2010-2011 HUDL Judging Paradigms

Abraham, John
Judging Paradigm

The way I evaluate the round based on what I see happening in the round. Obviously, my
opinions don't matter if it is not addressed in the debate.

Speed- 9/10. Slow down on card names and tag lines.

Philosophy- Philosophy minor so I am not against any philosophical view, I won't down you
simply because I can’t accept deontology as a POV. One of my favorites is Nietzsche, if you run
him well props.

Arguments- I am open to all arguments I honestly don't have any bias to where if you support
immorality and I don't I'll automatically down you, if you win the argument I'll give you credit for
it. Now, most arguments have cards and opponents like reading counter evidence. That’s
GREAT, but if there is no link or warrant for why I should prefer your evidence you wasted your
time. If a card is not responded to the right way (i.e. argument/counter evidence + warrant) I will
ignore it or more than likely just not write anything. For example, "Inevitable" or "Impossible"
one word arguments are not going to suffice, you must have a warrant. Lastly, turn does not mean
anything, if you’re going to use a turn make sure to specify if it’s a link turn or an impact turn and
how you are winning the argument to generate your offense.

Theory- I have a high t If theory is not ran the right way (i.e. interpretation, violation, standards
and voters) it doesn't count. Simply saying ground skew doesn't make it a theory argument. Make
sure the violation and voters are clear or else I won't vote on the shell.

Speaker Points- Usually range from 25-29, it’s all about your clarity and fluency when it comes to
points. 30 is basically a speaker and debater who sounds extremely clear, with very few fluency
breaks and coherent arguments.

Remember in the end of the day debate is a game. Enjoy every round have fun, sarcasm is great
just don't be mean and down talk your opponent unless it serves humorous purposes.
Qualifications

Competed at the state and national levels in policy debate.

Agho-Otoghile, Clement
Judging Paradigm

I judge, first and foremost, according to the Texas Forensic Association's Constitution, where the
ground rules are laid. Furthermore, I look for traditional debate with an unorthodox spin (if that is
the debater(s') route). I assume nothing, and will not complete any faulty
arguments/thoughts/ideas etc. (it is the debaters burden to tell me any/everything they want me to
know)!!! The debaters should speak clearly and fluently, spreading or not! I will not flow what I
do not understand. I judge what is on the flow. Other than what is sated above, I will judge the
round on the round. I am a flexible judge insofar as the job of a debater, in its simplest definition,

1
is to argue his or her side and refute the other. Debate is an educational recreation, so as long as
the round is such I say: Good Luck to all!
Qualifications

I graduated from Dulles High School this year. I debated for six years (starting in seventh grade).
I became a varsity debater my freshman year and have competed in over thirty tournaments. I
have competed nationally, sate-wide, and city-wide. I have debated in LD, CX, and Public Forum
debate. Also, I have experience in speech events such as: Student Congress, Duet Acting, Poetry,
Impromptu Speaking, and Extemporaneous Speaking. I participated in an extemporaneous round
robin at the University of New Mexico (where I also went to camp at, Commitment Dedication
Excellence, CDE), and I have earned three T.O.C. bids. I have judge (novice and varsity), and
helped supervise tournaments before.

Alderson, Scott
Judging Paradigm

As a critic, I lean toward a policy-maker paradigm. As a general rule, we wouldn’t be discussing

the issues if they weren’t significant. I don’t care if the system is the cause of the problem
(inherency). I DO care about the extent of the problem, the realistic ability to solve it, and the
potential implications of affirming or negating. If you want to win my ballot, run 2 or 3
legitimate positions, with realistic impacts, that you KNOW.

I am open to all types of argumentation. I am a student of critical literature, and love when policy
takes a back seat to philosophy. I rarely vote on Topicality; not because I’m opposed to it in
theory, rather because 80%+ of the T’s that are run are absurd and serve only to waste time….
Let me make one thing clear: I am not an interventionist in the traditional sense of the word. I
will not make an argument for any team. However, I will reject a bad argument on face. My
ballot is to be used as a tool to foster good, no, great debate. I take that purpose quite seriously.
Qualifications

In high school I competed in LD for 4 years, went to Regional and Stare in various events. Won
several state championships in CX and Parliamentary debate as a collegiate debater. As a coach
at Arkansas State, I coached 3 national champions in 3 formats of debate; including PKD
National Champions (Varsity IPDA) and Top Speaker at CEDA Nationals in 2001.

Anderson, Clarence
Judging Paradigm

My Judging is based on Facts!!!! I want you to be able to prove why and how your plan or
argument is better. I like for students to know and understand the Resolution. Also in CX
rounds, If you ask your opponent's questions, let them answer your question. Do not cut them
off.
Qualifications

I was a Debater last year at Sharpstown High School. I’ve debated Maverick and won both of my
Rounds in doing so. Also at the Andrews Kurth Championship rounds at University of Houston
my partner (Sebastian Gonzalez) and I swept our opponents and advanced to the finals at
the Federal Courthouse. Unfortunately we lost, and came in third. I'm very excited I can’t wait to

2
see you guys debate and I wish you all well, And lets Have another Great Year!

Arena, Melanie
Judging Paradigm

Topicality and supporting facts/sources are the two aspects I primarily look for to evaluate a
debate round. The Affirmative’s case should be topical and propose a policy in support of the
resolution. If the case is not topical, I expect and encourage the Negative to argue topicality. I
then evaluate the facts/sources (or lack thereof) used by each side. Multiple times, students
during their second constructive or rebuttals will make statements that are completely
unsupported. If a team cannot provide facts in support of their position, then their position has no
basis. A team has to be able to prove why their policy is needed with supporting evidence from
multiple sources.
Qualifications

I have only judged one debate tournament previously (four rounds). Of those four rounds, two
were at the varsity level and two were at the novice level.

Ashley, Jacob
Judging Paradigm

I judge from the perspective of a policy maker. I want the debate to center around solvency and
the advantage/disadvantage arguments. Tell the stories on the disadvantages and
advantages. More specifically, tell the link stories. I don't like to hear too much inherency. If
there are harms in the status quo then inherency arguments are moot unless the exact programs
outlined in the affirmative plan are being used in the status quo. I'll listen to topicality arguments
but it is important to note that topicality centers on the standards debate. Give me voters and
weigh the round! Number your arguments and keep the debate organized.
Qualifications

I debated four years in high school in the UIL and TFA circuits and am a former semifinalist and
quarterfinalist at UIL CX state. I have three years experience judging cross-examination debate
tournaments on multiple circuits.

Azubuike, Stephanie
Judging Paradigm

How I decide debates: I decide debates based a lot from on-case arguments, and advantages vs.
disads. I detest Theoretical Implications as well as Kritiks. I will buy an argument based on at
least one card of evidence, but I will consider LOGICAL analytical arguments. I look to see
which team fully understands their case as well as their strategy, and the team that proves they
understand not only what THEY are saying but also their CARDS will most likely win. I am also
a communications judge.

Unique views on policy issues: I have no unique views on inherency, disads, topicality, and CPs.
However, theory arguments, performance and kritiks are to me pointless in high school debate.
You are prepared to debate and that’s what I want to see... I don t want to see arguments that will

3
make me wonder "well if I buy your side, then what are we even doing in this room anyway?".

Presentational Preferences: 'I do not like speed because the majority of debaters that speed
cannot present their cases clearly. If you have speed and clarity you are fine. I will not, however,
shout out clear; instead it is up to you and your partner to figure out whether or not I’ve put down
my pen. Vocal inflection is good, it allows me to know when the debater is transitioning. If you
are rude to your opponent or talk down to me while speaking during your constructives/rebuttals
you may (if the round is close) lose to your more courteous opponent.

Other Info: I am laid back. I will judge the way you tell me as long as you tell me WHY to vote
for you and you make sense with your arguments.
Qualifications

I competed in policy and parliamentary debate for one year. I have also been judging policy
debate for about two years.

Baez, Luis
Judging Paradigm

My background is NPDA and British Parliamentary Debate. As a result, I am very

knowledgeable about policy debate and won’t tell you not to run certain arguments or go for
certain positions. However, because of the BP experience, I am a fan of style and persuasion. I
am a judge that is a combination of Tabula Rasa, Style, and Policymaker paradigms. I am open to
any arguments that are supported through reasonable evidence, who likes to be persuaded and
will weigh those arguments through a simple net benefits scale.
Qualifications

I have an extensive and successful high school and collegiate background in NPDA, British
Parliamentary Debate, Student Congress and Extemporaneous Speaking. I competed and won
numerous awards on the TFA circuit in high school and have placed at over a dozen international
collegiate tournaments in different events.

Boyter, Casey
Judging Paradigm

I am a pretty open minded judge, who is willing to consider a wide range of arguments, including
critical arguments. I was a college NDT debater, and before that competed on the national circuit
in high school, so I can probably absorb whatever you want to throw at me. But be aware I have
been away from the activity for a few years, so you cannot assume that I will already know why I
need to vote on a given argument without the need for you to provide the warrant for my doing
so. Explain to me why winning an argument means you win (in addition to winning the argument,
obviously), and if you do it more convincingly than the other side, you will be rewarded. But
simply assuming "well everybody votes on X, so if I win X I win" will not do it. I can handle
speed, but it must be clear. If it is not, I will let you know. If I let you know, and you do not adjust
your style to be comprehensible to me, you assume the risk that I will not get your argument and I
will not vote on an argument that I did not hear or understand in the round.
Qualifications

4
See above.

Bruner, Brittany
Judging Paradigm

When I am judging a debate I mainly look at the team that has the better argument. The better
argument to me is one that is coherent, organized and persuasive. I come into the room as a blank
slate, tabula rasa, so the team with the best argument will win. For me the cross examination
done by the debater shows the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, so having a strong cross
is very important to me. Also, the debaters should fill the entire time allotted to he/she, so if
necessary more explanation and persuasion please.
Qualifications

I am a minoring in political science and have attended debate tournaments for four years. I have
never debated personally, but have watched hundreds of debates in high school and college. I
know the points that the debaters need to make, and the time the teams put in to get to the
tournament.

Castro, Pablo
Judging Paradigm

I look pay attention for the evidence, so please speak clearly and loudly because if I can’t
understand what is said then it doesn’t help you. After that I look at the cross-examinations,
specifically at relevance both questions and responses. I weight rebuttals a little less than cross-
examination but still want to hear relevant arguments. Closing statements are important and like it
when a person can summarize their points well.
Qualifications

I originally learned how to debate in LD style as a junior, started debating in CX when I started
debating in CX. I started in JV and got to Varsity after the a few tournaments. I debated in HUDL
in the 2009 to 2010 season.

Champagne, Morgan
Judging Paradigm

When judging a debate round, I look to see which team or person is more prepared. I also look to
the debaters to back up arguments with concrete evidence. Also while it is important to be
mindful of time, the most successful debaters are the ones who are clear and concise. It is also
important for the debaters to appear to care about what they are saying. If the debater does not
believe, the judge probably won’t either.
Qualifications

I have experience judging varsity and novice LD Debate. I was a participant in the Dulles High
School debate program for 4 years. I participated in LD Debate, however my area of extreme
expertise is Individual Events.

5
Colby, Paul
Judging Paradigm

You might want to think of me as “old school.” Debate terminology and strategy evolves from
one generation of debaters to the next, but as a result of judging many rounds last year I am
familiar with how you approach things now. In my view, the decision on who wins a round
always comes down to who did the better debating. Sometimes that will be because one team had
better evidence, sometimes it will be because one team had better analysis, and sometimes it will
be because one team spoke more persuasively. In other words, I think academic debate should
have some connection to real world debate on policy issues. When I was debating, lots of teams
started speaking faster to get more arguments on the table. But they were fluent and you could
understand them clearly. Some high school debaters now speak at 95 miles an hour, as lots of
today’s college debaters do. I can follow them but when people wheeze and gasp to flood the
room with words I am not likely to give them perfect speaker points. Too, when there are
numerous arguments in the constructive portion of a debate there is the likelihood that the relative
importance of them may be overlooked, especially when they are dealt with in rebuttals. Finally,
when teams present affirmatives that wander off the reservation or cleverly interpret the
resolution for the purpose of catching opponents off guard, OR when teams present counterplans
relying heavily on semantics, I may be put off by it, but their opponents will still need to call
them out to get the ballot.
Qualifications

I won a number of tournaments debating for Mt. Carmel High School and was at the University
of Houston in the sixties, when the debate squad was among the nation’s best. I won numerous
firsts and speaker awards there and, as a senior, won what was then the prestigious Heart of
America Invitational and placed third at the National Debate Tournament.

Cunningham, Kelly
Judging Paradigm

I think that debate is supposed to be fun. I hate it when debaters get caught up in the competitive
aspects debate and start to be rude to their opponents. If you are rude to your opponent, you can
count on me docking your speaker points. That being said, I understand that there is a difference
between being aggressive and being mean. Generally speaking, I don't have a preference for
arguments. I believe that debaters should be free to do whatever they want within a debate round.
Arguments should always be warranted with either analysis or evidence. I am not the best person
to read a k in front of, but I will definitely listen to one even though I prefer the more policy
aspects of debate. You can spread as fast as you want, but if it isn't clear then you can't expect me
to flow it.
Qualifications

I debated at Churchill HS in San Antonio for four years, and I am now a freshman at Trinity
University. In high school, I competed in TFA, UIL, and NFL tournaments. I qualified for UIL
State 4 years in a row and 2 times for TFA State. I also attended NFL Nationals 3 times. My
entire junior year, I read nothing but kritiks. However, for my senior year, I mainly went for the
politics disad.

Darby, Brian

6
Judging Paradigm

I am about as tab as tab can be. I prefer impact calculus to be given anywhere it can be. One
thing that I think is necessary to win my ballot is the art of extensions. I will not shadow extend
for either side unless neither side makes this puts me at a standstill on the ballot. I don’t mind any
particular arguments. I have voted from anything from inherency takeouts from kritiks.
Remember that this is UIL and speed is severely frowned upon; however, I personally am OK
with it, although you should always practice the way you play and when you get to state that will
do more harm than good.
Qualifications

I was a two year letterman in high school, where I competed in CX and LD. I also competed in
college and was two year national qualifier in Cross Examination debate and Parliamentary
debate, winning a bronze medal in cross examination debate and a silver medal in parliamentary
debate.

DuPont, Nathan
Judging Paradigm

I believe that debaters should be able to make any argument they wish as long as they have
warranted support for their claims. While evidence is usually helpful a few well placed analytical
arguments can often benefit debaters more than reading poor quality evidence. Debaters should
read whatever they feel most comfortable reading and should tell me how they would like me to
evaluate the round. While I personally believe that conditionality is good and kritiks aren't
cheating I will not let my personal preferences get in the way of evaluating the debate round. I
frown upon debaters that are disrespectful to their opponents and to their partners this
disappointment will most likely be reflected in speaker points but will not play into the evaluation
of the debate. I can probably flow faster than you can speak, but that does not mean you should
feel the need to speak as fast as you can at the expense of clarity.
Qualifications

I debated for four years at Jack C Hays High School, just south of Austin, and I currently debate
at Trinity University, in San Antonio. While in high school I competed at TFA, UIL, NFL, and
Tournament of Champion tournaments. I qualified for UIL State and TFA State 3 years in a row,
NFL Nationals my junior year, and the TOC my senior year At the end of my high school debate
career I was ranked 9th in the country. I have experience reading everything from the Security
Kritik and affirmatives without plan texts to consult counterplans and affirmatives with only
hegemony advantages.

Duran, Lucila
Judging Paradigm

When I evaluate a debate round I focus on the level of preparation shown. Being prepared is
essentially what determines the speaker’s confidence and therefore their overall performance.
Another aspect that I focus on is enunciation and the speed at which the speaker talks. I think it is
important that I fully understand what the speaker is saying. Lastly, I focus on the emotions that
show in the debater’s presentation and how well they can get into character.
Qualifications

7
In the past I have judged Parliamentary Debate CX and LD. I have also judged individual events
such as a bilingual elementary school debate hosted at the University of Houston.

Dwivedi, Ajay
Judging Paradigm

I evaluate a debate round by going down the flow chart and looking at the arguments presented in
the constructives and how the attacks and rebuttals progressed throughout the round. The side
that uses stronger theory, logic, or empirical evidence to back up their claims wins that respective
argument. At the end of the round, the side that wins the most important arguments within the
round gets my vote. Dropping important arguments are a big issue and if the opponent impacts
the consequences of dropped arguments then they clearly win the argument.

I enjoyed my time as an LD debater and found it to be extremely educational. I have competed in

NFL competition, TFA qualifying competition, and UIL competition. I found the best debate
rounds to be when both sides were focused on the same key arguments throughout the round and
argued them the fullest with time and effort. My wins came when I won key arguments in the
round and my losses came when I lost key arguments in the round.
Qualifications

I debated for four years in high school and have one TFA state qualification in LD debate. I have
three TFA state qualifications in foreign extemporaneous speaking and I earned quadruple ruby
distinction from the National Forensics League for my competition. I am a TFA state quarter-
finalist and TFA state semi-finalist in foreign extemporaneous speaking.

Feng, Betty
Judging Paradigm

I prefer to enter a round Tabula Rasa and award the round to which team best upholds their case
while taking down their opponents’. Solvency is an important argument for me if you can prove
it. I like aggressive cross examinations and make sure you don’t let your opponent control your
cross examination and don’t waste a lot of time having your opponent reiterate their points. I am
not a huge fan of speed but for the most part am fine with a fast pace so long as it doesn’t get in
the way of my flowing. I will let you know if you’re speaking too fast.
Qualifications

I have been a speech and debate judge since last year, have worked many speech and debate
tournaments this year and am part of the University of Houston Forensics Society.

Fletcher, Jessica
Judging Paradigm

First and most importantly, CX debaters must speak slowly enough so that I can understand them.
It does not good for you to present many cards if I understood none of it, it’s a waste of time. If
you read a card super fast, at least give me a summary (in your own words) of what the card just
said. Next, I judge on the basis of logic. How well can you find the flaws in opponent’s

8
arguments, do your arguments have sound reasoning to back them up, are your arguments
realistic (i.e. no arguments that the extinction of ants will lead to nuclear war)? Actors should
close their eyes and BE the character as a visualization exercise. Those in speech should use their
personality as a tool to persuade or inform the audience and if the speaker walks around on the
“stage” while speaking, movement should enhance organization (like transition of ideas, etc.).
Qualifications

As a University of Houston debate judge, we received training on judging criteria and rules
before we were hired. Every year, we attend a refresher course on judging and receive the new
debate topics for the year. I have been judging two years with the University of Houston and
have seen many good and bad rounds during that time. At the university, we are taught to give
students as much feedback and constructive criticism as possible. This I do and I like to be as
nice in my critique as possible while still being truthful and offering suggestions. The most
important thing to remember in debate is to walk into the room and conquer/own it because you
can win!

Flores, Robert
Judging Paradigm

My policy paradigms are simple. I'm strictly a "vote on what's on the flow" type of judge. I'm
open to any argument including CPs, Ks, theory, etc. I'll judge on whatever a team wants me to
evaluate. The only catch is that it has to be debated well and the analysis should be deep and
logical. I don't want to hear arguments that are thrown in just to kill time or that are predestined to
be dropped. Simply put, don't waste my time. I vote on topicality when I need to. Speakers can
speak as fast as they want with me, but taglines need to be clear. I care more about clarity than I
do about speed. Stay organized. I don't like it when debaters are all over the flow and have no
idea what direction they want their speech to go.
Qualifications

My history in debate is very well rounded. I competed in LD in high school. I did some debate in
college. I've been judging for 7 years and I've judged all debate events: CX, LD, Public Forum,
Parliamentary, Congress, and IPDA. I've judged at local tournaments, TFA state, and NFL
districts. I've coached speech and debate at Hightower as a volunteer. I consider myself pretty
well rounded and very fair.

Garcia, Angel
Judging Paradigm

I prefer On-case arguments but if the offcase argument is substantial I will vote. I think
Topicality is more of a technicality argument but a debater can lose or win because of T. Good
speaking is a must. As debaters, it’s your job to tell me what to vote for.
Qualifications

I’ve been debating since freshman year. I’ve been to state competition in Austin. I’m currently a
debater at Onalska High school.

Gordon, Destinae

9
Judging Paradigm

My judging procedures are pretty much a very clean slate. I love for my debaters to give me
complete eye contact when they are speaking and presenting their evidence. But I NEED you to
know you’re evidence!! I will be looking for the UMMS, the ERRS, and the stuttering within
your presentation of your case, you should know your case extremely well since you had practice
with your team and/or partner. I’m also looking for good body language while presenting your
case to me; if you’re slouching or just fidgeting it says to me you don’t care about this debate.
And that will make me vote against your team IF you don’t convince me your case attacks all of
their points!!

I love for all debates to have a ROADMAP please give me a road map so I can flow
throughout the entire debate. I do not like to flow when I don’t know what harms you are
attacking, or contentions within your opponents’ case. Please If you don’t know what you’re
talking about please convince me that you know. That will take you a long way within the HS
debate circuit. Other than that I want my debaters to have fun and enjoy debating!!!!
Qualifications

I currently attend UH Downtown and was a varsity debater for Sterling High School.

Hall, Emily
Judging Paradigm

I will listen to just about anything. I did policy and critical stuff as a debater, so either is fine with
me. Speed is fine, but please be clear. I want the debaters to do the impact work, especially in
the last two speeches. For both the aff and the neg, I want a good explanation of what the impact
is and why it is the most important impact in the round. I prefer several well developed arguments
over many poorly explained arguments.
Qualifications

I debated for four years at Grapevine High School near Dallas and am currently on the Trinity
University debate team and am entering into my third year at Trinity.

Hall, Waynesha
Judging Paradigm

I am a stock issues judge. I believe that the affirmative must fulfill all of its burdens as the
affirmative and most uphold all of its burdens in SHITS, in addition to the burden of proof. If the
negative can prove that the affirmative is lacking in upholding these burdens than the negative
will most likely win. However I do not ignore the policy making paradigm because I believe that
the likelihood that a plan will pass and the fact that it is plausible also come together to make a
good solid case. All in all I prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike
arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface. I also strongly dislike rapid fire and I
see open cx as a means for disqualification.
Qualifications

My experience: started in 9th grade with my first speech class. In 10th grade I joined the speech
and debate team at my HS. I did CX, soapbox, oratory,group improv, story telling and extemp. I

10
won a lot of awards while competing against teams such as clear brook, clear lake, lamar hs, and
so on. Later on I added bible reading to the list of activities I participated in. I also went to district
in extemp and placed. In my senior year I did mostly speaking events. I have judged other speech
and debate tournaments before. I am currently a member of the Houston Baptist University
Debate team and I expect to continue in that. Lastly, I participated in Mock trial my freshmen
year of college.

Hankin, Jonathan
Judging Paradigm

Do your best to articulate your points clearly, it’s ok to spread but your wording must remain
clear. Sign-posting is always helpful. I will give the win to the team who I feel has effectively
defeated the other team’s case, it is not enough to simply attack the other team you must give
coherent and appropriate counter-arguments for them to count against the opposing team.
Qualifications

I am on the University of Houston Forensics Team and did L-D Debate in high school.

Henderson, Maurice
Judging Paradigm

I vote using the criteria that's established for me by the debaters. If the debaters fail to establish a
criteria, I more often not vote on the Policy implications of the matter in the round. Speed: I don't
mind it, but be clear. I should also say that I'm not impressed by speed, and you don't get "extra"
points just for talking fast in front of me. Topicality: I hate hearing T debates, they are boring, so
I would prefer not to hear T. However, if T. is raised, the affirmative better be ready to debate it,
as I will vote on it. The negative should not get to comfortable as I do accept well structured, and
though out, reverse voter arguments. Counter-plans: I like counter-plans, I prefer them to be
competitive and substantive in nature. Structure: I prefer debaters to at least signpost as to where
they are on the flow, this helps me keep track of your arguments. If you don't tell me where to put
your arguments, I'll put them where I think they should go, and this isn't always where you'd like
me to put them. Miscellaneous: There is one thing that I absolutely can't stand to see when
judging: I HATE RUDENESS of any kind. I don't care if your school is Debate HS Central with
multiple national titles, and a seemingly permanent bid to the TOC, or if your school is the
smallest debate squad in the nation, with the budget to match. There is never any cause to be rude,
to swear, to be disrespectful to any team that you debate. I hate this, and it is the surest way to
have your speaks crushed when in front of me. Kriticks: I'm not a fan of these arguments. If you
run these, I'll probably suggest that you need to go debate in L/D. However, I respect your right to
run them, I'll listen to them, but I can't say I've ever voted on one. In my experience, debaters
don't do a good job explaining the philosophy that underpins the critique. If you chose to run one
in front of me, do so at your risk, but take a few minutes to explain why this is important, why I
should rethink things, why the Affirmative is abusive, racist, etc... But overall, run DA's and
counter-plans, even run T before you run a Critique.
Qualifications

I competed in high school debate for 4 years (District Champion, State Qualifier) and have judged
high school debate for almost 2 years.

11
Hernandez, Arthur
Judging Paradigm

My name is Arthur Hernandez. I will be judging the rounds based on how the students preform.
I will do this by assessing how well the students communicate their given point. Students who
present evidence for their arguments should qualify their sources when presenting their
arguments. Just as in a courtroom students should be professional while presenting including
respecting their opponents.
Qualifications

I do have experience with speech tournaments in high school. While I was not a "policy debater"
I have observed rounds and understand the basics of debate. I also enjoy watching the local red
white and blue debates on PBS.

Honegger, Nicholas
Judging Paradigm

Basic overview:
I’m willing to listen to any argument; I’m not the type of judge where you have to change your
strategy if I’m in the back of the room.

Specifics
D/As : Nothing special I enjoy impact calculus, if you are going to go for a D/A and case I
suggest that you talk about how the D/A interacts with their case, etc.

T: I enjoy tricky violations; I find them interesting. I don’t have any predisposition on how to
evaluate T competing interpretations, reasonability, etc. I think it is the debaters’ jobs to frame
my ballot.

CPs: I like hearing well though out PICs, and any well thought out CP for that matter. I don’t
think perms need a net benefit if they prove the counter plan is uncompetitive.

K: Unless framework is dropped or horribly mishandled I will generally let the affirmative weigh
some portion of the aff. (This does not mean they will automatically outweigh just be able to
compare impacts in the 2nr or explain why their impacts would be inevitable etc.)
While not necessary I think framing the alternative in a way that solves the aff is strategic (Even
if it is just claiming you solve root cause)

Theory: I went for conditionality bad more than most in high school. This does not mean I will
vote for you because you read condo bad however I unlike most (at least who I have talked to)
enjoy a good theory debate. I enjoy impact calculus on the abuse in round etc. This also means I
will not punish your speaker points like some judges do for theory.

Extra
Don’t be afraid to ask questions before or after the round, I think debate is a learning activity. If
you want to know how your speeches could have improved etc do not hesitate to ask.
Qualifications

12
Debated throughout high school (Qualified for the TOC)
Currently Debating in college
Worked for Tampa Preparatory School’s summer debate program
Previously worked/volunteered at Academy Prep middle school

Specific to this year:

I have judged multiple tournaments on this topic so I have some grasp of the literature.

Huynh, Andrew
Judging Paradigm

When it comes to paradigms, I am a relatively laid back judge. Rather than having a specific set
of rules and guidelines or specific points I look for, I tend to vote off of the overall effectiveness
of your case. Simply put, whoever persuades me more of their position wins the round.
Value/Criterion, Stock issues, Counter plans, Theory debate, Burdens, or whatever else may come
up in the round are fine, as long as they build to help persuade me into believing what you have to
say over your opponent.

As for technical issues, I prefer a typical conversational speed rather than the rapid pace you find
in most CX rounds. This doesn’t mean a rapid pace cannot be used, I know how hard it is to say
so much in so little time. So if you choose to use a rapid pace, I will tell you when I can no longer
understand you/flow your arguments by saying “clear.”
Qualifications

I have one year of LD debate experience from High School. Judging wise, I have judged at 8
different tournaments within the last year, including one HUDL tournament.

Iwuchukwu, Sarah
Judging Paradigm

I love a round with a lot of clash! Arguments should be precise, practical, realistic as well as
applicable to the round. I am open minded, but also quite stock issues/policy maker. I do not
defer to either side, the aff must prove their burden and the neg must prove why we should stay
with the status quo or their alternative. Topicalities, DAs, and CPs must be run in the correct
form. I can handle debate theory arguments, I am not a big fan of conditional positions. At the
end of the day it is your round, so have fun and make it count. I love debate, actual debate, so
please keep lots of clash in the round. I also ask that you signpost well, because I am a high flow
judge and like to know where each argument goes.

Best of luck!
Qualifications

I am a former HUDL debater. I debated in Varsity for roughly 2 years with a little bit of LD
before then. I mostly debated on the HUDL circuit, but I also debated in UIL, TFA, and UDL
circuit. I had a lot of fun debating and hope you do to!

13
Jama, Zamzam
Judging Paradigm

I consider myself tabula rasa with policy maker tendencies in that I will go for whichever side has
the best analysis, organization, storyline, presentation, and terminal impacts/benefits.

It’s important to note, however, that I have a strong tendency on voting for theory arguments such
as Kritiks and Framework arguments. That’s predicated on if the Negative or affirmative (critical
affs) show a strong link scenario and can rhetorically grasp the intent of the author advocacies;
which again is often reflected in the presentation. I rarely vote on Topicality unless there is
obvious abuse or drops. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run Topicality…. Debate is persuasive
game ---so persuade me! Additionally, I often frown upon conditional arguments but at the end
of the day the round is what the competitors make it and the tools they present to me to use to
determine the win (judging mechanism is a necessity such as calculus impact, moral imperative,
etc).

I love CLASH above all else thus I am open to DAs, CPs, Counter-DAs (affs), Counter-Kritiks
(affs), etc. If you do decide to go on case attacks alone make sure you simply don’t read cards.
Explain to me how critical stock issue arguments are necessary or how the affirmative severing
out of their Plan implementation is bad. Don’t expect me to do the work for you!

At the end of the day, debate is still a form of speech and as such the performance must reflect
that. I expect all the speeches and cross examinations to be done standing up, more importantly I
allow NO Verbal Prompting to be done! I do however allow written prompting if done discretely
and minimally!

Speed isn’t an issue for me; however, I also believe spreading shouldn’t be used as a strategic
means of winning against a team that cannot spread!
Qualifications

I have 11 years of experience with forensics and speech. As a high school competitor, I qualified
for state in CX. I have also judged for the last five years on the UIL, TFA and NFL circuits and
taught at the HUDL summer institute. Currently, I am the assistant coach of two high school
debate programs and of the Texas State University debate team.

James, Briana
Judging Paradigm

I prefer a closed CX. I keep detailed notes throughout the round. If you choose to spread I
will be able to follow, but I ask that you make sure that you speak clear enough to be understood.
Counter plans are welcome. I base my decision on who wins each round by which team drops the
most arguments and which team is more persuasive overall.
Qualifications

My past debate experience includes being a state competitor for CX debate, district and
regional competitor for prose speaking, and I am formerly part of the eighth ranked CX team in
the city of Houston.

14
Jennings, Nicholas
Judging Paradigm

I believe debate is an academic game in which two teams create rhetorical strategies to create the
most holistic strategy for policy making. I try my very best to hold my own political views
outside of the round and try to view the round objectively. Specifically, I enjoy coherent
disadvantage and case strategies as well as dynamic counterplan strategies. Counterplans must
logically compete, meaning that I should be able to determine why the counterplan should only
exist in a universe absent the affirmative plan. Speed and rapid fire debating is discouraged by
UIL, although I do not personally have any problem with it.
Qualifications

I was a debater for four years in high school and for a semester in college, during which I was
extremely successful. In high school, I qualified for NFL nationals and was state runner-up at the
UIL State CX Debate Tournament. I also received many speaker awards and was successful at
every regional tournament I entered. I’m currently an assistant high school debate coach and am
comfortable with virtually every argument. I've also recently worked at high school debate
institutes as a counselor and student assistant.

Jones, Shannon
Judging Paradigm

Typically, I don't have a preference for ways to win a debate round. However, I need to see clash
from the two sides so there's actually something to judge. Also, although I will not vote for you
on T strictly because you used it, I will say that T is a favorite argument of mine.
Qualifications

I've been debating since my sophomore year of high school. My high school career consisted
primarily of Lincoln-Douglas debate and competing in Original Oratory, in both of which I
qualified for the NFL National competition my senior year. In college I have been involved in
judging LD, but primarily policy debate. I have been to several collegiate policy tournaments and
have a strong background in policy at this point, my senior year at Trinity University.

Jump, Stephen
Judging Paradigm

I am a tabula rasa judge that leans towards policy making. I am open to listening to any argument
as long as you can make the connection. Clash between teams is important. I carefully flow the
round but at the end of the round it is the impact calculus that will carry the most weight. Do not
waste time pointing out that the opponents dropped an arguments unless they really dropped the
argument. I am a fan of both DAs and Ks, however the link has to be there, especially with Ks. If
using a counterplan make sure to show how it fixes the aff’s harms and how it clashes with the
aff’s plan. I am not a fan of Topicality and expect any topicality argument to be extremely strong
before being used. All the stock issues are important however solvency carries the most weight
with me. At the end of the round I want the aff to prove that the plan will work or that the neg
proves either the plan will not work or that the impact of the plan will be worse than the status
quo. I prefer that the speakers road map /sign post well. I am okay with any speed as long as you
slow down for the tagline and citation.

15
Qualifications

I have a Philosophy degree from Rice University and have been coaching CX debate for two
years. Last year I took a team to UIL state and qualified a team for a national tournament. So far
this year I have qualified a team for UIL state.

Kamas, Nicolas
Judging Paradigm

I am a policy maker, though I am perfectly happy to judge the round on a stock issues or other
basis, should the debaters agree on the paradigm shift. I have no problems with topicality in
moderation, but I do not favor the majority of critical theory. The majority of my decisions
revolve around percent solvency from the affirmative and disadvantage probability from the
negative, along with due consideration for in-round impact-weighing.
Qualifications

I spent three years of my competitive debate career in Lincoln-Douglas debate (2nd, UIL State,
2005), one year in Cross-Examination (1st, UIL State, 2007), and my first year in college
competing in the National Parliamentary Debate Association on the national circuit. Since then, I
have had some experience coaching, as well as experience judging (including LD UIL State, 2008
and CX UIL State 2009).

Lumpkins, Robert
Judging Paradigm

I evaluate a debate round based only on evidence presented during the round. The rounds will be
evaluated to determine which team advocated a better policy, which team better analyzed their
opponent’s weaknesses, and which team best used cited evidence in order to support their claims.
Qualifications

I have been a part of the UH Forensics Society since 2009, and have judged at many debate
tournaments in that time.

Macoukji, Fred
Judging Paradigm

When it comes to deciding speaker points, I look at a number of things. First, I rate how well I
was able to understand what was being said, and how well-spoken the student was. Next I rate on
quality of the points/arguments raised in the constructives. I also look at things such as the way in
which arguments are presented, were they presented in a clear and logical, easy-to-follow
manner? Or did it come across disjointed because the debater expected the judge to automatically
know all the specific terminology/acronyms and logic behind the arguments being presented. I
judge based on the idea of “tabula rasa” so I expect debaters to treat me as if I have no idea what
their plan entails, and expect to have it explained from the start. I also rate (in events containing
cross-examinations/cross fire) how well the teams carry out attacks on their opponents’
arguments and how well they hold up when their own is being attacked.

16
When it comes to deciding which team wins, one thing that I frown upon is when a team’s
primary argument/defense is one of topicality. If they are complaining that the other team’s topic
was too original to defend against or to attack, then they should mention it, bring it to my
attention, and do the best they can with the arguments presented. Otherwise, it looks too much
like they were whining that the other team came up with an argument too good for them to attack.
The final decision really falls on whether I am truly convinced the aff/pro’s plan is really the best
one, offers a better alternative than status quo, and will not result in more harm than good. If the
negative proves there is a better plan, or that there is a significant flaw in the one presented by the
aff, then I vote neg.
Qualifications

I was introduced to the University of Houston’s Forensic Society through the Honors College at
the University of Houston. I have been a member of the UH Forensic Society for 3 years now,
and have been judging speech and debate competitions for that long. I have judged everything
from elementary school level through college level and judge both speech as well as debate
rounds.

Mayo, Greg
Judging Paradigm

I am from the “Old School.” I still believe debate is a persuasive communication event.
Therefore, I do not favor speed in a round. I am a Stock Issues Judge. I will vote on Topicality
as long as it is carried through. I enjoy hearing a Counter Plan. I do not favor Kritiks. The
number of cards is not as important as the quality of the cards. I weigh heavily on the burdens of
both the Aff / Neg Teams. Clash is essential. Crystallization and voting issues are important
factors for me in a round.
Qualifications

Past debate experience includes: Twelve years coaching Forensics; College public speaker – Sam
Houston State University – 1984 to 1986, Pi Kappa Delta. I have coached and judged students
within various Local, State, and National level tournaments including UIL District, Regional, and
State; TFA and TFA State; NFL District, and NFL Nationals; and various TOC Debate
tournaments.

Within the competitive arena, I have coached students in L-D, Cross-Ex, and Congressional
Debate. In addition, I have coached students in all of the competitive I.E. speech events as well.
I am a two time recipient of the national Forensics League’s Diamond Key Award.

Mays, Terrence
Judging Paradigm

It is always a pleasure to witness the magnitude of intellect from that of any oratory. For me,
presentation is a major component to winning a debate round. I want to see that the speaker is
confident in the information they are transmitting and sure of their own argument as opposed to
just sounding rehearsed. If one does not believe in their own argument, how should anyone else
take their case serious? I also judge based on structure: give clear and concise breakdowns of
your case from the status quo and harms, and on to the plan of implementation. It is very
important for the speakers to give voters as to why the won during their rebuttals as well.

17
Qualifications

I was a member of the debate team for a semester of my senior year in high school. I am currently
a fourth year member of the Texas Southern University Debate Team under the tutelage of Dr.
Thomas F. Freeman. I have competed in parliamentary and Lincoln Douglas Debate throughout
the country as well as internationally in locations such as England, Germany, and East Africa,
placing highly in debate including top speaker awards and trophies for first and third place. I
would say that my strengths in debate include confidence, clarity, and teamwork.

Meszaros, Chris
Judging Paradigm

I have been judging policy debate for 4 years. I mostly like to look at the round from an overall
standpoint, not a nit-picky "the aff dropped subpoint f on the internal link on DA 2, so neg wins"
way. However, certain rounds force me to do this. It depends how the round flows.

Aff: I am a policymaker judge. If you want to win my ballot, give me a clear impact calculus. If
you want to run a critical aff, consider running a more policy-oriented aff. If, however, that is
your only strategy, that's fine with me, just make sure you explain your framework and why you
o/w negative impacts. Special note on theory: when you run it, make sure you engage the
negative's theory and specifically respond to it. Just reading your pre-written condo bad theory
block in the 2ac and your 1ar block and calling it a day is not good enough for me. This goes for
the negative as well. I tend to have a high threshold for pulling the trigger on theory. You need to
prove some in round abuse. Generally I do not vote for potential abuse. It didn't happen, so why
vote on it?

Neg: Topicality is a voter. I really like DA's, CP's, and theory. Side note: When you run theory,
slow down on it. Since the majority of theory is uncarded, you need to make sure the judge gets it
on the flow. Same goes for T, considering how theory-heavy it is. As for K's, I'm not as up to date
on the literature as I would like to be, and would really prefer that you don't run them. However,
if that is your only strategy, go ahead, but make sure you explain your framework really well and
give a clear workable alternative. The K should be specific as possible to the topic area with a
clear link.

Generally, i'm ok with speed as long as you are clear (key word: enunciate). If you start getting
mush mouth, I will yell clear once. If you don't get clearer, I will stop flowing. It is in your best
interest to sacrifice speed for clarity.

I try my best not to be an interventionist judge, however, if given no choice I will. To avoid this,
make sure you tell me what to vote on. Strategic kicking of arguments is ok with me.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me in round.

Qualifications

I competed in high school for three years, where I qualified for UIL and TFA state competitions.

Mithani, Aly
Judging Paradigm

18
I am completely open to voting for any argument whatsoever. That being said, I have a few
“default” positions. I’m more willing to vote for “policy” arguments, but I think I’m fairly
familiar with kritik literature and arguments. I’m not typically going to vote on topicality or any
theory arguments unless there is proven in-round abuse. Outside of those few things, I am willing
to vote on anything and everything.
Qualifications

I debated for 4 years at the St. Mark’s School of Texas in Dallas. During my time at St. Mark’s, I
was mostly a 1A/2N. In that time I went for the politics DA quite a bit but by the time my senior
year came around I started going for the fem IR K and other kritikal arguments. I am now a
freshman debating at Trinity University.

Moon, Alex
Judging Paradigm

I am tab judge and I don’t have any dispositions towards any argument, regardless of how
controversial or offensive they may seem. However, I hold analysis to a very high standard
because I will not impact arguments for the debaters.

In order for an affirmative to win, they must win their plan or advocacy is a good idea despite
what the negative team says. For the negative to win, they must prove that the affirmative plan is
worse than the status quo, a competitive policy option, or some other alternative.
Qualifications

I debated for most of High School, traveling locally and nationally. I’ve been a varsity debater
for two years with Trinity University.

Mullins, David
Judging Paradigm

I believe debate is about the debaters, and when deciding I will evaluate the decision making
logics presented in the 2NR and 2AR trying desperately not to intervene. I don't have anything
against any type of argument, and I believe you should be able to answer rape good without my
help. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing without yelling clear and without remorse.
An argument is not dropped if it is answered by the thesis of the other team's argument. I am a
less technical and more human judge but that does not mean "it's not new if it's true" it just means
I do not have a strict line-by-line interpretation of drops. I hold the 2ar to 1ar dimensions of
analysis- i.e., if the 1ar's only argument on case outweighs is "we have 8 extinctions" the 2ar
cannot go for timeframe, because I don't think the 2nr has to predict every possible way the case
might outweigh. I will use a metric of "could the 2nr predict this?" when considering the 2ar. I
will not consider evidence more important than an analytic unless presented with an argument
that says I should do so, because I believe debaters are smart and more of their analysis should be
in debates.

Feel free to ask me any questions, do what you love and make me smarter by watching you.
Qualifications

19
I debated exclusively Ks and topicality my high school career. I currently debate at Trinity
University.

Norman, Jameson
Judging Paradigm

I judge based on what the debaters give me. If, for example, it’s some basic solvency from the
Aff and some DAs from the Neg and the Neg is able to show a proper U, Ls, and I with enough
evidence to prove that the Aff is causing the said DA then I will most likely vote for the Neg but
then on the other hand if the Aff is able to show proper, evidenced ADs and evidence to prove
their plan then my vote would go towards the AFF. Basically, who has the best evidence, who
debates the best, and who is the most skilled and most organized, earns my vote. I am a Tabula
Rasa judge.
Qualifications

I debated in middle school and high school, where I was also involved in speech and theatre. I’ve
coached for HUDL since its inception.

Oberoi, Avneesh
Judging Paradigm

I believe in professionalism more than anything else, sticking to the rules listed is important. If
you’re asking your opponent a question, it’s important to let them answer and not cut them off so
that you can take their silence or lack of an answer as an offensive tactic. I believe the merit of
your case is what you need to be judged on and how well you can argue them. I don’t believe in
dropped arguments which is why I personally think that a few strong arguments you can defend
usually work out better, because your opponent won’t win on a technicality, however I applaud
those that take advantage of an opponents disorganization and lack of understanding of the case. I
think that one should use the rules to their advantage and it’s important to know them back to
front, you never know at the last minute how they’re going to help you. My judging paradigm is
stick to your case and don’t drop your arguments, defend against all attacks, even if briefly, and
use your evidence to prove that your case is stronger.
Qualifications

I’ve been judging debate tournaments for the past two years, and I was on the debate team for all
four years in high school. I judge every event except for CX, because I participated in all those
events when I was a debater.

Ostrovsky, Alan
Judging Paradigm

It takes a lot to convince me that topicality is a voting issue in lieu of affirmative arguments like
"no other way to run case without losing something integral to our education and the significance
of our education outweighs/comes prior to T", "no abuse, they still get their links and we enhance
negative strategy." I'm also receptive to offensive reasons to reject the team because of the
specific T rules and standards/framework.

20
It's important for ya'll to be able to prove why your argument is important. I'm far more persuaded
by real world/in round impacts like, "The things we learn in round affect how we interact with
everyone, and if we're learning messed up stuff like (the link) how to be insensitive to issues like
race, gender, disability, etc, then that outweighs their predictive economy disad. We could never
know if our case might cause this scenario, we wouldn't have say in it either way because we
don't have our hands on the levers of power, but we do have control over how we form
relationships with each other, so that is more significant because we can start to address things
like oppression and injustice within our community."

Other than that, it's important for ya'll to do what you've been preparing for, want to do, and do
best. I can flow and evaluate the arguments based on whichever framework is best justified, be it
policymaker or nontraditional. I tend to give weight to the latter because I'm not a policymaker,
and real life doesn't end when the debate begins. I'm cool with whatever though;
counterplans/theory, disads, kritiks, case, it's all good. Have fun and respect your partner.
Qualifications

I did CX debate 4 years high school and 3 years college. I'm pretty familiar with the topic; I've
judged a bunch of rounds this year, at least 5 or 6 tournaments. Hope that helps, good luck.

Palacios, Angel Bernard

Judging Paradigm

I look at different aspects as they related to each debate. Structure is very important. I like to
know where each debater is when speaking. I look for technical errors, but will not judge based
on them unless the opposing team mentions the errors (e.g.: dropped arguments, new arguments,
semantic error/topicality, etc). Technical arguments such as topicality or kritik must be executed
effectively. If not, those debaters may be called on it. I will not debate for any team, because that
would be unfair. It is their job to bring attention to errors. CLASH is probably the most
important aspect I look at. There must actually be a debate that takes place. Too often
competitors read cards without adapting the information to their opponent’s case and/or
arguments. I am a fan of witnessing the strategic use of cross-examinations. They are a golden
opportunity [rarely seized] to make large gains in the debate. It makes my job easier to have
some sort of weighing mechanism submitted by one or both teams to judge by. However, the
criterion or criteria must be congruent with the case! I like for the second speaker of each team to
expand arguments (not merely repeat). I like the first speaker to give voters in their rebuttals
(solid reasons why they win). I am a huge fan of injecting theory into subject analysis. I take
into account a debater’s analysis, confidence, adaptability, logic, questions, answers, speaking
style, body language, strategy, pronunciation, organization, and teamwork.
Qualifications

I competed internationally in the college debate circuit from 2004-2008 in Parliamentary,

Lincoln-Douglas, and all Individual Events. Additionally, I’ve participated in a series of public
debates on issues of contemporary relevance in education. I am currently the Assistant Debate
Coach at Texas Southern University and the Head Coach for the National Hispanic Institute in
Baytown.

Parr, Jose Rafael

Judging Paradigm

21
In a policy debate round, I judge primarily on the stock issues: Topicality, Inherency, Solvency,
Harms, and Significance. Does the affirmative plan fall within the context of the resolution? Does
it change the status quo? Does it solve the problem? What happens if we don’t implement it?
These are the primary questions that I usually ask myself in a debate round. Aside from that, I
also look for dropped argument on the flow and how they affect the overall context in the debate.
In general, the affirmative should be trying to get me to agree that their plan is necessary,
feasible, and effective. The negative should be trying to prove the affirmative plan to be
unnecessary, off-topic, unfeasible, and ineffective. If they can also provide harms showing me
that the status quo would be worse in the affirmative world, then that’s a big issue as well.
Qualifications

I have been an active judge as a part of the University of Houston Forensic Society since the Fall
of 2007. I have never participated in debate myself.

Penner, Ryan
Judging Paradigm

Presumption goes to the NEG team, which means that the AFF team must prove in the 2AR
(without using new arguments) that they solve for something. If the AFF team meets this basic
burden, the NEG must give a reason not to do the plan (i.e. they must have some offense against
the plan whenever the AFF team has any risk of solving for their case harms). I am open to any
type or style of argument as long as it is impacted--how does the argument compel me, as the
judge, to act towards the ballot?
Qualifications

I debated for 3 years in high school, winning several local tournaments and consistently breaking
at nationally-competitive tournaments. This year is my first to be significantly involved in debate
since I competed. I have been involved with the Houston Urban Debate League mentoring
debaters, judging tournaments, and leading a workshop on strategy in the NEG block. I am also a
philosophy student, so developing ideas and arguing them is my life.

Phillips, Michelle
Judging Paradigm

As a judge, it is very important to me that the framework of your case be concise and organized.
As a judge I appreciate when the debater does a good job of giving tag-lines, and then
summarizing analysis and evidence. While I do understand the necessity of total devastation
cases, I am more easily bought when the case concisely shows evidence as to why/how their case
better upholds whatever side of the resolution they are debating. I am not easily bought on "scare
tactics", nor abusive observations. I don't appreciate the debater focusing on creating an
unnecessary burden for their opponent. I'd rather they just have the better arguments. However, I
LOVE when a debater can accurately institute a permutation. As a judge it shows capability to
think quickly and effectively.

I spent most of my time performing as a public speaker, so while I understand debate, and am
able to thoroughly judge it, I am more impressed when a debater can still maintain a good
speaking style. Spreading is almost always unacceptable to me. I honestly believe that a debater

22
can get in any and all necessary evidence in the time allotted. And if not, they should rethink and
rework their case.
Qualifications

I competed with the Kingwood Acting and Debating Squad from 2000-2003. During that time I
competed in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Oratory, and Extemporaneous speaking. I competed at a
variety of UIL, TFA, and NFL events. Including TFA State. I have since judged multiple TFA
tournaments and judged every TFA event. I have also helped host/run 2 tournaments this year for
Kingwood and Atascocita High School.

Podossinnikova, Natalia
Judging Paradigm

I am a stock issue judge. Most of the arguments that will work in your favor will be well-
organized, on-case, and thoughtfully address the stock issues. Arguments that will work against
you will lack detailed factual support (unless they are built on logical and concise analysis, which
usually also requires research), have faulty logical structure (are building conclusions that do not
follow from the premises), or appear to be based exclusively on your Harms (containing
excessive ethical and emotional appeals that are not objective or appropriate for the round).

I appreciate confidence and a reasonable degree of competitiveness but do not tolerate rudeness
towards the opponent. I am not easily persuaded by arguments regarding minor technicality
faults.
Qualifications

I competed with the Bellaire High School CX Debate team from 2004-2008. Since then, I have
experience at judging all public speaking events included in UIL and HUDL competitions,
organized and hosted 2 tournaments at Bellaire High School and am an active member of
University of Houston Forensic Society since 2009.

Potluri, Vani
Judging Paradigm

When judging CX, my major paradigm tends to be a combination of Stock Issues, and
Policymaker. In Novice, I tend to favor a Stock Issues paradigm, which is modified by
considerations of presentation and offense and defense arguments. For Varsity, I still favor traces
of Stock Issues, but I also tend to judge based on which side has the better policy and better
arguments. I also tend to expect better articulation and presentation skills in varsity and poor
presentation can be a slight detractor. I dislike excessive speed in both Novice and Varsity, since
it undermines my understanding of your policy, and because CX is not Lincoln Douglass.
Qualifications

I have been an active member and judge of the University of Houston Forensic Society for the
past two years. I have judged just about everything from Cross-Examination to Humorous
Interpretation to Domestic Extemporaneous. My experience in judging however has been
primarily in CX through HUDL and TFA tournaments.

23
Prince, Glenn
Judging Paradigm

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. Specific issues: Topicality/Procedurals-I tend to vote on

these arguments more than other people. I do not think you need specific ground loss for me to
vote on T. Disadvantages-The team that controls uniqueness is probably in the best position to
win the debate. Counterplans-I like them. You can run multiple CPs with me if you wish and I’ll
be down. I usually do not see counterplan theory as a reason to reject the team, but rather a
reason to reject that particular argument. Kritiks—I think you need specific links to the
affirmative. I also need a clear way to evaluate these arguments. If you do not have an
alternative, you need a pretty good defense of why an alternative is either unnecessary or
inconsistent with your criticism. I hold alternatives to the same level of specificity as the plan
text. Speaker points are based on argument, not delivery. I don’t care how you speak as long as
you are clear. I have no problem with speed as long as you enunciate. If you have specific
questions, ask me before the round. I keep doing debate because I love it and I hope you have
fun and learn something. Best of luck.
Qualifications

I competed in policy debate for 7 years before switching to parliamentary debate. I have coached
some form of policy debate since 1999. I currently coach at Rice and assist at the Kinkaid School
part-time.

Rahman, Seyar
Judging Paradigm

My judging philosophy, in my opinion, is most beneficial to the debater, because I go in as a

clean slate and am open to any ideas, and or theories that the debater might come up with. I am
completely able to keep up with the speed of the debater, I am completly okay with a debater
spreading attacks, I do not appreciate rudeness during the round, but that will not effect the
outcome only speaker points. I flow every round as if I was debating myself so I always have a
record of what the debaters have said.
Qualifications

In high school I was in debate for three years, but I competed competitively for my last two
years. I qualified for the state tournament in public forum. I went to two national tournaments for
public forum as well. I nearly qualified for the state tournament in Lincoln-Douglas, but the
debate season came to a close before I could get a chance. I also have experience in cross
examination debate.

Reyes, Daniel
Judging Paradigm

I am a tabula rasa and a stock judge. I would judge the debate on who presented their argument
the best.
Qualifications

I have no prior experience.

24
Robertson, Remington
Judging Paradigm: Policy Maker/Gamesplayer

I prefer debaters not to “spread.” Speeches in debate are used to persuade and formally present
arguments. Treat me as if you are debating a bill in front of Congress. However, if you do
“spread,” I will flow it and can handle most of the speeds. Be warned: if one team does spread
and the other does not, the latter team will almost always receive the higher speaker points.

During speeches I expect to see eye contact, good posture, professional delivery, inflection,
diverse gestures, and all of the other basic essentials needed in any speaking event. The content
of your argument will decide what I vote on but your presentation will undoubtedly help.

On the negative I will listen to almost any argument you bring. I prefer not to hear conditional
arguments unless the situation (read: evidence) calls for it. Topicality arguments must come first
in a speech, even if you’re splitting the block. Disadvantages aught not be generic. I am a very
big fan of Kritiks but you must implement them correctly. Counterplans must follow basic theory
(mutual exclusive, competition, net benefit, solvency, non-topical). I’m okay with any type of
theory arguments.

On the affirmative I expect to hear a very well presented 1AC (you’ve had infinite prep time!). It
is critical that that 1AR defends all arguments presented in the 2NC and 1NR. The 2AR is your
last chance to persuade me—give an impact and/or net analysis and tell me why I should vote
affirmative. Topicality arguments must be fought with counterstandards. I’m very interested in
plan/funding, so be able to explain to all of us what exactly your plan is doing: how, when, why,
where, etc.
Qualifications

I debated policy for three years in high school, advancing to the UIL State Debate Meet two
times. Since then I founded and am the CEO of a forensics business called LONE STAR
BRIEFS, where I research, compile and write debate (both policy and LD) files for high school
debaters/teams across the nation. I have judged over 50 rounds of policy debate this year.

Roe, Brian
Judging Paradigm

The only real judging paradigm I actively encourage is clash. I believe it is only in the face of
clash that a debater can show their ability to think laterally; an ability I believe to be at the heart
of debate.
Qualifications

My experience in debate started in high school where I won an invitation to Nationals in Public
Forum debate at Salt Lake City in 2004. I've been lucky enough to judge a variety of events,
including policy debate, at tournaments for the past 4 years.

Ruiz de Castilla, Clariza

Judging Paradigm

25
 I am a very flow-oriented judge. I will decide debates on strictly what is discussed within the
round. I'll evaluate all arguments equally. I consider dropped arguments which are pointed out to
me. The only intervention I partake in is disqualification of new 2AR arguments. It is the burden
of the 2AR to label new 2NR arguments as such.
Qualifications

I have extensive experience as a high school Lincoln-Douglas debater and in college on the
CEDA and Parliamentary circuits. I have also served as an adjudicator in international debate
competitions, was an assistant parli and IE coach at California State University and have taught
policy during the summer.

Salazar, Kenya
Judging Paradigm

The winning team is determined by which side provides enough evidence and logical argument to
persuade the judge that their plan can actually do help and pertains to the resolution. Pays close
attention to speaking skills. Very important.
Qualifications

I was on the Reagan debate team for 2 years; varsity and attend most of the tournaments,
seminars and camp for both years. I have also had a taste of debate outside of cross-examination
and onward to Lincoln-Douglas when a friend of mine invited me over to cheer for him at Klein
Forest. A little out of the ordinary but caught on pretty quick.

Schaafs, Guy
Judging Paradigm

-- As a rule I am tabula rasa. I flow straight down the sheet and across based on the affirmatives
position and the negatives contrary, point-by-point analysis. That being said, I do not feel the
negative must give the same amount of time to each of the affirmatives arguments and vice-
versa. Commenting briefly on an issue presented in the first affirmative is enough to balance my
flow across the sheet. If the affirmative, in their first rebuttal, chooses again to expound a
particular point, I would give more weight to the issue in the rebuttal and would expect the
negative to also focus their attention there. (I think this makes sense, it is early in the morning!)

-- Because the debate is between two high school students I do pay particular importance to a
speaking style which is clear, well organized, factual, and relevant; this is particularly important
in the opening statements. Closing statements should effectively summarize the team's position.

-- I don't have a clear understanding yet of all the ins-and-outs of your particular league, but I
judge policy debate kritiks based on their effectiveness at challenging the mindset, assumption, or
reasoning that exists within the opposing teams overall position. That being said, I don't give a
lot of weight to kritiks, I focus my decision on how well points are articulated and rebutted,
straight across the flow.

If you need more information, let me know. I am fair and want a fun, clear, debate that leaves us
all more informed than we were from the onset.

26
I look forward to meeting with you tomorrow. Have a great day!
Qualifications

I am not available on Friday. I have a previous engagement. However, I would LOVE to judge
as much as possible on Saturday. My credentials: I placed fourth in Texas (UIL) in 1998 for LD
Debate. I also competed in CX that year as well. I broke into the top 25 in nationals (NFL) in
1998 as well. I love debate and I love to help students grow in their debate skills.

Schwarzlose, Zane
Judging Paradigm

I am as tabula rasa a judge as possible. What that means to me is that almost every facet of the
round is subject to argumentation. Therefore, I look for teams to attempt to establish the validity
of their arguments in addition to winning the argument by the flow. For example:

Case—Generally speaking, I prefer offensive arguments (case turns) to defensive arguments

(harms and solvency mitigation). If a negative team decides to go the defensive route without
some form of counter advocacy, they need to win that I should view the case flow as a Stock
Issues judge. I also find that negative teams go for too much in the 2NR. Overall, tell me why I
should prefer the world you advocate.

Topicality—Please talk about standards and voters. If you don't do this, I will not be happy. I
look for teams being able to weigh the validity of the competing interpretation in terms of
competing counterstandards.

Disadvantages—I like for negative teams to paint me a nice and complete story of woe from the
link to the impacts. Oftentimes, I feel teams get caught up in the proper and don't take the time to
spin the story of the disadvantage (talk to me about the internal links). In addition, I like for
affirmatives to generate link turns and really put some ink down on the “case outweighs” debate.

Counterplans—I am open to all types of counterplans, but I feel that teams need to be able to
debate the theory.

Kritiks—Most K debates come down to the alternative. I also think that Counter Ks gain affs
much in the way of offense.
Qualifications

I debated four years in high school, where I won the UIL State CX Championship, State Runner-
Up and State Silver Gavel Award. Since graduating high school, I have helped coach policy
debate for two high schools, where my students have won UIL State CX Bronze and Silver
medals.

Shultz, Shanna
Judging Paradigm

I am a tabula rasa judge. I'll evaluate any type of argument (T, K, CP, etc.) as long as it is well
supported and has a purpose in the round. I like for competitors to use their critical thinking skills

27
and give me clear analysis on their argument supported with evidence. Just reading tags and
cards with no rhetoric behind it will fall short on winning the argument itself. I am a non-
interventionist judge, so you must to the work to impact the arguments as well as create the link
stories. I'm good with speed. Feel free to ask me anything you want.
Qualifications

I did three years of policy debate in high school and this is my third year competing in
parliamentary debate on the colligate level. I am regional, state, and national debate winner as
well as top speaker for NCFCA, Phi Rho Pi and TIFA. In addition to assistant coaching students
for NCFCA Qualifiers, I also judge on several circuits and have conducted several workshops on
debate theory and affirmative briefs for the past two years.

Siddiqui, Saira
Judging Paradigm

In CX (Policy) debate, I judge in a very basic manner, I judge blank slate. Solvency for the
affirmative is very important and the affirmative’s solvency should be topical with the resolution.
The negative should be able to prove how the affirmatives solvency is flawed and defend the
status quo. Overall persuasion is also important.
Qualifications

I have been judging debate for almost a year in college. I judged some tournaments in high
school, and I was also part of the debate team in middle school and my first 2 years of high
school. I have mainly done LD and individual events, however I have also participated some in
CX as well.

Steemer, Quintis
Judging Paradigm

Hey debaters my name is Quintis Steemer and I will be your judge. I’m more like a game player
when it comes to debate. I’ll go along with your team as long as you can get your point across
effectively, and that just simply means you have to have a debater’s character and quality in
speech. Research is always something any person should have, otherwise no one should believe
your claim, but it only takes me so far. I like debaters to treat this tournament as if it was a
humongous court room. Just as a lawyer does anything to protect their clients I expect the same
thing from students in this years HUDL debate.
Qualifications

I have actually debated before, which was last year. It was for Worthing high school, and the
team had finally been up and running after ten years. It was my first time ever that I did debate
but I was voted captain. I did every HUDL tournament winning a few rounds here and there. I
also won first place outside of HUDL. I did do UIL before, which is quite intense but it’s good for
debaters. I met a few judges and spoke to them including Bryan K Weber. They all gave me
advice on how to become a better debater. The skills that they give out are extremely useful. Even
though it was my first experience it was one of the best experiences. Hopefully, if this is your first
or even second year, etc, I hope that you enjoy this years HUDL tournament as well.

28
Stidham, Michael
Judging Paradigm

I encourage students to follow the “Yellow Brick Road” in a debate round.

I am looking for students to demonstrate the following;

1. Brains-this tells me that you have done your research.
2. Courage-to articulate your arguments, to be assertive not aggressive.
3. Heart-your passion for debate should be on display.

I do flow the round and track all evidence/arguments presented.

I will not let one argument dropped defeat a team if the overall case is solid.
I appreciate topicality arguments and counter plans but they are no substitute for not attacking
your opponents Harms, Inherency or Solvency.
I love clash in CX and a debater can rack up speaker points here.

Qualifications

High School and College Debater

High School Debate Coach 12 years.
UIL, TFA, NFL, and TOC Judging experience.

Sullivan, Ryan
Judging Paradigm

The affirmative has the burden to prove that the policy option presented in the 1AC is superior to
the Status Quo and any non-topical policy option presented by the negative. I will make that
decision based on whatever the debaters tell me (including Topicality, Solvency, Impact
Scenarios, Theory, etc), but it is their responsibility to tell me why their arguments matter. I
probably will understand your arguments, but that doesn’t relieve you of the duty to explain them.
If you have more specific questions, please ask before the round.
Qualifications

I debated for 4 years in high school at Cy-Falls in Houston (1998-2002), and 4 years in college at
West Point in CEDA East (2002-2006). I’ve judged at TFA, at CEDA, and at numerous other
local tournaments. I also served as a faculty member / assistant lab leader at the Asian Debate
Institute in South Korea in 2009. Since 2006 I’ve been an active duty Air Defense Artillery
officer in the U.S. Army; I am currently a Captain in the Army and I am in my first year of Law
School at the University of Houston Law Center. I have a bachelor’s degree from West Point in
economics and a master’s degree in leadership from UT El Paso. (Please note: I am not biased in
favor of pro-military arguments and I won’t intervene against you if you are wrong and your
opponent doesn’t say it, but you do run the risk of getting caught if you try making things up and
your opponents reasonably question your facts).

For more complete philosophy – see: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sullivan

%2C+Ryan

Trivedi, Zarana

29
Judging Paradigm

When judging, my major paradigms are Games Player and Stock Issues. I dislike excessive speed,
overly aggressive presentation, inaccurate use of scientific information, and overly-dramaticized
corruption arguments.
Qualifications

High School and College Debater

High School Debate Coach 12 years
UIL, TFA, NFL, and TOC Judging experience

Uzman, Jacob
Judging Paradigm

Important things to know –

1) Topicality – I like big topics and I tend to hold the negative to a higher standard in a T debate
(if your definition doesn’t explicitly exclude the Affirmative, you’re going to have to prove why
any ground you lost because of the Aff is important to the debate). However, I enjoy T debates
where a negative team reads evidence that explicitly excludes the Aff from the topic.

2) Theory – Not a huge fan of theory debates, and I’m not that experienced at judging them.
Unless you don’t have any substantive reason why the CP is a bad policy option, theory is
probably not your best 2AR choice with me. That being said, States CPs Bad and International
Fiat Bad (not sure how relevant this one is on SS topic) are arguments I’m particularly
sympathetic.

3) Case Debate – I LOVE IT. My favorite rounds are rounds when the 1NC decides to unload 8
minutes of solvency take-outs and turns or 8 minutes of impact turns to the 1AC. Even if this isn’t
your strat, case debate seems to be underutilized at the high school level, and I personally feel that
it is probably the most important part debate. Which leads me to the 4th and probably the most
important point –

4) I don’t believe arguments like 1% risk of Aff solvency or 1% risk of a link. I have no problem
voting Negative if the 2NR spends 5 minutes articulating substantive reasons why the Affirmative
would not be able to solve their harms. Similarly, if the Affirmative proves that the disad does not
link or there aren’t impacts then I’m going to vote Aff.

5) Inherency is a voting issue.

CPs, Ks, DAs – I’m fine with them, even better if they’re case specific. K-Affs should in some
way be related to the topic (especially a social services topic).

Finally, be respectful in debate rounds, that means CX periods, prep time, and speeches.
Rude/arrogant people annoy me.

If you have any questions feel free to ask them before the round.
Qualifications

30
I did policy debate in high school for four years, where I won numerous awards including second
in 5A UIL CX State. I currently debate in college. I’ve only judged two tournaments on this
topic, so I may not know all the jargon or acronyms. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Vail, Nicholas
Judging Paradigm

Speed is fine, open cross x is fine as long as one person isn’t asking/answering all the questions, I
will deduct speaker points if you crowd out your partner in cross x.

I have no predisposition against certain arguments however, I prefer critical arguments, THIS
DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD RUN A KRITIK IN FRONT OF ME JUST TO WIN, you
should understand the argument and argue it well. I read fairly generic more simpler criticisms
but I have some familiarity with the more complex arguments but that is not a reason you
shouldn’t explain your argument. I will vote for you if you won your disad/cp/case strategy but I
just find critical arguments more interesting. I went for a 50/50 mix of kritiks or cp disads in my
career so I am certainly not opposed to either strategy. I default to competing interpretations on
topicality but you can win that reasonability can be a better strategy in this instance. I am not
familiar with the topic so you should explain your topicality well. I often think the negative
assumes if they read a long theory block or just repeat their block in the 2nr that is sufficient, I am
probably more likely to be persuaded by nuanced aff theory arguments than other judges. At the
end of the debate I need to know the impact to your arguments, its not enough to say extend the
perm they undercovered it, you need to say why the permutation is net beneficial to the cp or the
alternative. If there is some central question about the debate that is unanswered by both sides I
will intervene and you may not like what I decide, so don’t make me do that.
Qualifications

I debated for four years at Baltimore City College. I was part of the Baltimore Urban Debate
League and made it to quarterfinals at the National Urban Debate League championship my
junior year. My senior year I qualified to the TOC and was the 2010 Catholic forensic league
tournament finalist.

Vincent, Griffin
Judging Paradigm

I consider myself a policymaker but am open-minded about alternative argumentation. Be sure

and explain your position clearly; I can’t vote for what you don’t vocalize.
Qualifications

I was a former NDT national champion at Baylor University.

Vu, Thu Huong

Judging Paradigm

I am a tabula rasa judge. I do not have a preference for any specific type of arguments. As long as
the team is able to convince me of the advantage of their resolution, I am fine with anything. I
judge the team according to the quality of evidence, how well their arguments are presented, and

31
topicality. Convincing me is the most important thing. If a team is not as eloquent as the other
team but they are able to convince me with their case, then I will give that team a win.
Qualifications

Though I have never participated in a debate tournament, I have been judging since high school.
Starting from the middle school tournaments, I continued onto the high school level through my
junior and senior years at high school. Since the beginning of this school year, I have been a
judge at two other HUDL tournaments as an active member of the University of Houston
Forensic Society.

Wang, Xuan “Sandra”

Judging Paradigm

If the Aff loses one of the STOCK issues, they unfortunately lose the round. Points that I always
consider: proving the position using relevant and cited evidence, policy plan –which side
constitutes a better one, and be able to directly attack the weakness of opponent. One of the
highlights of the debate that signals to me a good team are their use of speech time, prep time,
cross-ex questions, the first speech, and the last speech. A great debater is always able to answer
and analyze the points through their own interpretation, and not through reading the evidence
again verbatim. Organization and speech clarity is a must. I should not be suspect that it’s your
first time reading your speech.

Speech presentation of non-debate content must be organized, fluent, and well-rehearsed. For
interpretation events, there must be distinct, appropriate character voices that will together, build
to a climax. Unique physical movements are always an eye catcher and will highlight their
speech, therefore putting them above other competitors. And finally, their chosen content should
reflect the speaker himself.
Qualifications

4 years debate:
Mostly student congress and CX, some LD.
Texas delegate to National Model of Organization of American States in Washington D.C.

Weber, Bryan
Judging Paradigm

I consider myself a tabula rasa judge although I generally default policy unless given reasons to
vote otherwise in the round. I believe CX debate is an exercise in real world decision-making and
therefore tend to put a heavy emphasis on the competition of arguments and impact calculus.
Unless you are able to convince me that stock issues argumentation alone represents a better
decision-making model, on-case negative arguments should always contain offensive positions—
case turns are very important.

Good analysis on disadvantages is essential and I am always looking for good link and internal
link evidence and explanation. All impact scenarios should be believable and, most importantly,
warranted by your evidence (talking to you, nuclear war). Although not essential to win, I enjoy
hearing competitive counterplans and critical argumentation. Like DAs, Kritiks need a case-
specific link story and strong alternative; I’m more likely to vote for a CP alternative than

32
rejection, in general.

Topicality, framework and other a priori procedural arguments are typically not very compelling
unless there are legitimate ground concerns. If you decide to go for T, consider dropping
everything else in rebuttals and give heavy standards analysis.

Have fun, and feel free to ask any questions before the round if you have them.
Qualifications

I was a four year high school debater, where I twice won the UIL CX State silver medal, was a
state finalist in prose interpretation and informative speaking, and was an NFL national qualifier
in student congress. I’ve judged on multiple circuits for 10 years, taught at summer institutes for
two, coached debate for one and currently direct the Houston Urban Debate League.

Weber, Kirstin
Judging Paradigm

My paradigm is tabula rasa and I put a very strong emphasis on organization in speeches. I am a
very high flow judge—please go line-by-line if you can. I love well run off-case arguments,
especially Disadvantages and Counterplans, and I like to hear good Solvency clash if going the
Stock Issues route. I love turns in on-case and off-case arguments. Please try to weigh the round
in your rebuttals if time allows. I will weigh almost every argument equally in a round if they are
well-run and structured.
Qualifications

In high school, I broke to elimination rounds two years at the UIL CX Debate State tournament
and won the state championship in 2008. As a college student, I judge frequently and taught at
two different debate camps last summer.

Werner, Erin
Judging Paradigm

I look for good, well thought out points. Clarity in what is being said and presented. I want to see
originals takes/ideas on what is being debated. I want to see that the debater(s) have thought of
almost, if not every, point that the opposing team can use and have well constructed comebacks
for the opposing team. I look for a professional manner and presentation. Don’t let me see you
sweat! You’ve gotten this far so show me your best, have fun and smile!
Qualifications

I’ve been in University of Houston’s Forensic Society since Fall of 2008, where I judge dancing,
poetry reading, acting/ small skit, 1on 1 and 2 on 2 debates in qualifying though championships
levels.

Whyte, Justin
Judging Paradigm

I considered myself a traditional debater despite acquiring a majority of my debate knowledge in

33
an era noted for the advancement of critical arguments. As a judge, I favor straight forward
debates; debates of substance and clash. I favor depth over breadth in terms of making
arguments. I love strategic debate. I consider structure essential. I have a very high standard
when it comes to quality of evidence. I believe that quality is a separate issue entirely from
quantity. Quantity, to me, is a non-issue. I don’t mind speed, but I also do not think it is
essential. If you want to make a million arguments, that’s fine, but they had better be good or
you’re wasting your time. I can not say that I am opposed to the entirety of any position, but I
certainly think that there is more work to be done to win some of them. I do not like debate buzz
words used as arguments. Finally, the 2nr and 2ar should close all the doors they have opened in
the round. If you leave unanswered questions in the round, I have to resolve them one way or
anther, and I don’t like to intervene. If you have any questions regarding my philosophy please
feel free to ask.

Qualifications

I debated four years in high school and was in the semi-finals of both the UIL state tournament
and the TFA state tournament. I debated at UMKC, attending both the NDT and the CEDA
national tournaments. I also received several top-speaker awards throughout my career.

Wynne, Collin
Judging Paradigm

I don't think I'm a super picky judge. I would rather see a few well thought out points with strong
evidentiary support versus the spread. I'm fine with counterplans and I don't thank critical
argument is as cool as everybody else seems to. I like good organization and the debaters letting
me know exactly why they win.
Qualifications

In high school, I competed in numerous TFA and UIL Speech and Debate events. In college, I've
judged parliamentary debate and other debate and speech events.

Zepeda, Andie
Judging Paradigm

I judge debate rounds with a tabula rasa paradigm, which means I look at everything. I pay close
attention to the basics such as presentation and clear arguments on the stock issues because these
skills lay the foundation for a good debate. Without them, all the other skills fall apart.

Speeches should be well organized, well researched, and well presented. I prefer a brief roadmap
at the beginning of each speech. Use logic to build your argument and support the argument with
cards. Speak at a normal rate. Although I understand the strategy behind spreading and appreciate
how difficult a skill it is to acquire and use, spreading is not skill that is likely to prove itself
useful in life unless a speaker has dreams of becoming an auctioneer. Pick the strongest
arguments and develop them.
Qualifications

I participated in policy debate as well as other UIL speech events for 3 years in high school. I

34
began judging UIL speech while I was in undergrad and began judging policy debate just this
year as I entered law school.

35