Prosper Rock Hill Swing
2022 — Frisco- Rock Hill High School, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
email@example.com email with questions or for email chain purposes.
Head Coach at McNeil.
Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.
"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015
Previously worked at UTNIF (LD), MGC(LD), and coached debaters in out rounds of TFA State in Policy and LD
prior:George Washington University ( where I briefly competed in college CX and went to some local and regional tournaments)
Parish Episcopal (competed in LD and extemp every now and then. Go to my LD section for more about my high school debate career)
I don't judge as much as I used to. Please slow down a bit on theory args, cp texts, etc. I also have dysgraphia, which results in hand cramps if I'm flowing 1 line analytics at top speed.
LD specific update...Arguments I would prefer not to hear include no perms in a method debate, afc, theory args like you should spec status of offs in speech doc, etc. Not a good judge for theory debates with no real abuse story. Speaks will be low if you read these args in front of me.
Some general information
- I am normally somewhat familiar with each topic.
- I am probably not the best judge for hardcore T and theory debates(that doesn't mean I won't evaluate these arguments, but I would prefer the debate be focused elsewhere if possible).
-I am ambivalent about disclosure theory, but will vote on it and have voted on it in the past if won in round.
If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best to articulate my decision at the end of each round and highlight a few things each debater can improve upon.
Paperless stuff- I don’t count time for flashing evidence, but will severely dock speaks if someone is stealing prep time. When someone else is flashing nobody should be taking prep.
LD- When I debated I was in out rounds at TFA state, Churchill, Stanford, Colleyville, and Alta (for LD). I will attempt to keep this as short as possible. Speed is fine and policy arguments are also fine. I mostly ran util and semi critical positions in high school, but I'm fine with whatever type of argument you want to go for( Ie go for the CP/DA if you want to or the K... I'm cool with either strat). Some things I like, but don't often seen in LD include---> debaters conceding to arguments, but still explaining why they win the round, weighing offense( i.e. scope, magnitude, probability etc), and K's with really specific links to the aff. I will increase speaks for debaters who conceded to arguments, weigh well, or run K's with specific and clear links to the aff ( rather than generic backfile link cards)
Policy – If you have questions before the round and want to know anything specific I will do my best to articulate how I view debate and give you any insights into my paradigm. Aff should probably be topical, but its possible to win that T doesn’t matter. I have read some critical literature, but slow down for more obscure authors/ positions. Specific DA’s and counterplans are great. Kritiks that link to the aff are great. Link of omission K’s are not. Word pics, and other random stuff is fine. I'm a big picture kind of guy.
Update Nov 2018- I have noticed more hostility in the debate community and would strongly prefer debaters be civil towards one another. I don't want this statement to discourage individual's from making jokes or having fun in round, but I don't tolerate overly confrontational behavior, hostile behavior, racism, sexism, and discrimination in round. I reserve the right to decrease speaks and in the most extreme cases drop a debater for creating a hostile environment
*You can refer to me as judge, Alexis, ma'am, whatever that matches my pronouns is cool with me, but nothing else otherwise your speaker points will be erased. The same goes with misgendering and/or deadnaming your opponent. If it is happens more than once you will lose the round. You probably won't make the mistake again.*
Conflicts: Prosper HS, Aubrey HS
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (this is the only email that should be put on the email chain. I don't care if you have another previous email of mine send the doc to this one.)
Graduated from Prosper High School in 2019 (I did LD for four years, did PF once, and did extemp throughout the four years occasionally.) I debated on the national circuit, TFA, NSDA, and UIL. I was a student at the University of North Texas from fall 2019 to spring 2020 and now I'm attending the University of Texas at Austin since fall 2020.
I mostly went for ks, particularly regarding post-modernism, post-structuralism, anarchism, security/militarism, and reps, but I also really like good case debate and phil/framework.
TFA State 2022 Update:
-I really do not wanna hear a ton of T and Theory rounds
-This topic sucks so make sure to delineate between aff and neg offense/ground
-If you read an independent voter I expect it to follow the actual structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact), it should hopefully be carded but it's not the end of the world, and it should have a clear and articulated terminal impact that is weighed and framed in terms of how it interacts with the other higher level arguments of the round. If its like 10 or 20 seconds long I will not vote on it.
A few important things:
-If you're familiar with Blake Andrews' paradigm that's probably quite a similar way in which I view debate (given that he was my coach).
-Give me a clear framework to evaluate the round under, the warranted offense you have to leverage under it, and weigh your offense against your opponent.
I don't mind stock debate whatsoever and if that's what you're best at go for it. I think you should generally debate in the way you find most effective, but make your arguments clear and understand them well. I find that much more respectable than running arguments you aren't familiar with.
I'm inclined to err on reasonability. If there isn't any real abuse going on in the round I probably won't vote on theory.
If I think you're being toxic, offensive, or anything else related to this then your speaks will drop and you could lose the round for it as well. I've done it before and I'll do it again.
I am NOT the judge for intense theory debates. This means if you go for it I'll do my best to give a good adjudication, but don't be surprised if it's not explained incredibly.
I won't vote on arguments I deem offensive, which is like most judges, however, I also don't vote on arguments I deem unethical (the following args are not auto-losses, but I won't evaluate them):
1. U.S. Heg Good (comparative hegemony/bipolarity is somewhat okay, but explicit u.s. exceptionalism is not)
2. Cap Good
4. Libertarian Ideology
5. Edelman or any combination of queerness with some self-violence, ex: queer bomb. I will simply not flow the argument.
If you're going to try to defend something like capitalism or NATO in front of me then you should probably do stuff like prove transition wars would be worse, under current circumstances its not possible to transition from capitalism, etc.
Also, I'm not the fastest judge when it comes to flowing, i.e. don't go full speed. If I had to quantify it maybe my speed is a 7.5/10. I'll say clear 3 times if you're too fast or unclear, after that I'll stop flowing your arguments until you decide to clear up. This will affect your speaks.
Extra Things I Like:
-Impact Turns: I think these are underutilized in debate, but keep in mind I don't mean impact turning racism bad and that sorta thing. Someone please read dedev
-Concise crystallization and voters
-Kind and wholesome humor that isn't snarky
-Tell me when to clearly switch to a new flow for overviews/counter-interps.
Extra Things I Don't Like:
-Recycled strategies and frameworks
-Rudeness or hostility. Here, I reserve the right to drop you or tank speaks as I see fit. This also applies to very rude or overly-critical post-rounding.
-Not a fan of blippy arguments and spikes
-When debaters who are objectively more experienced and skilled go overkill on their opponent. You can clearly win a round, but be easy and constructive.
-Frivolous/Time Suck Theory Strats (I won't down you for it. but I'm not gonna be thrilled and your speaks will reflect this.)
A lot of my views are pretty similar as LD generally. It comes down to a basic offense/defense paradigm and I'm more likely to default policymaker. I also tend to lean more towards competing interps.
I view PF through an offense/defense paradigm as well. I don't judge it much, but I will apply the same basic paradigm that operates under util/policymaking unless you tell me a different way to frame the round.
I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be professional- yes I like it when people stand for cross examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents speeches but also to their team member's speeches. And the other way to pick up my ballot is to focus on cross examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.
Please do not ask me what my qualifications are to judge.
I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. I don't need trigger warnings, I don't need you to cater to me because that's not what speech is about. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.
For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.
For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, well-defined points supported with a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.
For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.
Hi, my name is Holly Garrison (He/They) and I'll be your judge.
I have done debate for long enough to understand how most of this stuff works. I'm the student coach at Colleyville Heritage.
You don't have to but if you do make an email chain add me at Hollydebate22@gmail.com
- Tech over truth(If you make an argument back it up)
- I'm okay with progressive arguments
- Please don't spread My therapist said it was bad for me
- No bigotry, please
- It's PF so please don't run a K, there isn't enough time in a round to do the discussion justice so you are just reading it for a win
- When it comes to weighing I value utilitarianism so most good for most people
- I don't flow crosses but I do pay attention
- No spreading, I can handle speed but I will tell you to slow down or yell "clear" if I cannot understand you
- I will value and understand any argument as long as it is explained
- I used to do public forum so I value clear weighing and clear impacts
- I don't flow cross but I do pay attention
I expect everyone to keep their own times but if you go over time I will raise my hand. I will not take off points if you go over time by a little bit. Also please let me know if you are taking prep that way I can keep accurate times and keep the round running smoother.
Also, try to pay attention during the round but if you need to check your phone or type something just don't be disruptive
Also if y'all send an email of a picture of an axolotl to my partner at email@example.com then I will give your side an extra .1 speaker point
Let's have a good round y'all
I am blank slate. tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.
I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.
NLHS Policy 2013-2017
UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)
A&M Law 2021-
Email for chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Email for contact: email@example.com
The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.
Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):
When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.
If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.
Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.
That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.
People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.
Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.
Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.
Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.
I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.
I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.
Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.
Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.
I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)
The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.
I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.
Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.
I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).
“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.
Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."
This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.
- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.
- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.
For CX and LD:
I am primarily Stock and Policy. I.e. Framework, evidence, why this outweighs, etc. I'm not a big fan of Kritics. Give Voters!!
Seating isn't too important, but I prefer Aff on my Left, Neg on my Right.
Speed-reading is okay as long as it isn't 1000wpm.
You can keep your own time if you'd like, but I will be timing as well. My timer begins on your first word. For Prep Time, I will give 30 second intervals. Be sure to tell me to "cease prep time," otherwise it will continue to run.
Please ask "Judge ready?" before you start, I may still be writing or getting my timer ready.
Framework/going down the flow is important. If you jump back and forth from On/Off case, I may get lost and mistake your attacks for your defense and vice versa.
Off-time roadmaps are preferred, but not necessary.
I'm not great at disclosures, but everything will be on the ballot and hopefully helpful to your learning experience.
One person in the room at a time. Hand me your topic when you're ready.
The timer begins at your first word. Starting from 7m, I will hand-sign 6m-1m, give 30 seconds (horizontal, extended index finger), 15 seconds (half, horizontal, index finger), then hand-sign again from 5s-1s. For practice tournaments, a 10 second grace period past 7 minutes will be given, but it will still affect your score. I apologize ahead of time if I'm too engrossed in writing that I forget to hand-sign.
I am an assistant debate coach. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.
I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.
I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.
Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.
Kritiks are fine
Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.
I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.
If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.
Full disclosure: I love good T debates.
The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.
Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.
I want the violation to be as specific as possible.
Standards and voters are essential.
All other arguments
Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.
I don't flow it, but I pay attention.
If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.
Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.
Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.
Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!
Brief background of my debate experience:
I have been involved in speech and debate since the 90's. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a scholarship debater at USC (NDT). I also coached a LD program in a Southern CA high school a few years back. Recently, I have been judging rounds quite frequently over the last 4 years, mostly in PF and LD, but I am also familiar with this year's policy topic.
Speed is fine as long as it's clear. I will buy k's as long as the links are clearly explained and contextualized. I will only buy theory if there's clear in-round abuse. Leave tricks for Halloween.
Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: email@example.com
Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Please use a loud voice and do not full blown spread (70%) as it is the start of the year. Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch.
If you were to do any K, do it clearly, especially links and alts. Don't do performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse.
Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. Connect it back to the framework. I won't eval without extensions.
Have your cases ready!!
If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)
I'm an old school policy/stock issues judge, who likes to see debate over the resolution, & prefers your speech speed to be slow enough to where you can pronounce every word clearly & I can understand you.