Hi! I'm Raja Archie (my preferred pronouns: she/her/hers)

My email is rrarchie98@gmail.com and I’d love to be added to the email chain

Full Disclosure: This judge is black, disabled, and queer (be mindful of what you say around her and in her rounds)

My rounds are a safe places. Which means you are required to respect preferred pronouns. I encourage you to ask before the round starts and if you don’t get the chance to ask before the round avoid the use of gendered language. Homophobia, discrimination, racism, xenophobia, ableism, transphobia, sexism, and all other awful prejudices in any form is not tolerated in my rounds and I won’t hesitate to vote you down and end the round early if an unsafe environment is created. Just be a nice human :)

My Background: Former Policy and Congressional debate coach for ETHS. Former NatCirc + local circuit congress (1yr) and policy debater (5yrs) for 4yrs at ETHS (c/o 2016). Judging since 2015 and have experience in judging Congress, Policy, and LD.

My Philosophy: I don’t believe in telling debaters how they should debate, or what arguments they should read. As a judge I just decide who did the better debating at the end of the round.

A note for Congressional Debaters: Remember it's Congressional Debate, key word 'debate' that's the one really important aspect that separates this type of debate from a speech event so please please please remember to debate, clash really is critical. Also, try not to obsessively rehash which can be avoided by remembering to review your flow and trying to refute line by line. Lastly, the speakers who stick out to me the most aren't just the ones who sound good or present well they're the ones who can structure a speech and debate well on top of those things.

Important FYI! Please refrain from using gendered language in session, especially if everyone hasn't gone around and introduced themselves along with their preferred pronouns. Fortunately in Congress everyone has a title of either 'Rep. [insert last name]' or 'Sen. [insert last name]' which makes avoiding gendered language like 'she'/'he'/'her'/'miss'/etc. even easier :)

For Policy Debaters

• Read arguments that YOU think are rad. Just do you. If you have a plan text that’s cool..but like also no plan text no problem because framework makes the game work. I'm not going to evaluate problematic or offensive arguments (i.e. ‘racism good’, ‘heteronormativity good’, ‘patriarchy good’, etc.) because that not only requires my brain power as a judge but also emotional labor that I won't be compensated for so just no. Note that problematic or offensive arguments does not mean problematic or offensive execution of an argument. Everyone is ignorant about some thing at some point and I am willing to educate if you’re willing to take an L, respectfully listen to what I have to say, and learn.

• Speaking - When it comes to speaking speed is not an issue I can flow by ear exceptionally well but clarity is a must especially if you want high speaker points from me

• Debaters love to ask me before round, ‘What types of arguments do you like judge?’ So to answer that simply, I like good arguments. What I'm not going to do is list which arguments I read as a debater because I don’t want you to read my paradigm then poorly execute an argument in front of me as a desperate attempt to secure a W. I do understand the importance of prefs though so full disclosure I’m probably not the preferred judge for you if your neg strat doesn’t contain a K

• No matter what types of arguments you read, if I’ve judged you in the past, if I’m cool with your school or coach, what types of teams I’ve coached, what kind of debater I was or what lit I’ve read..I won’t do any of the work for you. That means don’t debate lazily. That means even if it’s the 6th prelim round give it your all still. That means clear breakdowns of arguments (i.e. solid overviews, answering those direct CX questions about your argument’s content, etc.). That also means crystal clear breakdowns of how your side has won the debate within rebuttal speeches is a necessity.

Remember, education comes first always, be kind to one another, spread positive vibes among your fellow debaters, and good luck!

In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.

In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.

In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.

In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a public speaking activity in which each debater should persuade the judge that his/her vision of the world ought to prevail. Persuasion happens in part when debaters speak naturally and expressively so that I as the judge can flow their arguments. Arguments should have signposts to assist in the flow of the debate.

The affirmative has the burden to prove that the affirmative scenario offers a higher value to society than what the negative proposes. This can be done through either logic or evidence or both. The negative should demonstrate either that his or her value is just as good as or better than the affirmative’s value or that there is no appreciable benefit in the affirmative’s world. The winning debater needs to show a clear and realistic vision which provides for the best possible society.

The debaters have an obligation to create clash, but they do not need to clash on every point. It is better to argue one essential point well, than to argue all points insufficiently. The number of pieces of evidence and/or lines of logical analysis is not as important as the strength of the evidence and/or line of logical analysis.

Experience:

Competed and speaking and interpretation events for 7 years. Judged PF and LD since 2014.

Bias:

I believe that arguments should be able to be understood by judges of all levels of experience. Although I typically flow rounds, my vote almost always goes to the team that walks me through the round with them, highlighting dropped points, and clearly stating why I should vote for them.

•Encourage clash

•Move debate forward--continue to examine impact (cause-effect relationships)

•Synthesis of prior speakers as debate rounds ensue

•Questions that probe for clarification of key terms and implications of key choices

•Encourage clash

•Move debate forward--continue to examine impact (cause-effect relationships)

•Synthesis of prior speakers as debate rounds ensue

•Questions that probe for clarification of key terms and implications of key choices

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

Please do not spread. PF came into existence because the NSDA wanted to introduce an event that tackled policy issues WITHOUT the spreading, heavy jargon, and theory of Policy or LD; I do expect that you abide by that standard. (Obviously, you don't have to debate like a 2002 PFer, but be mindful of this.) We have policy for a reason; if you want to build excessively long link chains and speak about five times faster than I can type my flow, that's your prerogative, but you won't get my ballot.

Be mindful as well of judge preferences. I typically judge/coach Congress, and competed in Congress throughout high school (I also competed in LD and Extemp, but Congress was what I spent my most time on). You may be in a round with a flow judge panel - adapt to them, but if you're in a round with parent judges, adapt to them too. I won't penalize you for this, but make our ballot easy to write - if you don't, it's your fault.

Some important things to note:

• Please weigh arguments for me. The best single thing you can do to win my ballot would be to give me a really clear final focus that basically writes my RFD for me.  Make the judge's job easy.
• If your evidence looks sketchy and the tournament permits, I will call for evidence if it sounds sketchy. Please don't cite a think-piece from Vox or WaPo as empirics; opinions ≠ facts.
• Let me repeat: WEIGH ARGUMENTS. If you have evidence that shows a benefit in one way, and your opponents have evidence that contradicts it, BE CLEAR about why your evidence is better. Don't just expect me to flow it through.
• When referencing a card you've previously mentioned in the debate, try to give me more than just the author name.
• Be clear about your framework, and why it's better than your opponents'. 
• If a speech goes by without responding to your opponents' rebuttal of your argument, I will consider your argument dropped.
• Avoid abusive frameworks that put an unreasonable burden on your opponents.

Good luck.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE PARADIGM

Based on the paradigm of Joe Bruner, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Reilly Hartigan...

Firstly, you are always welcome to come up to me after the round to ask how you did. I can't write as fast as I want to, and tournaments don't let me type critiques, so my comments on the ballot will always be more succinct than I'd like. I like helping people do well.

Here are some of the things I look for in round (you should optimally include all of them in your speech):

Clash: Don't just give me your argument - INTERACT with the round. Explain why your argument refutes another argument. Pre-empt other arguments if you're the first constructive. This isn't a speech event, it's a debate event, so debate. That means responding to people. 

There are three key ways to clash:

1. Pre-empting. In early speeches, you don't have much to refute, since the debate hasn't really fully happened yet - so bring up possible stock arguments from the other side and refute them if you can. You don't have to do this, but it gets debate going, and it actually helps you; as everyone else refutes you again and again throughout the rest of the round, you get tons of name ID and I remember you when I'm ranking my ballot. 
2. Refutation. This is simple - I expect refutation from the first negative speech onward (if you do not refute anything and have abundant opportunities to, your speech is pointless to me). When refuting, identify the original claim and the speaker(s) who said it; make a counter-claim that contradicts them; explain why your counter-claim is true using evidence or strong logic; then, and this is the important part, impact it to the round, explaining why your refutation MATTERS. 
3. Synthesis/Crystallization. Sometimes you get horrible precedence and all your arguments get taken (I've been there, I know the feeling); however, that doesn't mean you can't contribute to debate. Giving me a good crystallization speech is 1) impressive, because being able to summarize the whole debate and break it into voting issues isn't easy, and it is 2) helpful, because I'm trying to rank people and probably didn't flow the round - if you help me write my ballot, I might just put you on the shortlist for a high rank. Try to include at least one constructive argument, though, or at least some new information. If you don't, it won't hurt you much, but it doesn't help.

Evidence: At absolute minimum, I expect to hear two rock-solid pieces of evidence per speech. That's probably too low. Six sources in a speech? Probably too high. Don't just rattle off a bunch of data points - spend time explaining them, and paraphrase them. Remember, I'm judging a round for hours and hours at a time, and I'm really tired - if you give me a ton of complex data, it's going in one ear and out the other and you might not get the best rank. If you take your evidence, break it down, and explain it clearly to me, then you'll keep my attention (and a high rank). Also, cite good sources - I want to hear a Harvard study, or a GAO report, not a blog entry from the Huffington Post or TheBlaze. Lastly, be mindful of the bias that certain think tanks have - I'm not going to rank you down because you cite the Heritage Foundation (conservative) or the Center for American Progress (liberal), but if you just give me evidence that says "the Heritage foundation said X" and don't convince me of the logic of the point, I will not buy your evidence by default. So if the debate's on the impact of minimum wage increases, and you cite a Heritage study or a CAP study that says minimum wage hikes suppress/increase jobs, that is not enough; explain to me WHY that will happen, and then give me the study.

Analysis: This is key. Always convince me WHY your argument is correct. Show me you've investigated the issue thoroughly and know a lot about it. Keep your analysis succinct and to the point; keep it simple, stupid. I will rank up a debater who has better analysis over a debater who has better evidence.

Organization: I have a few pet peeves... avoid three-contention speeches, they leave you with too little time to elaborate on each point; don't formally roadmap your speech, it just wastes time; have clear logical transitions between points; have an overall THEME to your speech, it'll help me remember who you are as a debater when I'm ranking you. Remember that your introduction, impacts and conclusion are opportunities to grab my attention and tell me who you are; for example, as an Ohioan debater, I'd frequently use intros lampooning my Midwestern roots or go on diatribes about how "this Congress needs to do its job, the job the people sent us here to do" or how "my district knows the value of a dollar." It was corny, yeah, but it set me apart. Set yourself apart.

Delivery: Delivery is VERY important to me. I value solid, clear, engaging delivery as a prerequisite for evaluating the content of your arguments. If your speech is just all one-liners and fluff, no, I'm not ranking you, but if you're missing good delivery, I'm probably not ranking you highly. You don't have to be funny (though if you can, please do - think about it, I've been judging this for hours, help); you can bring anger, sadness, joy, all sorts of emotions into your delivery. KEEP ME HOOKED, AND KEEP ME GUESSING. Make it so when you end your speech, I'm mentally thinking "Wow! Oh my... where do I put you on my ballot?" instead of "ok... next." One tip about this is to look at your fellow competitors - has it been a really angry round? Try humor! Has it been a really boring, soft round? Try loudness! Has it been a really fast-paced flow debate? Slow down and give me persuasive impacts. Find the thing everyone else hasn't been doing, and set yourself apart by doing that. Showing me that you are capable of multiple emotional speech types (funny/solemn/angry) might just lead to a higher rank.

And, now, a section copied verbatim from the paradigm of Joe Bruner from Ardrey Kell HS:

"A SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT NOTE: I know many Congressional debaters who are women and/or minorities are sometimes held to a frustrating double standard on many delivery and presentation issues. If you are afraid of being highly aggressive due to being perceived as *y, catty, or intimidating in comparison to white male debaters doing the same thing, you do not need to worry about that in front of me. You also do not need to worry about your use of humor causing you to be perceived as not taking the event seriously. And honestly, I really don't give a shit if you wear dark/reserved colors, pantyhose, or a pearl necklace. Wear whatever you like yourself in."

Could not agree more.

Attitude: Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. You can be angry as hell in a speech, or even somewhat mocking, that's fine... but when the round ends, it ends. It's over. That's it. Done. No arguments, please. And it goes without saying that making sexist/racist/homophobic/etc etc comments about another debater, even out of the round, is out of bounds. 

A quick note on internet use... Kinda oxymoronic, because unless the tournament permits it, you cannot use internet in round. When I competed, I knew a few people who used the internet during a round to get notes from their coach, or check a fact. I hated that when I competed, and I don't want to see it in any round I judge. If you have a webpage open on your web browser but have wifi turned off, I may ask to check your laptop after the session concludes, but just save your articles as PDFs to avoid the trouble. 

Extemporaneous Speaking: Show me that you've adapted to the round. If you walk in with a speech and just read it verbatim, that's not very impressive. (And if you're going to read off your paper, don't make it obvious that you're doing so. Make it seem natural and extemporaneous.) I definitely give higher ranks to people who I see adapting in round; for example, if you get screwed on recency and you prep a speech on the other side in five minutes because it's all you can give, and the speech is decent, I'm going to think "wow! This person was prepared! I should rank him/her up!".

Questions: I'm not going to give you too many tips on this; questioning is your time to build your narrative as a debater, poke holes in opponents' arguments, and remind me that you exist in a chamber of 20 people (I normally rank towards the end of the session, so if you gave early speeches, concentrating your questions towards the end is always a plus). If you screw up answering questions as a speaker, I will hold that against you when I rank. If you nail answering questions as a speaker, I might not rank you up because of that alone, but that does make a difference.

When direct questioning (30 sec back-and-forth) is in effect, questioning becomes a big factor in my rankings. You should demonstrate that you have knowledge of the subject and aim to poke a serious hole in your opponent's argument; if you pull off a really awesome line of questioning that forces the speaker to concede a point, you bet I'm marking that down as a reason to rank up your ballot.

Amendments: This is one place where I'm different than some judges - I love amendments, and if you make good strategic ones, I will consider that in whether or not I improve your rank. Amendments don't need to be linked to your speech specifically, as they can just show that you're the "best legislator" - if there's an argument that just keeps coming up on neg about the semantics of the bill, for example, proposing an amendment to correct the line of the bill with the semantic issue is a great use of an amendment. And, if the chamber shoots your amendment down, all the better - you can then shame them for it in your speech/questions.

And finally, Presiding: Unless you decided to preside 'for the good of the chamber', I expect quite a lot from presiding officers.

You must be QUICK, ACCURATE, COMMANDING, KNOWLEDGEABLE, and FAIR. Know your parliamentary procedure and the tournament rules; have a gavel ready; have printouts of both parli procedure and the tournament rules to refer to if necessary. You can absolutely defer to the parli on things, but make sure I can see that you have it all under control. If you make a mistake on precedence/recency, I will consider giving you a low rank. If you make two mistakes on precedence/recency, I will strongly consider giving you a low rank. If you make a serious error (calling up the wrong speaker and not catching it immediately, taking a very long pause to correct an error, calling the wrong questioners, disputing a valid point of order), I will rank you low. Some people think they can 'coast' through prelims by presiding; I think presiding is both an honor and a significant responsibility, and it should be treated as such.

Topicality: Although I am not a fan of topicality, I will vote on it. However, I am more likely to vote on topicality if the negative is able to prove in-round abuse. If the negative is able to garnish specific links, it is going to be pretty difficult to prove loss of ground or fairness in order to claim abuse. This is generally how I also vote on theory.

Disadvantages: I will vote on a disad if the negative can prove that the impacts of the disad outweigh the solvency or at least risk of solvency of the affirmative. I believe that the internal link of a disad is a must. It’s difficult to make the leap from some generic or somewhat generic link to some large, terminal impact like nuclear war or extinction; there needs to be an internal link that ties the link and the impact. I also believe that uniqueness is essential, in the sense of how the affirmative plan uniquely triggers the link to the disad. Affirmatives are generally more likely to win a disad by running offense on the disad flow; just a suggestion.

Kritiks: I am kind of in love with K’s and tend to vote on them more often than not. I think that K’s are important in the sense that they tend to raise larger questions about the world that we live in, and the policies we are discussing. They engage in the mindset or framework behind these policies, as well as how these policies perpetuate or worsen the status quo, regarding issues like discrimination, racism, sexism, oppression, poverty, etc. If a negative is able to prove that critiquing these assumptions are good, I’m likely to buy the K framework, or at least weigh it against the policy framework of the affirmative. I think it’s important that the affirmative use the 1AC as a resource for showing solvency of the harms of the K. Like a disad, the affirmative should be making uniqueness claims on the K, questioning the marginal increase in disadvantage of the status quo via enactment of the policy change, comparative to the solvency of the affirmative advantages; if the affirmative is able to prove that isn’t reason enough to reject the affirmative, I’m likely to vote affirmative. I am not a fan of reject the affirmative alternatives, there needs to be more depth, more analysis to the alternative; or give me some analysis why rejecting the affirmative is key, ie. in-round solvency, role of the ballot claims, etc.

Counterplans: A counterplan should be competitive; meaning it should be mutual exclusive of the 1AC, and should include a net benefit. Without a net benefit, the CP is not competitive, and I have no reason to vote for the CP over the affirmative plan; this pretty much comes down to the impact debate again on the net benefit versus the affirmative plan.

Framework: I think framework is a must when it comes to K’s and performance cases. You need to make it clear to me how to frame the round, why I should prefer one framework over another. I also think it is essential to impact framework, within the round, as well potential implications outside of the round.

In Congress, I like to see valid and credible sources to support claims. It is imperative that you give the date of the information you use. I am resource driven and don't enjoy a speech based on mere opinions. I am not fond of screamers, I rather prefer a gentle and strong argument. I will note your refutations, but be careful of crystallizing too early. I am not fond of gimmicks but do enjoy a laugh or two. Being witty works well with me. Make sure you are active in the chamber with relevant questions. Be clear, concise, and make sure to walk and talk. Eye contact is very important to me. 

Be a kind competitor.

I don't believe low point wins or speaker points are enough to deter truly rude and disrespectful behavior. As such, I reserve the right to only flow and evaluate arguments that are made and extended while maintaining the tone of a friendly academic discussion. Passion is encouraged, but ad hominem attacks, eye rolls, derision, and various "isms" are all very much discouraged. If I'm not happy with the tone of the debate, it will likely be pretty clear that I've stopped flowing you. At the end of the round I will then evaluate all arguments made and extended respectfully and I will consider all other arguments dropped. This is a policy that has impacted my judging in rounds before.

Other than that, I think I'm a fairly standard judge. Anything you want me to understand in your round, state explicitly. Do not imply links or impacts and expect me to infer them. Please fully explain your warrants and all hows and whys if you expect me to buy an argument. Please do not leave me to my own devices with weighing impacts. Tell me why you believe you won the debate.

In LD: Your framework is meant to be the standard by which we evaluate the resolution. As such, I believe it's vitally important. Please don't leave framework off in it's own world at the top of the flow. It should be clearly linked to each of your contentions and you should be impacting through your framework. Please make those links and impacts explicit. Don't leave me to infer them. You can win the debate without winning framework, provided that you successfully prove you better uphold your opponents' framework. I enjoy hearing the philosophy so I love when students take interesting case positions that fully incorporate neat frameworks. I'm okay with a quick-ish speed assuming you are articulating things in a clear way, but I'm not a fan of spreading for spreading's sake. It's worth saying the best debaters I've seen have never been the fastest. Fast often leads to inefficient and imprecise use of language and causes me to think more to process what you've said. In general, the more processing I have to do on my own, the worse for you.

In PF: Please clash. PF can be hard to judge because often the clash is underdeveloped. Please meaningfully engage with your opponents' arguments and then weigh your impacts against theirs. If your opponent provides a framework, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and acceded to, just like any other part of debate; if you drop it, you concede it. It's worth repeating, please weigh your impacts against your opponents'. I strongly dislike spreading in PF and would prefer you don't use jargon. They are not appropriate for the format.

Congress: I expect congressional debate to be reactive to what has already happened in the chamber. Except for 1st pro, I expect that all speeches contain at least one refutation at an absolute minimum. A real refutation needs to interact with what was actually said. MadLibs style refutations where you name drop another debater in a way that was clearly just a fill in the blank without engaging with or responding to them is not going to get you a good score. Extensions are encouraged, but making the same point as if it's the first time it's come up in the chamber will not get you a good score.

Please also explain all the mechanics of how and why in your speech. Clearly articulated hows, whys, and impacts, along with responsive debate, are the keys to a high score. Also make sure links to the bill are made clear. I care a lot about how clean the internals of your contentions are in their organization. Tell me a story and inspire me. Please move the debate forward and cover new ground. No one enjoys listening to rehash. Clean presentation that inspires, quality questioning, and being a kind competitor are all valued.

Your intro is a way to add value to your speech and enhance my understanding of the topic. I have a strong preference for intros that feel specific and unique to the particular bill at hand and your speech. If it feels generic or recycled, then I don't think it's a good use of your limited time.

In a virtual setting, I really depend on having a preview or roadmap as part of your speech. Without that, I find the structure of your speech very difficult to follow.

Authorship and sponsorship speeches are very different from 2nd or 3rd pro speeches. Since you aren't being asked to refute, the expectation is that you frame the debate: set up the problem and how this bill addresses it. Your contentions should be the most important reasons for the bill, not necessarily unique arguments that no one else thought of. 1st con should similarly help frame the debate for the neg side.

All forms: Don't be afraid to be passionate or to be yourself. You've worked hard to prepare for the tournament and you deserve to be here. If you've put in the work, you've earned the right to be confident. Be proud of yourself and have some fun :)

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Seeing as these tournaments are for the purpose of debate, I first and foremost look for refutations that have been thoughtfully and intentionally woven into the line of reasoning. I want see that debaters have been paying attention to their counterparts and using others' arguments to further their own.

Additionally, I look for:

-Purposeful questions that indicate attentiveness to debate
-Being able to respectfully defend one's opinion
-Advocating for the overall success of the chamber (ie being mindful of recesses vs getting in speeches for others)
-Having an overall good attitude
-Respectful and purposeful humor
-Evident knowledge and logic
-Enjoying debate even in the competitive environment

I am a former Lincoln Douglas debater, so I am pretty familiar with the event and with the debate style. LD is also the event that I've judged the most.

- I am okay with plans and Ks. I do not have a preference for an argument.

- I will not read full cases, but I will fact check if necessary.

- Although I am a former debater, I am not the great at understanding "spreading" anymore. I can handle a little bit of speed, but I would still be careful with making sure that you maintain clarity at all times. It would probably be best if you slow down when explaining complex parts of your case.

I did four years of extemp, congress, and public forum in Wisconsin and nationally for James Madison Memorial High School. I like to see reasonable speaking speed, argument clash, argument weighing, evidence weighing, and concise summary/final focus speeches. Use crossfire wisely to ask questions rather than make statements.

As a former congressional debater, I look for a blend of substance and style. Students should give well-developed, logical arguments that use credible evidence to support argumentative claims. Delivery is also important - students should speak in a way that is charismatic and engaging. Refutation and extension is crucial. Students should clash with previous speakers or build upon the arguments of others. This is debate, not speech!

I have been coaching PF for seven years, so I am old-fashioned enough to have some very real concerns with the direction PF is heading. I don't consider it good communication or good debate to go as fast as circuit debaters are now going, and the lack of analysis in favor of spewing source after source is not persuasive to me. I can handle speed; but that doesn't mean I will tolerate it. If you want PF to be Policy, I'm not the judge you want to see in the back of the room.

I have virtually no patience with cases that purposefully avoid the intent of the resolution. Be professional, be polite, don't just talk over each other in every crossfire, and don't play fast and loose with evidence.