London TFA Treasures
2022 — Corpus Christi, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I have been coaching and judging speech and debate for over ten years. I mainly judge speech events now that I have former debate students who travel with our school to judge at tournaments around South Texas. I have judged at the UIL State Competition in poetry and prose. I also served on the UIL Regional Advisory Committee for speech in 2019, 2021, & 2022.
When I am judging events like poetry, prose, duo, duet, etc., I want the competitor to tell a story. I will listen for variations in tempo and volume. The introduction is the time for your personality to shine through. I want to see the reason you selected this piece and for you to give energy and life to your piece.
When I judge events like extemp or original oratory, I'm looking for a well-organized speech. Support your topic with good points or reasons. Tie everything up in the conclusion.
I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.
I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.
Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.
As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:
(1) I think the topic should be debated.
(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.
(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org add me to the chain, feel free to shoot any questions my way
About me: I debated from 2017-2022 at Tuloso Midway and competed in LD, Policy and Congress and have qualified to Nationals aswell as TFA and UIL State
Note: I have Aspergers, as a result my handwriting and fine motor skills are poor, keep this in mind when spreading, if you are clear on tags and authors I should be fine but if you see me with my pen down slow down please, If I'm on the email chain this isnt as big of a problem but I really don't want resort to looking at the speech doc
TLDR: Have fun and dont be a jerk, debate how you want to debate chances are I'll be fine with it aslong as it's not problematic and hurts the debate space
LARP: These debates are always really fun, I'm a sucker for really creative Adv CPs and DAs are always welcome always like a up to date politics DA.
Trad: It's fine, I can judge it I feel like these rounds are typically the most boring but it's how I debated for half of my career so your fine. Make sure to extend your FW and tell me why it matters winning FW does not win you the round, using FW to filter offense in and out in a strategic way wins you the round. Please have your value be terminal. Contentions are cool ig just extend stuff properly.
T/Theory: I hate T and Theory debates I think it's generally a waste of time especially in LD please use this sparingly. That being said I prefer competing interps I think bc of time restrictions RVIs only in are a thing (only in LD) but can be convinced otherwised either send the shell or dont spread through it I'll probably miss it. I don't vote on stupid theory like dresscode/30 speaks. Disclosure and Condo are good
K: If your running cap go for it anything else explain to me the lit like I'm a 5 year old. I generally don't like K Affs so take that as you will
Tricks: Run at your own risk, don't expect me to catch your 5th spike on your subpoint Q, seriously though if your running tricks don't spread you're just asking me to miss something
K aff: 4
DAs: always good, the more specific the link the better, have good uniqueness and its 2022 I wanna see midterms
CPs: I like, make sure you have both an external and internal N/B, open to CP theory please don't run a plan text and call it a CP, honestly 1 card CPs are kinda cringe too.
T: T is cool I prefer competing interps but can be convinced to vote on reasonability either send the shell or dont spread through it I'll probably miss it. I much prefer case specific Ts but generic ones are fine if they are debated well
Ks: If your running cap go for it anything else explain to me the lit like I'm a 5 year old, I am more open to Ks in policy bc you have ample time to explain lit and actually engage in dialogue.
K Affs: Feel free to run but I'll be honest my experience here is lacking take that as you will
Theory: I thin you should run theory on CPs and Ks pretty much always if you have time its a fun debate, I don't vote on stupid theory like dresscode/30 speaks. I think Disclosure and Condo are good
Misc: if you can fit a Code Geass, Evangelion, or Star Wars reference that makes since in your rebuttals or tags I'll give .2 speaks and if you email me a drawing of your pets i'll give .3 speaks
I am a traditional judge. I normally judge speaking events and interpretation. I have also judged LD.
In interpretation, I appreciate natural acting in most events with the exception of Humorous. I believe you can be fully animated in Humorous Interpretation. ALWAYS have purpose for your blocking. If you have blocking just for the sake of blocking, I will rank you down. It is better to have real emotion than "fake crying" or a "crying voice." Always be true to your character(s).
In speaking, speeches should be delivered at a pace that is easily understandable. Organization is key as well as keeping the audience interested with a great vehicle.
I do not flow spreading. I believe debate is a communication event, not who can get the most arguments in the least amount of time (there is not a difference in "fast speaking" and "spreading"). If you spread, you'll get low speaks and have a hard time winning my ballot.
Debate was created to communicate and compare your points against your opponent's points. If you don't create a clear story and explanation, I will not vote you up.
I will immediately vote you down if you are rude or aggressive towards your opponent. It is one thing to debate and clash against an argument, it's another to attack your opponent.
If you plan on emailing the case to your opponent, please include me in email: email@example.com
Public Forum Debate - Purist when it comes to style and argumentation. No spreading please. Arguments should be simplistic and accessible for any person to understand. In the end the biggest impacts will win the debate.
I am a communications judge. No Kritiks please. I’m cool with some theory, not all of them (not a fan of disclosure theory).
I focus on enunciation; speak clear taglines, regardless of flashing the judge your case, it is still a speaking event.
Note: there’s a difference between fast speaking and spreading. Just make sure to enunciate your tags, signpost, etc., and you’ll be fine. if I hear heavy breathing because you’re reading too fast, it’s a problem.
Having said that, I like analytics. You can use evidence/cards and cross apply them, just ensure you provide a clear explanation as to why you’re able to cross apply them. You can’t just say “cross apply my C1 to his DA” and move on; tell me why it applies. Make sure to emphasize how it cross applies.
I like to follow the flow. I expect a good, yet understandable rebuttal. Please include me (the judge) in the email chain, if any. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
please do not be rude. If you become aggressive within the round, expect to see low speaks. It’s one thing to attack an argument, it’s another thing to attack your opponent.
Last, I do not disclose. Tournaments typically run late and I don't wanna add to the problem.
I competed in LD, Policy and Public forum my 4 years of high school and competed at both the state level and national level. I have been judging since fall of 2016, at the state and national level. I have also judged finals at NSDA nationals in policy debate last summer.
For email chain: AngelaWinn1997@gmail.com,I will only look at it, if something comes into question or if I want to look at something more clearly.
Policy Debate: If debaters have any questions, please ask! I have judged at nationals 4 times
Clash is extremally important on all sides of the debate. If something was drop in the round I will not vote on it unless it is pointed out in the round. As for things I vote on, it depends on the round and how the debater frame the round. I will vote on pretty much anything as long as the debaters explain clearly what they are arguing and how it links. If you run a K, need to be able to explain it in your own words, as well as links and impacts are important.
For spreading, I am fine with it, as long as you slow down on taglines.