Nick Abbott Paradigm

From Livermore CA with a son who is a Quarry Lane alumni. Have judged over 200 speech and debate rounds in the last four years, mainly Pufo, but pretty much all events except Policy. The main focus of my judging intent is to provide feedback within scope of tournament rules that will provide each student areas of improvement that will benefit them in their post high school public speaking activities. As a result, I take ballot input or RFD to each student very seriously.

Students: this is the best time in your lives to develop world-class speaking and agile/extemporaneous thinking. Go for the trophies, but the real win is the skill set.

Public Forum, LD, and overall guidance:

Speed: there's a trade off between quantity and elucidation. Negative returns if you 'spread'. Enunciate. If a listener can't understand your points, then how can you win an argument?

Offline roadmaps please.

Evidence and card wars: absolutely required to have crystal clear evidence with each of your contentions and subpoints. On the other extreme, card wars that fall into 'quantity' vs relevance, and become card dumping, will hurt the team with that approach. This is pofu, not Pokemon.

Framework and contentions: are they clear, consistent, and comprehensively covered (and attacked by the opposing team)?

Etiquette: lack of it, particularly if I conclude that one team takes the debate to a shouting match, has caused teams with a stronger case to lose the round and/or speak points hit.

I'm open to all logical arguments. I flow but am really a flay judge. E.G. I'm not a policy absolutist about all points being repeated in final focus, for example.

A final note, the students in speech and debate, from my perspective, are inspiring. It's a privilege To help these tournaments happen for the students.

I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

• • • • • • • •

I am a high school English teacher: I teach AP English Language and Composition. Debate functions as an exceptional foundation for multiple, lifelong communicative capacities/realms. I value organization, solid understanding of one’s case, appropriate citation of relevant sources, and concise refutation of opposition. Regarding delivery, any speed is acceptable.

With an appreciation for the effort required in case preparation, I encourage debaters to deliver their cases with the same amount of gusto with which they prepared their cases. I acknowledge debate's intrinsic educational value; accordingly, I simultaneously judge and cheer as competitors engage in this fruitful, beneficial educational exercise.

A tabula rasa judge cloud is a lovely place to dream; however, a judge with a completely clean slate --void of previous experience and knowledge-- lacks benefit for all involved. Thus, I will do my best to safely tuck away any personal bias(es) as my function is to judge your debate skills, abilities, and effectiveness.

Hello everyone. I am looking forward to judging you all at this tournament. A bit about me and my judging style. 

I competed in Speech and Debate for 4 years in high school and 4 years in college at Boise State University. I have coached high school speech and debate for the last 4 years and am now entering my 13th year with the activity. 

A bit about my judging. Feel free to ask any questions before the round if you are unsure. 

I bring blank pieces of paper into the round. I will not intervene or vote on something that is not said in the round. I believe the debate space is yours to use how you want to and I will judge based on what you say and how you articulate your points. If you don't tell me where you want me to vote, then chances are I may vote somewhere you don't want me to. Clear sign posting is good. 

Speed: Totally fine. You won't spread me out of the round. I can follow any speed. 

Theory/T/K's: All are fine. I will follow any argument and am happy to vote on any of them. Remember, blank piece of paper. That being said, I have a slightly higher threshold for T's. I think K's need to have good literature to back them up. 

Email for questions: andrewhull09@gmail.com

If you want to see the cool Star Wars Intro version of my paradigm, let me know and I'll send it to you via email. Otherwise, here's my boring normal version of my paradigm:

I debated PF for 3 years. I've judged a quite a few tournaments. I was closer to the progressive (to the extent that PF can be progressive) side of the spectrum when I debated, but am receptive to both traditional and progressive debate styles. That being said, my threshold for speed is fairly high, so long as you're being relatively clear. You'll probably be able to tell if I'm not understanding.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that grand cross-fire is the most useless 3 minutes in all of debate. Probably the most useless 3 minutes of anything. Ever. If both teams agree to skip it, I'm more than down.

How to win my ballot:

A) Win the flow. My strategy, when judge adaptation wasn't necessarily an issue, was to dominate the flow as best I could, and that translates to how I vote. You can do this in a variety of ways: outweighing on impacts (GIVE ME A WEIGHING MECHANISM i.e. PREFER THIS TYPE OF IMPACT OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE _______), clean extensions, delinking arguments, etc. My vote will almost certainly be based upon who won the flow, so work hard to win it. I am super receptive to even risky strategies, and may give you better speaker points for utilizing one. FYI, it is okay, and sometimes vital to drop arguments that you aren't winning. Go for arguments that you feel like you're stronger on. Tell me what you're winning, and why you're winning it.

B) Not being a jerk. A ballot isn't worth making a fool out of yourself.

Specifics:

Narrow down the debate at the end. View the round like a funnel. The content of summary and final focus should not be the entire flow, but exactly what arguments you're winning, why you're winning them, and why that wins you the ballot.

I don't care whether or not you stand for cross, do what makes you comfortable.

I may or may not call for evidence after the round if it becomes an issue or the debate is close. Quality of evidence is important, and may help you win the round.

I usually am pretty lenient on speaks, but a 30 is sacred. If you want it, you gotta be pretty much perfect. To get close to it, use speeches effectively and strategically, use evidence efficiently, and Batman or Pokemon references (only if they're good).

If you use a cost-benefit analysis, provide a weighing mechanism if possible. If you're going to use a framework, use it to give you a strategic edge.

I expect clarity of speech and a well organized presentation. Support your arguments with evidence. Tell me your voters and convince me that you won the round. I like sign posting and structure. I'm fine with speed, but remember that this is PF and you are expected to present your information in such a way that anyone can understand it.

Respect for your opponent is paramount. Clash is fine, rudeness isn't. I don't plan to do the work for you and have to draw conclusions, so stay on topic and don't limit your focus to one contention if you present more than one. I want you to support all of your contentions. If you only present one contention, make sure it is clearly defined and can stand on it's own. If you feel like you won the round, tell me that, convince me.

Have a great tournament :-)

I look for the debaters to tell me how I should vote. I go into a debate with a clear and open mind leaving my personal ideals aside. All agruments should be clear and to the point with facts to support them. Speaking fast so that no one can keep up or understand your case does not sit well with me. Doing such leads me to believe that the debater is not secure with their case and they are trying to rush through and confuse everyone listening. Finally I look to the debaters to be professinal and respectful. Debaters must have all evidence accurately sited and quoted word for word. The actual evidence must be shown without going online within the round of asked.

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

Public Forum Paradigm

Defense needs to be in summary. If it's not in summary, I'm less likely to consider it in final focus.

Time allocation is also super important. There needs to be a balance between explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts.

Don't be offensive.

11/10/19

Haven't gotten around to building my new paradigm yet as my old judge philosophy got lost in Al Gore's internet.

For now, a few things:

--Truth over tech.

--I am a debate coach. I am also a professional educator. I care about education, not just the game of debate.

--I flow. I have been in grad school recently and not judging much so I may be a bit rusty.

--Signpost the flow religiously.

--Framework is just another argument. You don't just auto win the round because they dropped framework arguments.

--I do not hear well. Be loud and clear as much as you can.

--Feel free to ask my any questions before the round other than, "Do you have any preferences?" Specific questions are better!

I enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

Hey all, this is Nate. I am a pretty straightforward judge I debated in high school both Lincoln Douglas and public forum. And now I debate for Idaho State University In British parliamentary debate. Over the years I've spent a lot of time with the debate in general and not just judging. I'm pretty simple, i will flow and  I will listen and at the end of the round the team that wins the flow and arent just dog garbage will win the round. I don't have a problem if you talk fast I can follow just about anything. If you are getting too fast I will knock on the desk or wherever I'm sitting just to let you know that you're going a little bit too fast and to slow it down. In policy debate my love is topicality, framework, and inherency, just letting you know. In Lincoln-Douglas the value Criterion class is always going to be number one but I don't have a problem with you running plan texts in Lincoln Douglas. In public forum I have no problems with a progressive public forum teams, i know some of them want to move a little bit quicker just make sure that in the end of the day you could still be understood by the Common person. I dont time roadmaps or jumping evidence, dont abuse it. I enjoy long walks on the beach and getting caught in the rain.  In speech events I will judge according to the rules of the speech event, I think it's fairly self-explanatory. Anyways, at the end of the day my debate hero once told me, "debate is a game that we play with our friends." In that same sort of mentality you set the rules, you set the parameters and I will follow. 

Nov 2023 update:

If you spread your analytics like you do your cards, I will not be able to flow your speech. Your best bets are either send your analytics or slow down.

Please include me on the email chain: tmounarath@gmail.com

Best tip I can give you for my ballot is to explain your arguments to me like I am 5, I'm not as fast as I use to be. The more clear you are, the better I'll understand your argument and the more likely I may vote for you. A lot of times I miss things on the flow because I'm just not catching up to the first couple speech docs until at least around the 1NR. So just realize what's more important! Finishing your card or making sure I even caught it in the first place? Although it doesn't really matter if I end up flowing everything as debaters tend to drop 80% of arguments by the 1AR anyways as I have noticed ( I have only seen like 3 teams not guilty of this in the past year). I usually end up understanding what's happening in the debate by the 1AR. But again, I'm pretty rusty, tend to lean more towards truth over tech (unless its something really bad like a dropped perm in the 1AR), and the best way to get me to vote for you is to make sure there's like 3 clear voters why you win, a very very clear internal link chain scenario or well fleshed out link work and impact calc, and overall just confidence that it makes more sense to vote aff or neg. CLEAR INTERNAL LINK CHAIN SCENARIOS ARE THE EASIEST WAY TO GET MY BALLOT.

P.S. I like jokes.

Recent voting decisions worth noting:

Voted aff on condo when Peninsula LL went against 11 off.

Voted neg for against condo as the 1ar claimed it was dropped but the negative ran 1 off so I ended up not buying the argument as I'm more of a truth voter rather than tech. It really came off as more of a cop out to because the aff got out debated on the k flow which to me just made an aff ballot that much less persuasive to me.

Voted neg on econ disad in octos at meadows simply because I felt the neg did good enough solvency takeouts on case with better internal link chain scenarios. Both teams didn't do a good enough job explaining some of the evidence mentioned in the 2NR/2AR so I even went through the effort of reading the evidence and then applying it to the arguments made in the debate.

Identity:

I am a 2nd generation Laotian American male with ADHD, my parents are refugee's from the Vietnam war. Former policy debater for Weber State 2016-2018, I grew up in a middle class home around Salt Lake City, Utah and I love a good joke. (Seriously, extra speaker points opportunity here folks).

I currently study aerospace engineering at Cal Poly Pomona, and my favorite hobby is freestyle street dance.

Experience:

High school: 2 years.
Started with PF, went to the WSDI 2015 (Lab leaders: Mike Bausch, Jazmine Pickens, and Sam Allen). After my first year debating, started doing open Policy my senior year @Copper Hills High School under Scott Odekirk.
I mostly ran straight up policy arguments, played around with Marx and Bleiker near the latter half of the year.

College: 2 years.
I did decent in open, only ever making it to open quarter finals at CSUN my freshman year. Won finals in JV a couple times. My mentors were: Ryan Wash, Omar Guevara , Ryan Cheek, and Liz Dela Cruz.
Mostly did Marx, disability, and model minority k debate.

Procedurals:

I'm fine with speed, but my ADHD does make it a bit harder for me to catch phrases. So if your spreading is really high pitch and quiet, my best advice is to speak up and slow down maybe 15% every time I say "clear"

Flex prep is fine.

Prep ends once you finish sending your speech docs.

Talking to your partner and reorganizing documents count as prep.

Argument preference:

I love a good straight up policy debate. That was my strong suit in high school. So straight up debate is fine.

I ran a lot of critical arguments in college like Marx, model minority, disability, etc. So K debate is fine for me as well.

However, the only K's I'm not the best for high theory ones. I don't know anything about Baudrillard, Berlant, Lacan, Nietzche, etc. At best, I only know surface level information about them. So unless you can argue your K and explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, you might be better off going with a different strat.

I know what it's like to have a bad judge and so my goal when it comes to giving an RFD is as as follows:

- When it comes to dropped arguments, I default to the burden of rejoinder meaning dropped arguments are considered true. The only exception being that you have claimed why some dropped arguments won't matter in context to what you are already winning. HOWEVER I tend to be more of a truth over tech type of judge. So if there was a 30 second theory blip in the neg block the 1NR dropped, unless the violation is super obvious I probably won't buy it.

- If the 1AR clearly dropped something, then it's up to the negative to protect the 2NR from any new arguments in the 2AR, otherwise I end up buying unfair arguments. (Unless they are outrageously new).

- If both teams have consistently clashed on the same argument that sways my decision one way or the other, then I depend on my own knowledge of the argument as well as how nuanced each teams arguments were.

I usually vote aff when:

- It makes sense to me what the aff does

- I buy the permutation

- I buy the aff outweighs any negative offense

- I don't buy the negative's link work

- I don't buy that the CP/K solves the aff

I usually vote neg when:

- I buy the links AND that the impacts outweigh the aff

- I buy the alt solves the K/aff

- I don't think the aff actually does anything

- I buy the aff is untopical and should thus lose because they make debate/their own impacts worse.

Debated for three years on the high school policy debate circuit. broke to NFL and NCFL and broke into quarter finals at NCFL. Now a coach at Hunter High School in West Valley City, Utah.

I understand both LD and Policy Debate stylistics and I am fine with both traditional and progressive debate.

Overall philosophy:

I am fine with mostly anything you run as long as you justify each of your arguments well enough with warrants although there are a few nitpicky things that I prefer when it comes to debating, especially in the last few rebuttals. I have to add though that I enjoy listening and judging critical arguments more than traditional arguments but that doesn't mean that I would base my vote on it. When it comes down to it no matter how you debate I will vote on who debated better.

For me judge intervention should be prevented at all costs, this means that within the last rebuttals you should lay down to me where am I voting and why I am voting on it.

First off, slow down on taglines and authors, not extensively slow but just a quick brisk pace on the taglines will do just fine, other then that, go as fast as you'd like.
Secondly, if you're going to run a theory argument where I have to reject the opposing team, prove to me some type of abuse scenario, preferably in-round abuse, or else I will be hesitant to vote for it lest the other team does not answer it or drops it.
Thirdly, vague alts justify vague perms. As a judge who enjoys kritikal debating, it would be awesome if you could delineate to me how your advocacy specifically solves for the harms that you are trying to criticize. Advocacies, solvency, and methodologies are a necessity when it comes to kritiks of any type, justify each of these within your kritik and I will be a happy camper.
Fourth, when it comes to impact calculus don't just read a bunch of premade blocks make sure you have competing impact calculus with the opposing team. Apparently in the debate space people feel that just reading a bunch of cards and blocks will save them and do the work for them. Although premade blocks are awesome don't solely rely on them, I want actual debating and critical thinking, not just some kid reading off of their computer excessively in the 2NR.
Tag team is fine, but be warned that speaker points not only reflect the speeches but also reflect who does most of the work in CX as well. So think wisely before answering or asking all the questions while your partner remains silent.
Prep ends when you tell me it does unless it takes an excessive amount of time to "flash" your speech over to your opponents then I will be forced to end prep when the flash leaves your computer.

When it comes to Post-Fiat v. Pre-Fiat I tend to do whatever the debaters tell me via their framework or preferences based off of whether one arg encompasses/entrenches the opposing teams impacts, etc. I don't really err towards one side but generally if it comes down to the debate if I have to decide whether I should vote on something because it's a prerequisite to solvency of the impact(Pre-Fiat) compared to whether I actually solve for the impacts given to me in a post-fiat world (Post-Fiat) I have to err towards post-fiat because, in my sense, even if the K is a prerequisite to the impacts of the 1AC (or whatever instance you give to me) any risk of solvency for the impacts of the aff outweigh some type of solvency deficit given to me by the prereq args on the neg. of course these claims I give are debateable and if you prove to me that pre-fiat should be weighed over post-fiat in the round then I will definitely weigh it especially if thats what the round comes down to. But if you're going to have a post-fiat/pre-fiat debate make sure to emphasize the theoretical reasons why I should prefer either. 

DOs:

CLASH CLASH CLASH CLASH CLASH

Run args that you feel powerful about, pathos is an awesome tool use it to your advantage

DON'Ts:

some (and by some I mean that some words I despise and other words I'm just like meh) forms of bad language - I HATE THE WORD RETARDED

I don't mind saying "guys" i feel like it's colloquialized to the extent that it includes the female body but even if, you can still run G-Lang and if you prove to me enough how this bad language is inherently bad then I will vote on it.

Don't Post-Round me I will dock your speaks!

Specific stuff

Topicality: I am not a huge fan of topicality especially generic ones because the majority of the time these generic topicalities are only ran for time skew which is totally fine but if you plan on going for topicality in the 2NR then I want you to articulate specifically 1. how they are untopical 2. why is this bad for the debate or debate in general. I am huge on standard debates if you run a topicality argument make sure to specify to me as the judge why these standards are important for debate or for you as a team and how the other team delegimitizes these standards. This doesn't mean that I won't vote for Topicality it just means I have a high threshold on it. However, if you're going to go for T in the 2NR make sure to spend 5 whole minutes on T not to split it because obviously if T is an apriori concern to me then it should be the only argument in your 2NR decision.

As the AFF I'm not big on RVIs unless you can prove that the other team is abusive through their topicality. Competing interpretations and counter standards are your best friends.

Counterplans: I don't really have much to say on this part. Just make sure to specify what the counterplan solves for specifically, how it solves, and how it doesn't trigger the net benefit.

On the aff, articulation of permutation solvency and net benefits to the permutations are a must if you plan on permutating the CP. I don't want some random perm being read without articulation of what the permutation is actually doing and how it solves.

Disadvantages: like the Counterplan section I really have little to say on this part. Most of the time disadvantages come down to impact calculus debates. whether doing the aff advocacy is good or not so this is where my competitive impact calculus statements come in. Articulate how the impacts of doing the plan are more disadvantageous than beneficial and vice versa for the aff

Criticisms: I really enjoy critical debates I think they're entertaining and really bring out the more personal aspects of debate. I thoroughly enjoy identity and biopolitics kritiks. one thing that I would emphasize for kritik is alternative solvency and the mechanism for which you use to solve the harms for which you are trying to criticize. I enjoy good role of the ballot and framework debates and why me as a judge signing a piece of paper is so crucial (or not crucial depending on if you are aff or neg) to your solvency/args.

Theory: I don't really vote on theory arguments unless I actually get proven an abuse scenario I find them to be a bit whiny at times and aren't very beneficial to debate unless there are actual harms being presented from the other team.

Body Language: I make faces, a lot of them; use it to your advantage.

saying "it's lit" might or might not get you more speaker points. depending on the context

I debated in High School for a few years.  However, I am not a full out flow judge.  Speed is a little hard for me to understand so I will miss arguments if you go too fast.  Overall, I hope the rounds go smoothly. 

Finally, I will not disclose so please don't ask.  Thank you!

Updated (06/29/2022)

Currently an IP lawyer. If i am judging, it is because i owe someone a favor.

Overview:

Ill say "what" if i didnt hear/understand what you said

PF:

a decade worth of national circuit experience. former national competitor. former top 10 PF coach. Ill disclosed if you want. time yourselves. 

CX/LD:

Love a good theory debate but i love a good debate on the merits (blame the pfer in me) i wont blame you for striking me lmao

Background:

• State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
• Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
• Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college. Post-graduation I coached for my alma mater for 5 years.
• Presently, I am a management consultant specializing in data analytics for government clients and I have my own side gig doing oratory, analytics and strategy consulting see petsasconsulting.com.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

• N/A

What I expect/prefer:

• In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is received.
• The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something mutually exclusive to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponent's arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
• As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal, then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
• I do not flow CX. It is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponents and seek out contradictions in their line of argumentation. If you give a speech the whole time, then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
• I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important argument comes down to economic impacts and their opponents most important argument is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
• I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguments, then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
• Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow that isn't the top of one side.
• If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" without providing new evidence or impact calculus at the end when your opponents haven't attacked it yet, then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
• I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

I am an Assistant coach for Alta High School. My Mother is a debate teacher so I grew up with it in my life always and so understand it very well and love it a lot.

First, debaters should know that I debated in high school and understand rules and purposes for each debate and use these for my main source of determining the outcome of a debate. If you are debating LD then I look for a case that sways me morally, for Policy I look for cases that focuses on creating solutions through concrete plans etc. I am also a 'news junky' and try to stay up to date on many current events, with this I am familiar with most topics brought up in debate. That being said I remain very impartial coming into a debate round and look for you to sway me to your case.

Specifics in judging:

Speaker points: To obtain high speaker points its not just about speaking clearly and persuasively. I am all about confidence both in yourself and your case. I stand by the traditional style of debate where you are standing when presenting. A lot is said in body language when speaking and I like to analyze this in the debate as a way to see how confident you are in what you are presenting to me. Tips to help you with this is to know not only your case but the topic inside-out. This allows you to focus on presentation instead of reading. Do not run anything that you do not understand.

Cross-X: I will also draw a lot of speaker points from the cross examination.  I judge Respect and Professionality throughout the entire round but this is the perfect ground to really see the depth of that when there is debater interaction. Make sure that questions are pertinent to either building your own case or clarification. Those who dont use all of the Cross-X time I have a problem with that. 

K's: I find Kritiks fasinating as long as you keep it topical and like I said above know how to run it. Explain yourself well I am not a philosophy major but it you slow down and make it make sense I'll keep up with you.

Theory: I am a very traditional judge and want you to debate the topic. If you keep a theory topical and explain yourself go for it! If you come to a round to debate about debate not the topic it will hurt your score.

 Speed: I can handle some speed but it has to be clear enough to where I can understand you. I will call out clear or slow down once maybe twice if I still can't understand you i put my pen down and stop judging. Just remember I can't judge on what I can't understand.

Final Speech: In your final speech I want specific voters on the main arguments. Debaters who can take an entire round and sum it up into a few surviving points on why their case stand out have my favor. Put the weight to it. I as a judge will not with the issue for you and having to do so will nock on your score. 

Pet Peeves: Extensions. Do not extend your case if you have not sufficiently rebutted your opponent's arguments against your case I don't want to hear the word extend at all. Blatant rudeness will knock speaker point's like none other for me. This is supposed to be friendly and fun stuff. Topicality if your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I will in your judging sheet. Debate the topic at hand not tangents.

Other FAQs: i don't care if you use computer or paper just make sure your opponent has access to your case. You can use your phone to time or whatever I will just make sure an internet is disconnected.

All in all be confident, be clear, and have fun!

“This forum, like all public forums, is a waste of time”

- Ron Swanson (JK, I just love Ron.)

Public Forum:

TLDR;

- Read good evidence and make sure I can understand the card citation. Its not real if I can't hear where its from.

- Defense is overvalued

- Weighing, indights and offense are undervalued

Things I enjoy seeing in round:

- Signposting

- Turns > Link debates

- Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

- Lots of evidence

- Risky/Off-the-wall arguments… as long as they still make sense.

- Well-weighed arguments extended through the Final Focus, even if that means you’re kicking out of others. Write my ballot for me. Some of the best teams I’ve seen lose and/or drop every argument but one, and still win the round.

- Use Cross well. Make it constructive. Being funny and/or sassy never hurts, either.

- Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

- Give me clear voters. Tell me why I should vote for you in your Summary/FF.

Things I DO NOT like:

- Improperly citing evidence.

- People that lie in the 2nd FF

- Off-time roadmaps. The only time to give one is if I need a new piece of flow-paper because you’re going off-case, or if you’re doing something otherwise out of the ordinary.

- Miscutting/manipulating evidence

- When you say an author and I can't understand. Don't be like..."Blah, 17 says..."

- Using rhetoric claims about discrimination and abuse or anything. Be careful about making blatant statements about these topics that could across as offensive.

- I pretty much hate framework. Most PF teams provide a framework and then really don't work within it or it becomes a framework debate. I DO NOT, REALLY DON'T, LIKE SERIOUSLY HATE a 45 min debate on framework and the case does not adhere to the framework you present. Yes...you all run C/B Analysis for 99% of everything and most of you don't understand anything about economics or actually present a valid C/B Analysis then just don't waste our time. Let's just agree that the flow is king and you need to prove stuff. Lets just agree there is one framework..Impact Calc...I will weigh who has the better impacts. Enough said.

Don’t do these things in front of me.

Speed: I like speed up to like 325 wpm. If you go really really slowly I might get bored and start drawing pictures of butterflies and flowers on my flow, so speed is prob in your best interest. Slow down on tags and authors if you’re really fast.

Other technical things:

- I’ll only evaluate things that are in both Summary and FF.

- I don’t flow crossex, but you should refer to things that happened in cross in your next speech. I don't care how you do it or even if you do it. Please don't try to be sneaky and assume you can stare at me during cross and think you can get another speech in. Naw, I'm good and don't care what you have to say. I will probably be on my phone, computer or watching Netflix or something.

Experience

I coach PF.

I life PF.

I work with NSDA in PF.

PF is good.

i want parks and rec references. 

dont make bad arguments. 

***If you have me judging on the 2/4/18 there is a large possibility that I will be watching the superbowl instead of flowing your round (Go Patriots!)***

Updated for Golden Desert Public Forum: I am a hardcore policy judge and have next to zero PF experience so pref at your own risk.

I am a coach over at East High School in UT and have been for the past couple years

***+0.5 speaks for any High School Musical References.***

Argument Preference:

I think framework is fairly pointless and will probably end up avoiding evaluating it at all costs, but you do you.

Your contention titles should be clear enough for me to understand your entire argument based on them alone.

I feel like Public Forum all to often ignores offense but this is a huge no-no with me, tell me why each contention individually wins you the round

Plan is ok but make sure to lay out solvency well, remember you don't get fiat here like you do in policy.

I love topicality, so try and work it in when y'all are neg

General:

I only intervene in special situations (i.e. sexism, racism, republicanism, ect.) I will listen to every type of argument except politics because in this climate I think it is fairly pointless.

Will drop a team for suggesting the globe is round and always looking for like minded science allies. Really not a fan of ignorance in general and you can expect low speaks if your speeches come close to a presidential levels falsehoods.

Make sure to be aggressive during cross-ex, I hate hearing "Would you like the first question?", this is a competition take anything you can to get a leg up on your opponent.

Speaks:

Most of the time I give around a 26 but that can change, I have never given a 30 so try and be my first :)

Good Trump impressions +1.0

Bad Trump impressions -2.0

Seating: I prefer the Pro side to be seated to my left and the con to my right

Timing: Please keep track of your own time during speeches and your prep time as well.

Scoring: Here is what a score reflects in my judging.

20 points = A weak performance. Poorly constructed arguments, no strong framework. A great deal of improvement needs to take place.

21 points = A great deal of work will be needed to get to the top of the debate game. Below average performance and speech writing.

22 points = Well below average. Signs of skill were present but not enough to get better marks or a victory in the round.

23 points = Not bad but certainly not good. More than three areas of weakness were shown and will need to be addressed.

24 points = A rather common speech. Nothing too great but nothing overly poor. This is very typical of what see. Average performance.

25 points = A solid speech but, perhaps, an uninspiring or unspectacular one. Strong performance but can improve and deliver more.

26 points = Well above average; only subtly flawed performance.

27 points= Consistently strong performance; superior delivery and content.

28 points = An extraordinary achievement in interscholastic debate; an impressive performance.

29 points = Outstanding speech. a rare presentation akin to the finest public speech seen in any public forum.

30 points = Magnificent speech. I would be fortunate to ever hear this sort of high quality of speech in any high school setting again.

Tie Breaker: I will always look through the flow of the case first to determine a winner. In the case of a tie, I will then turn to my philosophy to determine which team had the better speaking and presentation of their debate.

Philosophy: I follow the three P's

Poise

Pronunciation 

Professionalism

Poise: I look for well you conduct yourself and present your argument. 

Pronunciation: You are welcome to speak quickly and present as much information as you choose but if I can't understand you, you cannot be successful. 

Professionalism: How you treat your opponents. Do you respect them and attack their arguments, not themselves? I must strongly emphasize professionalism during cross-examination and grand cross. Do not speak over your opponent in an attempt to control the debate. I will dock a full point (from the individual, not the entire team) for disrespecting an opponent during questioning. Though it may or many not have an impact on the final decision it will affect your individual marks.

Sign Posting: Use it. I love it and it helps keep all my flow charts more accurate.

Final Thoughts: No I will not disclose so do not ask.

I tend to lead towards quality not quantity when it comes to arguments and speaking rate.

Have fun. If you want me to enjoy judging your debate than I better see that you are enjoying debating.

Updated on 12/1/16

TL;DR- weigh your args, explain your warrants 

Experience:
Debated PF at Logan High School 2012-2016
Qualified and competed at Nationals, 2015 and 2016
some LD experience

Framework

I'll be evaluating the round based off of the winning framework. If there's competition between the two please tell me why I should prefer yours. Generally if your framework is advantageous to your case (and it should be) and you win the framework debate with impacts left on your side, you'll probably win. This is giving me some sort of mechanism in which to weigh your args. For example, how do I compare impacts to the environment to impacts to the economy, etc. In your final focus, weigh the args on both sides and tell me why you win. I really enjoy frameworks based on some sort of philosophy, such as function/duties of a state (Rawls, etc.)

Cross x
-Be respectful (obviously). I won't be flowing cross. If there's something in there that you want me to pay attention to, bring it up in your next speech. I feel like that's pretty standard practice

Speaking
Speed: 7/10
-Many judges are against speed in PF. I'm not one of them. The most important thing though if you're going fast is to be clear and tell me where you are. I'll say "clear" twice and if you still don't make sense I probably won't be listening, and that could be bad for you. As well, slow down a bit in the early morning and late at night (probably don't have to push that too hard)
-Speaking pretty is always a nice thing to do regardless of what event you're in, and will get you good speaks. If it's between speaking and quality of arguments, I'll vote on args. However, speaking ability and argument quality are often correlated
-applies to ld too, read tags slowly

Evidence
-I'll call for evidence I believe to be important to the round, or if I'm confused as to how two pieces of ev weigh against each other. If you tell me to call for a card in round, I'll do it.

Speaker Points
-Said before, speaking pretty and good args/logic/implementation of said args will get you good speaks. It takes a very good round to get a 30. Generally, good debaters will receive a 28

Plans, topicality, theory, k's
So my main style in high school was dressing up K's for PF (blasphemy, I know). Debate should be what you want it to be. I'm not a PF purist, if you want to throw imperialism or biopower at me, that's totally fine. I haven't heard all the really abstract k's, be able to explain them well. be very clear on your alternatives. It's hard to have a really good 20 second shell. I'm more likely to vote for well-developed args
-tell me exactly how you want the round broken down, i.e. what to evaluate first

Other things
-Dress however you want
-Be respectful of lower level debaters, make the round a learning experience

Likes
-humor/pop culture references (puns especially)- others are Star Wars, popular songs, science jokes
-signposting
-weighing (super important)
-strong FW
-warrants
-prerequisite args
-sass

Dislikes (might lose the round)
-racism
-sexism
-ad hominem attacks

If you're confused about my RFD feel free to come and ask me questions after the round. If you have any questions about my paradigm, you may email me before round

I love debate, and I'll do my best to help you to love it as well!

Contact- ethansmith1069@gmail.com

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.

Quentin Unsworth - He/Him Pronouns

Experience:

I am currently the Head Speech and Debate Coach of Logan High School (10 years).

I participated in High School and College Speech and Debate.

Debate specific items:

I am fine if you want to go faster. I would stop short of "spreading". I like an urgent delivery but I do struggle with some "spreading" especially when students try to speak faster than their abilities allow. If you would like to go faster please slow down for your tags and authors. This is still a communication event and I need to be able to understand and follow you.

I do not want to be on the email chain. This is a communication activity and I will only evaluate what I hear in round. It is your responsibility to be clear.

This is your activity/round and you should do whatever you want. I will vote on anything you tell me to provided you explain why. I am not a huge fan of theory debates primarily because most students do this wrong. If you want to run theory arguments make sure that you know what you are doing and that you fully develop the theory in context of the round and topic.

Framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain lens then all the work that you do needs to fit within that lens.

I need analysis on the card. Please do not just read the card. I will not do the leg work for you.

Please avoid "REHASH" if you want to bring up the same argument multiple times I need you to do something new with it. I want meaningful extension beyond the words: "extend my such and such evidence", again I will not do the leg work for you. Dive deeper.

If you need/want me to pay attention to something that happens during cross-examination you need to mention this in your speech time. I think cross-examination can be really important but I do not flow cross-examination.

Go line by line during rebuttal or at least clearly roadmap and identify where you are on the flow so that I can follow you.

Begin collapsing the round early, do not waist time on arguments you know do not matter. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round.

Things to do Speech and Debate:

Have fun. This activity requires far too much effort and energy for us not to enjoy it. If you are not having fun you are doing something wrong or it may be time to consider trying something else (possibly a new event).

Be kind. I appreciate passion and conviction and think that witty observations are fun, however I do not enjoy watching rounds where students are rude to each other and/or the judge. We are all at different levels and are all here to learn.

Do the leg work for me.If something is important and you want me to vote on it, fully develop that idea. Do not assume that everyone understands the complex arguments you have spent countless hours developing. At times you may need to educate me/your opponents about a unique concept or interpretation in order to really have meaningful dialog.

Be professional. Act and behave in a manner consistent with the effort and energy required for you to participate in this activity. Respect the time of your opponents and judge. You need to be prepared, this activity is far too challenging to attempt with anything less than your best effort.

Be Topical. You can run unique and progressive arguments but you need to clearly (link) identify and establish why your approach is the most appropriate approach given the designated topic.

Things to avoid:

Foul language for the sake of foul language. I am not personally offended by "foul" language but I expect more out of Speech and Debate students. Do not feel like you need to edit language out of a script or quote but think about your own personal word choices and use language that reflects your intelligence and professionalism.

"Yelling" at the judge. I have found that students who try to go fast in round often "yell" at the judge. I am usually sitting a few feet from you and I prefer a volume level and tone that is appropriate for such a setting.

Stealing Prep Time.

The New England Patriots, onions, chewing with your mouth open/smacking gum or other food (this aggravates me more than anything else in the world) , snakes and sharks.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

I attempt to judge objectively. Do what you do best, I will try to leave predispositions at the door. It is not my position to tell you how or what to debate. Generally I think cases should be in the direction of the topic, instrumentality however is up for debate; just make sure you do a good job otherwise it could be a hindrance to you.

I am a philosophy major so the moral framework is very important. I want the framework spelled out. I don't want someone to tell me about the moral 'Ought' and end it there. Spell out that the moral 'Ought' is a form of Deontology stemming from Immanuel Kant's categorical imperitive, and that it tries to negate Utilitarianism. Just walk me throught the framework saying some choices are morally forbidden or some actions need to be preformed regardless of their concenquences. I like terms to be clairified. If a term is central to an arguement, then it better be defined. Ambigiuity is an issue.

The main point is the argument. Ethics and frame work is important to your argument. Make sure you explain your words like moral and justice - they are vague words so tighten them up and define them. Polish is important, but if the argument is weak I am not opposed to doing an occasional low point win. Arguments trump period.

I prefer more traditional LD debate including a strong Value/Criterion debate. I am willing to follow most debates competitors give. I prefer arguments that say something matters. It is not necessary however if you can make the other team or individual lose that works for me too. I think theory is best used strategically to make arguments or alts/cp's go away. I prefer more explanation over more flows and more evidence. I prefer better explanation over speed/number of cards.

I've also found myself more easily persuaded by empirics or historical examples. So if you could provide me with an explanation as to why X internal links are the same ones that caused a war in the past, you'll be ahead of a team that may have an impact scenario that is more "new" if that makes sense.

I do flow and like easy to follow debates. Don't bounce around. Signpost are important. Overall, I tend to focus heavily on the standards debate and overall trend of argumentation. I will rarely decide a round based on a minor dropped contention here or there. Just develop a sound argument, convince me that your standards are a better fit for the round, and speak confidently and with purpose.

It is better to go somewhat slow when speaking. I can keep up in most cases, but it is harder to flow. If I can't flow your argument it won't count. Not to mention many people sacrifice clarity for speed. If you want to try speed I will queue you in to nonverbal signs that state I can't understand your speed prior to the debate.
Be professorial. Attack the arguments, but don't attack the person. I am not a fan of ad hominem attacks or slippery slope arguments. I don't mind giving constructive criticism and perhaps adding a bit of brainstorming to help both teams improve. I love the activity and am always willing to give feedback and bounce ideas.