the Negative team towards the plan proposed by the Affirmative in the 1AC is created throughout I appreciate clear and appropriate the constructive speeches and cross examination. pronunciation. I will deduct speaker points for Stock issues are an important structure to the debate but not the entirety of which I would make a final decision. profanity, rudeness and/or any demeaning I prefer to judge based on the policy of the Plan as it relates first and foremost to the resolution and secondly, how the Affirmative plan remarks during both cross examination and compares to the Negative team's arguments. speeches. I will alert speakers if I believe their In voting on any proposed Counter Plan, DA or Kritik I will often judge based on the Impacts and weight of the argument provided. I delivery is too rapid. prefer these run in the 1NC or if run in the 2NC, limit the number (1-2) you provide to avoid spreading. If time or information is lacking to run advanced arguments in the 1NC, a brief preface or warning at the end of the 1NC or in C-X is appreciated. A wise and incorporated use of the 1NC will be valued over spreading arguments into the Negative Block. That said, I am not against any new arguments occurring in the 2NC. Although I do value empirical over theoretical evidence, I will consider creativity and deductive reasoning throughout a debate round if given argument(s) have both logic and understanding. Style & Delivery Preferences

LILES, DEREK Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABDE Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 5 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I've judged and coached for a long time. I think debate should be competitively rigorous, and to that end believe that intense research, Be clear. Jokes are nice. speed, and wide variety of knowledge (aka policy, critical theory, etc) are essential to the activity. You can do whatever you want in front of me, I'll be fine. Style & Delivery Preferences

LOPEZ, DESTINEE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 5 3 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a tab judge who will adapt to you in round. I believe you should perform however you think YOU perform best. Whether that’s If you’re going to spread vary your tone and rejecting the res / spreading or defending the stock issues and running 1 T. I will check predispositions at the door. A big theory arg pace for tags/dates. When in doubt err on the I’ve been asked about this year has been new in the 2, I do tend to err aff when 1AR calls it out and it’s well justified. (Ex: one new side of clarity over speed. If you’re spreading case card isn’t that hard to answer but 4 DA’s and a ton of new case is.) I do think a few arguments are silly like RVI’s (don’t let that theory give me a bit more pen time to get stop you though if that’s what you do well then do it.) My biggest request is that you give more than a top-level analysis. I don’t care to more than just the tags. I will evaluate hear you repeat exactly what your tag/ev says but I do care and highly value how the argument functions in round and how it applies speaker points as a measure of structure and to the aff/the DA/ alt or whatever. This will also earn you speaker points. I weigh offense more highly than defense. Please don’t make how efficient your args are and how me do the work for you at the end of the round because it leaves too much room for judge intervention. This once again means that strategic/intelligent the round was. the more analysis you do and warranted args you give the easier it is for me to evaluate. I will not assume what you’re trying to say or insert myself in what I think you mean I’ll take the args for exactly what you’ve presented. I do not believe that sexist, racist, or any type of homophobic “discourse” has a place in debate. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 28 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

LOZANO, GINA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe that policy debate is not only a debate event, it is also a communication event. Arguments should be well planned, Clarity on tag lines and in analytics are a adequately signposted and thoroughly explained. I prefer analysis to evidence overload in the 2AC and 2NC. Use evidence where must. appropriate, but offer analytics and concise overviews/underviews to more effectively communicate your points. I tend to default policy maker, but I am willing to take pretty much any argument with a solid link chain and tangible impacts either to the debate space or the world at large. I love the counterplan debate, and like to see probable net benefits presented in the DAs. K Affs are okay but need to have a seriously legitimate link to the resolution in order for me to take them seriously. Style & Delivery Preferences

LUGO, VERONICA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 3 3 2 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Debaters can be aggressive, but not rude. I'm not a fan of spreading, but I can keep up with it. Not a fan of spreading, but I can keep up with it. Make eye contact with the judge. I prefer quality over quantity---arguments. Don't just read cards and keep reading, explain them. I'm a table rasa judge. Style & Delivery Preferences

LUNA, CHRISTINA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 2 2 3 1 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I prefer traditional policy debate that sticks to stock issues and the resolution. I am not a fan of theory or conditional arguments but I Communication is more important than will hear them out. If you choose to use those arguments, you must sell them to me. speed. Style & Delivery Preferences

MACIARIELLO, RACHEL Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 2 3 3 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I read a lot of Ks in high school. I’m fine with any traditional policy arguments you want to read (DA’s, CPs, T). I don’t like reject alts. I Whatever you’re comfortable with. read specifically DnG, cap and fem in high school. Don’t read T and Dng together. I won’t vote on frivolous theory or potential abuse. I hate theory so only read it if you have to. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 29 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MADDOX, CECILIA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 3 4 5 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Debaters must prove that their arguments solve, provide better advantages, or that the disadvatages outweigh the advantages, if CP, Speed kills. I am a flow judge and can flow why it's better than Aff. quite quickly, but often with spreading, arguments are lost. I want to understand the Crucial to provide links on both sides to the arguments they are presenting. Don't drop necessary arguments. Carry argumentation arguments each team is making, so I must throughout the debate. You as a debater, through clear arguments must connect the information- must give me viable reasons to vote get their link to the round and hear them Aff or Neg. clearly. I can vote for just about any style as long as arguments are clear and refutation is linked providing me with a road map as to why I should vote a specific direction. Style & Delivery Preferences

MADER, KELLY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks DEJ Res. Issues Quality 3 1 4 4 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am not a big fan of T... show me the harms and impacts. Love CP's. speak to me quickly when reading cards, however make sure you slow down when explaining the main issues in a persuasive nature. Must tell me where to place the arguments on my flow. I prefer order or at least a road map of where you are going concerning significance, harms, inherency, T, and solvency Style & Delivery Preferences

MALDONADO, DANIELLE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 3 4 2 5 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal The Affirmative's harms/solvency must outweigh and outnumber the harms presented by the Negative. I would rather the Negative I prefer the competitor not spread; if your attack the Affirmative's plan rather than focus on structural technicalities in the round. arguments are not clear and concise I will not write them down or vote on them. Do not be overly aggressive or rude to your opponent or I will vote you down. Also, give me the evidence but then explain what it means in your own words and why it's important. Style & Delivery Preferences

MAREDIA, ALI Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Do whatever you do best and what you're comfortable with. No matter what argumentation you prefer, I will remain as unbiased as I care a lot more about the content of your possible. I'm pretty open-minded. I would consider myself a flow-centric judge, but I will heavily evaluate your analysis of the speeches rather than how you present them. arguments and issues in the debate. However, please don't be rude to your opponents.

I'd like to see you apply your arguments in an organized manner, provide thorough analysis of cards & evidence, and use critical thinking to fit all the small things and details into the wider scope of the debate as a whole. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 30 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MARTIN, JEFFREY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 5 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I have settled into a policymaker philosophy with a default to stock issues if needed. Frameworks and observations will be used if that Make sure you clearly communicate during is how the round dictates. I really believe debate is a communication competition about a clash of ideas/argumentation. Please provide your speeches. If you are muddled and this in a round. Apply arguments where you want them, I cannot do that for you. Show me that you are paying attention in a round, by unclear then I cannot flow it. If that happens addressing your opponent’s arguments with good labeling and signposting. Please do not use CX time to present arguments. Ask then it cannot be used by me to adjudicate questions, get answers, then use what you acquired as an argument during a speech. My last request is for all contestants be the round. professional, I would hate for you not to advance because I had to dock speaker points because you were rude or attacking your opponent personally. Style & Delivery Preferences

MARTIN, KINSEY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABEK Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm a tab judge that defaults to policymaker given no other framework. I don't believe in potential abuse on procedural. I'm fine with Just make sure you signpost and articulate. kritiks just make sure you explain it and warrant why it should be weighed in the debate and how it functions against the aff. Don't just read cards at me. Style & Delivery Preferences

MARTINEZ, LAUREN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 2 4 3 5 2 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am open to any argument that can be made, but personally prefer stock issues and impact calculus debates. By the end of the I prefer quality over quantity. Convince me round, I like to see consistency in arguments and definitive path by which the debate took. I believe debate is a space for testing real that I should vote for you by using analysis of world ideas, so it is pivotal that all ends of arguments are addressed and none go dropped. K's and CP's were not my favorite to run cards, do not just read a bunch of them and when I debated, and I expect clear explanations of all parts of them in order to vote on them. hope one sticks. Fast speaking is okay, but make sure it is understandable. Style & Delivery Preferences

MARTINEZ, PJ Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AD Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 4 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm fine with most arguments. I won't listen to arguments that explicitly endorse racism, sexism, etc. I'm fine with speed, but if you're debating a team that doesn't normally debate at tournaments where that's common, for the sake of your speaker points slow down. New arguments in the block: this is a common thing I see at UIL State. It's not wrong, but I give the 1AR a lot of leeway when responding to them. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 31 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MAST, JOHN Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks BD Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 4 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I am willing to adapt to that style. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. It would be rare for you to I will read evidence after many rounds, just to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Style & Delivery Preferences

MCCULLOUGH, HUNTER Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABDE Res. Issues Quality 3 5 5 5 5 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I generally try to evaluate the arguments in the debate as objectively as possible, but I'll discuss my biases below. In general debaters Speaking fast will help make more should just make the arguments they're comfortable winning. arguments, but that doesn't matter if you're not clear. Style & Delivery Preferences

MCGEE, GREGORY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AD Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 3 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am probably more of a traditional policy judge. Debaters logically debating arguments and weighing impacts carry more weight than Clear and not too fast. multiple cards. Explain your positions, link stories, and how they work within the round. Explain to me why I should or shouldn't affirm. Don't power tag your evidence or misleadingly cut cards. Style & Delivery Preferences

MCGUIRE, SHYLLER Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABE Res. Issues Quality 3 2 3 5 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I will judge a debate round both as a decision-maker of the debate and as an educator of oral argumentation. I will vote for the The purpose of debate is to deliver arguments affirmative if its proposal is inherently more advantageous than the negative option (the present system or the counterplan). The so that anyone listening to the debate may affirmative must meet its obligation to the burden of proof on each of the stock issues to win the debate. make an informed decision as to which side presents a stronger case. Debaters speaking rapidly, or making random arguments without sign-posting, do not communicate and therefore cannot win. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 32 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MCHATTON, CHRIS Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 3 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Tabula Rasa... I will buy it if it is sold well. I like to see use of current well sited evidence that supports arguments and is organized in This is a communication event after all, so its delivery. I like to see teams Listening to the opposing team rather than just bringing up canned cards and speeches. This shows a delivery needs to be clear and intelligible. I real understanding of the craft making it more educational and generally provides good clash. can handle flowing spread, but find that the best rounds don't need to sound like a person hyperventalting with a judge yelling 'clear'! Style & Delivery Preferences

MCKENZIE, RORY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 3 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My job is to be a neutral observer in the round. It's not my job to make arguments for you. I'll always look for the easiest way out in Roadmaps are literally just so I know which the round. That said, debaters should be impacting arguments. I will not be making assumptions for you (as I simply observe). pieces of paper (or excel tabs) to put where. I Debate is a game, so let's have fun. Absent other discussed avenues for voting in the round, I'll default to a policy comparison of the should be able to tell when you're reading affirmative's position and the negative's position. It's important to ask specific questions. You can also see my wiki for information pieces of evidence and hear the separation. (though some of that may be outdated). Debate smartly. Style & Delivery Preferences

MCKINLEY, JONATHAN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 3 3 5 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal As a stock issues judge I expect the affirmative team to uphold it’s burden of defending each individual aspect of their respective case. Rate of Delivery - Please articulate clearly I will write a ballot of negation given that the negative team somehow argues effectively that the affirmative team is flawed in one of and stress taglines, authors, and dates. their stock issues. I buy all impacts and argumentation given proper warrants and cohesive links. I expect a thorough impact calculus Differentiate in tone of voice between somewhere in the rebuttals as well as the designation of specific arguments that act as voters in a round. analytics and evidence to make it more pronounced. Spreading in all other areas of Despite being stock issues by default, I am fairly open to untraditional, unorthodox, or progressive arguments from either the Negative the round is perfectly fine. team or Affirmative team. Just explain as to how they are related and warrant a ballot in favor of a specific team. Meaning I can become tab if you warrant me to, but I will default to stock issues. Prompting/Open Cross-Examination - Refer to league/tournament specific rules. Coach of a high school debate team. ● Policy debater all four years of high school. ● Frequently judge for Policy debate Style & Delivery Preferences

MCWILLIAMS, ALICIA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 3 3 4 4 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Overall, I will evaluate everything within the round as it is presented. Just be sure to slow down on the tags. Otherwise I cannot flow and it's pointless to Stock issues are great but I definitely encourage debate to go beyond just these issues. read the card. I will put my pen down if you are too fast or unclear. Stay respectful of your Topicality: I definitely consider when voting, but not a sole winning argument. opponents both with your tone and with regards to their time. I will evaluate the win Disadvantages: Run/refute correctly and thoroughly to have a chance of winning this argument. Winning a DA sets you in good based on arguments, but will deduct speaker points for the other items. position to win the round. Kritiks/Counterplans: Must be run correctly and refuted thoroughly. Not as likely to be a major voting issue but I'll listen if they're run. Compare "Aff world" to Status quo and give voters in the rebuttals. Tell me what you're winning and why it is a major argument in the round. Do not tell me an argument was dropped unless you have flowed to the 't'. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 33 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MEEK, REBECCA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks BE Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 4 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a policy maker judge with a strong stock issue influence. I will vote on Topicality if it is valid or dropped. I prefer to see offensive I like good speaking skills and organization. argumentation but will vote on defensive arguments that are dropped. Please weigh the round. Please give voters at the end of the Please sign-post your arguments. I can round to clarify why you win the round. handle moderate speed if the speaker is very clear. Style & Delivery Preferences

MEISEL, EMILY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I consider myself first and foremost to be a stock issues judge. Upholding these issues falls on the affirmative. When it comes to the I view debate as first and foremost, a negative, I appreciate on case arguments - as to off case arguments, I appreciate T's, CP,s, and DA's. I appreciate a good impact speaking event. Rate of delivery, body calculus banter. I do not like K's and will not flow spreaders which means you don't get credit for what you do. language, and eye contact are extremely important. Style & Delivery Preferences

MELIN, ERIC Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 4 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I keep a rigorous flow and evaluate arguments based on the framing arguments teams present in the round. I am open to all types of I don’t have a strong preference about style arguments and am familiar with K’s and theory arguments. and delivery. You should always be clear. Style & Delivery Preferences

MERRITTE, MICHAEL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 5 5 1 2 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock issues judge, spreading will cause the team to lose the round. I do not like the counter plans. Conversational style, yet direct clash with contentions presented in the round, stock issues will be the key with this old coach. No spreading, I think this is counter to CX being event of good communication. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 34 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MILLER, FLYNN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 4 2 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I do not believe that a judge can decide a round without divulging a baseline valueset for which to begin the discussion. Simply saying A moderate increase in speed is fine. “Tab” doesn’t help anyone. I therefore state that I am a policymaker who uses a common American value system. That means that I Politeness and proper attire are necessary for will not accept under any conditions, arguments outside of this sphere. For example, If a debater tells me that Hitler or Stalin, just to high speaker points. name just a couple of naughty boys, were just wonderful, I will not vote on it. Nor would I accept the extreme philosophies that they espoused. Save your China Heg. good block for another round. Topicality is a voting issue. I accept Kritiks so long as they are relevant to the topic. Speed is ok as long as it is clear which means some of you may need to slow down and enunciate a little more. I tend to try to not vote on a single dropped argument but look at the round overall. Don’t freak out if I stop flowing, I’m still listening. Please address your opponent’s arguments not just reply to yours. Style & Delivery Preferences

MILLER-WYATT, LYDIA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 2 4 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am basically a stock issues judge, who likes good solid arguments with good solid evidence. I dislike kritiks enormously and am not I do not mind spreading IF I can understand too fond of counterplans. After the 1st AFF, line-by-line is really essential. the initial tagline; if I cannot, I will stop flowing (and if I don't flow it, you didn't say it.) Sarcasm and snottiness might result in a unfavorable ballot. Style & Delivery Preferences

MITHANI, ALY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDE Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 4 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I treat each debate round as an academic exercise in decision making. I leave many questions of framework and impact calculus to There is no reason why competitiveness the teams debating, however if not otherwise explicitly stated I will default to a policy making framework and utilitarianism, needs to turn into aggression. Debaters who respectively. go through the motions are usually the ones T/Framework: that end up with the lowest speaker points I typically evaluate this from a competing interpretations standpoint and an offense/defense framework but can be persuaded from me. Even if you are not keeping up with otherwise. In round abuse arguments are compelling, however, they are nearly impossible to prove and I have a high threshold for the technical aspects of the debate, if you voting on them. remain engaged and committed throughout I am a fairly firm believer that debate is a game and that structural fairness is an impact. the debate, I will definitely feel more Counterplans: comfortable with giving you higher speaker I feel that 2 conditional advocacies is the most that the negative should run, much to the chagrin of most folks (new affs are an points. exception). That being said, I won't default certain ways in theory debates. I will be considerably more compelled to deem that a counterplan solves an affirmative if it is a specific CP than if it is your typical agent CP. Kritiks: The most important portion of this debate for me is the link debate and I expect a clear explanation of why the specific affirmative links. It is the negative's task to explain why the permutation cannot possibly solve back/overcome the links. I feel that the best kritik debaters are the ones who are willing to adapt their strategy and link debate to the specific affirmative that they are debating. Disadvantages: Style & Delivery Preferences I feel like I am more likely than most to say there is zero risk of a disadvantage when the uniqueness very clearly overwhelms the link or there is zero link specificity.

MONTANA, TENNA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 2 3 5 4 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Above all, CX debate is a communication event. When judging, I prefer to see professional clash. I typically lean towards stock issues. Speed can either hinder or promote an 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 each side to weigh their individual. Enunciate,carry yourself with arguments and bring their arguments full circle. grace,and always be respectful. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 35 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

MORRIS, JANET Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 4 4 4 4 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Policy-maker judge and reasonableness is very important. Because this is UIL stock issues matter. I do not argue the round for you, Clarity is more important than speed. Slightly so a roadmap and signposting are important. Drops are a voter for me, but the opposition needs to point them out. Clarity should faster than conversational is preferred. never be impeded by speed. I weigh the quality of arguments. I will vote for a K, but the alt needs to be presented with the K or shortly after. Style & Delivery Preferences

MOSMEYER, THOMAS Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe that this debate relies on a consolidation of evidence and logically-based arguments. I weigh these equally. One does not On a scale of (slow) 1-7 (fast), I flow a 5/6. supersede the other. Neither of these aspects stand on their own, without the other each respective pillar of this event, topples under Speed is tolerated under the condition that it its own weight. does not sacrifice enunciation. Style & Delivery Preferences

MUSGROVE, STEELE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 3 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal TL;DR - tab. Whatever you do - do it well. Pop your tags and authors and you're signposting. If you don't signpost you're The easiest way to get my ballot is win a framework and then win that you meet that framework the best. In the absence of a gonna have a bad time. framework I'll default to an offense/defense paradigm that essentially answers a very generic question of "what's the most good I can do," which may not be what you want. Don't do anything offensive in round like using slurs or names, I'll dock speaks or go to tab depending on the severity. Some notes on the numbers - I put down a 3 on T - I have no predisposition to T - if you win T you win T. I put down a 3 on DA - it's not essential in a winning strat, but if you like DAs go for em - I'll vote on it if you win it. I put down a 5 for acceptability of new in the 2 - if there's no theory (proper theory with an interp and reasons to prefer) then it's free range. Same with condo. Style & Delivery Preferences

MYRICK, MARILYN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 2 5 3 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Theory: I'll say clear or slow if needed, start off slower This is fine. Do it if theres abuse. I'm prob not the most receptive to frivolous theory. at the beginning of your speech so I can get Topicality: used to your voice but gauge your speed - I I used to have a sticker that said "Topicality is a Timesuck" but my paradigm on this front has probably changed. Especially on this make pretty evident facial expressions if I am topic I think Topicality is a pretty good litmus test at weighing arguments and offense but I don't think I would hedge my bets entirely lost. on T with me as a judge. I think policy ignores a lot of standards comparison/clash that it probably needed to have an in-depth T debate leaving me mostly disappointed a lot of the time. T probably isn't enough to win you a debate round on neg so if you are going all in on T you probably aren't winning unless your opponent drastically mishandles it. Overall not a huge fan. CPs: Do it, I'm receptive. A strategically ran CP/PIC is probably a good strat in front of me as long as you weigh under a given policy fw. They're good if you run them well. DisAds: Im fine with it - I am more receptive to specific links/internal links and won't just sign a ballot if you have a big stick impact. On this note, I am probably decently persuaded by a 2AC that does a lot of impact defense. However, defense isn't enough to win on the flow here. Ks: Probably my favorite style of argumentation. My kids run a lot of fem and critical/performance stuff so I am familiar with the way kritiks Style & Delivery Preferences exist & their debate application. Make sure you articulate the alt well and the impact story following the links. I am fine with K affs as long as you emphasize the framing and why my ballot is important.

page 36 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

NEIDHARDT, TANNER Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 2 4 4 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a traditional policymaker that is interested in the merits of the case before me. I believe debate is about honing persuasive I am more interested in comparative analysis than quantity of evidence. I do not mind hearing that certain aspects of an opponent's skills that you will use in the future to case have value (all of them do, even if just a sliver). It is ok for a debater to recognize the value of an opponent's case, but then I advocate for your position in whatever field want to hear why even despite that value, it will be better to adopt your position over your opponents'. This is usually best done by that may be. I want to see persuasive skills analysis *supported by evidence.* more than debate tricks. No bill has ever I think the Affirmative's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be been passed in Congress based on the speed rejected. of presentation. The best persuasion Keep in mind I am interested in sources. Evidence supported by a source that lacks credibility is not persuasive evidence. For combines emotion, analysis, and evidence. example, when presenting evidence to a jury, if the witness is not credible, a jury ignores what the witness says. Similarly, if a debate An advocate must determine what moves his judge should disregard your opponent's evidence because of the source, explain why. audience and focus on reaching that I am also interested in effective C-X. I will give weight to this interaction. C-X is a highly effective way of framing your opponent’s audience, not on what makes the advocate arguments. Remember you do not have to rebut his/her argument in C-X; instead, you should set up that argument in C-X so that you most comfortable. Look for cues; if I look can destroy it in your next speech. Keep in mind that asking one question too many, especially on the ultimate issue—“So you’re case confused, maybe you need to explain your won’t work?”—is a mistake. point in a different way. At the end, I will give the round to the side that has done a better job persuading me of his/her position based on many of the criteria above (although please do not let what is written above ever stifle your awesome creativity). Style & Delivery Preferences

NOBLE, BROOKE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 1 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I was a kritik debater in high school and qualified for the TOC, but I did not debate in college and haven't judged a debate round in a Style and delivery are not as important as couple of years. I have not judged any debates on this topic, so do not assume I have any topic-specific knowledge outside of the substance. With that said, if a team is round. There are not any arguments that I dislike. I am comfortable with kritiks and competing world views, as long as the conflicting incomprehensible the substance will not come positions are kicked out of properly in the end. Disadvantages should have solid links and internal links. The debate needs to have a through. Organization can set a team apart. clash, respond to each other's arguments - there's nothing worse than two ships passing in the night. A debate can be won on a conceded argument, but only if you explain why that conceded argument means that you win the debate, simply saying "they dropped X, that means we win" is not enough. A good debater will weigh impacts and tell me why their position ends up in an inherently better place than their opponents. I prefer teams that write my ballot for me and provide a clear reason why I should vote aff or neg. Style & Delivery Preferences

O'BRIEN, CHRIS Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 4 5 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I default to policymaker but I will evaluate the round through whatever framework you want to go for, if you are winning it. Warrant Give me pen time on tag lines and standards, analysis is the most persuasive argument you can make for me on the line by line debate, aff or neg. I believe collapsing in the 2nr on especially on theory if you want me to arguments is almost always a must to clearly win the round. For the affirmative, I am open to any case type or structure just as long as evaluate it. I prefer the neg not read all new I can flow it. I evaluate the round through the heuristics of offense and defense, the team with the most offensive arguments weighed case in the 2nc but I will never vote a team by the winning framework will win, but that does not mean I do not vote for theory or topicality. Feel free to ask more specific questions down for it. And as always, be professional. prior to the round. Style & Delivery Preferences

OCHOA, JACKLYN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 3 3 4 4 2 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Throughout the debate round communication is above al the most important aspect used to win the ballot. Meaning that there must be Speed is not an issue until it impedes clear logical provided with solid evidence to support it. Progressive styles of debate are welcomed into the round under the conditions communication and waivers on the abusive that it is ran correctly and not used to become abusive to the opponents. In terms of policy making in plans or counterplans, clear side. Meaning it becomes nearly impossible understandings of the reality and accuracy to governmental powers is vital. Stock issues are perhaps the make or break for many to understand and catch all content for flow cases, this being said the absence of them or contradicting ones will definitely cost ballots. Generally unique arguments are preferred, purposes. as it is easy to go with the obvious and basic points the resolution may provoke, this avoids repetitive and simplistic argumentation. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 37 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

OJEDA, MELODY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 3 4 4 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I want to see CLASH. For the NEG - I want to see on-case and off-case. It is not likely that I will vote neg on an off-case alone. Clash Be professional and understandable. I will with the aff directly. I am a communications coach - I want to see a practice in debate and professional communication. I will not flow not flow spread/rapid-fire, but I am fine with spread/rapid-fire, but I am fine with speed that is understandable. Aff - tell me what I am voting for and why I should vote for it! I understandable speed. Professionalism is largely want to see real-world application of whatever you're advocating for (aff or neg). Both - give me a weighing mechanism, and key - stand up front, speak to your judge do all of this professionally and politely. Ask questions before the round for clarification. (me), and be polite to all. Style & Delivery Preferences

OMORUYI, ADESUWA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Presumption: I am one of the most naturally neutral individuals I know. I will NOT favor a side because I SHOULD. I will favor a side Speed: Be understood. Be clear. If I don't flow because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. Don't assume -- just explain. it... IT NEVER HAPPENED. Remember this Speed: Be understood. Be clear. If Idon't flow it... IT NEVER HAPPENED. Remember this during warrants / impacts/ extensions. I during warrants / impacts/ extensions. I rarely rarely call for cards, so if I need to hear it, make sure you set the scene for optimal results. call for cards, so if I need to hear it, make Theory/ K: Debating about debate is fun and engaging -- if it makes sense. sure you set the scene for optimal results. Silly theories are just silly, but go back to my section on presumption - I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. If you convince me that the theory is valid, then it is for the round. I will not assume how it functions or the reasonability of it. Prove that it does or doesn't. A good K with clear explanations, links and impacts are refreshing to me. Neg must explain why aff can't perm the day away -- why is the alt superior? Aff, why is the perm better than the alt and case solo? This is where speed choices are important. Evidence: Here are a few questions you should ask yourself: Do you understand the card? Does it link to the argumentation presented? Is it topical to the context you're using it in? Do the warrants exist in the text? Is it qualified? Is it dated? ....is clipping truly worth it? T's, DA's, CPs: Policy was my niche back in the day. That being said -- I'll buy it if its clear, all conditions are met, it makes sense, and if it actually does something /proves a point. I will follow the flow, and the flow alone. Keep it clean! Finally... most importantly... tell me WHY I should be voting for you. Yes. I want voters. Explain why a drop is catastrophic. Tell me why case outweighs. You know what happens when you assume... don't Style & Delivery Preferences assume that I'm rolling with you. Explain why I should be.

ORTLEB, KIMBERLY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 5 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm tab. If you do not tell me how to vote, I will default policy and weigh the biggest impacts in the round. I prefer a clear delivery over speed. That said, spreading is fine as long as I can understand On new arguments in the 2NC, new on case arguments are fine, but new off case is not. you. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round. Style & Delivery Preferences

PEREZ, EMMANUEL Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 5 4 5 3 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I try to evaluate things based on the flow but I also do care about argument quality and speaking style, that being said if there are Speed is okay if you can be clear. obvious holes in your arguments it will be hard for me to just ignore them. I think impact weighing and comparing is a very important part of debate. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 38 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

PHELPS, RUSSELL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCD Res. Issues Quality 4 4 4 4 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I think you are responsible for how I vote. It is up to the debaters to weigh arguments and evidence coherently and explain why your You must be polite and speak clearly. I will arguments or evidence is better. That is the activity in a nutshell. How do you do that? By explaining what the argument is and why not tell you if you aren't clear. Rate of delivery there are fallacies in your opponents positions. I weigh issues as you do. I am fine with counterplans, topicality, and alternative is dependent on your clarity. If you can't arguments if they link to the aff. I have never voted on a reverse voting issue on topicality. I have voted one time on conditionality bad. spread, don't. It can be very overrated. Simply, there aren't arguments I won't listen to, there are arguments however that aren't persuasive. Be nice in cx and let your opponent answer your questions. There is never a question that either side must be forced to say either yes or no. If you are nice to each other(and you should be)the round will be educational. Style & Delivery Preferences

PHELPS, RUSSELL Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCD Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 4 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I think you are responsible for how I vote. It is up to the debaters to weigh arguments and evidence coherently and explain why your You must be polite and speak clearly. I will arguments or evidence is better. That is the activity in a nutshell. How do you do that? By explaining what the argument is and why not tell you if you aren't clear. Rate of delivery there are fallacies in your opponents positions. I weigh issues as you do. I am fine with counterplans, topicality, and alternative is dependent on your clarity. If you can't arguments if they link to the aff. I have never voted on a reverse voting issue on topicality. I have voted one time on conditionality bad. spread, don't. It can be very overrated. Simply, there aren't arguments I won't listen to, there are arguments however that aren't persuasive. Be nice in cx and let your opponent answer your questions. There is never a question that either side must be forced to say either yes or no. If you are nice to each other(and you should be)the round will be educational. Style & Delivery Preferences

PHILLIPS, SETH Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I tend to vote as a policy-maker My view on speed (spreading) is I will flow it, I will consider and vote on: but a speaker should not sacrifice articulation Topicality sometimes (e.g., if clear in-round abuse; over-limiting topic) for speed. I have some nerve deafness in my Inherency sometimes (i.e., if plan is already in status quo, then no reason to vote for Aff) left ear, so please be clear. Disadvantages almost always (i.e., if properly weighed against Aff advantages/turns) Kritiks rarely (i.e., if properly weighed; compare worlds). Alt needs to compete. "Reject" isn't sufficient. Counterplans almost always (however, must show solvency for Aff harms and not link to any DAs/other offense against Aff) Solvency/Workability almost always (i.e., a plan that doesn't work, doesn't solve for harms and thus doesn't provide a net benefit) Preferences: Conditional arguments sometimes (e.g., unless team offering argument argues otherwise, I will assume an unconditional status on all augments offered) Professionalism and civility Theory sometimes (particularly if there is clear evidence of in-round abuse such as Aff over-limiting topic, etc.) I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments Standing CX; look at judge in CX Style & Delivery Preferences

PHLIEGER, GRAHAM Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABK Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 5 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I evaluate through a tab paradigm. Give me the claim-warrant-impact and tell me why I ought to evaluate it. If you win the framing Don't let speed sacrifice clarity. I will clear you question I'll evaluate whatever offense is presented. I default to an offensive-defensive paradigm. Need to extend argumentation in twice but after that, I will stop flowing. every speech after it originally read for me to have the jurisdiction to vote on it. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 39 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

PICKENS, ANGEL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 3 4 4 5 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock issues. No k’s. Impact calc. DO NOT SPREAD SO QUICKLY I CANNOT FLOW. ALL CONTENTIONS SHOULD BE CLEAR AND ARGUED THROUGHOUT ENTIRE ROUND. IF I PUT MY PEN DOWN DURING 1AC I AM NOT FLOWING YOU. Style & Delivery Preferences

POLK, KRISTY Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 2 1 2 4 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Covering and addressing all of the stock issues is particularly important for the affirmative. I would say impacts (significance) is the Speed is fine as long as it is clear and able to most important overall. be flowed. For the negative, good clash and specific evidence against the affirmative is important. Style & Delivery Preferences

PRESTWOOD, MADISON Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Tabula Res. Issues Quality 5 3 2 4 4 5 Philosophy Statement Rasa/Game Equal Equal I'm a game theorist/tab judge so make sure you give me framework on how you want me to judge the round. If you don't give me Slow down on tags; sign posting is extremely framework/view of the round until the last rebuttals it's too late in the game. When you give me a voting framework (value to life, important; don't just read cards; I'm not afraid impact calc, whatever) make sure you actually follow the framework/voters that you lay out; don't switch it by the rebuttals. to give bottom speaks for poor organization/no analytics; do not be rude or I will vote on anything as long as you can back it up with evidence and convince me it's the best argument in the room. Do not run a unprofessional, it ruins the debate space K/CP/etc unless you know how to run it. I am perfectly fine with multi-world arguments on the neg side, it forces the aff to look at their case from all angles. Clash is extremely important in a round, if there's no clash the round loses it's educational value as well as interest factor. I will not do any footwork for you so if you don't let me know what flow it's on, you don't slow down on tags, etc. I will not flow it and therefore won't vote on it. Unless you point out dropped arguments, etc. I won't vote on it. It's the job of the neg/aff to point out critical points in the round and tell me what should be voted on. Please, please do not call abuse unless it is blatantly abusive. Style & Delivery Preferences Congrats on making it to state, good luck.

QUINN, COLIN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCD Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal As an overarching paradigm I guess I can be persuaded to vote on almost anything. Some things will require a little bit more work than Be clear others, that is not to say you shouldn't read what you want in front of me it just means you should explain everything as in depth as Speaker Points: I wasn't an awesome possible. As long as an argument has a claim warrant and impact I will evaluate it speaker in high school but here's how my Topicality: I like T debates. Competing Interpretations has its value but I find a well developed reasonability argument to probably be point system breaks down. better for debate. The way aff teams lose T debates is that the Neg has a well rounded interpretation that has a predictable limits >29.5 - Probably the best speech I can hope argument and specific instances of ground loss that should be predictable based on the resolution. The aff needs to make sure all to hear at any given tournament theory landmines in the block are handled in the 1AR. 29-29.5 - Very good - no execution errors Counterplans: I think the best counterplan debates are well developed plan specific PICs. That being said i'll vote on most 28.5-29 - Good speech - could have done counterplans. It's hard to win that a certain counterplan is illegitimate but competition is something that is under-debated. better in some areas Disadvantages: They're pretty sweet - Impact calculus should be a priority. 28-28.5 - This is probably my average Kritiks: Not familiar with some of the literature base so explain arguments more than just repeating buzzwords. The aff probably won't 27.5-28 - Some Mistakes that are pretty win the neg isn't allowed to read the K and the neg will have an uphill battle to win the aff shouldn't be allowed to weigh the plan. I obvious think framing issues are the most important here. Explain how I should evaluate the debate and if you win that it will implicate how 27-27.5 - Need to Improve - plenty of each argument plays out. mistakes in the speech Affs: Do you and i'll evaluate the debate. Whether you want to read a plan or not. My presumptions about debate won't affect how I Anything Lower - Pretty Poor performance or judge. the Neg can win framework or some other substantive strategy. It all depends on how the aff frames the debate. something egregious was done to warrant I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I try not to be but I'm pretty Style & Delivery Preferences such low speaker points visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on. Don't cheat.

page 40 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

RANDOLPH, SHELBY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 4 5 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I try to judge debate rounds holistically not off of one certain issue. I believe that in CX debate it is important that both sides have a I want to be able to understand you, speed is clear strategy and plan. I don't really enjoy rounds where teams try to throw things out there to see what sticks. For specifics-- I default not as important as clarity. to competing interps on T; I prefer real world alternatives on K's; I am fine with new in the 2NC; I default to a utilitarian framework if no other framework is given to me. Style & Delivery Preferences

RECKER, NOAH Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 5 2 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Policymaker judge. Please weigh arguments in the rebuttals and crystallization is important. I am fine with new in the 2 and also fine No spreading. with splitting the block. Please do not spread. I will miss arguments. Tell me where you want to place arguments by focusing on line by line. Style & Delivery Preferences

REYNOSO, JOSEPH Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 2 3 4 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I look for debaters to have a clear and organized style of presentation. I want debaters to be able to formulate strong arguments that Stay organized and keep your presentation at they frame in the context of the round. I prefer there to be a couple of really well developed arguments rather than a round with several a speed that is comfortable and natural for arguments that don't really "do" anything for the team that chose to run them. Stick to a strategy that you feel comfortable with and try you. Don't overdo it just to try to overload the to not jump off into unfamiliar territory - this makes it easy for you to make simple mistakes. I most clearly identify as a policy maker flow. judge, but I will place a lot of emphasis on the stock issues if that is where you feel most comfortable. Style & Delivery Preferences

RIBERA , CLAUDIA Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 4 4 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Policy Affs:if you have a traditional policy aff just slow down on the plan text pls and have some sort of impact calc in the 2AR. I think Do what you’re most comfortable. these are fine. CP/DA: Go for it. Don't forget to ask the status and PICs are fine. Test the competition of the cp(s) and make impact turns/defense. Explain why the perm(s) won't solve. K Affs: I'm all for it. There are couple things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your fw of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain this to me because all I hear is buzzwords that these authors use. Theory: I will default to “competing interps” and “No RVIs”. I will not make any presumptions on the voter level of the debate. This includes the voter (fairness/education/etc.) and the implication (drop debater/argument). Kritiks: I am cool with most Ks but if it's high theory, I am not the most well versed. Read specific links not just state bad links. EXPLAIN THE JARGON. I love well executed arguments on DAs to the permutation and conceded links that are straight turns to the aff. Give examples on the link level and actually impact it out, especially if the K says it's try or die. Framework: I lean more to competing interps than reasonability and believe that the neg should make sure to fully flesh out the link and internal link to your impact and actually make offensive arguments against fairness/education voters. TVA are my go to so if they concede it, I expect the neg to blow it up. If the neg has an advocate for it, I will be happy. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Aff teams should also go for impact turns and not just focus on i-meets because it's just defense at best. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 41 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

RIOS, JAIME Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABK Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Progressively inclined, I prefer fair and clear debate with clash. No problems with spreading insofar as enunciating and pronouncing Articulation, organization, impacts and clean are not compromised. clash are my preference.

Stock issues, Topicality, Counter-plans, Kritiks and any other type of arguments have the bearing that has been stressed by the debating teams and the evidence to supports its impacts.

Depending on debater qualities, there have been rounds where all hope had been lost in the middle speeches, but good crystallization, articulation, logic and impact calculus were able to turn the tables... Do not relent, even when all seems lost. Style & Delivery Preferences

RITZ, HOWARD Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 2 2 4 5 1 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a traditional cx debate judge voting primarily on stock issues. Crystalize the round in the rebuttles. Show abuse if running a Hate spreading ... Make sure I hear you topicality arguement. No open CX or prompting. Be courteous and make me want to vote for you. Analytics should be suported with clearly so that I can properly flow your evidence and more interested in the quality of the arguements over quantity. arguments. Style & Delivery Preferences

ROBERTS, J. MEDGAR Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 4 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am not tabula rasa. I want to vote based on what is said in the debate. I will always vote for a good argument over a bad one and I Understand that just because you can go fast, will not vote for bad arguments even if they are dropped. Debate is a communication activity. In a perfect world, I will vote for the doesn't mean you should. I think debate is an debater(s) that most clearly and concisely support their arguments in the debate. I hate having to vote for mishandled arguments and I intellectual communication activity; your style despise having to enter the debate and vote on what I think. If I make a decision based on something that wasn’t said in the debate in the debate should acknowledge both. speaker points will reflect it. If you want me to vote on a dropped argument you must appropriately impact that argument to get my attention. I want debaters to articulate concisely why I will vote for them in the debate. If you want me to judge in a certain paradigm, please take the time to put me in that paradigm; be sure to tell me why I should be there. I prefer offensive argumentation with clear decision calculus over defensive reasons why a debater “didn't lose;” there is a big difference between winning a debate and not losing it. Style & Delivery Preferences

ROBINSON, TERRI Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AD Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 3 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Things I like to see in a debate round: Please slow down on tags and authors so I Impact Calculus can flow them. Please be polite and Evidence Comparison respectful. I’m not really physically able to Clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) flow speed due to the condition of my hands. Things I don't like to see: Rude debaters (Speaker points will suffer.) Reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument. Repeating arguments rather than extending them Not a big fan of theory arguments Please feel free to ask me questions before the round. Congratulations on making it to State. I hope you have a wonderful tournament! Style & Delivery Preferences

page 42 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

ROBLEDO, ANTHONY Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 4 4 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I will flow everything I hear, but I wont connect things for you. It's your responsibility to tell me how to vote and why. I am big on the I'd rather you not spread, but if your are going role of the ballot because it tells me specifically how you want me to look at this debate round. The bigger picture should be focused to do it make sure tags are clear. Make sure on as well. you are persuasive and not just reading me eveidence. Style & Delivery Preferences

RONQUILLO, MARISSA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 4 4 3 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Generally a TAB judge. Will vote on any argument as long as the explanation is clear and justified. Will vote on topicality, Ks and Clear, no power tags and must stick to the counterplans. flow Style & Delivery Preferences

ROOT, ROBERT Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 1 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am open to most arguments, but want teams to avoid using generic link stories and big stick impacts that do not make sense. This is I prefer good argumentation over style. Make an education topic and nuke war impacts are not typically realistic. If you run any abuse stories make sure that you can show clear sure tags and cards are clearly read. abuse. I am ok with some speed especially from 1AR who needs to deal with the block but speak clearly and signpost as much as possible. Style & Delivery Preferences

ROWE, RUSSELL Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABE Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 4 2 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe it is the duty of the debaters to tell me what I should vote on. If one side clearly tells me why I should vote on an issue and This is a speech activity and therefore you the other fails to rebute it, I will vote on it. I truly will not reject any argument and I will do my best to give all arguments fair must clearly speak. If you talk too fast or I consideration. However, I have a fairly traditional view of stock issues and will readily understand stock issue arguments. And I am can't understand you, I will seriously dock easily confused by Kritiks and will readily accept theoretical arguments against them. I strongly believe that DA's and Advantages your speaker points. In addition, don't simply (Harms) must be weighed against each other and believe that final arguments need an impact calculus provided. I am also hesitant to read to me - explain your arguments. vote on Topicality unless the negative very clearly wins the argument - but I will vote on it as an absolute argument if the negative does clearly win it. Finally, I believe that constructive arguments CAN be used for new arguments. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 43 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

SCAFURO, CARL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 1 4 4 5 5 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock issues judge spreading is bad Style & Delivery Preferences

SCHWERDTFEGER, ERIC Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Tech > Truth. Quality>Quantity. I personally enjoy policy arguments, but I believe that debaters should define what debate is and what Be fast, but be clear. I will give verbal or non- rounds ought to look like through the arguments they advance in round. Whatever you decide to do, just make sure that your verbal warnings (your choice), but don't arguments relate back to the educational value of the event in one way or another. I don't much care to say this or that practice is bad, expect me to give you more than two. If you but I do draw a hard line at structure of arguments and link chains. If you don't include all of the formal components of an argument, don't adjust, I stop flowing. Presentation goes you've given me a good reason to drop it from my flow. Don't use a bunch of sketchy links and expect me to be okay with it either. If a long way, but this isn't extemp, so I view it the link is a reach, then explain why that reach is justified (why should I accept your sketchy argument?) and I'll entertain it, but I'm not as a secondary issue to the quality of your going to vote for a sketchy argument just because your opponent dropped it. I have a brain and I try to use it during round. argumentation. Style & Delivery Preferences

SHELTON, SANDRA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 4 3 4 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock Issues. Not a fan of K's. Focus on T, CP's, and DA's, especially in concerns to impact and solvency. Impact Calc in rebuttals to If spreading, project and be articulate. If I prove why you should win. Cross-ex will be upheld will honor and respect, as well as follow the UIL rules. don't understand you, this flows against you. If giving an "off time road map" let me know beforehand, or I will start time. Don't be catty in Cross-ex. Style & Delivery Preferences

SIMS, MORGAN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 5 3 3 5 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Traditional judge that falls between stock issues and policy maker. I look for a clear presentation of all case material, sign posting for Refrain from excessive spreading. Watch flow purposing, and strong presentation of all argumentation. I like the clash of the round to come from the presented material and the your volume and clarity. Make eye contact stock issues of the round. DA's, Topicality's, and CP's will be accepted for Negative argumentation. Spreading in the way I can not and don't hide behind your laptop. understanding what you are saying is hard for me to flow and could be detrimental to your success. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 44 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

SKILLMAN, VANESSA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 4 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am more of a critic of argument, this meaning that I care about the actual arguments and evidence laid out in the round. In other I can handle speed, but not muttered words, tell me why you should win, what you think is important, what I should and shouldn't weigh in the round- essentially, do the attempts. I would rather you read slow and be "hard work" for me. However, should this be an issue, I default Policymaker. I try my very best to not have any sort of "judge direct than just try to spew words to get more intervention", hence why I ask you to "do the work for me." cards on the flow. If I can't flow your speech, that means I am not getting down any of your arguments. Style & Delivery Preferences

SKINNER, CHRIS Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ADE Res. Issues Quality 5 5 5 4 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I lean toward the stock issues philosophy of judging. I will entertain counter-plans provided they are not topical. I enjoy hearing well I firmly believe that CX debate is a structured arguments with credible evidence as support. Disadvantages should be properly structured and contain links, brinks, and communication event. At times, there is a impacts. Kritiks will be tolerated provided they are not an indictment of the resolution or the CX debate process. necessity to have a speedy delivery in order to cover a large amount of information in the allotted time period, but not at the expense of communication. When speed is necessary, articulation and clarity must compensate. Style & Delivery Preferences

SKINNER, KATRESE Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABE I believe all issues Res. Issues Quality 4 5 5 5 3 5 Philosophy Statement have merit and try Equal Equal The round is what you make of it. Affirmative gets to set the scope, Negative gets to pick the arguments. Debate the way you were I prefer debaters stand and face me. I don't taught and in a way that will make your coach and your community proud of you. I love organization. Tell me what you are doing and like debaters to turn their back on each other include me in the round. Remember, I am an educator FIRST. I also love policy debate, but I am not fond of some of the progressive or stand over each other in the round. I can arguments trickling into UIL from college debate ( I can elaborate face to face). Using offensive language will earn you a quick loss. usually keep up in a fast round, but I am At the end of the round, I look at what issues were clear and the rationale behind them. I expect the debaters to explain why I should finding my self more aggravated with behavior vote on something/ not just give me issues. As a result I urge Negatives to pick their issues and Affirmatives to tell me a good clear of debaters than performance in the round. story of why I should prefer the 1AC to whatever the neg argument is. I like when debaters compare the world of the affirmative vs the Also, the whole flashing issue drives me nuts. world of the negative. Have fun and be nice. I don't believe in giving extra prep time. Work out system that is fair in the round to all. If you want to impress me, actually flow and listen to your opponents. Style & Delivery Preferences

STAFFORD, SUSAN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 4 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal 1. I tend to gravitate to stock issues. I believe argumentation should be grounded in the real world--so don't tell me that putting in bike I hate speed/spreading. I have to be able to lanes will lead to nuclear war (yes, I heard that once). understand you. If you have to speak that quickly to get your points in, then edit your 2. Evidence is necessary, relate the support to your argument. speech to the most important points to fit in allotted time. I want to hear clean & clear 3. Aff has the burden of proof. delivery. 4. Please signpost. 5. I'm not a fan of Ks. 6. Don't just throw out big words--you need to be able to explain them to me in your own words; know definitions of what you're talking about.

7. Clash and good argumentation is necessary, but play nice and be professional.

8. I look for whichever team is able to present the best argument of whether the policy presented is realistic and plausible. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 45 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

STOLTE, PRESTON Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 5 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal complete and in-depth philosophy can be found either at judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com OR by clicking on the "Paradigms" tab on I'll say clear if I find you to be lacking clarity in Tabroom.com and searching my last name. your delivery.

Here are the URLs if you would prefer to enter them by hand but that seems way harder: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Stolte%2C+Preston

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=stolte Style & Delivery Preferences

TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, tech > truth, affs should probably be topical/in the STRINGER, HEATHER Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 5 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I In regards to speed, I would say I am only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Remember, I don't get your speeches flashed to me, so this is generally I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any my first time hearing your unique form of topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy argumentation. place.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to flash. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

I am relatively new to critical debate. I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritics and how Style & Delivery Preferences they impact the debate.

SUMMERS, MATTHEW Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 5 2 5 5 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I flow each round. I expect the Affirmative to clearly state its stock issues and make it clear what the net benefits would be. I expect Although spreading is fine, if I can not flow the the Negative to either attack the case arguments or present off case arguments that not only clash with the Affirmative but offer a argument due to lack of clarity, I do not count clearly better net benefit or more important impact that outweighs the Affirmative's impacts. it in the decision. Style & Delivery Preferences

SUNDARESAN, SANKAR Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 5 5 4 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a games judge so I believe debate is just a sport/competition/game like any other sporting event. There are rules to adhere to A speaker that gets 30 for speaks from me is and best strategies to utilize to win. Your job is to put yourself in the best position to win and go onto the next round. Because of being someone who does the following: a games judge, I have a very strict view of the rules. Just like any other game where if you step out of bounds or the clock runs out the 1) Differentiates between tags/evidence play is dead. When the speech time is up YOU ARE DONE TALKING. I will not flow a single word a millisecond after time expires. I bodies am reasonable up to a certain level but if you go 5-10 seconds past speech time, I will dock points. If you continue to do this, I will give 2) Signposts well and does not jump around you a straight up 0 for speaks. Do not call for the end of prep then proceed to do a few more quick things for your speech. This is in a single flow or worse across flows cheating, if I catch you doing this for the first time I will resume prep time. 3) Conducts a very thoughtful cross-x where they dig into evidence warrants, try to bind the Theory: I have an extremely high threshold for abuse. I WILL NOT vote on sob stories of how unfair it is that conditionality exists and other team into links, etc and not “In your own how hard that makes life. If you want me to pull the trigger on theory, you need to impact it on two levels –both at the in-round level words, can you explain what your aff does”? and the macro level of debate. 4) Do not participate in the round with a thick stench of arrogance and an idea that you are Topicality: I tend to default to competing interpretations but am open to arguments on alternative evaluation mechanisms. I am pretty god’s gift to this earth. Treating your convinced by reasonability arguments. competitors and/or your partner with blatant disrespect. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 46 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

TATUM, JAIME Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 5 4 3 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a stock issues or traditionalist judge. I like to see students present a solid case with knowledge on their topic and clear understanding of what they are reading as they present their case. There should be a fair amount of clash between teams. Style & Delivery Preferences

TIPTON, SCOTT Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks Res. Issues Quality 3 3 3 5 3 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal First and foremost, debate is a communication art form. I believe in substantial clash on significant arguments made against the AFF Speed is acceptable (as long as it is Plan, preferably through stock arguments and RELATED off case arguments. Specific links are essential. Policy Debate is a clear intelligible and ran in the appropriate fashion.) weighing of advantages and disadvantages. I dislike 'gamesmanship' and teams that are obstructionist in attempting to trick their way If you do not slow down for tags, into winning the ballot. organizational labels then you are doing the round a disservice. Style & Delivery Preferences

TOBES, RACHEL Other Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Skills - Who Res. Issues Quality 3 4 3 2 2 3 Philosophy Statement debates with the Equal Equal I look at a round in real-world terms of logic. Outside of the debate bubble, do the arguments, ideas, and analysis make sense? Do Deliberate. Like a professor, a lawyer, a the ideas connect? politician. NOT an auctioneer or medical warning ad label reader on tv commercials. I like to see arguments developed with critical analysis. Have the WHY's and HOW's been answered? Neg, what is 'wrong' with Aff's (Don't spread, I won't flow.) Including, case to merit this particular argument? What does your argument show in terms of Aff's violation? How does this argument connect banging fists in the air to keep time, bouncing to your others? Aff, why does your case need to be enacted? How will it work? How do you show your case is stronger than Neg's on your heels to keep time, gasping between attacks? paragraphs, reading to yourself without looking up, or holding the timer at your face. Style & Delivery Preferences

TRENT, CECIL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 1 4 1 3 1 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock Issue Default. Follow UIL Rules. Slow and deliberate. Do not run theory. Do not run Kritiks. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 47 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

TUCKER, KRISTAN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 4 2 4 4 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I primarily vote on stock issues and DA's. I expect direct clash of arguments, direct links to case, and quality of argumentation not I do not mind speed as long as I can flow the mere quantity. I have been known to occasionally vote on a CP, but please do not utilize K's. Utilize your negative block, but be sure to argument. Please pay attention to whether I'm state that you are doing so. As a judge, I am not debating the round; therefore, as participants, you need to point out any drops, flowing or not and use this as a guide. contradictions, gaps in logic, etc. Organization and speaking ability is important. Style & Delivery Preferences

TUNE, RYAN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 2 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I like stock issues and dislike arguments that take away from the framers intent of the resolution. This is the topic you were given to Average speed, no spreading debate, and it is an important issue, so debate it. The aff needs to prove their plan will work, the neg needs to poke holes in it and prove to me it won't work. Style & Delivery Preferences

URBAN, REBEKAH Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 3 1 3 4 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a tab judge but will default to a policy maker without framework. I believe the quality of arguments is more important than the Teams should only use speed in the debate quantity of arguments and want to see teams spending the appropriate time needed to develop and answer arguments well. I will round if they can be clearly understood when listen to any argument, but I want to see teams understand the things they are running and be able to explain the warrants in their speaking. cards. Clear solvency is a must on the side of the aff, and I have a high threshold on T unless the aff case is blatantly untopical. Style & Delivery Preferences

VERCHER, DON Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABE Res. Issues Quality 5 5 3 5 1 3 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Stock issues. Will vote on the stock issues and weigh impact of case against DAs. Also will evaluate C/Ps and Kritiks if presented. If You must speak clearly and be presenting a kritik, you must understand it and explain it! It must have requisite parts. Be sure your citations contain the proper understandable. If I cannot understand you, I elements. cannot flow what you say, and it doesn't count. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 48 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

WALLACE-WEINETTE, Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AD HEATHER Res. Issues Quality 4 1 4 5 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a firm believer in debating the resolution at hand. I am a purist. I follow stocks and flow CX. I rarely vote on a T. I prefer quality Quality and gift of persuasion and speaking over quantity. I want to see a clean educationally challenging round. tactic is preferred to vomiting in a round. This is a speaking event be sure to practice the pragmatics / rhetoric of debating properly. Style & Delivery Preferences

WALTHROP, TIFFANI Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 3 5 5 5 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I consider myself an offense/defense judge. I am mostly tab (except for a few things I'll explain below) but I will default to a Watch my pen. I am never okay with racism, policymaking paradigm if not given a clear way to evaluate the round by the debaters. I don't vote on T very often unless there is a sexism, homophobia, or any of the like. good standards debate and voters are being extended throughout the round. I don't want to see T ran as a time suck. Please run disads. I want them to have a strong internal link story, and most preferably have specific links. Generic ones are fine as well as long as you're doing work on it. I love a good competitive CP. I'm fine with Ks, as long as they're not being used in a "gotcha" manner. Please do not run them if you cannot articulate the argument beyond the flowery language of the literature. Meaning, do not "explain" the argument to the other team by rereading the link tagline. Also please understand how the alt functions and be able to get that across to everyone in the room as well. I always love case turns, whether it be impact or general solvency turns. For aff teams, please be extending on your case throughout the entire round. Don't get so caught up in answering neg arguments that you forget to extend your biggest pieces of offense. I absolutely do not want to see new arguments in the 2NC. There is no reason you can't introduce everything in the 1NC. The only exceptions to this is on case finished up in the 2NC. Try to read all on case turns in the 1 if doing that. Style & Delivery Preferences

WETMORE, BENJAMIN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks AB Res. Issues Quality 5 3 5 3 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Generally tabula rasa. If the parties agree, I'll judge on any paradigm they want. Prefer signposting and a pre-speech brief guide as to what topics will be addressed in what order.

When I've judged novice or JV teams that weren't familiar with tabula rasa or paradigms, I tend to default into stock issues because that seems to be how the parties want the rounds resolved.

I have an employment-based prejudice conforming to the US legal system.

No problem with kritiks or creative off-case arguments. Style & Delivery Preferences

WHISENHUNT, TOBY Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABE Res. Issues Quality 4 2 5 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal *This is meant to provide insight to the default process I use to make decisions unless told otherwise by the debaters. I believe clear is good. strongly in the marketplace of ideas. Everything is open to debate. It is your job to sell the args and evidence. I will read cards after rounds, but I will not read ALL the cards after a round. I do have a tendency to give spin extra weight when it is uncontested or the evidence is unchallenged. Please be specific and identify the arguments you are extending and answering. Leaving it up to me to sort out what answers what is a risky proposition. Lastly I see debate as a game, but to be clear games can have profound impacts on society. That also means it is just a game. You win some, you lose some. -I view debate as comparison of competing frameworks. This refers to how the debate is decided not just the concept of K vs. Policy. Why is something more important than something else? (time frame trumps magnitude ... why?) -I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands. Left unattended I think it is hard to VTL if you have no L. -I try to limit my decision to the arguments made in the debate. Overviews If you can gratuitously use them, so can I. I don't know if this is a paperless issue or a gooey K issue, but I feel compelled to share the following: I will not apply the arguments you make to where they go without reasonable application. I will not reconstruct the debate afterwards. It is primarily your job to win the debate during the debate with your words. If you ask me to look at a card I often times will, but be specific and don't ask me to look at every card. Long story short, just because I listen to K debates does not mean abandon the line by line. Style & Delivery Preferences T - T debates and theory should be presented at a reduced rate of speed due to the blippy nature of some of the analysis. The same is true for any SPEC args. I will vote on T, but it has to be well articulated and consistent. Jargon is not always your friend. page 49 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

WHITE, JENNIFER Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 5 4 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal UIL stock issue judge. LOVE impact calculus and want to hear the warrants for you claims. Not a big fan of kritiks. I can flow speed but don't sacrifice communication for speed Style & Delivery Preferences

WILSON, ADAM Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 3 3 4 5 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I'm a tab judge that defaults to policymaker if not given (and convinced by) a clear framework. I evaluate framing/pre-fiat impacts Speak to me- DON'T READ AT ME. I don't before post-fiat impacts such as DAs, Ks, and case advantages. I'm truth > tech for the most part, therefore warrant analysis will beat expect the debaters to present their speed reading for me anytime. Solvency is a round deciding factor for me. arguments in any particular format so long as I can understand and follow their flow. Take into account my previously stated opinion on speed here. I won't give you any visual cues that you are going too fast for me- please speak so that all may understand. Style & Delivery Preferences

WINN, BRYAN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABD Res. Issues Quality 5 4 3 5 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a Tabula Rasa judge, open to most arguments but Stock Issues are important as well. I want to see clash with arguments linked This is a public Speaking event. Treat it as to the resolution on AFF and to the opponents case on NEG> Links are critical. I value analytics as well as evidence. Do not read to such. I can handle speed, but I will enforce me, present your case using sound argumentation. generic arguments will not hold water unless you link it to your opponents case. the UIL directive on Rapid Fire delivery. If I Extra points for unique arguments. can not understand you, I do not flow the argument. If I do not flow it, it never happened. Style over rhetoric, quality over quantity. Style & Delivery Preferences

WINN, SAVANNA Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 4 4 4 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal The most important part of debate is clash. What types of arguments introduced in the round doesn't matter as long as they are Spreading is fine. However, the speaker must supported. Introducing multiple arguments without giving sufficient warrants and impacts does not work for me. Quality is always be clear. If I can't understand parts of your better than quantity. argument, it will not be flowed. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 50 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

WITT, MELISSA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks BEK Res. Issues Quality 3 3 5 4 2 5 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I enjoy policy debate and do not have a preference as to type of arguments ran in the round (progressive v. traditional).Theory Always verbally emphasize taglines, citations, arguments are fine as well. I like a debate with as much clash as possible - that means arguments with specific links to the opposition and warrants when reading evidence. team. Spreading is ill-advised, as I have a hearing Rudeness will be dealt with via speaker points. Obscenity and/or open insults will earn zero speaker points. Show respect to everyone impairment. I do wear hearing aids, but if you in the room at all times. cannot stop yourself, you'll need to be loud To clarify; 1. Argumentation & Communication - I think the winner of the arguments wins the round, sometimes they are the top and very clear. I will not say "clear" in the speakers, and occasionally they are not. round because I believe it is part of your job 2. Evidence - Enough evidence to get the job done. I am a fan of overviews/underviews of positions. to demonstrate effective communication skills. 3. Quantity of Arguments - I don't believe in putting all of your eggs in one basket. I think there need to be multiple lines of attack. However, I do not enjoy a strategy where too many arguments are run such that they are ill-prepared arguments and designed to earn a "win on drops." 4. T, DA, CP, K - all valid types of argumentation 5. Conditional & New in the 2NC - Not a fan, but will listen to theory telling me why I should be. EXCEPTION: New on-case arguments should be run in the 2NC, but I will listen to theory telling me why they shouldn't be. Style & Delivery Preferences

WOODS, VICTORIA Policymaker Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks BK Res. Issues Quality 3 5 2 5 3 1 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I am a policymaker who loves a good Topicality. At the end of the day, you have to win an impact calculus. Destroy the world better Absolutely NO Speed! and faster. I like clash, and I want the students to weigh the issues in the round for me to prevent as much judicial intervention as possible. Aff needs to prove that their plan is preferable to the SQ and Neg must prove SQ. Keep in mind this is UIL State, I do not like critical arguments, and I do not think many students who run them understand their implications. Critical theory at the high school level limits the education that comes from researching the resolution; mostly due the lack of understanding by both teams about what is happening. Style & Delivery Preferences

WRIGHT, SHASTYN Tabula rasa Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 3 2 5 4 3 4 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I believe that the STOCK issues are the base of the debate and should be treated as such. I will listen to all types of off case This is a communication event and should be arguments as long as they are thoroughly explained and linked. The clash in the round and the organization of the flow are a priority to treated as such. More evidence does not me. always equal better debate. Style & Delivery Preferences

WUSTERBARTH, STEVE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 4 3 4 4 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal Debate is all about analysis and refutation. Evidence supports those. Evidence is important, but tell me where it applies. Why is your I need to be able to hear what you are saying. argument superior to your opponents'? I look for arguments and evidence applied specifically to what the other side has claimed or If you spread, make sure you highlight the stated. Don't tell me how to judge; just present your arguments and show me you know exactly what is going on in the round and why relevant information with your voice. your case/side is superior. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 51 JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOKLET — UIL CX DEBATE STATE TOURNAMENT 2017 — 4A, 5A, 6A JUDGE PARADIGM COMM./RES. ISSUES EV. QTY./QUAL. NUMERICAL RANKINGS EXPERIENCE

ZARATE, CATHERINE Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks A Res. Issues Quality 4 4 2 4 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I judge primarily based on the research and logistics behind an argument. As a prior debater and a current analytics consultant, I I consider debate a form of communication. respect research and facts over philosphy and theory. Therefore, I do not foster "speed debating" and, rather, appreciate the communicative approach to debate. It should be a discussion of facts, not distraction of theories or speed. Style & Delivery Preferences

ZAVALA, RAUL Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks ABCDEJK Res. Issues Quality 2 4 3 5 1 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal I prefer a good policy round. I will also prefer an offense over defense debates, but will conform to the style of debaters. I like T I prefer that debaters not spread, especially in arguments, but they must have in depth explanations, and standards (saying the aff does not do your interpretation isn't good rebuttals. If you do spread, make sure it is enough). I like DA's, but make sure links and impact cal are explained well. I also tend to lean towards DA turns the case arguments, clear and exaggerate taglines. but am also biased towards aff answers on solvency of the DA. CP's are fine, but have to be explained well when it comes to why the CP is better for solving the aff. Don't really like Kritiks as they are seldom run well. If you run one, do it right. Don't like theory debates, I have voted only on Theory once. Style & Delivery Preferences

ZUMAR, DAWN Stock issues Comm. Skills Quantity Qty. Arg. T CP DA Cond. Arg. Kritiks B Res. Issues Quality 3 4 4 4 3 2 Philosophy Statement Equal Equal My philosophy is that every competitor should approach the rounds with a very professional attitude. This should be a real policy Professional and well enunciated. Aff challenge that they are defending. They should be equally ready to defend the Aff or the Neg, it should be very hard to discern the construct should be delivered in a way that status quo. still makes it possible for the judge to create their own flow. All teams should be able to create very detailed flows and counter-arguments, but negative/harsh remarks will not be tolerated. This is a policy debate, personal attacks have no place on the policy floor. Both sides should remember proper speaking/cross examination etiquette. I make a concise flow of my own for both sides so it is important that I am able to understand each competitor. I am looking for specific details that support their case to include topicality, inherency, harms, and solvency. Style & Delivery Preferences

page 52