Hollis,+Gay

I have been the speech and debate director at James E. Taylor High School in Katy, Texas (Katy Taylor) for 18 years. I have been a coach for 30+ years during which I have coached all of the competitive speech and debate events from duet acting to policy debate. Prior to coaching, I was a policy debater in college and in high school (way back in the dark ages).


 * CX Judging Philosophy**

Although I consider myself to be, first and foremost, a policymaker, I can vote on other issues in the debate round as long as you can justify why I should. I am not a big fan of critical argument, so I expect students who run critical arguments or critical affirmatives to have a clear link and an alternative to get my vote. I am unlikely to be convinced by critical argument that does not have some clear relevance to a) the resolution and/or b) the affirmative case. I can also vote on topicality or theory arguments, but prefer to vote on policy-related issues.

I expect arguments to be clearly articulated and supported with evidence. To clarify: I believe that both the argument and the evidence are of equal value. I will not read evidence after the round unless the content has been questioned. It is the responsibility of the team to frame and support the argument and I will not read a card after the round and interpret it for the team. Also, while I understand that speed is relative and that what is considered fast in some areas is considered slow in others, intelligibility is of critical importance. I will not give any weight to evidence that is incomprehensible (see above). I will, however, try to indicate that speech is unintelligible.

I tend to take a very traditional approach to evaluating rounds. As such, I don’t care much for conditional arguments or the theory spawned by them. I also expect the debaters to weigh arguments in the round and establish a decision calculus. I.E., if both teams present me with extinction impacts and the end of the world as we know it, each should give analysis on how I should weigh those arguments. Likewise, a framework should be established to weigh policy and non-policy arguments against each other. I much prefer to vote on the framework established by the teams in the round than be forced to intervene with my own.

Additionally, I have a very traditional view of the purpose of debate. I believe that we are supposed to be analyzing a specific resolution. I am very unlikely to vote for arguments based on the notion that the “debate space” is a forum to discuss issues of personal, rather than resolutional, relevance. If you want to posit issues (such as those of identity) which are not directly related to the resolution, you do not want me in the back of the room.

Generally, if you aren’t sure, ask and I will try to clarify.


 * LD Judging Philosophy**

In evaluating LD debate, I tend to take a very traditional view, looking first to the value/criteria debate to determine the winner in the round. I expect the debaters involved to establish a framework for the round (which should be directly related to the resolution), and expect the key voting issues to be centered around that framework.

I am not a fan of speed in LD (although I realize speed is relative), and expect both debaters to act in a professional manner at all times. Clarity is of paramount importance. I will not read cards after the round to ascertain their content (unless the content is called into question). If I can’t understand your argument, I can’t evaluate it in the round. And, yes, BOTH the tagline AND the evidence to support it are important.

While I will entertain pragmatic arguments in LD, I prefer the debate to focus more on the philosophical issues relevant to the resolution. I also believe that the focus of LD is intended to be value debate. It is not intended to be solo CX. Even though I also coach CX and certainly understand the arguments, I’m not a fan of policy arguments in LD. I will evaluate them, but they need to be fully developed policy arguments for me to vote on them (not policy-ish). IE, if you run a disadvantage, it should have uniqueness, link and impact and a counterplan should be competitive.

I also generally discourage critical argument in LD debate. Kritiks are specialized arguments based on very complex ideologies, and the time format in LD does not lend itself well to developing those types of arguments. Critical argument in LD tends to be extremely shallow, poorly explained, and often misconstrued. It just, generally, lends itself to really bad debate.

Additionally, I have a very traditional view of the purpose of debate. See CX philosophy regarding the “debate space.”