PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly. New on case arguments are ok in 2NC, but not off case.

Hello, I'm Deborah Banketa, and If you're reading this, I'm assuming I'm your judge. I am currently a student at Wellesley College in Massachusetts and an International Relations-History major. I did debate for my last 2 years in high school and was the captain of the Wylie HS team my senior year. My main debate events were LD and WSD. I was a pretty good LDer and broke pretty consistently at tournaments, although I wasn't the best, and when it comes to WSD, I only did it for a year but I qualed for nats, which must count for something. Although I focused on debate I was a speech kid at heart and did OO and INFO. I triple qualed for NIETOC, TFA State, and NSDA Nationals in Info, but I doubt you care about that since you're a debater. If you have me as a judge, I'm not completely incompetent so don't worry too much, give me a good round, and I'll be the best judge that I can be.

LD

LD is my main event so whatever you run I'll be good with it. Progressive cases are fine and I love me a good DA or CP, hate PICs but I'll vote on them only if I absolutely have to. DO NOT give me frivolous T, I only want to see theory used in the round when necessary but my definition of "necessary" is wider then most, so if you have questions on where I would be okay with it, ask me before round. I am not opposed to a decent traditional LD round, so go as heavy as you want on FW. I'm good with speed, just put me on the email chain and if you're uncomfortable with those, speech drop works for me too. If you don't know how to use speech drop, tell me and I'll help you out. If you are unclear I will say "clear" once and stop flowing. VOTERS, VOTERS, VOTERS. Make this as easy for me as possible and I will most likely vote for you. I'm good with some K's as I ran a lot of anti-blackness but I'm definitely not devoted to understanding the Lit base so if you're running some Deleuze or Baudrillard, dumb it down A LOT, but I'm okay with you running it if you argue it well enough. Be respectful to both me and your opponent, be very careful in CX because I'll drown your speaks if you're too rude or if it gets tense, but I believe in dominating both your and your opponents CX time, so cutting each other off is fine by me. It's a really fine line between the two, so walk it carefully or stay on the safe side. Though I don't flow CX, if your opponent brings it up in the round, I will consider it and it is binding. In summary, run whatever the heck you want and I'll give you bonus speaks if you can make me laugh because I want the round to be fun

CX

bruh good luck.

PF

Look at my LD paradigms but without spreading and FW.

WSD

I qualified for nationals in WSD and I definitely love the event. When it comes down to voting, I'm going to focus mainly on eloquence and argumentation. If you are in an impromptu round and able to give me some unique and distinct arguments, I'm willing to vote for you just on that. Use your POI's wisely, and have a good round.

CONGRESS
Please direct me to the door, because I obviously walked into the wrong room.

SPEECH/INTERP

I qualified for TFA State, Nationals, and NIETOC in INFO and competed in OO in high school and I've cut pieces for my team in DI, HI, Prose and Poetry and all of my events and pieces have done really well so I'd say I'm pretty good on all things interp related. I don't think I've actually ever read an Interp judges paradigm so if you are looking at this, good job! I love interp, so my goal is to enjoy your piece. If I forget to do time signals, you are probably really good (and I'm sorry!). I write a lot of advice on my ballots and tend to forget to compliment things, so if there are a lot of critiques, don't take offense, I probably still really liked it.

I'M EXCITED TO JUDGE YOU AND GOOD LUCK!

I am a parent judge.

No spreading please. Just present your arguments clearly and weigh impacts

Speech Events:

I am looking for authentic characters and emotions. Clear understandable diction is important. I want to feel a part of your story. Clear character differentiation is important.

Debate:

I do not like spreading in LD or anything that is not CX. I want to be able to understand you and your arguments. There should be good supporting evidence and clear impacts. Clash should be strong and case related without abuse on either side through continuing to talk or avoiding answering a question.

Congress:

Bring in new evidence with your speeches. Speak clearly and respond to information in previous speeches. Do not be rude in your questioning or speeches. Treat everyone in the room with respect.

I'm fairly tab, all things considered. I prefer to leave the round to the teams with regards to what is run. That said, I do ask teams to establish clear frameworks for evaluation. In the absence of any such clearly articulated frameworks, I find that I default to policy-maker. I'd also say that if you're planning on running T, make every effort to run it properly.

I'll also cop to not being a fan of spread. Maybe I'm old, but I prefer a few quality arguments to a flow-full of "quality" arguments, if that makes any sense. I get the reasons for spread, but in my humble, outdated, and worth-what-you-paid-for-it opinion, if we have any pretentions of debate as being preparation for anything but for itself, effective and clear communication must be encouraged, and I've never once seen Jack McCoy or Matlock spread opposing council into a courtroom victory.

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

I’m tab. I’m good with anything. If you have more specific questions you can email me -holzwarth589@gmail.com or just ask me before round

I am primarily a public speaking judge. These are the major things I look for:

-You should be able to convey complicated ideas in a way that is easy to follow. Speech and debate is about communication, so needless to say, you should be able to communicate.

-You should be genuine and conversational, being overly robotic indicates that you don't really care about the topic.

-Be wary of using accents in extemp, oratory, or info. Save those for interp.

Hi,

My name is Clay Parker, I did Speech for four years n the Dallas, TX area. I now compete for the University of Texas at Austin and help coach for NSU in Florida. For all intents and purposes, treat me as a lay judge. I have been around debate through my almost eight years but rarely competed within it.

Email: clayparker@utexas.edu

Judging Philosophy:

- I won't look at a card unless you tell me to do so!

- Impact calc is the easiest way to win and the most important part of PF. Just please explain your impact clearly with a fully supported link chain to it and weigh and you will the round. I expect clear weighing in the round and it is beneficial for y'all to do so, if you don't weigh I may default to my own mechanisms and you may not like that. ---> your final focus should just write my ballot for me

- summary and final focus should mirror each other ALWAYS. Please don't make me play a game of I SPY on the ballot, it will much easier for you to win if you as a team know exactly what you are going for and mirror each other

- I would really prefer clear full extensions. I don't simply want just "extend Jones 12" because that doesn't really tell me much. Instead, extend Jones, the warrant, and any necessary offense from it. Explain to me why Jones is important.

- warranted responses >>> blippy card dumps

*I am not super versed in progressive debate like Ks you can run them but I may need a lil while to comprehend the argument. I am not a super big fan of theory (disclosure specifically), I have a very high threshold for it, so if you go for it make sure you are right.

cquinto815@gmail.com

She/her

**

Tl;dr paradigm

1. Clarity/speed, and I don't care how the round is run, just don't get me in trouble with tournament officials.

**For online debate, just be mindful that technology tends to make a mess of things.

2. I don't care what you run (within reason), just make sure you can run it well.

3. Specificity is key.

**

Please give trigger warnings before the round starts if necessary and don't be a jerk without reason.

Tell me what my role is in the round and I'll do it. I judge based on what main issue/question is in the round and who best answers it given that framework. If not, I default to whatever world is "better." The form and content of the argument do not matter to me, and I encourage you to run arguments you are passionate about and believe in. That being said, I don't like "cheap" arguments, let alone voting on them. I prefer voting on developed and warranted arguments, so interpret this as you will.

I do, however, draw the line at intentionally racist, sexist, and/or anti-queer arguments. Essentially, don't be discriminatory. Argue with the wall.

Argument specificity, impacts, and interaction are necessary for me to evaluate the round. I want to know how your arguments interact-- how the K or DA links, how the offense on your K/DA interacts with the aff/alt, how the alt or CP solves, et cetera.

Additionally (and this goes for everything), don't assume I'm 100% familiar with everything you're reading. I don't keep up with everything that happens in a season or in a topic, so some abbreviations, arguments, or policies can be unfamiliar to me. ----- (Update: 3/3/21: That being said, don't assume I know much about the specifics of your topic. Because I don't.)

For K's in particular, don't assume I know/understand your theory of power and how it's being applied specifically in the round. That is to say, make sure you're particular about the link and alt level because I won't do that work for you-- especially if I don't understand the K you're running. I think it's good practice to explain your theory of power anyway, but please keep in mind that I don't consistently read lit.

In terms of what I find persuasive, I prefer offense over defense and truth over tech.

I did four years of CX, so I'm okay with tech/theory stuff on the flow. However, if I'm your judge for LD/PF, I don't really know all the other things that go on outside of CX, so if you want to get super technical/theoretical, I'm going to need some more explanation/impact calc than a regular LD/PF judge.

As for evidence, I'll read it if it's necessary for me to make a decision, but the evidence and its warrants should be explained for me, ideally, in the round.

Good luck with your rounds! :)

When it comes to LD I look for framework arguments above contention arguments and I am fine with logical arguments. No spreading please. Higher points for addressing the issue raised by opponents from your initial position. I like good CX. Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive. Not a big fan of shell case.

Virtual Rules: Your camera should be on at all times. If for some reason there is a lag or connection issue, we can address it as it comes up, or I will attempt to turn my camera off temporarily to help boost the connection strength. When performing in extemp, you should be standing away from your computer, not sitting down. You definitely should NOT be reading a speech from the computer or a legal pad that's sitting beside you. I will make a note of it on your ballot and you will be ranked lower as a result.

Speaker Points: These are based largely on your fluency, use of filler words, and general "good manners" in a round. Don't be overly, unnecessarily aggressive during CX, especially if it is obvious you have the stronger argument or are the stronger speaker in the room. As an example, I've had one of my own seniors on my team come out of a round at District laughing because they made a freshman opponent cry during CX. Sure enough, on the ballot, the judge made a comment about being unnecessarily aggressive, cutting his opponent off before allowing him time to respond. He docked my senior speaker points, and I'm telling you now, I will do the same. Be kind, and let's have a fun debate!

LD: I haven't judged many rounds yet on either the NSDA or UIL topics, but I have coached and taught Lincoln-Douglas for three years. Don't spread in LD. If I can't follow your case because you're reading so fast it's just mumbling to me, you'll lose the round by default. This doesn't mean you can't read fast. If you're familiar with your case and you've rehearsed and practiced in round (and practiced and practiced and practiced some more), your fluency will be flawless and you'll be the faster - and better - speaker in the round. I weigh each debater's value, criterion, and arguments, and I vote on who upheld them better. Drops don't necessarily lose a round for me if the drop was insignificant in light of their stronger argument.