I am a communications judge. Please don't spread- if I can't understand you, I won't flow. I do my best to flow, however, I have no judging experience, so don't expect it to be perfect. I really dislike nuclear war impacts, and prefer structural violence, but if there are only nuclear war impacts, I will vote on the best link chain. Tag-teaming is fine, as long as you don't take over. I strongly dislike kritik arguments and I will not vote for an argument I don't understand.

1. Speak clearly...if you are going to spread, then make sure I can still understand you.

2. Don't leave connections up to me. Follow through on arguments.

3. Tag Teaming is fine, just don't be rude to your opponent.

4. Speaking of rude: There is no other way to get dropped faster than to be rude. Use your words, not attitude.

5. I deduct the time looking at your opponent’s evidence from your prep. Don’t waste time.

I am a former LD and Policy Debater.

I have 6 years of coaching experience as well as 10 years of judging experience.

Across all debate disciplines I really focus on Cross Examination and how those revelations or contradictions are used in the following speeches.

Policy:

I am a pretty conservative "stock issue" judge. Aff MUST be prima facia and MUST win all stock issues or at least not lose one. If Aff wants to avoid Topicality issues they should define their terms or they surrender ground to the neg. I am ok with a counterplan BUT if the AFF carries all the stock issues and the Neg CP is just " a little better" I will vote Aff. I LOVE a straight neg that just focuses on the Aff problems and case. That said I am ok with K's so long as they are done well. A poor K or one that feels like just throwing something out there because either side doesn't have much on case attack will not be very highly valued. Ultimately I judge the debate I get; not the one I want, so I do go with the flow. I flow debates. No problems with speed, but sometimes slowing down for the big ticket items is a good play. I try to make my eyes and facial gestures let you know how I am feeling, thinking or interpreting what you are doing so you can use that feedback to adjust if needed. I love it when both sides just agree on less important stuff and move on the focus on the points of greater conflict. It is not weak for either side to agree with a point here and there and move on. I generally prefer analysis of evidence over cards themselves.

LD: Winning the Criterion or Value debate will not necessarily mean victory. I put an emphasis on logic, analysis and examples. Speed is fine but typically less powerful than a more controlled pace. Most debates are won and lost in CX in my opinion.

PF: I like clash, so please get after one another as much as possible in on case arguments...don't just restate your case. I like PF really traditional, but understand its a bit more open by design so I generally go with the flow. I don't mind aggressive debating but really frown on being rude.

Background:

I'm a parent of two children in speech and debate. I'm awestruck by the many things about the community:

• The real partnership between the parent/teachers and the students. The parents *really* care about the success of the community, and the students create such beautiful pieces of "verbal art". This interplay is magical to me.

• The vector of growth of nearly every student over the course of the season. It's flattering to watch a specific orator/debater incorporate feedback you've given them earlier in the season, and then watch them hone and improve their art over time.

General:

Debate is to me an exercise of research, oration, logic, education, and decorum. All five of these aspects are vitally important when one ventures into their eventual career path. The general speech and debate student gives better presentations than 80% of the people in my field of work -- this is not an exaggeration. That being said, those five factors inform my judging paradigm and philosophy.

Paradigm:

My letter of the law paradigm is hypothesis testing, mostly because I am not skilled enough to judge otherwise. Think of this paradigm as the use of rhetorical devices in a scientific manner to disprove your opponent(s)' null hypothesis.

For practical purposes it should be considered a clean slate (tabula rasa) approach. I've seen published versions online on tabula rasa, and those don't really match up 100% to my philosophy. I just kind of take the actual translation of the phrase tabula rasa and go from there. If this is policy/CX, this means that it's 100% tech over truth. That is, if your opponents have a wacko source that says the human population on Mars is higher than Earth's, you'll have to address this in your flow. If this is LD or PF, then it's "mostly" tech over truth -- I will intervene if a warranted "non-fact" is introduced and I have 99.7% certainty that it is indeed a "non-fact".

Think of me as a juror on a civil case -- I will weigh my verdict based on the preponderance of evidence and logic, and I will likely ask for specific evidence cited in your case.

Preferences:

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as I can understand what you're saying.

Evidence: Sign post. If you are going fast, please make an emphatic "Next" or "And" between your taglines. I try to flow the tag line, the author/year, and a few bullet points from the EV that is read. If the internet is available at the tournament, please feel free to add me to your email chain: kurtis_araki at yahoo dot com.

Cross-Ex: I flow it.

Topicality: Just follow the general "counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters" model.

Theory: Run it as if I've never heard of it before. Not being well versed in debate jargon hurts my ability to give you a good summary of what I know, but it seems like it should be run similarly to topicality.

Kritiks: Up until recently, I thought I was okay with Kritiks. Then, I was hit by something I hadn't heard before called a "Deleuze" K. So, adjusting to this, I highly recommend that you prepare me as a judge that you will be running a Kritik. Run it very slowly. Perhaps signposting "Link", "Impacts", "Alternative" will make it easier for me to flow. Make it 100% obvious how it ties into the resolution/plan. Alts must either include a counterplan or a warranted and active agent in the status quo.

Kritikal Affs: I don't understand them. Please do not run them.

Performance Affs: I also don't understand these. Please do not run them.

Morally abhorrent stances: Despite my want to be 100% tech over truth, I won't accept "Genocide good", "Extinction good", "Debate bad", or "Racism good" as part of a link chain. If your opponents explicitly state any of these four abhorrent stances as part of any of their link chains, and if you point it out and flow it to the end, you will win the ballot. As a note, your opponents have to explicitly state it in an unprompted manner.

Time: I don't consider evidence exchange as prep time. Please do not have your hands on your laptop or pen in hand while receiving your opponents evidence. I'll leave it up to the competitors if they want to self time or if they want me to govern strictly.

Gender Pronouns: Try your best to respect each other's preferred gender pronouns. It will not affect my ballot if you or your opponent makes a mistake in gender pronoun usage.

Background

I have a daughter who competes in speech and debate, so I have been involved as a parent with this activity for three years. I have experience judging in CX, LD, and PF, as well as various speech types. I admire the hard work and dedication conveyed by the students in this activity and want to help nurture your success as a debater, so please take each part of my paradigm into consideration- my feedback will be reflected on how you adjust as a debater to my paradigm.

Paradigm

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge, meaning each debate is a clean slate. I will go into specifics for how I evaluate argumentation in each debate type, but I view the round without preconceived biases or framework for how the debate advances. I expect clean debates; arguments offered are clashed, burdens are met, etc. I prefer quantitative logic heavily over qualitative— philosophy is fine if it is warranted with factual evidence. In conclusion, I will adjust to the course the debate takes as long as it is warranted, clean, and evokes an academic “conversation”.

Preferences

In regards to all debate types, my preference on the following are universally applicable:

Jargon: Please do not use heavy jargon- I’m still relatively new. If you need to use jargon, briefly explain it.

Speed: I do not mind speed as long as I can understand you.

Evidence: Sources are provided per request by a competitor or your judge. I also appreciate signposting.

Cross Examination: Be respectful.

Specific Expectations/Prefs

· Kritiks: I am generally okay with K’s/K-Affs with some unfamiliarity (I do have a PhD in Philosophy, so I will likely understand most general philosophies). so you need to do heavy analysis and thoroughly explain each part of the K with heavy emphasis on the Alt. In return, I prefer negative arguments to either thoroughly deconstruct the K or provide an accessible perm.

· Counterplans: I am relatively unfamiliar with CP’s, but I will consider this argument provided that the CP is thoroughly explained and analyzed.

· Disadvantages: Disadvantages are pivotal to a neg case be it that they provide quantitative evidence and are not entirely theoretical.

· Topicality: Again, I am unfamiliar with the function of this argument, though if it is explained and extended through the entire debate I should not have a problem comprehending it.

· Framework: I heavily weigh FW as a Tabs judge, so please tell me how to evaluate the round. If there is not a FW debate, then I will presumably flow the initial FW through the round.

· Solvency: Considering this is State debate, I expect the affirmative to have a definitive solvency, though if it is implied emphasize statements adhering to solvency so I know to incorporate that into my flow.

· Time: I will hold the official time, though if competitors would like to self-time, that is fine. I do not consider an evidence exchange as prep time, but if flashing takes an excessive amount of time I will tack it on to your prep time.

Overall, I weigh respect over any argument. If I pick up on any disrespect in or out of the round, it will go into my consideration of the round and may go to tabs if I see it fit for further evaluation. Please have fun- for you seniors, this is your last go-around with debate, so make it your best!

More interested in your own ability to form logical arguments as opposed to having a piece of evidence behind every claim. If it is logical, I will vote on it.

I began coaching in a very small school in rural Idaho in 2013. I have since taken over a program, in a larger district, with a more robust program in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Policy debate styles. I prefer a clear arguments, and will do my best to keep any personal bias out of the debate.

Public Forum: Prefer a few, in depth, detailed arguments over superficial arguments. Avoid a ton of theory and debate jargon. I like to flow easily-please use a roadmap and signpost.

Lincoln Douglas: Our state is relatively traditional, but that is not to say I won't hear out something a bit more progressive. I appreciate the V/C clash, especially when it is backed up with your contentions and evidence. I don't often have an opportunity to hear well developed theory and kritiks. Be be sure to slow it down and make sure I can understand the concept you are putting forward.

Policy: Again, I need to be able to follow the argument, and to that end, I'm not a fan of speed so fast I can't even understand the speaker. I will most likely vote on the stock issues - if you are going to run a K, make sure you slow it down, and make sure I'm getting it.

Clarity and Warrant

Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

I was a debate coach for many years and understand how things work, however, I'm more of a traditional judge.

LD: focus on the V/C and why yours is better and how you meet your opponents. Argue the voters in final speeches. While I do understand progressive arguments, they aren't my favorite and you better be far superior in your argumentation.

PF: Talk to me. This style of debate is to be so any person off the street can understand the arguments. Make that happen.

CX: The stock arguments are best for me. I can handle speed, but don't prefer it. If you argue any out there K's, may have to explain it to me.

Jack Bradley

Highland High School '15

Idaho State University '21

1. I'm an old policy debater that is comfortable with what you want to do.

2. I think debaters are often too disconnected from reality.

3. I think reading Topicality in Novice Policy is Dumb. If you decide to run T as a Novice, and you’re the aff, just say you’re on the case list and you’ll win that flow with me 11/10 times.

‘23 State Debate Update:

Congrats on making it to State! I’m excited to judge this competition, and I want you to enjoy what could be some of your last debate rounds ever. Play to your strengths, debate in the way/style that you want! I’m flexible and competent and can keep up. In other words, I’m clearly one of the most comfortable prog K like judges at this tournament, so if that’s your speed, go for it!

Any questions? Just ask! Happy to help.

I have judged very little this year! I am not familiar with any of these topics as a result. That doesn't mean I need you to slow down for me and excessively overexplain your arguments, just keep the jargon/acronyms associated with the topic to a minimum.

I am a huge fan of framework/resolutionary analysis in all debate formats, because I often feel like opposing debaters arguments are like two ships passing in the night.

Robert Bradley

Paradigm * November 2019

I like judging. That is why I am here. Have fun during this tournament and during your debate adventures. You can make some great friends through high school debate. Let me know if I can help, or if you have any questions. I appreciate humor, and I prefer courteous debate. I won’t judge you on what you wear, or other irrelevant factors. During a debate round I do not judge you on any “speech” criteria. Most tournaments do not allow me to give any type of results, comments, or advice after the end of the round. If you see me later during the tournament I probably can give you feedback.

I am looking for significant “voter” issues. I do not choose them myself unless forced to choose because the debaters did not help me to make a choice. I want the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote. I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here. Remember to have fun! Don't be rude. Sassy and humorous are fine. Be confident without being a jerk. If the teams are mismatched don't be condescending; don't roll your eyes. Don’t lie. Debate like you want to be here debating. If this is your first time debating… keep this to yourself. Please do not tell me “I’ve never done this before!”

Speed: I have an issue with speed. If you talk too fast I will tune out. *

Help me flow your debate. I like signposts. I like crystallization. I like it when you point out your voting issues at the end of the round. I like stock issues: solvency, harms, inherency, and significance. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Finish your question if the time runs out. The opposing side does not have to answer, but they can answer if they want to answer.

I will evaluate the kritik first in the debate round before any other question is resolved, and if the kritik must be compared to the plan, then the kritik will outweigh the plan or value position. The kritik is an argument that must be adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round. This pre-fiat discussion takes place before we even get to talking about what happens after we pass the plan (post-fiat). Topicality is the same: we have to decide if the plan is even allowed to be discussed within the resolution before we can evaluate it. Kritiks are ‘pre-fiat’ because it is the only ‘real’ thing that happens in a debate round. Kritiks often target things which are explicitly real world that had an impact in real life. We should talk about what really happened in the debate round before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented.

I am well informed about local, state, national, and international issues, including politics and the environment. I am passionate about personal freedom and individual liberty.

Judging/ Coaching Highlights:

8 years as a coach and judge at Highland High School, Pocatello, Idaho

Idaho State Speech & Debate Championships 2014 to 2018

Beehive Bonanza at the University of Utah

Alta High School (TOC Debate) in Sandy, Utah

Jack Howe Memorial Debate Tournament at Cal State Long Beach

National Speech & Debate Association Nationals: 2014, 2015 & 2016

Coach for: + Individual Speech Events + Debate + Congress

Paradigm for Congressional Debate:

Clear, logical organization

Fresh and unique arguments and refutations that advance the debate

Poised and confident delivery including appropriate voice volume and speed, eye contact with the judge and audience, and demeanor

Observation of parliamentary rule to keep the debate moving in a positive direction

Please be polite and use good manners while in chamber. Correct pronunciation of unfamiliar words is advantageous.

Presiding Officer:

Keep debate moving by recognizing speakers fairly and consistently. Appropriate use of parliamentary procedure issues.

I debated 3 years in high school, and have 5 years coaching experience. I am the current assistant coach at Mountain View High School in Idaho. Most of my focus is on policy debate. When it comes to evaluating the round of any style of debate, I am a tabs judge. If you tell me how to vote, that's the way I will vote. I want you all to debate the best way you do and not try and adapt to what I like. If you can explain to me why you should win the debate, you will win the debate.

With that being said, I have a harder time seeing why running a Kritik should win you my ballot. I do default more to a policy framework. If you can take the time to tell me why you win, then run a K. However, I do tend to see more of a reason to vote for a policy argument. I also love to vote on Theory and Topicality. If you can show abuse in this round, then you have my ballot. Please feel free to ask me any specific questions at the beginning of the round.

Joe Burton: For all debate formats, I like to see competitors stick to the traditional debate format and center around the stock issues. Please don't introduce outlandish kritiks or counterplans. I like to see all debate points backed up with evidence and communicate them in a clear fashion. I don't mind spreading as long as you're articulating clearly and I can still understand you. I can't judge your argument properly if I can't understand you.

Sarah Ridinger: For all debate formats I present with a policymaker’s paradigm. I will compare the affirmative plan with either the negative counter plan or the status quo. The better policy option, which will be determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages supported by convincing evidence, will receive the more favorable score. Clear, conscience communication is critical. If I cannot understand you, your evidence will not strength the case.

Experience: Debate for four years in high school in the western Idaho circuit (Idaho Gem of the Mountain) and later, four more years for the Boise State PKD Championship team the Talkin' Broncos. Three years of LD, five years of PF, three years of college NPDA (NPTE circuit) and four years of college IPDA. While in college I coached all four years with my last year (2019-2020) as the head coach of a team. While I coached, a responsibility included judging various forms of debate including LD, PF, CX and Congress.

Paradigm: I can follow any speed/argumentation that you have prepared to have. I understand that different regions, schools and coaches, cater to different forms of conventions of what debate "should" be. I am not here to tell you what debate should be. You have the round that you want to have and that you have been coached for.

I will often end up voting on who can best explain their link stories and argued impacts. I will vote on "the world will end tomorrow" if you can clearly explain to me HOW and WHY. I want you to explain the way that my vote results in your impacts specifically. I.e. if I vote aff exactly how will the world change tomorrow?

I will keep a pretty dedicated flow so make sure argumentation is able to carry through each speech. If something is dropped explain to me why it matters or I will assume it doesn't (and all your arguments should matter). That said, I am inclined to be a bit more truth over tech, you can play the game but if your arguments just do not make sense, hit, link or impact then your techiness doesn't matter.

Timing: No off-time roadmaps -- they shouldn't be that long. Evidence exchanges should happen either in down time or cross. Everything you do is on time because otherwise we risk sitting here forever.

That being said:

LD:

I would like v/c to be present in LD. I understand of the round does not focus on it.

I can handle any speed

Policy:

I will vote on T but you HAVE to prove abuse. If you can't prove abuse, you'll waste time and I'll probably vote aff. I do like a good K.

I can handle any speed, but will time flashing

Be kind please(:

Few of the basics:

1. I want a nice & respectful debate. Please respect fellow debaters and judges.

2. Please don't speak too fast. If I don't catch your point, it isn't made.

3. I want clear points of clash laid out. I also want voters or world to world comparisons in the final focus.

4. Please try to make sense. I will do my best to understand and listen to your argument, but if it doesn't make sense at the end I'm unlikely to vote for you. Debate is about your ability to persuade me.

5. I do not flow constantly throughout your debate. I prefer to listen and will flow as needed to remember key points. This has nothing to do with you or your speaking ability.

I'm looking forward to hearing your side of the debate!

Debate:

I prefer that you articulate your arguments with intent to persuade me. Therefore, don't spread because I do not find it persuasive.

I do not like off time road maps but I allow them.

I will not time the transfer of evidence but prep time starts once you have the evidence.

Please advance the debate rather than repeat contentions.

I enjoy appropriate clash. I expect civility even in heated cross examination.

I disapprove of tag teaming but I will not score it down unless it becomes too excessive.

In LD I expect the debater will make it very clear how the case upholds the value. I score down when the value debate becomes separate from the evidence based debate and neither support the other in any clear manner.

Speech:

I look for the speaker to make connection with the audience. Points are given when you can create an audience impact through emotion or logic.

In interpretive events and OO I expect very clean and precise blocking.

In extemporaneous and impromptu events I expect structured speeches with a sense of polish despite the short prep time. I will score down if an impromptu speech appears canned or the connection to the selected topic is a stretch.

New judge so please speak slow, very comms oriented if I can't hear and understand your arguments I can't use them to weigh the round.

I'm a tabula rasa judge, I look for arguments that are specific. Warrant and link your claims, do the work for me, I won't do it for you.

My paradigm is pretty simple. I like a few detailed arguments instead of many brief arguments. Be clear! Be courteous and be ethical. Convince me, and I will vote your way.

Hey!

I'm an English and History teacher. I've assistant coached debate for 3 years with no background in it prior to that. I don't have experience doing what you're doing, and I think you're all incredible.

I'm a simple judge- I just want you to convince me that your arguments are correct and that your opponent's arguments are not. I like to hear you cite the evidence- more current evidence will supersede older evidence and quality is better than quantity.

Spreading/Speed is okay if you do it well and you clearly state when there is a new contention/argument. I'd rather hear the arguments in your own words than fly through the highlights of your evidence.

I will NOT make assumptions for your arguments. If you don't clearly link the ideas, I won't link them for you.

The best rebuttals and questions are respectful and have purpose.

Call out "abuses," but move on quickly as though the arguments will flow through. I hate wasting time on it.

Please time yourselves when possible.

Comms are very important to me, in every event if you make a claim be sure that you can quantify it and impact it out. I flow lightly and follow main arguments rather than multiple sub points. verbal tag teaming is a no go for me. Most important to me is clear communication and confidence.

I have been involved in speech and debate for 28 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 22 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time. The increase in prep was to accommodate filesharing, so you should be doing that during prep, not in addition to prep.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. IMO CP MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for several years. I expect professionalism and good argumentation.

Policy Maker Paradigm

Stock Issues primary importance

Old-school approach

Rudeness is death

Any specific questions regarding anything in my paradigm can be asked before the round for further clarification.

I will not disclose after round.

Overview

In terms of speed, I don't mind but be make sure your opponent is ok with it. That being said, if you're going to speak quickly, BE CLEAR. I've had to vote against debaters who attempt to speak quickly due to them muddling the flow and key parts of their speech, like their voters. So even though I'm fine with speed when push comes to shove: a clearer, slower, more articulate debater will always win over a speedster that's just trying to look impressive (they usually aren't anyway).

I love voters, please give me voters. It makes my job so much easier when you tell me what I should evaluate.

Debate Specifics

LD

I'm fine with whatever you decide to run. If you're gonna critical arguments (K's, in-depth philosophy), please don't hesitate to summarize/explain things for me, I promise it'll help. If you're gonna read T/theory I'd ask you to be a little slower when reading those so I can get those down clearly.

I'd like voters during the last few minutes of the NR and in the 2AR

PF

I know that PF is an incredibly evidence-heavy format. That said, please be clear with author citations and their paraphrasing. If a card is gonna be important to the round, let me know and explain why every time. I will ask for evidence after the round if I need to better formulate my decision.

In the rebuttal speech I prefer the structure to be more line by line. The summaries should focus more on crystallizing the arguments you think your team is gonna win on and set it up for the analysis that will be given in the final focus.

Give voters in the final focus please.

Policy

Since I never did policy in high school, I'll most likely vote on things like framework debate and impact calculus, meaning that I have a low likelihood for voting based on a card so intense card debate probably isn't the best way to go with me.

As long as you make the tags clear and articulate, card reading can be whatever speed you want. I don't mind K's. If you're gonna read T/theory I'd ask you to be a little slower when reading those so I can get those down clearly.

I have practicing law a civil litigation trial attorney since 2000. I have about participatred in many jury trials and bench trials over the years. Effective debate is part of my daily life. However, debate is not the same as conflict. I expect participants to be respectful and collegial. My paradigm focuses on evaluating whether the participants are actually responding to eachother's arguments or contentions. Simply rattling off prepared comments does not impress me. Engaging in the arguments and respinding to your opponents does. I will not tolerate disrespectful or unprofessional clash. Also, I understand time limitations but reading prepared remarks so quickly that nobody can understand them is not convincing to me. If I can't understand you, it does not matter how good your arguments are. I'm listening for content, not just volume of evidence.

I really think that paradigms are not particularly useful for several reasons. The first being that a vast majority of the time, students will ask me then blatantly ignore what I said. Though I am a veteran coach, you should still debate for me as if I am a lay judge. Don't assume anything. Crystallize, signpost and use impacts. Why should I care about your claims and evidence? Make me care.

Evidence-if you spend a significant amount of time asking for and looking through opponents, I will most likely vote you down. I want to see a debate, not the searching for and reading of evidence. I can Google that myself.

If I can understand what you are saying and you convince me to care about it-you win my ballot.

Straightforward and real-world arguments with great examples used for support. MUCH prefer logos over pathos: logic and fact is preferred over emotion.

I value clear communication and enunciation. Coherent and concise points are important: summaries. I do not like spewing or excessive speediness.

I like voters.

Convince me and I will vote for you.

Being able to fully explain your argument and use facts/reasoning to back your point is critical to winning. Speaking fast is fine, as long I can clearly understand you. If you cannot talk fast and clearly, slow down. With this, clear organization and signposting helps with being able to follow along and taking notes efficiently. Beyond this, debate however you think will help you the most. I would prefer to see you using tactics that will benefit you, rather than altering it to what you think I would like.

As for experience, this is my second year of judging debate, but I have thoroughly enjoyed learning all about debate.

I like to see competitors with clear impacts, contentions, points, and counterpoints. I dislike and mark down on logical fallacies, circular points, or unrelated arguments (this, obviously, doesn't apply when introducing new, applicable information). Speed should be between 150-170 words per minute, although I don't make an issue out of this. Respect for your competitor and their effort is a MUST.

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

I don't prefer judging policy debate, so if I am sitting in front of you as your judge in policy it is because no one else was available. I'll do my best for you, but consider me a "Comms" judge, a mom one to boot! Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

I value a professional debate. This means that communication is strong and clear. Clash should be present but polite. I prefer hearing debate on the resolution over strictly theoretical debate. I do flow, so don't drop major points. And tell me in the end why you thing your side has won the debate. Have fun!

I am a first time judge. I would like to hear concise arguments with compelling evidence.

Your job is to convince me that your position is the best one for the topic. Tell me why I

should vote your way. Please adjust your speed so that I can follow your presentation.

Always show respect for others. Communication skills are important to me, however good

evidence (quality, not quantity) and clear position on the topic will prevail.

I prefer a slower debate. I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable; the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive.

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

My name is Zacharyah, I use they/them pronouns. I am a tabs judge, I’m comfortable judging any argument so long as it’s executed well. Run your stuff, do the line by line, am have fun! I’ll break down my philosophy per argument.

Experience: Centennial High School Policy 4 years (4 bids to TOC). Arizona State- 1 year.

Include me in the email chain: zacharyahharbauer@gmail.com

Case: Case debates are incredibly important to me. Never forget that the 1AC happened and attack the case. Line by line is extremely helpful for me, try to stick with it to earn speaker pints

DA: tell the story of the disad. Have specific links and strong internal links. Uniqueness can overwhelm the link. I’ve yet to vote on the Trump base disad and I have a difficult time seeing myself ever voting for it. Not saying it’s impossjble, just an uphill battle.

CP: prepare to defend the theoretical implications of the argument. Cross-x is binding when it comes to conditionality

K: try to link to the aff in some way. Run your weird stuff if you want, just keep the flow clean

K Aff: run whatever. Don’t need a plan text to win my vote but framework can change that

Framwwoek: love it. I’m just as likely to vote for a k of few as I am to vote for fw proper.

Topicality: I love this argument. It needs to be well developed. If you’re going for it I’m the 2’r it should be all you go for. Default to competing interpretations

Theory: don’t speed through this.

Speaker points: I look to give speaker points to people who maintain a line by line, enunciate clearly, compare warrants within evidence, don’t drop anything, overviews at the beginning of the speech. Those are some of the things I look for

tldr; execute your stuff. I flow by paper so be mindful of what you’re speed through. I’ll call for evidence after round. Have fun!

Even though I am an amateur judge I have been judging for over 15 years.

For debate, I do like the cross examinations because this is where I can judge if both sides know what they are talking about. To me, a lot can be accomplished in cross exam. In cross exam, one has to be courteous though to allow your opponent to answer the questions asked. As far as the flow - I like a medium well articulated speed, someone who speaks fast I usually will not be able to follow. As far as voters and the other technical aspects of debate, I don't weigh that as much as which side can persuade me that their argument is better and presented better than the other side. One more thing to add, everyone has an opinion on the topics you are debating, I want to assure you that I have a very open mind and will not be biased either way - it is up to you to persuade me on which side wins the debate.

For speech, please articulate well, do not use "ums" or "likes", just pause if you forget the next word. Never apologize for a mistake, more than likely most judges won't know until you bring it up. Most of all have fun. For speeches, the student who I judge to be the best is the person who has followed the criteria/rules for their category and are the ones who "move" me, the ones who I can empathize with.

I would like to add one more thing, all of the students who enter these tournaments, who go through the rigors of creating and then performing in speech and debate tournaments I think are some of the brightest and best prepared students for the future. I would like to commend all of the students I judge and wish them all the best in the future. I applaud your efforts!

Hello!

My paradigm is rather simple. I tend to be an impacts judge and go for whichever side can impact Calc. their arguments out. Students should debate the way they want to, just please make sure I can hear you. I can follow speed, just make sure that you enunciate clearly so that I can still follow. If you have any additional, specific, questions please feel free to ask me about them before the round. For the purpose of setting up email chains, my email is hubbchri@gmail.com

This is my 3rd year of judging.

I really appreciate strong argumentation with clear and explicit links; it needs to make sense for an outsider. Therefore, I am not a fan of speed, I am a coms judge. I want you to thoroughly convince me why you are winning the round. Spell out your evidence, know why what you are claiming is relevant and why it is happening. Impacts are always important and help me weigh the round better.

Clear organization, signposting, and impacts are key to winning debates that I judge. Speed is fine as long as those things are met. Don't just give me a lot of facts or a lot of reasoning. I like both: facts backed up with why it matters, but facts or examples to back up your points. I like direct clash, as long as appropriate, based upon the issues, and fair. Clear definitions and framework help as well. Rudeness is not tolerated & will impact your score, if not the outcome of the debate. Well-developed contentions & arguments, mindful of addressing all opponents points are key.

I don't like spreading. If you can't say it clearly, I literally won't flow it. It’s hard to get my vote if I don’t even start off with your case. Power tools and punk rock have made me hard of hearing in one ear. Help me, and help yourself, by speaking clearly and don't even think about spreading.

I'm open to pretty much any argument, but you should understand the story. I enjoy teams who are funny in CX. That doesn't mean you should be a mean or talk over people. That's aggressive, not funny. If you get mean and start yelling cx, I will wreck your speaks.

In terms of what's going to swing a ballot for me, it's crystallization and voters. Your voter speech should be fire. Tell me why you won. You will probably get me in your voter speech.

I am a flow judge who prefers clash and impacts. If you address all your opponents points, deconstruct their case, and give me strong impacts I'll pick you up.

I've been judging for more than 12 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

About me: I am a college Communication instructor and occasionally judge on the college circuit. I also have experience as a High School S & D coach.

Paradigm: My judging paradigm is best categorized as a Policymaker. I will vote for the better case (or, status quo). I would also categorize my judging as 'comms.'

Presentation: I do not mind spreading if your tag is clear and well-spoken. If I can’t understand you or keep up, I will not flow your argument. Please roadmap and signpost. This does a couple of things- (1) helps me flow and (2) shows me that you understand the structure of your case and your opponent's arguments as well. I like formality and respect at all times.

Argumentation: I want to hear a well thought-out case that demonstrates understanding of the topic at hand. I want to hear clash and clear rebuttals. I have no set criteria for number of arguments presented, but if you introduce something, be prepared to defend your position to the end of the debate. I do not mind tag-team for Policy as long as it is agreed upon before commencement of the round by both teams.

Do not introduce theoretical or kritical arguments unless you understand them and can demonstrate linkage to the round. Generic arguments do little to advance the intent of the round.

Danielle Martell: 2 years of Judging Experience (Stanford Finals)

Preferred Debate Styles: Public Forum & Lincoln Douglas

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Clear and concise delivery, I won't flow the argument unless I can understand what you're saying. Make sure that taglines are especially clear and that evidence you want me to remember is emphasized. Some eye contact and influx is also a plus! Evidence should directly correlate with your arguments, I don't need to hear fluff and fancy words that contribute nothing to the actual contention or subpoint. Sometimes less is more, debate should be accessible to everyone, not just those who have read the entire oxford dictionary or can spread at the speed of light. :)

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

As stated above, clear and concise delivery. Mentioning specific cards is welcome, and if you want me to remember something make me remember it. I'm a line by line judge, make sure to address all of the important points and address them in an organized and appropriate manner. Sign-posting is MUCH appreciated.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

1) Evidence exchange won't be timed as long as it doesn't take up half of the round.

2) Just read it off, last name of the author and year would be great. If I would like to see evidence after the round I will call for it.

How Should Debaters approach Crossfire?

Some respectful clash is welcome, if you are mean or your attitude it taking away from the round don't be surprised if your speaker points don't turn out super great.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

Passing notes or writing down a question is fine, but don't take over someones else's crossfire.

How should Framework be approached?

Be diligent in explaining how the framework of the round and your cases/arguments tie together and make me vote for your side.

How should debaters use values, criterion, and arguments to support a value position?

Value and criterion should be upheld throughout the round. Explain how each contention is related to the criterion and how that upholds the value. Don't disregard the value criterion debate, we can't debate LD without it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical, or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

As long as they are understandable and relate back to the debate, any kind of argument is great. Empirical is easiest to understand, so make sure to really explain the theoretical and philosophical arguments.

Please explain your view on kritical arguments.

Not a fan, if you can avoid it then please do.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

They should be prioritized in the round.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

I would rather see all arguments presented to me in the constructive speech. Other than blocking out a contention in a rebuttal, avoid bringing new arguments into the middle of the round.

How should debaters run theory arguments?

Standards and voters are very important. If you're going to run abuse tell me why it's abusive, if I don't know why then it just sounds like you're out of things to say and a lot of complaining.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Debate isn't just about the communication or just about the flow. Both have to work together in order to convince me to vote for your side. If you have excellent arguments but I can't understand them, I don't know that they're actually excellent. If you speak beautifully but what you're saying makes no sense, then I can't vote for that either. I appreciate effective sign posting and organization, and if it's something that should be weighed heavily in the round repeat it like there's no tomorrow. Make me remember the important things in the round, bring the argument into every speech so that I know that I need to be voting on it. Make sure voters are listed out, clear and effective. Other than that, make sure you enjoy your round and keep debate an experience that everyone can access and wants to come back to!

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).

I am very much a tab judge. Come into the debate ready to convince me how/why you should win.

I prefer well-made points that are supported with data and logic. An argument from pure pathos might be appreciated for its performance value, but wont win you the debate.

I generally do not prefer high speed (policy speed) delivery. If I didn’t catch the point, you didn’t make the point.

Spreading is generally a waste of time in my view. It won’t cause a loss, but it’s not going to give you a win.

Hello,

My paradigm is as follows-

1. Always be kind and respectful to your opponent during the round.

2. Keep your composure- don't let me see that your opponent has made you angry or frustrated.

3. Speaking speed- medium to fast (ish) I prefer that you not spread. Please, speak clearly - Sign post everything * keep your taglines and evidence citation clearly stated with connection to the resolution and to the evidence.

Congratulations for making it to State!

Melissa Murano

Hi, my name’s Sunny Nelson, this is my third year as an assistant coach and my fourth year judging debate. I did public forum and congress, and I also did theater in high school. It’s very difficult for me to describe my paradigm because there is no ONE surefire way to win the round in my eyes. I will be flowing, and I will be paying attention to your communication skills (delivery, body language, etc). Below are some FAQs to help guide you.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS even when there is not a pandemic. Air high fives are my preferred alternative.

Kritiks: Acceptable, though I’d prefer you debate the topic.

Counterplans: Good, great even. I like seeing a good counterplan, but I hate condo. If you’re just gonna kick the CP in the 1NR then don’t run a CP.

Topicality: I like topicality when it’s done well, but I think everyone runs T the same, so I’ve grown bored with it.

Theory: Okay with theory, I think it stimulates discussion and furthers the progress of debate, but same with Ks, I would prefer you debate the topic.

Time: You may finish the sentence you are on when time is complete. I will verbally cut you off if you continue to speak past that. Self-timing is okay.

Masks: Off while speaking, if that applies to you.

Speed: I’m comfortable with it but I have no problem telling you to clear your diction up if I can’t understand you

Tag-teaming: Acceptable in policy, but overstepping will cause a loss in speaker points for the current speaker if I feel that they’re relying too hard on their partner.

Strategic dropping: I appreciate strategically dropping arguments as long as you explain why you’re dropping. Do this with caution because if you drop an argument that I really liked, then you might lose.

Evidence exchanges: Finding evidence is off time. Looking at evidence is on time. Discussing evidence is prohibited outside of cross-examination.

Impacts: If you’re bringing up impacts, use impact calc.

Extinction impacts: If you’ve had me as a judge before, you should already know this. I do not weigh extinction impacts. If your opponent brings up extinction, I still want you to address it for flowing purposes, but please do not impact calc it out and use extinction as a voter. The reason why is because I think that extinction is too heavy of an impact to weigh fairly in a debate, and I try to not have "instant wins" in any of my rounds.

Value-criterion and framework debates: I use the VC/FW debate as a way to develop a lens for the rest of the debate. A VC/FW should never be used as a voter. Instead, you should tell me which VC/FW to prefer and why your case meets the VC/FW better. I typically prefer the debater that can tell me why their case meets both value-criterions/frameworks, but if you outright disagree with your opponents VC/FW, don’t concede just because you think it’ll make me happy.

Decorum: Please remain professional during rounds. Some light joking can be appropriate but points will be docked if it gets out of hand. Rude/disrespectful behavior will result in an immediate loss regardless of how good I think your arguments are.

I have been coaching Debate for two years.

For Lincoln Douglas- I judge off of who upholds their Value and Value criterion the best while also attacking their opponent's case. I appreciate clear sign postings and do not mind spreading if you enunciate well. Self-timing is fine by me.

For Public Forum- I judge off of who upholds their case the best while also attacking their opponent's case. I appreciate clear sign postings and do not mind spreading if you enunciate well. Self-timing is fine by me.

For Congress- I judge based on your speaking, how well you answer questions, and overall confidence. If I can tell you are prepared you are better off.

I am a scientific individual, I am listening for credible facts, quotes, sources and empirical evidence.

Be knowledgeable on the topic, if a question is asked I expect some type of answer, not "I don't know".

Presentation of your argument(s) is a factor as well, your job is to persuade me to vote with you. Congress specifically, don't just read your speech, make eye contact and let us hear your passion and research that you've completed.

Elaborate on the impacts using the 5 Ws (who, what, when, where and why).

I am a comms Judge. I want to hear your arguments clearly and concisely. Dont give me a lot of speed or jargon. I am lazy..so please give me voters in your final speeches

I'm an experienced debater with a background of 3 years in Lincoln Douglas. I'm comfortable and encourage policy style arguments (especially CP's) but will always appreciate an LD debate done right.

I'm comfortable with anything and everything. My primary background in terms of my hobby reading and writing is in continental philosophy. I vote entirely off of the flow (tab ros). However if you're particularly mean or rude. I have no trouble dropping you immediately.

Whatever you run, priority number one is FRAMING. If you run a K and theory, tell me which one to weigh first, or if they're independent voting issues, tell me why you going for theory isn't disingenuous to your K. If you're vanilla LD, I want to hear a final speech dedicated to weighing the arguments under your or your opponents criteria(on). I don't care about the value.

Tell me what offense is important. Give me specific analytics or author names for evidence to circle on my flow.

I'm chill with anything and will ideally be encouraging to you during the round in terms of facial expression and mannerisms. However, if you get on my bad side, I will make it known and you will have to dig yourself out of that grave.

Most of all, have fun and help each other learn :)

PS: I've seen this happen often. If you're an experienced policy team that regularly does circuit debate, and you come across newtimers that have never handled a K before, that's not an invitation to run 7-off. I had a round where the 1AC paraphrased evidence (it was also their first varsity round) and the Neg comes back with Paraphrasing bad Theory along with like 5 other offs (without even checking in Cross Examination). Don't do this. I will drop you.

The round is yours, not mine, so I urge you to treat it as such. Speed is fine with me, pending you speak clearly, and I am perfectly comfortable with progressive argumentation like kritiks, plans and dis/advantages (where rules allow).

Line-by-line argumentation (as opposed to crystallization) is generally more effective in driving your point home and extending it across the flow; don't combine crucial arguments in the round.

Please use voters - if you tell me why I should vote for you, I am much more likely to do so. Overall, have fun!

I am a new judge and this tournament will be my first experience. I am interested in strong communication skills.

As a judge I am aware of communication skills. My focus is an argument presented soundly and defended with sharp thinking, preparation, and skill. While I have taught speech and English for a number of years, I am new to judging at this level.

Worlds, I am a Worlds coach and this is my second year judging Worlds at Nationals. I judge to the rubric. 

Other Debate events, I flow the rounds. I also love impacts. If an argument is not attacked or sufficiently attacked in the round, it stands. If both sides have arguments standing, I weigh the impacts against each other and vote on that. I am not a Coms Judge, but I cannot flow what I cannot understand. I need articulation and a thorough understanding of your case.

Try to stay specific as the debate goes on in rebuttals and crystallization.

In PF, use cards sometimes in rebuttals. Do not rely solely on cross applying.

In LD, V/C is framework similar please apply it to your case rather than just debating which framework to go with. Clarity of what AFF and NEG are both advocating for is important for me to follow the debate (definitions), but I hate definitions debates, so don’t spend the whole speech on rebuttaling someone’s definition. Touching on it is sufficient. Be clear, but stay focused on the arguments.

Hey y'all,

I'm a coach and competed for 8 years. I vote on persuasion through links, impacts, and comms. The more work you do the less work I have to do, meaning the less chance I have to reach my own conclusion. Help me help you.

Charlotte Reid has been teaching for 17 years, but coaching debate for only 7 of them. While she has no specific preferences towards style, she is conservative and a traditionalist. She keeps a detailed flow, weighs arguments and their impacts, she doesn't like dropped arguments, she likes medium-high speed, clash, appreciates courtesy, and prioritizes clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate round!

First and foremost, quality > quantity. I will flow the debate, but if you feel the need to spread remember if I can't follow your case I can't vote for you! Clearly state your case, support it and defend it.

Cross should focus on the case and not the person delivering it. Clash is good, but anything I perceive as rude or a personal attack will greatly impact my ability to support your case.

I will compare your voters to my flow, as it is your chance to tell me why you should prevail. They also show that you have been paying attention and are engaged in the debate.

Debate can be intense, but it is a game that should be played with respect for the process and the participants.

Good luck!

- Don't be rude

- Warrants must be clear

- Impacts weigh heavy

- Love analytics

- QUALITY OVER QUANTITY

For all debate formats I present with a policymaker’s paradigm. I will compare the affirmative plan with either the negative counterplan or the status quo. The better policy option, which will be determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages supported by convincing evidence, will receive the more favorable score. Clear, conscience communication is critical. If I cannot understand you, your evidence will not strength the case.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments, communicated in an articulate manner, prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Ideally, arguments should be grouped.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should extend arguments. Provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

With clarity. Tag line, citation, evidence.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

I am not a fan, each debater should be able to hold their own during the parts of the debate they are scheduled to speak without prompting from partner.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

All arguments should tie back to V & C and link together.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

No pref, though evidence must support.

Please explain your views on kritical arguments.

Yuck. No way.

How should debaters run on case argumeents?

Solvency and Advantages are my prefs, but all arguments will be weighed.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

If you are running off case, just make sure I can follow your arguments and that they are logical.

I have been judging speech and debate for six years now (over 60 tournaments). I never debated in high school. I got involved in the debate community when my oldest child joined the debate team. I have had four kids on the debate team, two currently. So I guess you could say I am an experienced mommy judge. I have tried my best to learn as much as I can so that I can be a competent and fair judge. With that in mind, I offer you my paradigm:

In general, I am good with speed, I flow, and I allow tag teaming, flex time, non-timed road maps and non-timed evidence exchange. I prefer tech over truth, depth over breadth, and don't mind if you group arguments. I am a big picture judge and an impact calculus junkie. I understand debate lingo. I don't mind if you want to debate progressively or traditionally. I am open to all arguments. I appreciate logical and analytical arguments as much as evidence based arguments. I don't like to set limits on how you debate because I want you to enjoy your round and try new things. I have entertained a conversation kritik (LD) and love letters to the ocean (CX) in the past. I still have my treasured flows from the Beetle Kritik (CX China Resolution). As you can see, I am up for anything, but don't assume I know everything. Remember that although I have six years of experience judging, I am still learning. If you have something you really want to run, do it, but keep me up with you and educate me on your pet argument as you debate. I also love voters because I am lazy and if if I agree with your voters, you have just filled out my ballot for me. Now for some specifics:

In Lincoln Douglas debate I allow counter plans and progressive arguments. I only value the V & C if you do. I am still trying to figure out why that is so important. But I have voted on it in the past if the debaters made a big deal about it. I am more likely to vote against you if you drop an argument, since LD is all about clash, but will allow you to group arguments in subpoints as long as you answer each contention.

In Public Forum debate I don't have any specific things you should know. Just have fun.

Policy is my favorite. So know that if I get to judge your round, I am just so glad to be here. I think I covered most of it in my general paradigm but I did want to discuss T. I have voted on T before but only if it was an obscure aff and not one of the five novice affs. I go for reasonability over competing interpretations. However, I have had some beautiful T arguments wasted on me, I am very sorry to say. If you love T arguments and are willing to risk it, then persuade me and educate me on T. I want to understand it better and be more open minded in this area. I would have to say this is the only area I am biased, but it's simply because I don't get it.

For those of you in Congress, I only have one thing to say: warrant your claims with credible evidence. I immediately drop you two ranks if you don't warrant your claims.

Bottom line: have fun and enjoy your rounds. Good luck!

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

I am an attorney and practiced law many years before I started to teach. As a young law clerk, I worked for the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee where I loved going to the chambers to watch the debates. I also helped draft legislation and reports for the U.S. Senate.

With this background I look for arguments and presentations:

1. That are persuasive.

2. That are full arguments (without holes).

3. That a common person (such as a jury member) could easily follow.

4. Good connection with audience.

5. Good speed (not too fast).

6. Believable.

7. Professional.

I love debate as a communication tool. I will LOVE judging your event!

As a debate judge, I value a few things:

-Signposting: Please tell me where you are at in the flow to assist in my ability to accurately judge the round. This will also be extra powerful in points of clash -- show me where your cases are in direct contention with one another and why your side should be preferred.

-Cards/Evidence: I get that evidence matters in a debate round. I honestly don't place a lot of value in a lot of a round being focused on when an article was published or when a study was conducted ... like I get that it matters and can be important to a round, but I much so value your wholistic arguments and ideas in your case over niche disputes on sources.

-Impacts: By making your impacts clear and concise, I am better able to understand the most important/essential elements of your argument.

-Voters: By the end of the round, you should be able to tell me why you won the round.

At the end of the day, I am not a very picky judge! I want to see you do what you do best.

I like a debate with good conflict. I like to see debaters that are well prepared in both their cases and their appearance. I like a debater that is able to support their contentions with supportive evidence. I appreciate speech that is quick and clearly understandable.

Policy

I’ll start this off by saying that I don’t judge policy regularly because in my area I’m almost always working in Tab at a tournament; however, I have been a policy coach for over 20 years, so I am familiar with policy debate jargon and speed. It is important though that the speed doesn’t get in the way of the clarity and understanding of the arguments—if I can’t understand what you are saying, it won’t go on the flow. I prefer the tags to be slower so that I get the arguments on the flow correctly, but I rarely flow the names of the authors, so refer to the evidence by both the tag and author if you expect me to cross-apply or extend arguments on the flow.

I’m a true policymaker judge. I want to hear debate about the topic intended by the framers. I want to be able to weigh the end of the round by whether or not the Squo will be a better place post plan. Therefore, it is important to me that the Aff runs a case that is trying to solve the harms inherent in the resolution, and the negative should prove to me through the use of DAs and case attacks that the plan is a bad idea. In addition, the Aff must uphold the burdens by meeting the stock issues, so the negative is encouraged to run T if they believe that the Aff is not topical; however, the neg should not go for T unless there is a very clearly articulated and proven abuse story. The negative could choose to run a CP, but avoid getting into a serious theory debate by making it competitive.

I really hate theory debates, so try to avoid those things by running more substantial arguments. And while I’m on the topic of things I hate—I HATE Ks!!!!! I hate critical Affs and I certainly hate Negs who deflect from the true debate by running a K that takes the focus away from the merits of the Aff. I'm not saying that morality arguments aren't strong motivators, but they must be clearly applied to the resolution's intent--not just running the K because it's the only argument you want to discuss (aff or neg)

Best way to win my ballot is to stick to the Aff and its merits or weaknesses.

PF

I'm a flow judge, so whatever you want me to buy as a voter at the end, better be on the flow before the final focus. I'm a practical person, I like practical impacts. And with those practical impacts, I want to see quality evidence to back them up or to refute them. I want you to weigh the round for me by continually, in every speech, explaining why your arguments/impacts are better than your opponents. Also, I like strategy in the crossfire. Use your time to set up future arguments or catch your opponents in double binds. In addition, be nice! I do not want to see or hear rudeness during the round--debate should be about civil discourse, and as such, I expect to see that.

Updated National Tournament 2023

Please put me on the email chain, bsondrup@gmail.com. He/Him pronouns

I was a four year debater in high school and college, and now a coach.

I am a tab judge. This means I have no preference and I expect you to tell me how I should vote through framework and role of the ballot analysis. If I am not given this, I tend to default to a utility framework. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before round

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

I was a debater in high school and have continued to experience and attempt a wide array of techniques in persuasive speaking. My orientation is generally old school, I will flow and focus on the framework and stock issues. I like structure and speakers who can develop and use it to their end. I do heavily value communication and speaking skills. I will be considering different facets of the round, from constructive speeches, to cross, to rebuttals, to the speaker/teams' overall presence. I am open to creative and even revolutionary arguments, but in attempting them you don't get a pass on linking it up and showing your work.

I have read and try to be knowledgeable about the rules. I am pretty laissez faire and will give you reasonable latitude. I'd prefer the round not be perceived as turning on some technicality and don't intend to advance that view. Many lines - like between new evidence versus new argument - can be blurry. If you feel like you might be crossing the line, I may not scream and wave my arms but I will be paying attention, and everything might fit into the eventual picture.

A well-executed spread is a thing of beauty. A poorly-executed spread is not beautiful and will likely cause a headache. I like debaters who vary techniques (even within the round), roll with the punches, develop arguments versus blazing through their killer blocks, and can understand/explain why this card matters. You should be looking up more than down.

You will not categorically lose my ballot if you are aggressive, condescending, or repeatedly use the word "abusive," but none of these qualities will aid your cause. We should all be pursuing the goal of effective but dignified and respectful communication.

A good round of debate is all about your ability to structurally clash with your opponent while signaling clearly while retaining an attitude and demeanor of humility and respect.

Hello there, and thank you for taking the time to read through my paradigm!

A bit about my background: In high school I was a regular competitor in policy debate, though there were times where I found the opportunity to branch out into public forum and congress. For speech, I was most competitive in humorous and duo interpretations, and I also enjoyed retold story. After high school, I debated for The College of Idaho and Rocky Mountain College in parliamentary debate, though after my sophomore year I found passions in art and student government that took me away from debate.

I began teaching middle school science in 2014, which is also when I began assistant coaching high school speech and debate. My main coaching proficiencies lie in policy and interp events, though years of coaching, judging, and competition have shown me the breadth of events currently offered in high school competition. I coached the Idaho Mountain River District WSD team twice, and I now teach high school ceramics and biology. I have to say that my preference towards WSD has certainly shaped my outlook for other speech and debate events.

I'm often looking for some stylistic twist that any debater might use to distinguish themselves from others in the round, including their teammates. Humor is awesome, and I appreciate debaters who can tactfully introduce a heavy or solemn point without appearing preachy or disingenuous. Please avoid trigger language, such as rape, holocaust, and genocide, unless it is rather explicitly stated in motion.

I am looking for structure across the board. Case should centralize around a core theme or idea. Definitions, models, and other foundational components need to be articulated or accepted/refuted very explicitly. Substantive arguments should be easily recognizable and include adequate historic or present-day examples. Empiricism is preferred to rationalism. Anecdotal evidence is welcome to a degree. I give quite a bit of credibility to high schoolers as a teacher, coach, and former competitor, though most kids have a lack of experience while still believing they know a lot about most things. I would suggest sticking to your strengths and competencies rather than pretending to know what you do not. In the words of Socrates, "All I know is that I know nothing."

At the end of the debate, my decision comes down to which side impressed me the most in providing relevant and structured arguments, refuting opposing arguments, and showing a degree of positive authenticity. I am a really good cheerleader, but please do your best to avoid reasons for me to think negatively of you at the end of the debate. Tone, non-verbals, and word choice can be great blessings, though these may also be a debater's greatest detriment. Congeniality will win you the debate. Aggression will cost you...

I'm really excited to be a part of your debate experience! I wish you the best of luck and look forward to meeting you.

Hello, all! First and foremost, I'm a communication judge. I like to hear arguments that are straightforward and clear. I'm continually listening for signposts and outlines to help me follow where you are in your case, and the more frequently you use them, the better. However, here are a few additional topics to keep in mind:

Etiquette
My favorite rounds to judge happen when both teams approach each other with respect. I don't do well with scoffing or name-calling.

Sources
I like to hear your source citations, so if there is a way that you can emphasize them please, please do.

Speed
If a case is very well organized with a complete outline that is clearly stated, I tend not to have an issue with speed. However, fair warning, what I think is clear, may not be what you think is clear.

Self-Timing
I have no problems with you timing yourself, but I'd prefer that your timer doesn't beep loudly in round. If that is the only timer you have access to, try to catch it before it beeps repeatedly.

As a coach, my paradigm may shift slightly based on the form of debate.

Congressional Debate: I'm looking for a few well-constructed arguments. Though I would never ask for evidence in Congress, it earns you points to cite evidence in your speeches. I discourage being a late speaker on a bill unless you have new insights or arguments that weren't addressed previously. Please don't just stand and repeat what many others have said. Keep questions short--the longer they get, the more awkward and confused you sound. Have fun, but joke speeches will drop you to the bottom of my ballot.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: It's all about the value and criterion (note that a criterion is a measuring tool by which we can see you've achieved your value; it is not a second value). All contentions should tie back to the value and criterion. The winner usually has shown that they either achieve both values better, has the only value that is achieved in either world, or has done sufficient harm to their opponent's case. Though I value logic more in LD than other debate formats, evidence will always enhance my evaluation.

Policy Debate: If it's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly. I do not favor quantity over quality. If I don't have time to write it on my flow sheet, it was never said. In order to win, the Affirmative needs to win all five stock issues; The Negative must win one stock issue (to suggest you could win in any other way is like a basketball player claiming they can win by how good they are at acting like they've been fouled). If the Neg presents a counter-plan, they have conceded the harms and inherency. At this point, you may only attack the plan and show that you solve better. Topicality is still an option if it was presented in the 1NR.

Public Forum: Public Forum is intended to persuade the average person off the street. I will flow the debate, but I will also judge heavily on your communication and ability to clearly explain the arguments on both sides. Overwhelming the "average person" is not the same as persuading them. If you would rather debate rules and pack four minutes with page after page of spewed evidence, I recommend switching over to Policy debate--better yet, change your ways.

Generally: Logic is great; Evidence is great; Logic and Evidence together are AWESOME! Be true to the form of debate you are in--there's a reason there are different events. Respect your opponents. Be ready to debate. Sign-posting greatly increases the chance that your comments get on my flow; if it's not on my flow, it was never said.

What is most important to me in a round are impacts, links, and going down the flow. I have debated for several years in both LD and PF and have also judged since graduating high school in 2017. I understand how debate is supposed to be and can generally follow most arguments. Speed normally isn't an issue for me, but there is a limit. I can listen to fast speakers, not full on policy-style spreading. Although I wouldn't say I'm a communications judge, I do not appreciate a mean or aggressive debate.

I was a head coach for 12 years with 13 years of experience in judging debate.

I will judge on the flow, and I am open to most any kind of argument. I am fine with speed, though I find that sometimes people are not as clear as they think they are. I will say CLEAR if you're not clear.

Lots of clash, please. Make sure you are addressing your opponent's arguments in a meaningful way. Impact your drops... Tell why winning the dropped argument gives you the advantage.

In LD, understand, explain, and link to your standards.

Give me thoughtful and well articulated voters.

Good luck!