I am a new judge (as of the '22-'23 school year) that has never previously participated in any formal debate program. I have volunteered for all but one of the debate tournaments this year.

I do not know anything about the material covered other than what has been presented in tournaments so far. I am a former practicing attorney and will be looking for the team that makes the most compelling argument to win.

First, I need to understand what you are saying. The best debater isn't always the FASTEST.

Secondly, I want to see strong class and line by line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.

Finally, as a judge for Middle School debate, I rarely judge on topicality in a case file league. but I am willing to if it played properly.

I generally judge middle school policy, if you aren't that ignore everything here.

I usually prefer tabula rasa (latin for blank slate), as a judging philosophy, your job is to convince me, and I can be convinced on pretty much anything. That said, there is one thing on which I refuse to budge, and that is T.

At the middle school level, the T arguments just don't make sense. The claim is that the aff is running a case the neg should not be expected to prep for, but in a core files league you know exactly which cases you could face, and thus this argument doesn't make sense. If someone does run T against you in front of me, all you need to do is say this argument and I will completely ignore T. So, don't run T in front of me.

Any other argument is completely fair game and as long as you prove it, I will be convinced.

I will always judge-kick the cp for novices, but if you aren't a novice you need to tell me to. If you don't know what judge-kicking is, please look it up or ask your coach about it.

For framing, I will default to util if debaters mention nothing, but if the debaters convince me on something else I will use that. Again, if you don't know what that means please ask for coach

The only other thing is that you don't need to take prep just to look for files, I know some judges require that but I don't. If you just need 30-45 seconds before your speech you can take that off the clock. I will start prep after this though, so please don't try to abuse it.

Finally, you can always finish your sentence, so don't bother asking and just keep talking (I will stop the timer)

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for six years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last three.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the CX can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a "K" Aff on me.