I have been judging LD for the past 5 years, and I have a very limited threshold for anything that is not traditional LD. ie NO Ks, NO THEORY, NOTHING NON T. I do appreciate well thought out policy affs and anything stock. Philosophy is ok, but you have to tell me why a phil debate would be productive ie why anyone should care about what our moral obligation is when we have people dying etc.

Speed.

Spreading is fine but include me in the email chain when you are reading your case or any cards. AND SLOW DOWN AT TAGLINES

debbanerjee@gmail.com

Judging Style.

I pay a lot of attention to framework and impact analysis. Did you win the impact calculus and if so tell me why I care and why your arguments matter. If you don't mention a weighing mechanism, I default to Util. Clash is important, don't just reiterate what you previously said.

Good luck and have fun debating!

I have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.

All Debates

Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to refrain from telling me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round----you should win with your arguments, not weaponizing rules. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it effectively), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.

Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself. Weighing only works if there are links to those impacts.

Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they fit within the confines of the debate.

Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you a loss.

Specific Debates

Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.

Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.

Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.

Big Questions and World Schools- I expect these to be respectful debates that resemble a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.

World Schools (specifically)- In World Schools, this should look like World Schools- NOT POLICY. I will not entertain spreading, over-sourcing, or not using good style, strategy, etc. For prepared motions, I also will not entertain abusive debate that is so limited it is impossible to prepare for before the tournament. Do Policy if you like Policy that much.

Congress Paradigm for 2023 TOC:

Delivery: delivery will be a factor in my decision, but only a moderate one. Ideally, speakers adapt to their audience, have poise and confidence, and consider word choice carefully. Two notes I write for congressional speakers often are: 1) Stop yelling at me (please adjust your tone to be appropriate for this environment, and 2) please use a tone appropriate for the topic of debate.

Evidence usage: evidence weighs strongly in my decisions. I'm not only interested in the quality of the evidence, but I'm interested in how you use and analyze it. More is not always better.

Analysis: analysis may be the largest factor in my decisions for rankings in Congress. I really like to see debaters thinking critically, weighing arguments well, and finding nuanced ways to discuss legislation. Speakers who simply expand on arguments already made are going to struggle to do well on my ballot.

Decorum: be respectful, be kind, and follow the rules. I assume you will do this, but if you don't, that will not sit well with me.

I am open to seeing a number of different tactics employed in a round. Give me a weighing mechanism, evidence, and strong impact calculus.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 26 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 20 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing values and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value.

Value, criterion and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides.

Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Points that I look for:

· Slow down on the Tags!

· Must be clear with your value and criteria

· Contention and it's value MUST BE crystal clear

· I do not allow flex time

· Speak at a reasonable pace

· Time yourself-I will also keep time

· Argue on logic not emotions

· Quotations have no meanings without explanations

· Make logical and sensible arguments AND explain your arguments.

· There’s a difference between a passionate and an abrasive or condescending debater

· Stay organized

· Be respectful to your opponent

· Construct a well impacted argument/s

· The debater that most clearly present a logical argument AND effectively refute the opponent will be the victor

· MOST OF ALL, ENJOY YOURSELVES WHILE PERFECTING YOUR CRAFT

1. I am speech couch that's been debate adjacent
2. I vote on the cleanest argument that makes sense, has evidence, links reasonably to an impact
3. If nothing makes any sense or proven true, I default to negative

A mandatory sentence about me: I did speech and debate for three years in my high school prime; was trained in classical rhetoric at the University of Colorado; and am currently a coach on the Niwot High School forensics team. I've had to reflect on whether I judge debate based on how I did it back in the day, or my understanding of argumentation now. These days, I take an old school understanding of argumentation/debate to heart, and as a result, judge accordingly. For all practical purposes, I treat debate as a rhetorical process.

Aristotle defined rhetoric to be "finding the available means of persuasion". To me, high school debates are no different. I will judge you by how you persuade me in your attempt to satisfy your burden. "How well you persuade me" doesn't necessarily mean "how well". I am an extremely biased person. As a judge, I don't care so much as if you manage to convince me of one side or the other because that outcome largely depends on whether I initially agree or disagree with each particular side of a debate. I care about how you go about trying to persuade me. So, here's some rhetorical criteria I use to judge:

1. Logos is only part of the package. I will be assessing the structure and content of your arguments as much as the next guy, but unless you have a pair of pointy ears, I'll be looking for more. Ethos is a very big deal: what kind of character you present in terms of your personal ethics, and what kind of credibility you display through your research, citations, and general preparedness will be important. Pathos is also a requirement: how effectively are you supporting your arguments with the necessary emotional appeals to actually persuade a human being?

2. I look for creative topoi: unique but relevant sources of argumentation. Basically, if you are giving me the typical stock case or debate brief arguments, that will have an impact on me. Having a good value, criterion, and contentions is only the prerequisite for debate.

3. This is still a speech event: delivery matters. I am more than capable of flowing at spreading speeds, but I will begin to analyze your purpose for speed. Are you nervous? Are you trying to outpace your opponent? Do you have so much content and very little word economy?

4. I am a firm believer in the Greek notion of kairos, or acting at the opportune time. Basically, it comes down to this: there is a time and a place for most things; arguments and argumentative strategies included. I look for the debater who demonstrates recognize and act on opportune moments within the debate. A basic example of this is acting on dropped arguments.

5. Finally, and more importantly, don't leave me to connect the dots. Enthymemes and quasi-logical arguments only leave cracks for interpretation open. So, minimize your assumptions, walk me through your arguments, and make sure everything you do and say has rhetorical value to your overall goal.

Alright then. Other than that: good luck, may the Force be with you, and may the odds be ever in your favor.

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

My debate background is in policy, but at this point, I have experience judging PF and LD as well. Feel free to to do whatever you want and make any arguments you can clearly explain and effectively justify. I am open to anything and enjoy thoughtful and creative approaches to debate as long as you are not being rude or offensive. If you're being a jerk, I will dock speaks.

If I am judging your round, make sure you do the following:

-Keep track of time: I will not be timing any of your speeches or prep, so time yourselves and your opponents-I'd prefer avoiding situations where no one knows how much prep time is left or how long a person has been speaking. Also, please respect when the timer goes off-If your time runs out during prep, I expect you to begin your speech promptly, and begin any of your remaining speeches right away. If your time runs out during your speech, please stop speaking.

-Share evidence quickly: I won't count getting your speech doc over to your opponent as prep time, but please be prepared to do so immediately once you end prep (the document should already be saved at this point). I'm pretty understanding with technical difficulties you may encounter, but you should be able to resolve these quickly and I will get annoyed if you take too long to share evidence. Please include me on any evidence email chains as well.

-Assume I don't know about the resolution: This is super important because I am not consistently judging the same type of debate throughout the year and I have very likely not done any research on the topic. If I'm judging you in PF or LD, be aware that it's the first round at a tournament on a new topic, it's possible that l think it's still the previous topic. This means that you should be as thorough as possible in explaining things and if you're going to be using acronyms to refer to agencies, departments, organizations, laws, policies, etc. in your speeches, you should tell me what it is at least once. If it's unclear, I either won't know what you are talking about, or have to spend time during your speeches to google it.

If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask me before your round. No need to shake my hand.

I am a parent judge, and vote on debate events based on clarity of the argument supported by evidence, examples. Quality wins over quantity. Be respectful to the other speakers. I judge speech events based on good structure identifying the problem and solution with examples and conviction on both. Additionally looking at impact of the speech with poise, vocal variety and strong delivery with effective body movement.

Quick paradigm- I feel I am strongest in judging interpretation. I enjoy Informative and Oratory speeches as this gives me an opportunity to learn what is important to the performer. My least favorite event to judge is extemporaneous as I am not well versed in politics.

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

Tim Wegener

Debated for 8 years at Greenhill '19 and Northwestern '23.

Emails for the chain:

tpwegs3@gmail.com

And if college: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Assistant coach for Northwestern

I feel strongly that affirmatives should be topical. I am significantly better for a counterinterp + their model bad than impact turns to limits/predictability. I think I am equally good for procedural fairness and clash based offense, but the sooner the neg picks a route and sets up the associated framing questions (ballot solvency, SSD, etc.), the better.

I do not think I am very good for the K as it is generally debated. I think I am fine for more specific Ks that turn/solve the case or utilize more traditional case defense. I am much worse for Ks that rely on framework or ontology arguments to come before the case.

I'm likely to be an okay judge for theoretical objections like conditionality bad, 2NC cps bad, and arguments regarding the legitimacy of fiating certain actors (intl. actor fiat, private actor fiat, 50 state fiat, etc.). I am generally less persuaded by theory arguments that attempt to exclude a particular type of counterplan (process cps, PICs, agent cps, etc.) but I am extremely good for the aff in competition debates against these types of counterplans. Judge kick is up for debate, but it must be set up in the 2NR for me to consider it.

Inserted rehighlightings are fine if they come from your opponents’ cards. If they come from elsewhere in the articles, you should read them.

If you ask for a 30 I will give you a 27. If you go for death good you will lose. If you threaten other debaters you will lose and get the lowest possible speaks.

I try to adjust speaker points relative to the quality of the tournament/division. A 29 at a major is different than a 29 at a regional tournament or a 29 in the JV division.

Argument quality matters deeply, probably more to me than others. The idea that technical execution is the only thing that matters in debate, at the expense of research and strategy, is absurd. It shouldn't take much to defeat the argument that particle accelerators are inevitable so it's try or die to kill billions or global warming is good. This doesn't mean I won't vote on bad arguments. But the worse the argument the less it takes for the other team to win.

Relatedly, I will reward with speaker points and you are much more likely to win if you demonstrate actual knowledge about the topic and the world through research and strategy. Technical execution is important, but the best debates accurately reflect real world discussions at the highest levels.

My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years. 

I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.

Other aspects to keep in mind:

I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework. 

I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework. 

Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed. 

I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.

I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.

Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.

Policy Paradigm:
I want to say that I am Tabs, but my experience has made me realize that no one is actually Tabs. Every judge has his/her own preferences, and every judge has a slightly different way of evaluating rounds.I have listed a few of my specific preferences below.

I have been both a K debater and a traditional policy debater. However, throughout my debate career, I tended to go for the K, the Cap K in particular, more often than not.

T- I default to evaluating based on reasonability if no frame of evaluation is presented. However, if one team argues for competing interpretations, the other team must explain why reasonability would be a better way to evaluate the round. Blippy Ts aren't enough to win a round in front of me. In general, there must be proven abuse and an extremely well fleshed out T argument that is specific to the affirmative case.

Theory- I most likely will not vote for a team on just theory alone unless there has been proven abuse. Also, if you're trying to win on theory, please go all out on theory in your last speech.

Ks- If you're running a K, please know what you are talking about. You must be able to explain the K without having to look at your cards, and you must contextualize your K according to the affirmative. I love Ks, but I hate Ks that are terribly run. 

CP- I absolutely despise conditions CPs. They are plan-plus and usually just become a muddled mess. Advantage CPs with specific net benefits are great. Agent CPs are fine as long they are warranted. 

DAs- Do your thing. Know all parts of a DA. That is all. I love a well carved out politics DA. 

Parent judge, don't speak fast

PARLI PARADIGM FOR NPDI 2016:

I have judged high school parli before but sparingly. I do not understand how the event is conventionally judged or interpreted. I compete for Berkeley's APDA team and I did Public Forum debate in high school. I am competent at flowing although I cannot flow policy speed or the speed of the fastest circuit LD; if you ask me to do so I will say "clear" if you go too quickly, but without prompting I will remain silent.

I am open to all kinds of arguments; to me, an argument is a claim and a warrant (i.e. a reason why the claim is true). I default to an offense-defense paradigm, so if you want me to evaluate the round in a way other than that tell me to do so and warrant why I should do so. If the round is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm it is of paramount importance that you weigh your arguments and warrant why they are more significant than your opponents' impacts, otherwise I will be deciding without a good justification for either side. I am unfamiliar with Ks in parli but I am open to them (if you explain them well) and I am predisposed to enjoy arguments that deploy an unconventional strategy.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

TLDR: I am a flow judge who will try to give helpful feedback.

How I Make My Decision

I will vote largely based on the final two speeches. I prefer to only vote on arguments whose warrant and impact are in both the summary and the final focus. However, there are two exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from the rebuttal to the final focus, however, I greatly prefer them to be in the summary and I am more likely to feel that they are new if they are extended from second rebuttal to second final focus. Second, the first final focus can make some new responses to new arguments made in the second summary but be reasonable about it.

Weigh as much as possible. I flow weighing arguments, and you can and should reference them as cleanly extended weighing analysis if your opponents do not respond to weighing in rebuttal or summary. Try to beyond using weighing buzz words such as magnitude/probability/timeframe and instead really tell me why the resolution is still true or false even if your opponents win all of their arguments.

Argumentation

I try and fail to come into each round as a blank slate, meaning that I try to disregard my biases.

I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

I am probably comfortable with most speeds that will be reached in a Public Forum round, but if you are going too fast I will try to let you know. However, if you go slower I am on balance more likely to vote for you. Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what kind of argument are making, but please try to sound like a human rather than a jargon machine. If it stops being helpful my expression will let you know.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

Evidence

Evidence ethics in Public Forum are awful. If your opponents are lying about evidence tell me, and they will lose because of it.

During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence will be exchanged off of prep time, but the team reading the evidence will need to take prep to do so unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you gives me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Although this is thorough it does not mean that I often call for evidence; on the contrary, I set strict guidelines so that I do not call for evidence when it is unreasonable to do so, reducing the probability that I intervene. 

Speaker Points

I will reward debaters for clarity, kindness, humor, tech skill, strategy, teamwork, persuasion, topic knowledge, and genius. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance long after the round, you should teach other students how to do debate right. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- There is a lot of room for improvement. 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.  

My Background

I competed in Public Forum for Evanston Township High School, mainly on the national circuit, and I graduated in 2015.

If you have any additional questions feel free to ask. If you have an issue with my decision also please feel free to communicate with me about that after the round.

I'm an administrator at Northland Christian that has been traveling with our debate team for over 10 years. Over the years, I have judged a variety of events like PF, Congress, and IEs. Each year, I judge at a couple of tournaments for our school like Berkeley and Glenbrooks. When making a decision, I will look mainly at content and style. Students should not speak too fast and should make logical arguments throughout the debate; they should be considerate to their opponents and the judge throughout the round. I will not keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, but I will take notes to help me make a decision. For Isidore Newman, I will be judging Worlds. I have seen a couple of practice rounds and understand the style and expectation of students in this format, but this will be the first time I judge this event.

Competition Experience:

Competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.

Flay Judge

Public Forum

I have not done any prep on the Sept/Oct topic so anything that you read will be new to me.

I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

I do not flow crossfire. Any concessions made during cross need to be brought up in the next speech.

First summary needs to extend defense. Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.

I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.

Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Competed in College Parliamentary (2 years) and Coaching for 2 years.

I'll go through the more common paradign questions. Feel free to ask questions about judging philosophy before round if any.

TL;DR: Tabula Rasa, for the most part. Good with speed. Care about links > impacts. Clear voters needed. 

Speed/Speaks

I'm fine with all speed. Fast, slow, in-between. Trust me, I can follow, and if I can't, I'll yell "Clear" in-round so you know. If you're going to spread, make sure that your diction is still clear. 

SIGN POST! 

I find double-clutching annoying, but if you do it, okay. If you care about speaks, slow down taglines, Big Picture statements, and VOTERS. Also, you should be using up all your time. 

If phone goes off in round, you are rude to me or opponent(s), or you leave >1min on clock, expect low(er) speaks. Any of those in excess will probably = 0.

If you give a topical and/or funny joke that doesn't take up a lot of time (READ: NOT CASE), then you will probably get bonus speaks and a laugh. :)

Theory

If you can make it make sense and it wins on the flow, it wins.  I am a firm believer that the judge does not create the rules of the debate. Because of this, I tend to focus on the metaframing, detailed link articulations, impact calculation, and have a high threshold for 2AR/2NR warrant extensions. Often I will lower the priority of an argument if it is merely shadow extended in the last speech. The last thing you want is for me to interpret the debate or your evidence; interpret it for me.

I studied Rhetoric and Philosophy for my undergraduate, so I have a pretty decent grasp of most philosophies. Still don't assume I know anything. Explain it, link it, show me why it's important.

Run a K. Don't run a K. I'm good with whatever. If you run a K, at least understand your K. 

I will drop debater on T. I don't vote on RVI (VERY VERY rare). Seriously though, don't run the T if topical. Be clear in Interp and Vio. 

Judging Style/Preferences

LINKS. LINKS. LINKS. LINKS. I don't care if X leads to nuclear war and human extinction. You need clear and detailed link articulation. At the same time, it is the obligation of both teams to point out poor links. If not, I must assume X happens. I care more about links BEFORE impacts. 

I don't vote on RVIs. Provide clear offense in voters. I like theory debate, I like RW debate, I like all debate. Don't drop arguments, and if your opponents do, point it out. 

I WANT CLASH! :)

I don't want to do the work. Do the work for me. I will if I have to, but please don't make me. I.E. Weigh the debate out and give me clear voters. I flow, so don't worry if opponent says "they never responded to this, I win" when you clearly did respond. 

Rules

If there are any rules violations that you want to point out, I'll make a note of it, and we continue on the debate. We will deal with it after rd.

AFA NIET All American 2008.

8 years coaching I.E. and Congress at the high school level.

Competed 4 years collegiate forensics for Northern Illinois University in the events: DI, DUO, PROSE, POETRY, IMPROMPTU, ADS, INFORMATIVE AND POI.

1 year High School Forensics in HI and RADIO speaking for Prospect High School at Sectionals level.

3 year AFA National qualifier(12 qualifications over 3 years in DI, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Info, POI, Impromptu.)

2 year NFA qualifier.

Graduate Second City comedy school. Groundlings Advanced Program.

Professional Actress/Voice Artist/Stand Up Comic.

Debate: 3+ years experience judging POFO, LD, and PARLI. Values: organization, unique arguments, intelligence(specificity), balance.

*Fine with spread in LD/Pofo. Not comfortable judging policy, so not good with spread in policy.

Debates:   I want you to convince me that your side is the "correct" one.   Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not.    I have judged lots of PF, Parli, and LD, but consider myself a "Flay" judge. 

Spread at your own risk!  Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me with information and data vice being "on point" with your arguments it will most likely work against you.  On the flip side providing me lots of relevant information and facts can help you, as long as it is all germaine and meaningful.  There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value well founded points that are delivered deliberately and effectively more than those that are delivered haphazardly or in a flurry of words.  Take your time and DON'T WASTE WORDS!

I will reward elequent / articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins, so focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points - that is what will decide whether you win or not. 

Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex!  I realize your tempers may flare depending on what your opponents may say or do, but part of what I am looking for is your ability to remain professional and level-headed despite that.  I have been known to "ding" a team if I feel they were excessively rude and/or condescending.    

IEs:   I am looking for a presentation / performance that has a solid underlying message / meaning and I really want to feel that it is coming from your heart vice just being recited.  I believe IEs can and should make people think as well as just be entertaining.  A topic that is "funny", "tragic" or "sorrowful" isn't necessarily thought provoking.  Your use of the whole "stage", eye contact, projection, inflection, etc. really influence how powerfully your message comes across.   I want to sense an aura of confidence and command of your material when you are performing.  Endeavor to "Own the Room!"   

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

Hi

I am a parent judge. I have experience judging for the past three years and familiar with rules. I have primarily judged LD, but have done some PF rounds.

I believe that the debators should speak effectively and communicate their perspectives on the topic with appropriate evidence. They should convince me why their perspective has superiority over their opponent. Speaking skills will only be considered if there is a tie between the two teams. I appreciate professionalism in the debate.

I can accept fast speaking, but I would not like speed reading which makes it very difficult to understand and strains the process of listening. I believe that effective arguments  have to be succinct, not necessarily elaborate.

I enjoy being a judge, often get inspired by the students and admire the work they put into the debate.

I look forward to being a judge.

Thank you.

Uma Srivatsa MD

Most Important Criteria

I'm a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn't respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I'll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won't do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I'm also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you'll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts).

Predispositions

The only thing I'm predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you've been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I'll still vote on it even though I won't want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it's warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative's case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I'd rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren't, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations.

Speed/Jargon/Technical

I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I'm not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don't speed the other team out of the room. If they call "clear" or "slow", slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed.

NOTE: I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It's your debate, it's up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn't a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say.

NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES: Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.

I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

Debate

1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.

2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).

2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.

3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.

3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\

3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.

4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.

4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.

5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.

6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

I competed in LD for James Logan from 2010-2014 then coached from 2014-2016. I've been gone from the activity for five years so I'm sure a lot has changed, but I'll try my best to keep up. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer them.

A general overview:

I can probably handle some degree of speed but it's been close to six years since I've judged a circuit tournament so take that as you will. Also take into account that since everything is virtual, it will be much harder for me to hear you.

Regardless of how fast you choose to speak, signpost clearly.

If you want something to matter at the end of the round, clearly extend it all the way to your last speech. Even if your opponent dropped it, extend the full argument.

Framework doesn't necessarily need to be a traditional V/VC, but needs to exist in some form for me to evaluate the rest of the round.

I like when debaters tell me exactly how and why I should be voting. Crystallize the debate clearly at the end of the round and tell me exactly why you won.

Weigh your arguments. I hate sitting at the end of the round with a bunch of floating impacts. It will be so much easier for me to vote for you if I don't have to do any of that work for you.

I've never been a huge fan of theory. If you do choose to run it, you better have a very good reason.

Hello,

My name is Henli Tjokrodjojo,

I work in finance, so if you talk about the economy, that is something up my alley.My affiliation is with Dougherty Valley High school, and I have been judging for 6 years in Public Forum, Extemp/Impromptu/Interp, LD. I do not like fast speaking, but a bit of speed is okay as long as I can understand it.

I award speaker awards based on how confident you are as well as your argumentation. I generally give a range of 26 to 29 with an average of 27.5 or something. Just please don't be rude to me or your opponents. Make sure to explain your arguments.

I make a decision based on a couple of things.

A small part is how you present your arguments. Obviously if you cannot articulate your arguments well, you won't be getting my vote. The biggest thing is your explanation. I think interacting with your opponents arguments and explaining how they are wrong and how you are right makes me vote for you. I do take notes, while I don't flow, I try to take detailed notes on what you are talking about. Truth over tech.

MISC weighing stuff.

1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 1 Use of Evidence: 8 Real World Impacts: 9 Cross Examination: 7 Debate skill over truthful arguments: 2

I also prefer no spectators because I feel like it is unfair for a debater to have spectators for them while the other does not. This can be distracting. However, if both debaters are okay with spectators, i may be okay with it.

Please ask me any questions before the round, but if it's towards the end of the day I may be a bit more quiet :) you know, cause I will be tired.

Background: I debated policy back in high school, but it's been years since then so I would slow down (speed).

K's: OK but it needs to be VERY clearly explained.

T: if you're going for T or theory then voters need to be extended and your case of abuse/potential abuse needs to be articulated.

Flash time counts as prep (policy). Please don't shake my hand.

School Affiliations:

Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event Type:

Speech Events

How many years have you been judging?

7 years

How will you award speaker points to the debaters?

I will look for fluency and well rounded speech.

What sorts of things make a decision at the end of the debate?

Confidence and clarity of thought, expression and conveying the topic to any one with or without knowledge on the topic.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?

No

Preferences on the use of evidences?

Make sure that they are recent and credible.

Thoughts on real world impacts on the debate?

It is important to articulate the impact.

How do you judge cross examination?

I have no experience in judging debate events

How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?

If the speaker knows what they are saying about. Both truthful arguments and debate skill are equally important.

I believe spreading in debate has no educational value so I am extremely prejudiced against it.