I'm not shy about heated debate or passionate discourse, but when people get crazy or rude, that's a buzz kill. There's got to be a better code of conduct, some basic etiquette.

I would like to preempt my paradigm with a few definite-don’t that I know are scattered through almost every paradigm out there. First, If you are looking for a judge who is going to be ok with you walking over your opponent- making the debate unfair- then i am not the judge for you. I have been debating for 3 years now and I know what a good debate looks like. In PF debate, One team should not take up the majority of the time during Cross. I have seen many debaters try to overpower their opponents to the point that they have no chance to make their points. I find that to be rude and a bad quality in a debater. If you try to do this in a debate your speaks will reflect it. Next, I 100% believe that is a game. I understand that we out here to win but if you're prepared to step over others to do so, then I don’t think your doing it in the right spirit. I will not tolerate being rude/hateful to your opponents, your partner, or anyone else in the round. Just be nice guys. It’s not really that hard.

I am a go with the flow type of judge. Unless, you give me a different way to weigh the round. I will not make any assumptions for you. Going off that I think it's very important to protect the individual aspects of your arguments. YOU HAVE TO PROTECT YOUR LINKS. If your opponent's attack a link and you just try to ignore their answers and push your impacts without a link, I will notice. That may work on more lay judges but I am pretty good at keeping up.

Evidence- I’m not very fond of the “my evidence is better than theirs” arguments. If you think that they are using abusive evidence then that is something different but if your going to argue dates or publications than that just shows me that you aren’t prepared with backup evidence.

Speed: I can keep up with speed if your speaking clearly. I, myself am known to talk a little fast in round so I know the struggle of a judge trying to slow you down. Some of these speeches your expected to fit a lot of information in a short amount of time, so I understand that taking a little faster can be a good way to get more information out. I’m fine with this as long as you are still enunciation and speaking clearly. If you can’t cleary speak at that speed I recommend reorganizing your case instead of just muddling through it. If you are speaking unclearly I will not follow with the flow, so if you want me to keep up with your key points and important pieces of evidence than you need to put emphasis on them.

Name: James Bey-Brody

School Affiliation: Cabot High School

Contact Info: beybJ1@cps.k12.ar.us

The type of debate I'm most familiar with is Congress. However, this does not mean that I won't be able to judge any other style of debate as efficiently.

Clarity is MORE important than Speed

In Congress, follow NSDA rules in speeches and questioning. If your speech is the second or third make sure you create a new point or give significant evidence to further the aff/ neg case. Do not add new information when questioning, if you have new information, give a speech rather than ask a question. Questions should only be one part, the goal is to unravel what the speaker just said.

I don’t care where you set up in the round or how you present yourself: stay sitting, take the shoes off, etc., You do you.

I borrowed this from M. Overing's paradigm and I believe that it gives a brief understanding of how I will judge the round.

"If you want my ballot, this is a really simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it, and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

If you have any questions or concerns email me!!!

Maysen Brokaw

TLDR: do what you want. I’m fine with speed as long as it’s clear-put me on the email chain. Framework is important and I can vibe with progressive args. Respect your opponents or I will drop you.

LD: I am a traditional LD debater. Heavy framework, integrated into your contentions and impacts. I think framework is extremely important so if you win framework, then there’s a high possibility that you win the round. However, case debate is really important too. Turns and defense looks really good along with framework. Impacts are a big deal. If you drop impacts, then you’ll most likely lose the round. Signpost please. I’m okay with any arguments made as long as they can be supported throughout the debate. Be cordial in cross-one of my biggest pet peeves is people trying to talk over each other or be overly aggressive during cross. I’m okay with speed most of the time as long as you are clear. I will yell clear three times before I stop flowing. After the 1AC, I’d like a road map so it is not a messy flow. For the negative, I’m not a big fan on topicality unless it is argued correctly. Plans, Disads, Counterplans are cool. This happens frequently-bringing up new args or impacts in the last affirmative speech. Don’t do it because I won’t weigh it; it is unfair to the negative.

Also, any type of racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or generally problematic comments will result in a L. It's not tolerated in the speech and debate community.

TL;DR

Speed is good just be clear and emphasize key arguments

Add me on the email chain adrianesau523@gmail.com

Be respectful

Quality of arguments over quantity of arguments

Cross important for speaks; make sure to utilize it well

Slightly truth over tech

O/V

I have did debate for four years at Cabot, and have experience in every type of event besides congress. My preferable event, however, is LD There are sections in this paradigm that go over my opinions about PF along with sections about certain types of LD debate strategies that are used often. Also, there's a really brief congress paradigm at the bottom.

Public Forum

It doesn’t really matter to me what you run. Follow basic public forum rules. If you spread or talk exceedingly fast I’ll most likely vote you down since that’s considered abusive unless the opponent just goes with it. At that point it’s fair game. In the rebuttals, make sure to be organized , and I prefer line-by-line with numbered responses if you have more than 1 response. Final focus should be strictly weighing and voters. No new args should be brought up in the summary and should be used for extending your own case.

LD

I don't really care what style you debate in as I have done both traditional and progressive LD. A major thing for me is that if you are to run a progressive case, you need to clarify your major impacts and make sure I catch on within the jumble of arguments you're spreading. Other than that, follow basic guidelines for spreading such as slowing down on taglines and etc. The following things are my viewpoints on the progressive arguments that could be used and just my basic viewpoints on clash and case arguments.

Topicality

If you can convince me that the opponent isn’t topical then that gives you some leverage. However, I don’t think that running just topicality and not touching any of the opponent's case is acceptable. If their arguments aren’t topical, explain why. Don’t just claim that they aren’t topical and not give any reasoning for why that is because at that point I’m not considering that as a legitimate argument. Topicality provides a way for good clash in a debate, but it shouldn’t be the only thing argued throughout. There should be other arguments ran so it’s not the only clash within the debate.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

I really enjoy this strategy, and I think it provides a fun, creative spin to a debate. Disads should be relevant and not built with out-of-date empirical evidence. Their needs to be a clear link of why taking the action of the resolution is bad, and have a clear impact of why the argument is even prevalent or important. Counter-plans are fun to run, but should be realistic. It should be able to sell it’s point of why the plan should be preferred, and should have evidence backing the plan. I would like to see how the plan would be enforced also that way I don’t have to interpret it for myself.

Case

I think a good case debate is important. I like case turns and outweighing impacts better than last minute arguments against the opponent's case being brought up because you were too busy trying to sell your own points. Defense is good, but their needs to be some sort of offense. Otherwise I have sat through a debate listening to two different sides of the topic without any clear turns or rebuttals, and I don’t think that makes for a good debate whatsoever. What ends up happening is entire contentions being dropped, and nothing for me to vote on other then who was a better speaker. I think debates should be more than that so make sure there is a genuine clash between the two cases, and not just you reading off your case and a bunch of backfiles of evidence just building already made arguments.

Kritiks

You should have a well developed Kritik shell when running this strategy. You should provide a general analysis of how it is related to the round, and have a clear link to how the argument is topical with the resolution. You should give a clear reason why I should vote for your K and how it should be weighed in the round. An alternative provided after the K would be preferable, especially if the implications of the K are applicable to the pre-plan world. If you are to go against a debater running a K, it’s important that you attack the framework of the debate as the kritik your opponent runs sets up the standard of the debate. I think it’s important that the opposing debater tries to control framework as it is a major part of any LD debate.

Theory

I don’t have much experience when it comes to this particular debate strategy. I’ll vote for whatever as long as the theory is constructed well and clear as to what it is advocating. The theory should have the four parts of a basic theory shell (interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). The standard the theory sets up should be realistic, and be able to clearly show why the interpretation is good for the debate. The warrant should clearly give a reason for why I should consider your theory. The usual voter is fairness and education, but feel free to read any voter you think of as long as you can warrant why it is important for the debate.

Congress

I don't care what perspective you take when speaking on a bill. The more unique the takes, the better. I just ask that you don't be homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or racist. It should go without saying but be respectful and have fun!

Arguments

I am open to all arguments as long as there is a good link chain that is well defended. If you present an off the wall argument and defend it well, I will probably consider it heavily. Treat me as a lay judge. There must be well flushed out impacts for me to consider. These impacts must be brought up in the constructives or they will not be weighed. Do not use any abusive arguments.

Evidence

Use good evidence. Don't quote blogs or shady journalists. I will ask for cards if I believe you are reading me crap. I judge quality over quantity. Explain why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents.

Other

SIGNPOST

IF you are going to read fast, read your tags slow and clear, then you can go as fast as you want. Be sure to be clear. If I can't understand you, I will put my pen down, thus signalling you've lost me. However, as long as you read tags clearly, I won't doc speaks.

Public Forum

Weighing is the most important part of PF. Use your impact calculus to explain why your argument should be voted on.

Lincoln Douglas

Be sure to compare values and value criterion and explain why I should favor yours over your opponents. Also, explain why your case ties into your values.

Congress

Speak clearly. Act like you actually care and that you aren't just trying to get another speech in. At least try to act like you know what you're talking about. Don't just spew words trying to gain an emotional response.

*Please put me on the email chain @taniya.henderson11@gmail.com/hendet2@cps.k12.ar.us*

Lincoln Douglas - I’m a Lincoln Douglas debater for Cabot High School with about 3 years of speech/debate experience. That being said, I love traditional debates. However, progressive is okay. I am fine with whatever, as long as you articulate well. I love a good framework debate. As far as Topicality, Disads/Counterplans, Case, I am fine with whatever. You debate, and I flow. Just make sure what you are saying makes sense and I can follow. I am not a fan of Kritiks, but if you are going to engage in a k debate, make sure you still attack the affirmative arguments head-on.

Public Forum - It has been a while since I have actually debated PF, but I am still familiar with how it's performed. I think you should come prepared with actual evidence and make sure you stay on top of your line-by-line throughout the debate. In the rebuttal speeches, you should label and articulate your speeches. In the last speeches, tell me exactly what I need to vote on and WEIGH!!

Congress - I am the least familiar with this type of debate. However, I am looking for someone who will take initiative and articulate your arguments during your speech(es). I am not looking for someone who will speak the most, but for that one person that will get up and speak so phenomenally that they blow everyone else away. So, don't think that you have to speak a lot in order to catch my attention. That doesn't mean don't speak at all, but you don't have to beat everyone else to speak. When it comes to the PO, you need to be professional and attentive. For example, I will not be keeping up with who is next to speak, that will be your job so make sure you're performing it well!

Ultimately, I feel that you should be able to run whatever you want. As long as I can follow what you are saying, and it makes sense, go for it!

I expect debaters to be extremely kind to one another during the round. This does not mean you can’t joke around because I love a good laugh. However, if you know you are being disrespectful or discriminatory, then don’t. More specifically, I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, ableism, etc.

I am also not a fan of arrogance, so please leave it at the door.

Everyone has room for improvement, so even if you consider yourself top of the top, there are still some things you can learn too.

I am currently a 10th grader in debate, and I have 2 years of experience. I am most familiar with PF, Congress, Extemp, and Policy.

PF

I would consider myself a more “truth” over “tech” judge. Of course I want you guys to follow the PF guidelines, but I will choose who wins based on what team presents the better warrant and impact.

Don’t focus too much on the definitions presented in the beginning. Sometimes debaters will argue more on who’s definition is correct, and completely ignore presenting their side/evidence. A group that worries more about technicalities will lose compared to a group that continually proves their arguments.

Off-time roadmaps are completely okay, and I actually like them as it helps me follow your argument. I’m also completely fine with competitors using their phones to time themselves, and I will time along with you.

I would prefer it if every person talked during the Grand Crossfire. It really shows when only one person of a team knows the subject, and a team should be 50/50. Be respectful during questioning or I will dock your speaks. Debate is a diplomatic event, not an aggressive one. Try your best to not spread, I like to be able to understand every point you make. If you have so many arguments to fit in, choose the best ones to present in your case that are the most relevant/beneficial to you.

Overall, I am very laid back and open when judging debate. Just make sure to be respectful and have solid evidence that makes it easy to vote. Tell me why you think you should win and why the other side lost.

If you have any questions, contact me at huntr2@cps.k12.ar.us. If you have any questions in a round, ask after RFD. I’m here to help you guys learn and become the best debater you possibly can :)

Zayd Kelley

Cabot High School

zaydkelley@gmail.com or kellez1@cps.k12.ar.us

I joined the Cabot Forensics and Debate program in 2015 and have remained in the program since. I exclusively entered the Debate program in 2017. My experience is restricted to Congressional Debate, yet, I have debated PF and IPDA once. I have a basic grasp of LD and CX, so in the very unlikely case that I judge either event - go easy on me. I’m tech > truth, however, if the argument is demeaning or discriminatory of others or blatantly racist, homophobic, etc… I will not accept it. I love the assertiveness and action in debate but I do not support aggression in which nears the boundary of not being a civil debate. I am also quite the history buff, I’m Quiz Bowl team’s history guy which should say a lot. An occasional history reference or joke is appreciated and may help me keep track.

For the most part, I consider arguments to be like building blocks. Good arguments represent the larger blocks while a multitude of not-very-big arguments represents smaller ones. In summary, I prefer the larger building blocks - they’re much more fun to play with after all. However, I do believe that the smaller building blocks can stack up to be greater than the larger ones but they must be in unison to form a larger argument. On somewhat the same topic, do not card dump - please. Save your last names for when they are relevant. I tend to focus on the content of the presented evidence rather than who justified it or reaffirmed it. Yet, make sure to repeat if it runs off so I can flow. In cross-examination or crossfire, whichever you’d like of course, I love the action. It is standard to not flow this portion of the debate yet I do make additional notes if a debater performs well, yet I will rarely make any additions to my flow of arguments since this portion of the debate is not meant to introduce anything new and rather reaffirm previously stated ideas. So, again, it’d be a good idea to not bring up anything important during that time - bring out your inner Ben Shapiro but don’t be negligent, ignorant, or arrogant about it.

For Congressional Debate specifically, I will restate that I have three years of experience in such a form of debate and with parliamentary procedure. In a traditional debate event, usually, the arguments are judged more than how they are spoken. Yet, in Congress, I will balance the two and look both at the speaker and the arguments presented. In regards to the speaker and their quality of speaking, when you are recognized by the chair to speak please make sure you announce your last name and code and make sure you are speaking to where the entire chamber can hear - just the general stuff like that, so as long as you do that we’ll be on good standing. One thing to note though, and it had to be in its own sentence, DO NOT SPREAD. Simple. Anyways, you do not (in NSDA at least) have to state your name and code when rising to motions, points, or other forms of parliamentary procedure that are not speeches. I will not judge your parliamentary procedure use, although, if you do know what you’re doing then I may make a complimentary remark on the ballot. Now, in regards to the arguments, be creative with them but do not be outlandish with them. Fun arguments lighten up the chamber but they should not distract from the item being debated. Contrary to traditional Congressional Debate, I actually really enjoy it when new, however, better arguments are introduced toward the end of the debating period. This keeps the chamber awake and the fervor for argumentation going rather than having all the arguments being repeated toward the end, therefore making it seem the chamber is depleted and depressed. So, if it were me, introduce your good arguments first, but then introduce your best arguments last.

For PF, IPDA, and somewhat LD I see the event’s speaker and audience like a commons area. They are addressed by the common man to the common man. After all, PF literally is meant to be a style of debate for a public forum. So, with these, do not try to use hard-to-understand debate vocabulary or strategies. I am very familiar with the world around me, so it’s quite likely that I will have some prior knowledge about the topic at hand. Again, I want to see action playing out but make sure to contribute time to ensure you convince me why to vote for your side. Really that’s all you have to do with me in these events, just make sure you convince me, solidify your arguments while pulling them into the impact and show how it outweighs.

For CX, again, I have minimal experience in and do not expect to judge it. Yet, in the case I do let it be known: I do not like spreading, so go slow. If you go too fast I will not hesitate to cease flowing. Based on the concept of a counter-plans, I’m for them and would use them myself depending on the situation. Automatically proposing a counter-plan will intrigue me, yet, nonetheless, you still have to argue for it and defend it from your opponents - does not mean I will go for it regardless. For Kritiks, I’m also fine with, but do not go too in-depth with it, try to stay on a base level so my mind doesn’t literally explode. Again, just make sure to explain and defend yourself. For Topicality arguments, I prefer you only read it if it’s blatantly unrelated to the resolution, however, if it is for interpretation I would still allow it as the interpretation of such provides for more argumentation.

Anyways, if you've made it this far I won't keep you much longer. Debate is meant to be educational and entertaining, so make sure to have fun!

Hello, I’m Carter Kirby, I’ve been doing debate for 2 years now. I’m most familiar with Congress but not totally unfamiliar with other styles. My pronouns are he/him or they/them and I don’t tolerate bigotry of any kind in a round. Be civil and be smart. I tend to be pretty chill :). My email is carterakirby@gmail.com if you have any questions, concerns, or you just think I seem cool lol

Speaking - I prefer clear speaking and persuasion over spreading. It’s hard for me to keep up and I need you to be articulate. Try not to be aggressive but don’t let that stop you from clashing with your opponent-- this is a debate.

Tech over truth

Theory is fine

Arguments - I really don’t have a preference when it comes to the types of arguments you run so long as you know what you’re talking about, present it well, and uphold it well. I prefer a lot of clash in debate and want to see you defend your arguments while criticizing the others. Adapt well to the person you’re debating.

Evidence - As log as it is up to date and not pulled from somewhere that is clearly shady/made up I could honestly care less where you get your evidence

I have been a part of the Cabot Debate program for four years, one year of CX and three years of PF. Most of my experience and understanding lies in PF, so please try to avoid excessive amounts of theory. I also have a firm understanding of Student Congress and IPDA. I can judge CX at a basic level.

Generally speaking, I prefer a few good arguments over a large quantity of mediocre ones. Don’t card dump. I tend to focus more on ideas in cards as opposed to last names so if you want to extend an argument please repeat the tagline to help me out with flowing. Because I don’t like card dumping, I don’t really consider myself to be Tech > Truth, however at the same time it definitely makes my job easier when all of the voters on both sides have been responded to. If your opponent has a flimsy link chain, point that out because I will gladly vote on it if it has been addressed. Crossfire/Cross examination are probably my favorite thing in debate, and you can rack up a lot of speaker points if you perform well during those times. That said, they don’t go onto the flow, so make sure to bring up any important concessions during your speeches.

As far as CX goes I’ll say my experience is minimal, so go slightly slower than usual and be patient. If you are going to spread I will flow to the best of my ability, but that said I cannot flow what I don’t hear. If you wish to flash or email me your case that would be helpful. I’m a fan of counter plans, but be wary that if permutation is an option and there aren’t any significant drawbacks to it I will vote on it. As far as Kritiks go I’m okay with you running them, but make sure to explain very clearly why it matters enough that I should be voting on it. I have an extremely high threshold for Topicality. I wouldn’t recommend reading T unless the plan is unrelated to the resolution to a degree that makes it blatantly abusive.

Largely similar to CX. I would prefer you didn't spread, and if you do I will only flow what I hear clearly. I'm okay with whatever theory you want to run, topicality probably isn't going to win you many points with me unless something is blatantly abusive. Make sure I can clearly understand what your value and value criterion are, why I should prefer them for the round, and how you achieve them better than your opponent.

Public Forum is designed to prepare speakers for (shocker here) Public Forums, and I therefore find it counter intuitive to use excessive amounts of debate lingo in this type of debate. I normally have pretty decent topic knowledge, but other than that pretend that I’m just your average Joe. I prefer that both sides collapse by the end. You should still be refuting points in summary, but definitely start streamlining the arguments into voters for me. By Final Focus there should be maybe 2-3 things that each side wants me to vote on. New argument won't be flowed during this speech. Crystalize your impacts and explain why they outweigh your opponents.

Congress is primarily a speaking event. You are looking to sound persuasive above all. Speak smoothly, signpost, and make me WANT to believe you. It's a little bit more abstract but that's just the way congress is. Knowing procedure well is a bonus but don't freak out if you have to ask a point of information to figure something out. I love questioning, make it interesting for me (but do try to remain civil).

IPDA is IPDA. Talk to me like I'm your friend. Make everything simple enough that I can follow. You can determine if a topic is "serious" or not, and I'm totally fine if you want to run unconventional forms of arguments.

Finally, have fun with it. Debate should be an enjoyable academic exercise for everyone participating. Remember that you can be assertive and still remain civil. If you want to read unconventional arguments I’m fine with that, just make sure that you flesh them out well. Good luck.

If you have any questions, please email me at hjmobbs@gmail.com.

LD:

I am the most experienced with this type of debate, though I prefer a traditional type of Lincoln Douglas. I generally hate spreading because that should be reserved for policy, so I think it would be best for me and your opponent to slow your speech, while also being efficient with your time.

On cases, as long as the evidence or framework (fw) is not utilized to target a specific group of people, not overly offensive, and is topical, feel free to use whatever case and evidence you want.

I am not too familiar with Theory arguments, but as long as you can prove that those affect the weight of the evidence/fw of the round, I can vote based on that.

On Kritiks (K), I will vote for it as long it sufficiently provides a reason why to absolutely oppose Aff’s case and to vote neg’s better plan, or vice-versa.

For CPs, I am fine with whatever is ran and whatever issues that plan can solve in addition to what is negated.

For tech or truth, I will weigh more in tech, unless the arguments/evidence is outright false (i.e. Slavery = good).

For what I am least familiar or comfortable with, I am not sure about LARP or Phil.

-In Phil, I am familiar with most (but not all) of the schools of thought but I have not really adopted any type of thought, so I'm more or less a Phil blank slate at the moment. If you have a Phil section/case, please make it easy to understand and not dense so that I can follow along with the flow.

-For LARP, I haven't fully grasped the concept of this type of case but it seems to rely heavily on policy-esque practices, which I do not wish to judge. If that is what your case is about, keep it to a level where I can understand it as an LD judge, not as a policy judge.

Finally, on tricks. I'm fine with presumption if that is your angle but don't make purposefully vague to gain the upper-hand on your opponent; that's just unfair. If you run that anyway, I will not vote highly in your favor.

Other notes: I also enjoy some pop culture (i.e. current memes) and historical references, so I will add on speaker points if you include something of those in your speeches and if done correctly. Other than that, good luck and have fun.

PF:

I'm not entirely familiar with this type of debate, but I know it functions nearly the same format for LD, so expect some of my judge philosophy to overlap between the two. Generally, I think you can run whatever you want, but make sure it doesn't target specific people and/or is overly offensive. With that, also make sure it is topical as well.

Make sure you extend case and clash with the opponent(s). If there are dropped args on either side, they are dropped and cannot be brought back up. Also, do not bring up new args in response speeches nor final focus.

Make sure the impacts are clear. While you can tell me all of the links you can make into your arguments, it doesn't mean anything if there are no clear impacts. Along with that, crystalize and give me clear voters as to why I should for you during final focus.

Signposting/Roadmaps are also recommended, so I know what to write for what. Make sure you also make the taglines and authors clear. With that said, I will not tolerate spread/speed speaking, so if that occurs, I will stop flowing. Other than that, good luck and have fun.

Congress:

This is the type of debate I am least experienced in judging-wise, so do bear in mind if I do not cover everything.

Just make sure you speak clearly and are persuasive doing so. I don't want to hear a bunch of garbage talking points just because you need to get your speaks; try to at least care about the bill/resolution at hand. Make sure to signpost your speeches as well.

If you are not entirely sure how a procedure is run, it is not harmful to give a point of information. Make sure you also know how each motion, point, etc. from Robert's Rules of Order before you spout out anything.

Lastly, the Questioning Period is a good way to get speaks and to also make the session more interesting. Try to make sure you are least somewhat involved with this part of the session, or else it will become the drabbest and most insipid session in our NSDA careers. Other than that, good luck and have fun.

Ben Saddler

Cabot High School 2021 Alumni

I was in the Cabot Debate program for three years. I competed in PF mainly. I no longer compete so I will be coming into rounds with little to no background research, so treat me as a lay judge in that regard.

I would consider myself truth>tech because I like to know why your impacts will win the round. I prefer fleshed-out arguments, so make sure that you explain exactly what will happen and why it will happen for me.

PF- It's public forum, so don’t spread. Other than spreading, speed is fine if it is clear. Anything I can’t understand won’t flow, so make sure you articulate well. In summary you should streamline the debate instead of responding to 20 different cards read through the round. Summary should also begin the weighing for the final voters so that I know where to vote in the round. If both summary and final focus do their job, I will know exactly where to vote and why.

LD- Speed is fine if it is clear. I would like good debate on the value for the round. Let me know which framework is better and why. I'm not a very experienced LD judge, but I will try to judge based on the impacts presented in your arguments and the weighing given for them.

Congress- I am looking for good speeches as well as questioning. Try to participate as much as possible. Be ready to debate both sides, it is an important part of debate.

Cross is a good place to bump your speaks, but for anything brought up in cross to be weighed, you MUST mention it in your speech.

experience: cx, pf, ld, bq, congress, world schools

cx

include me on the email chain. it's pretty rare that i will vote on t, that would be a very special circumstance. tell my how many off case positions you're running please. i'm fine with any type of argument as long as you articulate it well. i feel like there isn't really anything unique to put here, if you have specific question you can feel free to ask me. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

public forum

i'm fine with any kind of argument. my decision is more often than not based off the line by line debate. be sure to have real impacts that you carry across the flow and weigh against your opponents. if there is a weighing mech make sure it's actually one worth while and that you continue relating back to it and explaining how you win under it. take full advantage of cross- don't just start rambling off an argument during that time, ask questions and move on, alsoif you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech. arguments need to have warrants and links. i'm fine with speed, but not if you're sacrificing clarity- also speed doesn't equate to spreading.

lincoln douglas

speed is okay, but not at the cost of clarity. no need to spread but if you absolutely must then you should warn me/ your opponent and probably send out the doc. please do not turn the whole round into a framework debate. if you want to debate frameworks the whole time, don't allow it to dominate your speech time. be sure to actually be relating your arguments/ impacts back to the framework you've chosen to run. i am big on line by line, that's what makes the decision. i am fine with any type of arguments, as long as you have a link/ warrant to the case you're making. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

any homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc will result in an L. respect your opponents.

Christina Smith

Arkansas State University

Mainly an IPDA Debater but has PF and Congress experience

General

When looking at debates, I love clash. I believe that one of the main focuses of debate is a good clash, that way you see an actual debate going on. This can go for both Congress and PF.

When debating, always make sure that your arguments are clear and go down line by line, that way I can flow easier which will help me judge your round better. If your impacts are major to your case, make them seem important. If the number of cards is major to your case, make them seem important. I’d hate to look past them.

When looking at speaks, if you can speak loud and proud and add emphasis to your speaking, then you're almost guaranteed good speaks. I am not a fan of robotic, blunt-speaking because I will zone out real fast.

I also have zero tolerance for disrespect. In some instances, you can be aggressive to your opponent, however, if you step over the line and insult or show disrespect to them in any way, it will reflect on your speaks. While I know debate can get loud, it also needs to be civil.

IPDA

On the collegiate level, I mostly focus on IPDA, so IPDA is an expertise of mine. My paradigm for IPDA really reflects what I look for in both Congress and PF. So just read below.

PF

If Congress was eradicated from existence, then my go-to would be PF. I enjoy PF a lot, mainly because it makes us discuss topics that you wouldn’t usually talk about. That being said, please be sure to provide definitions and frameworks within your case. Not only does it inform me and others about the topic, but your framework helps me decide on who I should vote for, depending on which side shows that they fit the framework better. That means that you should always emphasize your impacts within the debate. I can agree that framework is in no way the most important, and please do not have a framework debate, but it’d be nice to have it included. In summary, you should always weigh out your impacts and go over the arguments that were spoken throughout the debate. The final Focus should be mainly on voters, that way I can vote more effectively.

When it comes to cx, as I have said before, the clash is key. That being said, I mainly prefer open cross, that way there’s more possibility of the clash. You don’t have to do an open clash, but it’s preferable.

Please do not spread either. Not only is that disrespectful to your opponents, but I can’t flow, meaning I can’t judge.

Congress

There are not many paradigms for Congress I have, as my paradigms most closely follow PF, but all I ask for congress is to have clear points within your speech and be sure to speak well. And please, for the love of anything religious, don't repeat arguments. I don't want to fall asleep during your session.

Jasmine Turnage

Arkansas State University - Jonesboro

Cabot High School Alumni

Mainly a PF/Congress Debater

tech > truth (in most cases)

hey guys! just a quick introduction- i’ve done multiple types of debate, barring LD, but i focus on PF and congress. I’m a recent grad from cabot high school where i was varsity pf captain and had competed in debate since freshman year. For the most part, you guys just do what you feel necessary within the round & everything will be groovy. If you want specifics, read below under the events.

General

I don't have a problem with aggressive, loud spoken debaters. I tend to be "aggressive" when arguing myself. BUT, always be respectful to everyone in the round. You don't need to talk over each other in cross. I love some good clash, but both teams yelling at each other doesn't impress me in the least.

For the most part I’m a flow judge, but I’m not going to flow the round for you. You tell me what you want on my flow and that’s what’ll be on the paper. ex: if you want me to cross-apply your answers, tell me. Im not here to assume.

Impact your arguments out -- make sure to weigh them against your opponents impact.

You should have a clear line by line. Reference cards if I need to pay attention to them.

Make sure to point out link/case turns.

speed is fine, but make sure it’s appropriate for the event.

i am tech> truth for the most part

Definitely give me voters & weighing. Otherwise, you leave it completely open for me to interpret what to vote off of - and that might end up in your favor & it might not.

Don't be rude, be respectful to judges/teammates/opponents/spectators. We're all here to have fun. If you're rude, disrespectful, or anything along those lines - your speaks will reflect that.

***Any disrespectfulness within the round towards anyone present will not be tolerated

Please check for your opponents pronouns before the round- and if they point them out, make sure to address them appropriately.

PF

I enjoy good, fun PF debates almost as much as I love Dr. Pepper. I'll judge on whatever you want - you guys just do what you think is best. If you use a framework, make sure to tie your arguments back to it and use it throughout the round. Again, make sure to line by line and point out things you want me to put on my flow. Extend arguments throughout the debate, make sure to weigh impacts. Summary should be the point where you articulate the most important arguments and start getting into some serious weighing. Final Focus should be voters and some final weighing.

If there are any conflicts with evidence, I'll call for the card. It shouldn't take you ten minutes to find it. You need evidence to prove what your saying, but keep in mind that analytics are pretty powerful too.

CX

I did policy for a year, so I understand the basics of it. My input on that is to run what you think you can do the best at. It’s been a hot minute since i’ve done policy, so bear with me. If you’re wanting some all knowing policy god, it’s probably best that you strike me as a judge if you can.

I want to be on the email chain -- turnaj1@cps.k12.ar.us

LD

I've never competed in LD, but I've seen rounds. I don't have a preference of traditional or progressive. If I end up judging you, its up to you what you decide to do. While I haven’t done LD, i’m definitely not oblivious to how it works- so ultimately just do whatever you’re comfortable with & what you think is best.... This ones kinda vague, so if you have questions or need clarification just email

Congress

honestly, this doesn’t really need an explanation. speak well, i enjoy the use of pathos- but not excessively. i will rank you on your overall participation within the round. Make me notice you- ask questions, use parli pro, and give some dang good speeches. have fun, this is always a learning experience and if you have questions- just ask.

also- i’m a firm believer that anyone breaking should be a well rounded delegate- by this i mean that they’ve been active and prominent within the session - asking questions, using parli pro, giving speeches. Also while quality > quantity is definitely true, don’t think you can just give one speech and be done because more than likely, that’s not going to earn you points in my book.

Speaks

Everyone starts @ 28.5. I see this as “average” and your speaks will go up or down from there. Don’t expect a 30 from me unless you are truly an exceptionally great speaker (for your division) I will be more lax about speaks with novice debaters. Again, any harmful speaking during the round will result in embarrassingly low speaks.

I do give RFDs - you should write them down. I might disclose the round, but that depends on the round, my flows, and the tournament.

In the end, have fun. Make it fun for everyone there.

Any questions - email me jasminelturnage@gmail.com

Nick Waller

Cabot High School

LD/Congress Debate

General:

I enjoy a thorough confident debate with both sides being able to speak clearly and professionally. Aggression is fine as long as it's necessary and not personally attacking the opponent in any way. When it comes to the debate itself I strongly urge you to NOT spread,If i stop flowing it means you are going to fast for me and i will not be able to use those missed parts in choosing who wins the debate.

I am a Tabula Rasa type judge

Please list out card names and dates clearly as possible.

Lay out impacts and warrants clearly.

Point out any case turns you may have.

I start at a baseline of 28 speaker points,your end results will be reflected on how you debated as a competitor and the quality of the debate you have given.

RACISM,HOMOPHOBIA,SEXIST, INTENTIONAL REMARKS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND WILL CAUSE IN AN IMMEDIATE LOSS.

LD:

This is my main and favorite style of debate,i heavily enjoy a debate where both debaters being in interesting and powerful cases that give a good clash till the very end. Value debates and impact debates are the most interesting where you can more thoroughly debate your cases and who comes out on top in the end. Definition debates would ideally not be presented in the debate unless they severely differ. I prefer a more traditional style of LD but if you have a progressive case do not worry as it will not change you outcome score or chances of winning.

Framework debate should be used if one or the others case is clearly not following a clear framework and is leaving out essential components to the debate.

In the end i wish for both debaters to present a overall impact and how it affects and changes more to the current topic of the debate.

I will gladly give our RFD's and disclosure if allowed,i highly recommend writing the RFD down you recieve and further improve your cases and debate abilities.

PF:

I never debated in Pf before but have watched a few rounds to give me the feel and knowledge for how the debate goes. Mostly refer to LD as above for more specifics on how i will view the debate.

When it comes Grand/Open Cross I prefer the debaters to remain respectful and civil,while raised voices is fine you should not be screaming at the opponents,this will reflect in your scores but not end decision.

CX:

ive never done policy before but if i am given a basic rundown of how the style works (times ans such ) i should be fine. Simply refer to the above styles to see how I evaluate debates and what to look for.

Id like to be included in the email chain: Wallea1@cps.k12.ar.us

Congress:

Another style I sometimes compete in,i love this style a lot as its a very open type of debate. When it comes to it when you are called up please repeat your last name,how many times you've given a speech and spell out your last name. Other than that this is all down to quality and the information given during your speech and how you present yourself through your speaking.

Big Questions:

please refer to my lincoln Douglas section,i will judge this exactly the same as that style.

Overall I love Speech and Debate and those who compete within it,i look forward to judging you if i do. If you have any questions feel free to email me Wallea1@cps.k12.ar.us

Chance Young

Email: clintyeastwood001@gmail.com

I've been debating public forum for 3 years now. I have debated at both the state and national level. I've also taken LD to a few tournaments. I'm more of a traditional debater, but I'm not bothered by progressive style debate. As long as what you're telling me makes sense I will weigh it. The biggest factor when deciding a vote will be impacts. To meet your impacts the links have to be clear and understandable. If the link doesn't flow then the impact is not weighed. Make sure the line by line is clear and easy to follow as well.

Drops/extensions - If it is not brought up in every speech I will not weigh it. Make sure every argument is extended throughout the round. If the opposing side drops one of your arguments then they cannot bring it back up. With that being said you would need to address the drop and extend the argument for it to be weighed.

Speed - A little bit of speed is ok, but be clear. I'm not a fan of spreading. If you do happen to spread, make sure to include me in the email chain.

Theory - Unless you can prove to me that the round was somehow unfair I will not vote solely on theory. With that being said the opposing side still needs to respond.