I am a communication skills judge and weigh persuasion skills highly. These two characteristics will outweigh most other perceived or real wins in the round.

The usual standards as far as topicality, inherency, harms, disadvantages, and so on apply of course but will be weighed in light of the two above cited skills which are, again, communication skills and persuasion skills.

Experience - Competitive HS: Mostly LD with some other events. Judging: I have been judging LD and PF for the past three years.

Style and Speed - I debated primarily on a traditional circuit, so I prefer traditional LD but I wont automatically drop you for progressive debate. Don't just throw debate terms at me - explain them, I will probably already understand them but you opponent and future judges may not. DO NOT SPREAD (online tournaments and spreading don't mix). I can follow if you speak quickly, but if you start spreading I will probably miss things. If I put down my pen it means you are speaking too quickly. I don't need a road map before speeches (you can give one if you want) but signposting throughout your speeches helps me with following your speech and flowing. I would like to hear KVIs from both the AFF and NEG.

For PF: all of the same as LD as far as speed (obviously KVIs aren't necessary) and I prefer clearly laid out and numbered arguments.

Evidence - I consider evidence to be a key part of an argument - it provides legitimacy for your claim. That being said, do not just throw a piece of evidence in with out a warrant. Don't treat cards like the end all be all of debate, cards support arguments they are not arguments themselves.

Drops - I hate debaters saying that their opponent dropped a card - you don't drop cards you drop arguments/contentions. If there are actual argument drops make sure you explain why those drops are important.

Framework - I think framework is important in LD as well as framework debate; please don't collapse or kick FW unless its strategic. Make sure your framework is clearly and logically explained so that everyone can follow; especially if it is detailed philosophy. Your arguments need to link back to your framework, if it doesn't its hard for me to prefer it.

For PF: I don't expect a detailed FW but you need to provide some mechanism for weighing the round

Cross-X - Be civil, there is a difference between assertive and aggressive. Cross-examine, know that the cross-examiner can cut you off; Cross-examiner, don't abuse that power. I don't like PF yelling matches. I do not flow cross, if an important point is made you need to bring it up in a speech.

I will not base the round off decorum, there may be a penalty in speaker points. I like clean, engaging debates filled with clash. Debate the resolution and areas relevant to the resolution, kritiks are generally not relevant.

Don't be problematic/make problematic arguments.

If you have any questions or clarifications, please ask me before your round.

Please add me to the email chain dciocca@columbushs.com

I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.

Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic

Counter-plans: All good.

Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.

Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.

DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here

T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.

Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.

Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.

Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed

I am a parent judge with experience judging at local and national tournaments at the varsity levels. I have also judged various speech events over the last five years as well. I enjoy speech judging as I love the variety of topics that are covered. My daughter competed for West Broward FL in LD for four years. She started off in PF so I have judged both. More LD than PF. My judging philosophy is simple. I believe that an ordinary citizen should be able to listen to the reasoned arguments of debaters and come to a logical conclusion as to who's argument and evidence is more persuasive. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can handle a little faster then conversational) and supported by convincing evidence.

Plans- I'm ok with basic topical plan texts, but nothing non-topical
Counter-plans- I'm okay with cps.

Be careful when arguing a Perm, there needs to be a clear explanation as to whether the Aff and the Neg plans are or are not mutually exclusive.

Ks- willing to listen to a K as long as there is a clear link, not some generic link of omission.
DAs- I am perfectly fine with them just again be clear and concise

When debating please make sure to sign post and slow down on your tags. That way I can make sure to get as much of your argument on the flow.

Tricks - NO

Theory - only in the case of legitimate abuse as I really hate theory debates.

Please ask questions if more clarification is needed.

I am a parent judge with experience judging at local and national tournaments at the varsity levels. I have also judged various speech events over the last five years as well. I enjoy speech judging as I love the variety of topics that are covered. My daughter competed for West Broward FL in LD for four years. She started off in PF so I have judged both. More LD than PF. My judging philosophy is simple. I believe that an ordinary citizen should be able to listen to the reasoned arguments of debaters and come to a logical conclusion as to who's argument and evidence is more persuasive. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can handle a little faster then conversational) and supported by convincing evidence.

Plans- I'm ok with basic topical plan texts, but nothing non-topical
Counter-plans- I'm okay with cps.

Be careful when arguing a Perm, there needs to be a clear explanation as to whether the Aff and the Neg plans are or are not mutually exclusive.

Ks- willing to listen to a K as long as there is a clear link, not some generic link of omission.
DAs- I am perfectly fine with them just again be clear and concise

When debating please make sure to sign post and slow down on your tags. That way I can make sure to get as much of your argument on the flow.

Tricks - NO

Theory - only in the case of legitimate abuse as I really hate theory debates.

Please ask questions if more clarification is needed.

• Speak at a reasonable pace. I understand that you have a time limit and that you can't be idle, but there is a difference between speaking quickly and creating a rap album. You will not win if I can't understand you.

• Be aware of your persona and style. Your case's content will primarily decide who wins the round, but content composes just one part of an argument. Be as rhetorically effective as possible: have a strong, clear, concise speaking style; pose a defendable thesis-centered argument; maintain eye contact; and act professionally. You could have the most well prepared case, but if you present it poorly, you will quite possibly lose.

• Don't be disrespectful. This point coincides with the second point, but I cannot stress enough that disrespect will make me want to vote against you. This does not mean that I don't appreciate sass - I do, and I think that sass can make a debate more interesting - but you need to be able to differentiate between harmless sass and a hateful tone. If you can't present a case without being hateful, then your rhetorical skills are disturbingly underdeveloped.

I am the current director of speech and debate at the Milwaukee School of Languages.

From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.

I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.

I would like to be on the email chain (hannanja@milwaukee.k12.wi.us), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you spread theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.

I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.

I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.

I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.

I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.

PF: if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary. A complete extension has a link and an impact, preferably with evidence for each. I prefer to make decisions based on clean flow-work; lacking a clean story on the flow, I will occasionally call for evidence to help resolve an issue; I often find myself assessing the 'risk of offense' at the end of rounds based on flow work, evidence quality, consistency of the story between summary and final focus, and the degree of opposition the argument received.

Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.

Any other specifics, please ask.

Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (if you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, it means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time, and for tournaments that have different speaker point norms.

A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.

A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.

A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.

A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.

A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.

Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.

Jenkinson, Jaime L.:  Unaffiliated 

School Strikes:  Saint Francis High School, Eden Prairie High School, Champlin High School

LD Philosophy: 

I tend to vote on what the debaters crystalize as voters, which should be issues, and not values, isolated cards, etc. However, my default is to evaluate the round based on standards and their extensions.

Theory args should be supported by qualified/quantified proof.

I’m fine with speed that is clear and does not threaten depth of argumentation, as I prefer depth over spread- and only encourage it to the extent that it creates greater depth. I will not vote for arguments that I don’t/can’t understand, and I appreciate links back to the standard(s) to be very explicit and direct. I also will not vote on drops that have gone unimpacted, and expect that prestandards are warranted. I'm hesitant to say this, but competing frameworks tend to go aff in my mind.
I’ve been out of the game for a few years, so new jargon needs to be expressed in a way that I can follow. I cannot emphasize enough to BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR JARGON.

If you run an off-case, make the reasoning clear. And do not kick your entire case in front of me- it's aggravating and makes for bad debate.

Hi all!

I am a parent judge and I'd appreciate it if you would go slow and explain your arguments clearly.

I'm not going to flow in the traditional sense, but I'll be taking notes.

Once again, I'm a parent judge with most of my judging experience from judging younger debaters on our local city circuit.

So please adapt: speak slowly + clearly, don't turn dump, warrant clearly, have a narrative, and explain all jargon. I won't be voting for unwarranted things nor badly explained/extended offense. I'm looking forward to hear your arguments, Ramesh Babu

**I am a tabula rasa judge**

Experience:

Competitive: 4 years HS LD, PF, and Congress

Judging: 3 year of judging in LD

Coaching: Instructor at Classic Debate Camp

Style and Speed - I highly prefer the traditional style of LD, but I can follow progressive most of the time. DO NOT SPREAD. I am able to follow speeds on the faster end of the spectrum, but I really would like to clearly hear and flow your arguments so a speed that is a little bit above conversational would be totally fine. It'll be clear when I cannot flow. Finally, signpost and road map throughout the round as it helps me with following your speech and flowing. THIS APPLIES TO PF TOO! If I can't flow, then it will not go well for you.

Evidence -

LD: I really appreciate and value the use of evidence to aid an argument. However, do not just throw a piece of evidence into the round for the sake of doing so - aka explain it and tell me how it links back to the main argument.

PF: Of course, evidence is a must. However, PLEASE also explain it and impact any card you use. If you just spew a card and don't take the time to explain its relevance to the argument or the round, I will not take the time to consider it.

Framework/Structure -

LD: I will ALWAYS consider the framework debate as I think it is the foundation of LD debate. Make sure your frameworks are clearly and logically explained so that I, and your opponent, can follow. If your case or arguments do not link back to the framework, it is harder for me to buy it.

PF: If you do not implement some sort of mechanism or framework for me to weigh the round off of, I will use a cost/benefit analysis based upon your arguments and rebuttals. Also, tell me why your framework is effective and why I ought to prefer it in the case your opponent brings up a different one.

Please be civil. I do not mind debaters being assertive for the most part unless it goes overboard. You will be safe as long as you are courteous, respectful, polite, etc. Although I will not based the round off of any factors relating to decorum, there may be a penalty in speaker points.

Overall, be nice. I love clean, productive debates filled with evidence, logic, and obvious clash. If you have any questions or clarifications, please ask me before your round.

In addition, to prove that you have actually read this paradigm and that it wasn't a waste of my time and effort, pro should use protentions instead of contentions (nvi, I just want to be entertained).

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

I debated for 5 years at WDM Valley. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year. I am attending Iowa State University to study Computer Engineering, Physics, and Math.

Overview: You can literally do whatever you want and I will do my best to evaluate the round as tab as I can. I can flow fast only if you are clear. I am comfortable with any argument being made in the round, but would prefer that your arguments follow some sort of logic or justification. I debated framework and theory, but feel fine judging any type of debate. I decide a winner by evaluating offense to what ever framing mechanism is won in the debate, therefore doing weighing will put you ahead.

As a debater I was most comfortable debating under a truth testing, debate is a game paradigm. I will not vote for you because you run a trolly a priori. I will vote for you if you run a trolly a priori and win the argument as a voter.

I only consider arguments made in the round. If I don't understand an argument I will not vote on it. I will not do any work for either debater. Do not let the debate get to that point and you'll be fine.

Tips and Tricks for a Big Win:

1) I have bias for arguments I think are creative
2) Making it clear what offense you are going for (including overviews/voters) makes it easier for me to give you a ballot
3) Have fun and be nice

4)Don't say hyperreality is bad

Speaks:
1) I will average a 28.5-29.5 (not sure how high this is so it may change as I become a more experienced judge)
2) 27- ok, 28-good, 29 -great, 30 -best
3) if you want speaks please ask me privately after the round and I will tell you

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

Parent volunteer judge with 3+ years. Primarily PF but have judged LD too. Speed is not an issue but if you spread, you are taking a risk.

Treating all debaters with respect is critical to me. Any demeaning behavior towards opponent will have a very negative impact on speaker points.

Stacking too many questions and not letting opponent respond will backfire you. What good is a cross-fire question if it does not expose opponent's weakness for the judge to observe ?

I like strong arguments - pro or con does not matter. I will never have an opinion about the topic - my judging record will speak for itself.... Good arguments will always get the win.

I prefer not to disclose results unless I have to. In ballots (both e-ballot and paper) my observations/thoughts/notes will have "**". When a sentence does not start with "**", that is the feedback.

Original Paradigm:

I am a parent judge who has judged only traditional debate. While I can understand faster than a conversational pace, please do not spread. I will not vote for something I can't understand. Also, I much prefer if you debate topically, and will not vote on non topical affs. I do not like theory and am not likely to vote on it, and I will not vote on tricks or skepticism. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

UPDATE FOR NOVEMBER 2019:

(Written by Joey Tarnowski)

So as of now, there's probably a little more argument flexibility to be had. Skep, most theory args (the more friv, the worse) and basically all kritiks are probably a no. Also you should prob keep spreading to a minimum (read: DON'T DO IT) but kinda fast is prob alright. Most non-cheaty cp's are probably okay, but pics and advantage CPs will just need a little explanation. Disads are fine, but the strat here should prob be more of a "turns case" strat than an extinction scenario. The more links in the link chain, the less likely it is you'll win on it. T on plans is probably fine, but you should prob default to a reasonability standard cause the stuff about frivolous theory applies here too. TLDR; most util strats are prob your best bet, but probability>magnitude should be what frames whatever you're running.

LD: Traditional. This requires a value and value criterion that flows beyond the constructive. I will generally vote against theory, ks, and other policy debate components. I will always vote against disclosure theory - sorry kids, no cheating on the test.

Speed doesn't bother me. I was a policy coach for years. HOWEVER, if you sound like you can't breathe or are repeating words because YOU can't handle speed, it will affect your speaker points and how I assess the round. As a judge, I decide who wins or loses. As such, your speaker points will be lower if you tell me what I will do in your speeches. Convince me to vote for you rather than thinking if you say I will, it will happen.

Background and general views

I've been doing this for a decade now, so this isn't my first rodeo. I can adapt to pretty much any debate style, so do what you prefer. I don’t want you to be so focused on trying to please me as a judge that you lose sight of your case or your coaching. The one exception to this is spreading; I shouldn’t have to have your case in front of me to understand what you’re saying and I will drop over this.

I enjoy a lively, energetic debate, so don’t be afraid to be assertive. As long as you’re not blatantly rude, I won’t dock your speaks for being aggressive.

I prefer not to be added to email chains. If a piece of evidence is called into question, it’s up to you to prove why it should or shouldn’t be considered. As for emailing cases, refer to my comment about spreading.

Public Forum

I prefer when your FF speeches contain more weighing than summary. I want you to identify the voters and explain exactly how you outweigh your opponent on the key issues. For extensions and drops, I expect you to remind me what the card is and why it’s so important.

Cross isn’t for establishing new arguments, so I won’t flow any new ideas you bring up. I’ll make note of anything conceded during cross as well as general participation, but cross won’t factor too much into final scores or decisions. During GC, I want to see both partners on each team participating.

It’s up to you to attack your opponent’s case. No matter how silly a point may seem to you, I’m going to flow it through if you don’t effectively refute it.