Martin,+Jeffrey

Debate and Individual Event Judge
====I have judged C-X, L.D., and PF debate frequently for the past 20 years. This includes rounds for U.I.L, T.F.A., and N.F.L. organizations on the invitational, qualifier, district, regional, and state levels. My debating experience began on the Texas High School (Hardin-Jefferson H.S.) level in both C-X and L.D. back in the 1980's under the tutelage of T.F.A. Hall of Fame coach Aaron Timmons (currently at Greenhill Academy). ====

====During the same time frame I have learned how to judge multiple Individual Events. These include Original Oratory, Dramatic Interp, Humorous Interp, Poetry Interp, Prose Interp, Impromptu Speaking, U.S./Domestic Extemp, Foreign/International Extemp, Informative Extemp, and Persuasive Extemp for N.F.L., T.F.A., N.I.E.T.O.C., and U.I.L. competitions on the same levels mentioned previously. ====

Debate Paradigms
C-X: In leagues or tournaments that specify certain paradigms, I will apply those guidelines. Now for my personal paradigm. Most consider me a "Games Player." I like to hear original arguments that have not been "canned" by someone other than the debaters in the round at hand. Really want to see debaters think on their feet. In some cases an analytic argument that specifically ties up a round can outdo a bunch of spreaded generics. Therefore you can deduce that I am a firm believer in quality over quantity in argumentation. This will also be reflected in speaker point evaluation. All topicality and theory arguments must be properly formatted, i.e. violation and impact. Do not argue abuse in "T" then run specific case arguments and disadvantages (D/A's). Links to D/A's must be unique to round. I am open to counter plans (CP's) that meet all normal guidelines, but be prepared to accept the impacts of D/A's if you expect to run one. I am not the biggest fan of Kritiks (K), but will consider them if proven to be valid to the round in accordance to Games Player paradigm. I am a "flow judge," which makes clear speech extremely important. Speed is acceptable up to the point that it is clear and understandable. If you pass that threshold then anything that is not heard it will not be flowed, and if I did not flow it, it did not happen, and I cannot use it to adjudicate the round. If you do pass the threshold, I will drop my pen and cross my arms. If I am not flowing and do not look interested in what you are saying then I am probably not, so slow down and clear it up for all of our benefit. Make sure that you have clashed with the arguments provided by your opponent. Apply them where you want them, I cannot do that for you. Please use Rebuttals to clear up the round. Show me that you have been paying attention. Tell me what you think are the voting issues at hand. Debaters need to maintain professionalism. Overall I want to hear a good clashing debate, but not a shouting match with a lot of animosity. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please pay attention to written comments on the ballot. They are there to help you get better. None of them are meant to be personal.

====L.D.: Take out the C-X related items from the above paradigm and whats left applies to L.D. Now for L.D. specifics. I expect to hear a clear value and value criterion. The criterion and case contentions/observations must link back to the case value. Please make sure that you have logical flow to your case. Do not make large/lengthy jumps toward conclusions to link your case together. Although analytics and opinions are widely accepted in L.D., remember that this is a debate. Evidence and supported facts are a necessity to have a viable case. Follow up arguments with supporting evidence show me that you have put some work into your case and anticipate attacks on case. Empirical evidence will be accepted and is extremely valuable in value debate. Make sure you know the history behind both sides of your topic. Formulating a logical argument with this information shows me a lot about your ability and that you are paying attention to the round if applied correctly. Debaters need to remember that this is not a 1 vs. 1 C-X debate. Do not expect me to vote on C-X theory arguments. Now if framework and voter observations are presented I will consider them. Speed should be kept to a fast conversational pace. Clarity is even more important in this style of debate. If you start out speeding unclearly, I will stop flowing. This will be reflected severely in your speaker points and the ballot when I cannot vote for unheard arguments. Please make sure that you use Rebuttals to clear up the round and give me voters. ====

====P.F.: I really have no theoretical paradigm for Public Forum. I do however want to see a professional round. Please try not to make it personal. Remember this is supposed to be a learning environment, not the foundation for a shouting match. P.F. has been the only debate competition that I have actually had to break up physical fights. I want to see logical arguments. Try to clash with opponent. Make me want to vote for your pro or con position. I will see if one team can control the direction of the round. If you can control this you will probably win the round. ====