CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

PF 1. obviously clash is a must. I prefer all debaters take part in grand cross fire, but will judge on case by case. Clear impacts and weighing mechanism.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

I focus on rhetoric and overall persuasive appeal. I do not think spreading is the best plan of attack.

General paradigms: I will usually listen to any and all arguments. However, it is your job to present your arguments in a cohesive and persuasive way if you want me to vote on it.

Spreading: I do not appreciate it. Prioritize clarity over speed.

I am an experienced scholar. I will vote on the argument which is supported better with factual, not hypothetical, evidence.

I will not tolerate spreading. I do not appreciate theory or k's.

I appreciate rhetoric and overall persuasive appeal.

Legal Studies teacher and Debate Coach at Westside High School

Email: benjamin.campagna@houstonisd.org. You can email me for an explanation of these paradigms or with debate questions in general.

As with all aspects of our lives, our lived experiences influence our biases, priorities, and preferences. This is true for judging paradigms as well as anything else. I have been involved with debate in one capacity or another for over 20 years, first as a high school debater who did both LD and CX, then as a mentor and judge for many years after that, and finally as a debate coach since 2017. I am also a practicing attorney and a teacher. Ultimately, I believe that debate serves three main purposes: 1) education, 2) competition, and 3) fun. My judging paradigms flow from those purposes and my experiences in both the academic and "real" worlds.

I am a tabula rasa judge. I believe that debate is a curricular game and the participants should use whatever legal tools are at their disposal to try to win. Therefore, I believe in tech over truth (but logical inconsistency in argumentation is bad tech, as described below). Tell me how you want to play the game, and I will adapt to you.

Keep in mind, though, that I believe that games are only educational, fun, and fair when everyone plays by the same rules. Unlike most games, the rules for debate are flexible, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I expect all of the participants in the round to understand the handbook/hard rules and the norms common for whatever circuit we're in (HUDL, UIL, TFA, NSDA, etc.), and if you are arguing that the rules or norms should be different than expected, you need to be convincing. If the debaters in the round do not convincingly argue why we should be playing by different rules, I will default to the standard rules of the game and the typical judging paradigms (framework arguments and impact calculus). I will vote on anything if the team can clearly explain why I should care about that issue or give weight to that argument, so there are no arguments I will refuse to consider. However, there are some arguments that will have an easier or harder time moving the needle for me, as described below.

Before diving into specific argument preferences, a brief note about speaking style. I view debate as, first and foremost, an educational activity for the participants in the round. The main skill I think debaters should be learning is how to effectively persuade a third party observing an argument. It's not enough that the third party thinks you execute technical argumentation well; it's more important that the third party understands you and believes what you say. Therefore, I take the evaluation of speaker points seriously. I am fine with speed and can follow spreading, but I ask that you give detailed roadmaps and follow them well, slow down to emphasize your taglines, and tell me where you are on the flow when you move on to a new argument.

POLICY

In cross-examination debate, I ultimately want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a net-positive to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. A K-Aff will need to advocate for a strong alternative that relates to the resolution.

The Negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative advocacy (solvency deficit, disadvantages, counterplans, Kritiks, etc.). I am especially persuaded by impact calculus in deciding whether or not the Affirmative plan is worth implementing.

Burdens:

Generally speaking, I care a lot about burdens. If both sides make good arguments and no one argues why the other side's arguments are bad (lack of competition), then Aff wins because Neg has not upheld its burden of clash. I don't care how much better the Neg's position is, if the Affirmative still looks like a net benefit over the status quo at the end of the round, they win. On the other hand, if both sides tear each other apart and by the end of the round no one has made any good arguments, then Neg wins because the Aff has not upheld their burden of proof. It doesn't matter how bad Neg's arguments are, Aff can't win if it doesn't support a position that is better than the status quo at the end of the round.

Analytics:

Obviously, certain claims require carded evidence, and I will usually weigh carded evidence over contradicting analytics. However, I am absolutely fine with arguments based on logic and analysis. Only empirical claims that cannot be reasonably derived from common knowledge or an analysis of the evidence that has been presented in the round need to be carded.

DAs:

Most rounds are decided in the impact calculus, so be sure to emphasize this in the round. Explain why I should care about what you're saying and why the other side's position is less weighty than yours. I care less that you won the DA and more about what it means for my ballot that you won the DA. Many teams have won arguments and still lost the round because I didn't think that them winning that particular argument was very important to the outcome of the round.

In weighing advantages and disadvantages, uniqueness carries a lot of weight with me, especially on political DAs. Convince me that we're on the brink and it's the plan that pushes us over the edge.

Please avoid logically-inconsistent DAs. For example, it's hard for me to reconcile that the plan crashes the economy but also helps the president win reelection.

CPs:

For a counterplan, the Negative has the burden of proving that the counterplan is a net-positive over both the status quo and the Affirmative plan.

I am generally fine with any number of conditional counterplans; in the real world, if someone comes up with seven alternatives to a plan that are mutually exclusive with that plan, defending any one of those alternatives is a valid reason to not implement the plan. If it turns out that none of those alternatives was good, but the plan itself is worse than the status quo, that's also a valid reason to not implement the plan. I don't have a problem with the Neg team making both arguments. However, I am not a fan of topical counterplans as I believe that encroaches on Aff ground and blurs the burdens discussed above.

Ks:

If I am convinced of the framework/role-of-the-ballot argument, then I will weigh the Kritik above any other consideration (except theory, see below). If I am not convinced of the framework argument, then I will weigh the Kritik like a disadvantage along with the other advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, don't rush past the framework argument, it's an important part of winning the K.

The K team has the burden of proof. I think most Ks are susceptible to permutation ("do the plan on the way to reforming the system"). Unlike counterplans, I am generally not persuaded by conditional Ks: if you think the status quo is so broken that it warranted a departure from traditional debate and the topic we came here to discuss, then I want you to commit to it. If you also run an argument contradicting your K, then I doubt your advocacy and you should lose the K.

I am not in favor of any argument that precludes a debater from making an argument because of that debater's identity. "You can't say that, you're [whatever identity]!" is not a winning argument. Also, it is your burden to explain your position in a way that your opponents and judge can understand. If you argue that your opponent (or judge) just doesn't understand (or care about) your K because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, or any other personal quality, then you have failed in your advocacy and you will not win that K.

Theory:

We've all had those moments playing games that devolve into an argument over the rules of the game. At the end of that game, people are miserable and no one feels good about winning or losing. That's how I feel about theory arguments in debate. Theory obviously goes toward the fairness of the game itself, and a successful theory argument is my highest priority in the round. However, I don't like frivolous theory arguments and I will be heavily biased against you if you argue that something is abusive when it is generally considered within the usual norms of the circuit. I won't do it for you, but I am easily swayed that frivolous theory is a reverse voting issue. That doesn't mean a theory team can't win, but it does mean you better bring your A-game.

I will vote on topicality if the Affirmative plan is clearly abusive or burdensome for the Negative or outside the scope of what the resolution is most commonly understood to mean. I am almost never persuaded by topicality arguments when the Negative was clearly prepped for the Affirmative case, or when there are very few reasonable Affirmative plans that can be topical under the Negative's proposed definitions.

Conditionality is generally fine for CPs, but not Ks (see those sections above). I'm not going to do the work for you: you still have to argue condo-good or condo-bad. But I'm much more sympathetic to condo-bad on Ks than CPs.

I am fine with new arguments in either second constructive speech (i.e., I don't consider "new in the two" to be a problem generally), EXCEPT that I am not really ok with new advocacies (new plan text, counterplans, new Ks) after the 1NC. New theory arguments should be brought up at the first available opportunity after the violation occurred. If the 1AC was problematic, abusive, or non-topical, that should be the first thing I hear about in the 1NC; I'm going to have a hard time buying it in the 2NC if you spent the 1NC arguing solvency and disadvantages.

Basically, save theory for when it's necessary; it's a scalpel for cutting out those cancerous debaters and debate tactics, not an axe for bludgeoning fair opponents.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

The spirit of everything I said above about burdens, analytics, Kritiks, and theory also apply generally to LD. Specific to LD:

Framework:

I believe that the framework debate is at the heart of LD, and therefore am especially receptive to arguments linking back to the framework. I can be convinced that something else is more important, but few ever try. I also feel like many debaters don't use their framework enough in their argumentation. In LD specifically, the framework debate is more important than the impact calculus. Please spend some time here!

Plans:

The existence or non-existence of a plan will not sway me one way or the other. There are strategic advantages and disadvantages to running a plan, but neither side has a burden to present or defend a plan. I therefore do not consider the existence of a plan to be a voting issue. A strong theory argument on this issue could change my mind, but it will be an uphill battle for whoever is making that argument.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.

General info for all debate—

1) no speed - this is a communication event

2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.

4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.

Specifics

LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.

CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.

I'm a judge that leans traditional in style but is willing to go progressive if you can effectively take me there. I prefer a Value debate in LD, with any extensions highlighted with significance and voters so you can convince me you know why you think you're winning the round and not just trying to style your way across the finish line. I'm flexible, but it has to make sense.

I don't mind spreading IF you can effectively spread. You've still got to be able to highlight major points, as this is an argumentation competition and not a speed reading competition.

Basically, be persuasive and respectful of your opponent and I'll be a happy judge.

I have judged Public Forum once previously, one weekend of 12 rounds. I am a lay parent judge.

So please, no jargon.

I am a parent judge. I have judged rounds of humorous interpretation, poetry, and LD. I have judged one round of novice congress before, but I will try my best to judge fairly and learn about congress from the chamber. I highly value speaking and presentation.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

I am a former LD and Policy debater and have been periodically judging for the past 7 years.

LD Paradigm: I tend toward a progressive approach to LD, particularly if the topic lends itself to that format, with some traditional exceptions. I want strong analysis and logic and claims with warrants, and you must give voters. I am comfortable with speed but do not find it to be persuasive or a useful life skill. A smaller number of high-quality arguments will always outweigh a larger number of poorly explained arguments. I maintain some traditional leanings in that I do not particularly like counter plans or DAs in LD, but I am open to theory arguments if they are well done. If you want me to judge based on your value/criterion, then carry your structure throughout the entire round.

Policy Paradigm: I am pretty flexible and will generally let the debaters tell me how to evaluate the round, but I have a fondness for stock issues. I most enjoy debates with a lot of direct clash, and I least enjoy debates that devolve into an impact battle. Link and Uniqueness are the most important pieces to me, and I am more likely to vote in your favor if you spend more time on those issues than on the nature of the impact. I will not do the work for you or remember all the authors and evidence that you read, so things like "cross-apply the X card" with no additional analysis on how X card answers the argument or is better hold no weight with me. (Only the 1AR gets a pass on this if necessary to respond to the Neg Block as long as the 2AR cleans it up.) Please signpost!

Evidence: Evidence is useful, depending on the source, but should not be relied upon exclusively. Strong analytical arguments can be equally or more persuasive in the absence of specific evidence to support a point. This is particularly true if you are faced with an argument you have never heard before and have not prepared in advance. While I will mostly rely on the debaters to poke holes in evidence or analysis, I cannot avoid my own knowledge of sources, and I will not permit a known lie to win even if the other team doesn't call it out as a lie. I typically never look at the actual evidence in a round and rely on the debaters to communicate it to me, but the new online nature of debate may change my mind.

Speed: I am comfortable with speed, but I do not find excessive speed to be persuasive or a useful life skill. If it is unintelligible or poorly explained, then you might as well not say it. Reading taglines slowly and the card itself quickly is not recommended since the unintelligible substance won't mean anything to me and the tagline will be discounted accordingly. I will not vote you down purely for using excessive speed, but if I cannot understand it, I cannot flow it and the argument will not appear on my flow when I look back at the end to make my decision.

I am fine with most off-case arguments. I will vote on Topicality as an independent issue. Counterplans must be competitive. Kritiks are welcome if they are explained and supported well and presented in the 1NC. Be sure that you are very comfortable explaining your K before you run it and be sure to explain why the K is important to this policy debate.

1. Do not talk fast. If I do not follow your argument, I cannot give you points for it. I take notes but do not mistake that for flowing the round and thus start speeding up.

2. In general, I feel that the quality of contentions is more persuasive than quantity.

3. It helps to have Aff to my right and Neg to my left.

4. Please keep time yourselves.

5. I prefer not to give verbal feedback and instead will try to do so via the ballot comments.

*** I wish both teams happy debating - and always, may the best team win!!! ***

Lay/Parent Judge

I prefer a slow debate, as it ensures more engagement with the opponents position, so spreading will not be the best course of action. I do look at evidence and value evidence comparison so put me on the email chain (smjohn@gmail.com). I will try my best to evaluate all arguments but I am only confident in my ability to understand LARP. Speaking persuasively along with explicit weighing are very important, so make sure to do both those things throughout the entire debate. When there are 2 claims in opposition, explain why I should trust your evidence better in order to win your claim. I will try my best not to intervene with my own personal opinions, however claims that are more intuitively true, like extinction is bad require less work than intuitively false claims. Speaks are based on strategy, clarity, and argument explanation. Lastly please be kind to your opponent and do not make arguments that make debate unsafe.

I am a parent/lay judge.

I will vote for whoever presents high quality arguments in a clear and coherent way and is best able to persuade me. I will evaluate arguments based on how true I think they actually are, and overall presentation will be crucial in my decision. I appreciate debaters who emphasize important points and use persuasive techniques. My decision is also heavily influenced by performance during the cross-examination period.

If you want me to vote for you, please go slow (conversational pace). If you are rushing through the debate, it will reduce my chances of voting for you and hurt your speaker points.

I will take notes, but they will be brief and only consist of things which are clearly emphasized to me and points which I thought were very good.

I'm a parent judge. I won't understand and therefore not evaluate speaking at above a quick conversational pace. Please debate the topic, and don't run tricky positions. You can run Ks, Theory, and PIC's/CP's but you run the risk of me not understanding, so err on the side of over-explanation. I like weighing and outlining your path to the ballot. I am not great at determining the correct winner on the flow, so I will vote for the most persuasive debater, however empirics and good evidence will win you ethos. I try to give high speaks. TLDR; lay

Paradigms: The main paradigm I have is pertaining to case debate is using "big picture" , meaning primarily main arguments along with supporting evidence without going too much into the technicalities of the subject at hand. In addition to this, spreading is fine, however if the competitor spreads to the point where what is being said is not understood by the judge and the competitors, it ultimately does not help the competitor in the debate. What helps me is slowing down once they are on the main arguments and as the competitor gets into the supporting evidence and arguments, they can speed up a bit. Other than this, there are no other specific paradigms.

Parent judge:

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 6 years.

My email is chetana.nataraj@gmail.com please use it for pre-round questions and for the email chain. Sending me your cases will help me flow and adjudicate your round better.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis. Please start out with specific arguments and then summarize at the end. I am tolerant of going slightly over time limits. I am fine with moderate spreading and persuasive speeds. in the case of persuasive debate, I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity, and truth of the arguments in question.

DECISION: I evaluate framework, arguments, reasoning and evidence. Please have a clear framework that's well explained, I default to Util but explain how your impacts function under that FW.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD. Speaking marginally fast is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY . If I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate. Please don't read Kritiks or dense philosophical fws. Counter-plans are fine if you explain them well and show why they are preferable to the aff.

I am a parent judge that normally judges PF.

I do not want you to talk fast or spread, but I do want to have your cases because we are online and audio may cut out.

I also prefer you don't spend too much time on the framework debate, however I do expect a value and value criterion for both sides.

Please tell me in your last speech, in verbatim, "this is why i should win this debate." If you don't, I have no way to decide the winner and will presume your opponent the winner if they give me a reason and you don't.

Finally, please do not use complex jargon, I know you think it is good for intimidating you opponent, but in reality all it does is confuse me. Instead of saying " we outweigh on impact calculus" you can say something like "we positively affect more people than my opponent"

Email address: parim1207@gmail.com

I am a classical debater, and I don't tolerate aggressive arguments or improper behavior. I don't like spreading and be clear with your enunciation.

I am a parent judge and prefer a traditional/lay style of debate.

Please do not spread or run progressive arguments-- a moderate or conversational speed with clarity works best and will get you higher speaker points.

At the end of the round I will vote for whichever side presents their arguments in a more persuasive and logical way.