-Please speak slow enough to accommodate the new online system. If you begin to spread, you may get cut out if you have a poor connection...It is far more valuable that I hear all of a shorter case than part of a longer case.

-Please do not assume that I have all of the cards that you have (I probably don't have any at all). If you quote a source, I prefer that you reference it later on by addressing the impact of the source, rather than simply last name, year and moving on.

-I have experience in Public Forum, but not much in Lincoln-Douglas or Policy. That being said, if you use too much technical jargon, I may not understand what you are trying to argue.

-This should be a given, but I WILL NOT tolerate derogatory behavior of any kind. I understand debate gets heated, but you need to remain courteous.

-I will appreciate any unique arguments you can come up with, so long as you can make the link and extend it through the whole round.

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.

Experience: I usually compete in PF or Congress so PLEASE keep that in mind. I will follow the rules of your style and vote how you're supposed to based off of the style however it is impossible for me to not have a PF or Congress bias in judging.

Arguments / Tech stuff: I hate definitions unless they are exceptionally relevant to your case. Frameworks should also only be used if it is specific to your case and actually adds something to the round. I vote off the flow. This means you need to carry arguments throughout the round. If your opponent drops an argument point it out or else I will just not evaluate the drop (it won't factor into my decision). Please do not bring up new arguments in summary or final focus!! If you do, I will not flow them. However, I accept in evidence for pre-existing arguments.

Speaking: Please do not spread unless it is policy or progressive LD. And even then, please try to speak slower if possible. I do not have a lot of experiencing with spreading but will try my best. It is likely in your best interest to slow down and explain yourself during 2AC/2NC and on for me to actually flow and evaluate your arguments.

Speaker points: I will be pretty nice with speaker points. Speaking well is 27-29. I doubt I will give out any 30's. Anything below a 27 means you definitely need to check your ballot, because you did something wrong. This could be speaking too fast for the style, being rude/aggressive, or saying something problematic (do not be homophobic, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic, racist, or ANYTHING like that. It is not acceptable in any sort of context).

Overall: Please have fun! I know that debate can be stressful and I want to make sure that above all, you at least have fun. Don't be afraid to ask me anything after the round (as long as it is respectful). If the tournament allows me, I will give verbal critics as well as writing stuff down on the ballot. If you have questions about my comments please respectfully ask. I am here to make sure YOU have a fun tournament experience and learn something!!

Joelle Buckner

Put me on email chain: bucknjoell24@cps.k12.ar.us

Cabot High School

LD debater

Tech > Truth

LD

This is my main event, so I prefer to see a lot of clash plenty of warrants, and make sure not to drop your framework. As long as you extend and give me decent analysis on framework it will be weighed in your favor. Watch topicality, I am perfectly fine with progressive arguments I especially like good DAs and solid CPs.. sign post so it's easy for me to flow. Speaks are pretty easy, speak confidently and clear, I personally don't care about speed as long as I can understand you.

Congress

I took congress as an event for about a year, make sure you are aware of the P.O. and what is going on in the room. Be respectful and make sure not to be passing notes or making noise while a delegate is giving a speech. I base a lot of points on speech formatting and if it's easy to follow.

IPDA

I judge this kind of like I do LD, as long as you extend your arguments and speak confidently you are most likely going to win the round. The topics are not typically ones I enjoy so make it engaging.

Hi! Just a few things about me, I did debate for 5 years, started in 8th grade. My main debate event was Public Forum, but I have also competed in IPDA, congress, and BQ as well. My main speech/forensics events were prose and DI, but I can have experience in every style there is. Any questions about my paradigm is welcomed in round and I can't wait to judge your round!

Debate
My paradigm for a debate event is pretty universal for all events. I ask that everyone stays very respectful. Debating should be fun! We should always be respectful and friendly to each other.
I'm a firm believer in having analysis, evidence, and impacts. I want to know what is important, why, and how. Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches. I will not make any assumptions or draw a conclusion to any loose ends. I want to be told, everything should wrap up like a pretty present.

I ask that you respect the rules of your style of debate and run it the way it is supposed to be run. I am familiar with every rulebook, I will be judging with that understanding in mind.

For LD& PF, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I want to see them clash.

I do not love spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing. I want to hear the argumentation clearly.

The ability to persuade will win you the round. If I am convinced, I have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this. Clear speeches, sign posting, and confidence are all big factors to a win. Although, anything can happen in a round and I will leave both competitors plenty of notes about my decision.

Speaker points ARE important so everything stated above WILL have a major factor in my decision. Another factor is the pace of your speech. If you are talking so fast I cannot comprehend what you are saying, I will not be able to flow your speeches to get the content written down. Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will not aide in your points. I won't vote a debater down for spreading but in any style other than policy, I feel it only keeps the debate from hitting full potential. Use your time wisely and insure that each word you say is heavy hitting.

Debate jargon is mostly acceptable for me... I say this with a few exceptions. I know my fallacies and biases, feel free to throw those out in a round. I do stand by the idea you need to explain the concept so EVERYONE knows what page we're on. As long as there's analysis to every claim you make in a round, jargon should never be a problem in round.

Most importantly, this is a fun activity you get to do. I'm excited to see all of the super amazing work everyone has put in and wishing the best of luck!

Speech/Forensics
When it comes to speech and forensics events, I expect everyone to be attentive to their fellow competitors pieces. I do look at performances based on the generalized standards per the event. Don't over stress it, do your best, I'll respect you owning your piece more than anything. Hi to any forensics kids reading this!

Hey! Add me to the email chain at alexismchilds@gmail.com

Congress - updated for Last Chance :)

I believe that Congress focuses on speaking clearly and well more than any other type of debate. Because of this, the better you speak, the better I will rank you. In addition, we all know that Congress is long and, yes, sometimes boring. Don't be afraid to spice things up (in a polite, respectful, appropriate manner). Make a joke, be sassy, slip a Taylor Swift reference in there - have fun!!

Have sources in your speech! You saying something does not make it credible/true. Please be polite during questioning but that doesn't mean you have to be timid.

LD

I was traditional/mid-level progressive debater. That being said, I'm not the judge to run your super progressive case in front of.

1. Speed - I'm not a huge fan of spreading so please take your speed down a few levels in front of me. If you must spread, do so at your own risk and read the room before you do - if it's late at night, don't yell/spread at me. Send me the speech doc

2. Ks - I don't understand/I'm not a fan of most of these. I run cap K and that's about it. If you have a question about an argument, feel free to ask before the round!

3. Theory - I don't understand most theory and think the majority of the time people read unnecessary/frivolous theory. Unless there is clear abuse happening in the round, don't read theory. Topicality is good and if argued well and when necessary, I'll vote on it. I'll vote for disclosure but probably not disclosure by itself.

4. CPs/Disads - I enjoy these and think they're a good strategy. If you're going to run them, defend them.

5. Framework - this is what makes LD different from other types of debate and I expect you to use it. In your last speech, give me voters/weighing/framework and make it clear why I should vote for you.

6. CX - I really enjoy cross and definitely pay attention. That being said, I don't flow it so bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow. I will hold you to what you said in cross. Please be courteous to your opponent but as long as you're not being offensive, I'm pretty lenient on cross. Don't be afraid to push them to explain their case/get the answer your looking for.

Read my facial expression - I'm a pretty expressive person. If I look confused, please clear up your point. Nodding/smiling means I like/am following your point.

PF

Evidence is important, don't make baseless claims. I appreciate organized, line by line rebuttals with signposting. If nothing else, this will get you good speaks. Weighing is super important, particularly in your last speeches. I should know exactly why I'm voting for you in order to get my ballot.

Final Focus should have impact weighing! Please be respectful of your opponents during cross. Cross is for asking questions, not personally attacking opponents or making statements.

Overall, I enjoy good clash, speaking, and cross. Please be kind to your opponents!

IPDA

I evaluate this like LD, have good offense and defense, speak well, and you'll be fine :)

Hello, My name is Ariel Couch, and I am currently a Debate & Forensics Alumni from Don Tyson School of Innovation. Just a little bit about me, I have been debating for 5 years, since I was in 8th grade. I use She/Her pronouns. My main debate events are Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions, and Congressional Debate. My main speech/forensics styles have been Prose and Poetry, but I do have experience in some way around most events.

Debate

My paradigm for a debate event is pretty universal for all events and is more based on how I want the round ran. I ask that everyone stays very respectful, just because you are more aggressive and loud then another person does not mean you are better or are gonna win. Just like I give my pronouns here I ask that you respect each other as well. Anything you say in your round you should be able to back up with evidence and/or analysis and stand with what you say in dignity and pride. The final thing that I ask is that you respect the rules of your style of debate and run it the way it is supposed to be run. Keeping every debate far and equal, to reflect your skills and the spirit of debate. I am told I am more of a traditional judge/debater.

Speech/Forensics

In speech and forensics type events, I really am just looking at performances that follow the generalized standards for that event. I look for good pitch and tone, full memorization, and acting elements such as bookwork. You should do your best, and that is the best for me. Remember everyone will always have something to improve on therefore everyone I will give some sort of constructive criticism.

I wish the best of luck to all competitors!

General

I ask you to present relative information from valid sources. Take up an acceptable amount of your time, don't waste your time. Look presentable as well as act presentable ( don't be on your phone, don't talk out of order, don't be late, etc).

Congress

I ask you to be civil toward each other and to ask unique questions that are clear and understandable. Please use more credible sources such as .edu or .org rather than .com if you have the option. Try and keep your arguments different from others to keep the debate interesting and to keep questions moving. The PO should address most issues, do not be dependent on the Parli.

Carson Duca

UARK '25

TL;DR

Put me on your email chain: pleaseflashanalytics@gmail.com (you don't actually have to flash analytics, this is just my debate email lol)

I'm fine with speed, but stay clear

Open cross

Run whatever you want to run, but I am more experienced with policy arguments than kritiks

Have fun!

Policy (CX)

Policy is the main style of debate I competed in. I personally always preferred to run policy arguments rather than kritiks; however, I have faced kritiks plenty of times to be experienced with how these arguments are ran. I will vote for either type of argument, but I am much more experienced with cutting cards to construct policy blocks, so I have much more expertise with policy arguments. That being said though, don't let that stop you from running a kritik or a k aff because I will vote for either argument, just bear in mind that you might need to explain the story of the kritik or k aff and how it directly interacts with your opponent's arguments more thoroughly for me to vote on it.

Topicality

As the affirmative, don't be shy when answering T.

As a neg strat, I enjoy T debates if they are not just simply a time suck.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

As the affirmative, clearly explain why the case outweighs (more on that later) the DA, try and get some offense on the DA flow if possible but it's fine if you only have defense. Call out the negative if they don't have a net benefit for their CP. Don't forget to perm and try to advocate for the perm in a way that is specific to the CP if possible.

As the negative, make sure your uniqueness evidence on the DA is good (especially on PTX DAs) or else it's really easy to dismantle for the affirmative and it's just a time suck at that point for whatever else you're running. Also, make sure your CP has a net benefit and specifically explain why the affirmative can't perm the CP.

Case

As the affirmative, please don't drop significant portions of case because then it's almost impossible to vote for you. In the 2AC, make sure that you do sufficient line-by-line directly answering their evidence against your case with warrants from the 1AC cards. In the 1AR, I understand you are in much more of a time-crunch than the 2AC, so try and extend what was said in the 2AC on case as briefly as you can while still doing it. In the 2AR, clearly articulate why the case outweighs the off-case argument(s) the negative is going for using impact calculus.

As the negative, if you are running policy arguments you must clearly explain how the DA directly links to the aff and why the aff can't solve for the DA and also why the aff can't perm the CP. If you are going 1 off K or you decide after the neg block that this is what you're doing, please still do work on the case flow. I understand that you might not necessarily have to do this because you are advocating for the alt, but it still makes it easier for me to vote for the K if you do some work on the case flow.

Kritiks

Please don't read kritiks as a time suck. I have made ballot commodification DA arguments during the round when teams contradict themselves by running a K that ideologically doesn't align with the DA(s) they are running or when they decide to kick out of the K and go for a DA with an extinction impact. I personally really believe in this argument so I would recommend running this as the affirmative if the negative does this. Read my general policy sentiments above if you haven't already for even more of my preferences regarding kritiks.

Theory

I think theory arguments are really cool and I will vote on them. I haven't really been in many rounds where theory won the round, but if you go for it, please clearly articulate how your theory argument impacts the round rather than just reading a short blip in an attempt to get the ballot.

Public Forum (PF)

I have never competed in PF at a tournament, but I have watched many rounds and helped judge practice rounds. Please just be nice to each other, especially during crossfire where I feel like it can get really pedantic and petty. Remember, I'm voting on the arguments you make during the round, not if you make your opponent look bad. Also, please use evidence and don't take your evidence or your opponent's evidence out of context. Please don't be abusive with when you take prep time i.e. after the first speech if you are the second speaker. Please give me a road map and when you're giving me a road map please don't say "their side then my side", rather, say "pro then con" for example.

Lincoln Douglas (LD)

I have never competed in LD at a tournament, but I have watched a few rounds and I feel like it is somewhat compatible with Policy. I don't have a huge preference and I am willing to judge whatever you want to run. In regards to progressive debates, you might be better off reading my general policy sentiments above especially in how I view policy arguments versus kirtiks.

Big Questions (BQ)

I actually have some BQ judging experience at the Junior High level, but I have never competed in BQ at a tournament. I don't have a huge preference and I am willing to judge whatever you want to run; however, generally I feel like you just need good line-by-line to do well in BQ after setting up your own arguments in your first speech and expanding on them in the later speeches so that you can apply your own arguments specifically when doing line-by-line.

Congress

Please don't just speak to speak. If you are just trying to get a speech in without adding anything new to the debate, I'd rather you not give that speech on that particular bill. Please stop speaking when the P.O. is gaveling you out. Please don't stand and raise your placard until AFTER the P.O. asks for everyone to stand. Don't talk to other members of the chamber especially when others are speaking. Address other representatives as "Representative *last name*" if possible. After being selected to give a speech, say your last name, what school you're from, what number of speech that is for you in that specific session and the side of debate of the speech you are giving. For example, "Representative Duca from Bentonville High School rising for the 2nd time of this session to give a speech in affirmation".

If you are the P.O., explain your gaveling procedure before the debate cycle begins and please remain unbiased when selecting people, just go off of precedence and recency to the best of your ability.

General info:

Feel free to put me in the email chain but know that I will only flow what I hear you say in the round. I will give you a 10 second grace period at the end of each of your speeches. If you go over that I will drop you a speaker point. I won't flow cross-ex so if something important is said in cross, make sure to use it in one of your speeches.

Burdens are one of the biggest voters I use to adjudicate the round. As debaters, you should know that the Aff has the burden of proof and the Neg has the burden of clash and should be able to uphold these. The Aff will use on case arguments to prove their side and the Neg will use their on and off case arguments to clash with the Affirmative case. At the end of the round, I will decide who has achieved their burden best.

Framework is another important factor whether it be Value and Value Criterion(LD), Framework(PF/Policy), or a Weighing Mechanism(IPDA/BQ). I won't "flow" framework to one side or the other, I will flow the framework as either "upheld" or "fallen". At the end of the round, I will apply only the upheld framework(s) to both sides and decide who achieves it better.

Case Argumentation is an essential voter to emphasize on in the round. The Affirmative needs to present, uphold, and rebuild upon their on case argumentation in order to win the burden, the framework, and ultimately the round. The Negative should provide on case arguments that help them clash with the ideas and arguments that the Aff is presenting. The Aff can use off case arguments to rebuild and extend their points and the Neg can use them to clash with the Aff. Ideally, the strongest arguments have a claim, warrant, evidence, analysis, and impact. I will only flow an argument as dropped if someone points it out. If you are rebuilding, extending, or pointing out dropped arguments don't do the bare minimum, after you're done doing this take some time to explain why your arguments matter.

Miscellaneous: The Neg can use straight refusal but in order for this to work they must go line by line completely clashing with the Aff case. The Aff doesn't have any obligation to clash with the Negative case outside of the framework, they need only clash with the arguments they feel are important to the round. In your cross-ex, you have the control, if your opponent is eating up your time feel free to interrupt them so that you can move on to another question. If it is your opponent's cross-ex be respectful of them and their time, wasting your opponent's time in cross is just a good strategy but if they try to cut you off don't continue speaking or try to talk over them.

Lincoln Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge. I will not flow your Kritiks, Adds or Dis-Adds, or Theory Shells. If you want to use a Plan or Counterplan go ahead, but do not expect or imply that your opponent needs one to win the round. If your arguments are untopical I will not use them to weigh the round. Neither debater has an obligation to provide a Plan/Counterplan. Solvency is not an important factor in the round, so don't waste your time with it.

Pet Peeves: I am ok with speed but if you spread I will give you 20 speaker points. Do not try to put me or your opponent in a double bind that implies that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. If you lost, it was because either you failed to do your job as a debater or your opponent did a better job. With that being said, I will automatically vote you down if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I am a firm believer that debate is supposed to be fun and educational, we all get competitive but you are never justified in being rude to your opponent.

Ive competed in Policy, PF, LD, Extemp, Parli, and currently BQ. Im good with speed but only if you are speaking clearly. Ill vote on a multitude of things such as speaking, presentation, and who better upholds there arguements. I enjoy and expect good clash, why be in debate if you are only going to put in half of the effort.

PF-

Weighing is very important especially in the final focus. Rebuttals need to have a clear line by line. By the end of the debate it should be very clear to me what your arguements were and why I should vote for you. Public Forum is a evidence based type of debate so dont paraphrase your evidence but dont drag it out just to waste time. Wasted time will cost you.

LD-

I will judge both progressive and traditional I dont have a preference. Progressive rounds should preferably be policy-oriented. Framework is important but dont make the whole debate revolved around it, I like clash with arguments and evidence with framework weaved into it.

Congress-

Asking questions shows me that your are engaged in the round, that will help you big in the long run. Dont ramble on in your speeches, if youve said what you need to stop but try to fill the time. Spending all your time rehashing old arguments wont do you any good if you dont include new arguements.

General things:

I vote Truth over Tech

Always be nice and respectful to your opponents. Never use any insults or derogatory language towards your opponent. Don't stress too much about debate and be sure to have fun.

I'm mostly LD-centered, so if I'm not judging you for that, I'm probably not going to be the best judge.

Be sure not to be racist or discriminatory at all.

Lincoln Douglas Traditional:

I'd personally say I prefer traditional rounds over progressive, since I feel like those have more clash. In a regular traditional round, I don't value framework too much, but in return clash is incredibly important. I'll still end up voting on FW some times but losing the framework debate isn't a loss for the overall debate, it's just an additional reason for me to vote on way. Clash is the most important thing to me in a debate, because debate's meant to be an argument and not a meeting where people disagree on one tiny part of grammar - they're really unenjoyable to watch and debate and will make me voting for you harder. Burden's are always accepted, feel free to run any wild observations as long as they're not abusive. Overall, just make sure to have good case and framework debate, and to have good clash with your opponent.

Lincoln Douglas Progressive:

I'm not the greatest supporter of progressive arguments, but I'm totally fine if you run them as long as you make sure that your progressive argument has a clear link and isn't something kind of out of nowhere. I should always know how this relates to the topic, and it should relate in a clear way. If I can't understand it or it's too vague, I'm not flowing it

On the topic of counterplans, I think they're fun and good if done well. The counterplan should be a fairly different approach to solving the problem the affirmative is trying to solve. Your counterplan should clearly have benefits and less risks than are present in the affirmative's. If you end up agreeing with the affirmative with your CP I may flow that against you since those arguments restrict clash and education within debate. I wouldn't be too worried about this if you're running a CP, and if I end up flowing your CP against you it likely won't be the round decider, just be sure your counterplans are good and well made, and that they don't restrict argumentation.

Overall with progressive, just try try to make your links clear and have clash with your counterplans. Even though I'm more traditional, don't be afraid to try new progressive args.

*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.

Bradley House

Houseb1@cps.k12.ar.us

Congress:

Congress is a fun event that requires a lot of effort to speak and ask questions. I have done a handful of congress sessions and i am hoping to do more in the future. things that I like to see in congress are as follows.

~First you need to have at least 2 or 3 speeches in the congress round in order to attempt to score high.

~Second you need to ask a handful of questions. These shouldn’t be questions that are just fillers for time they should be ligenimet questions and concerns about a bill or resolution. Along with this it is fine if you don’t know an answer for a question or the question trips you up. There is always a way out.

~Also don’t use the same speech as someone else. We all know that sometimes people share things on a group drive and they tend to share speeches. I don’t care if you ask a friend for a speech. I do care about hearing the same speech 5 times.

~Lastly I do want to know sources and weather or not they are credible. If there not credible and you don’t say your source, how do i know weather it is reliable information.

~Bonus try to spread out speeches for both aff and neg. You need to learn about speaking on the other side even if you don’t agree with it. In the end you can make a speech that you don’t agree with then later vote the opposite of that speech.

Lincoln Douglas:

I have recently done a lot of LD this year. I have around 16 rounds of LD under my belt and it is a lot of fun. Things I like to see are as follows.

~Don’t have short speeches because you need every second of your speech. The only exception to me is if your opponent doesn’t have something to say and has a short speech then it is natural for you to have a shorter speech because there is not a lot to go on.

~you need to speak clear and precise. Speed doesn’t matter to me as long as you get your point across and you not stalling. I get it some of us speak slow and others fast you just need to try to find something that works for you. (If you are talking really fast just to try to impress people don’t it just makes our job harder)

~I will not judge cross exam unless it is brought up in the round. So if you have a hard question pinning you down and your opponent forgot to go off of it. Well then to me it never happened also. Don’t waste your time with questions because you might not understand at first but it is a wonderful tool to have.

~ for the arguments that you make i want to see a fight. Along with that one of the best things you can do is make a come back. To me this shows that you can deal with a situation and be able to figure out a solution.

~I am always flowing everything except questions. This is because unless i miss something i will know if you dropped a impact. When it comes down to it if you don’t repair your case and drop a impact chances are you will lose. Also if the opponent doesn’t speak on the thing dropped. Then to me it never happened.

~Tell me why you won. That way I know what I have to evaluate in the round.

~Bonus Don’t bring up contentions in you last speech or new information. This is because you should have brought it up earlier in the round.

Hey! I'm a debater from arkansas and have attended nationals in PF thrice now. A few important things about how I judge:

-Tech>>Truth

-I will judge solely on the flow and arguments made. Speaks are separate than round.

-Everyone starts at 28.5 speaks then goes up or down from there

-Include me in any email chains, bellajstl@gmail.com

-Theory/Kritiks are fine, i will vote on any style of argument that you win (pf,ld,policy)

-Spreading is fine (ld and policy only), but if you spread you must start the email chain before ur speech and include everyone.

Hey! My name is Vaisakh Karuvath. A little bit about me: I have performed in all styles of debate with my main styles having been World Schools and Congress. Don't let that allow you to underestimate my experience in Policy, LD, or PF. I've also competed successfully on local, state, and national circuits, IF it's necessary.. I can elaborate on my experience in round. As a judge, I mostly have experience in debate, however I have competed in Prose, Extemp, Oratory, and Storytelling. I will always do my best to judge the round completely fair and constructive. If you have any questions after round, please feel free to email me at vaisakhkaruvath@gmail.com

As a debate judge, this is what I look for:

- Of utmost importance to me is a respectful and engaging debate. If I see that you are in any way being a disturbance to a good quality debate, I can guarantee you that the round most likely will not go your way.

- I love clash! It is one of my favorite things about debating, it truly brings out your skills as a debater and a speaker to the maximum. Make sure to stay organized and know your material, if not, the debate sounds very monotone and will not be enjoyable for anyone.

- Let's address speed for a second. I am all for speed and I am mostly fine with it, but if you decide to spread in any other event than Policy, just stop and ask yourself what you're trying to do because it really doesn't work. LD has certain leeway for me, but that is highly tournament based.

- Direct me through your speeches. Don't expect me to infer what you're trying to say or impact. Address everything and tell me why it matters. At the end of the round, I will most definitely be looking at who has the bigger and better impact; that is what will win you the round. I do flow everything, however, don't expect me to infer and rely on my flows the entire round; it is your job to convince me why you won the round.

- As for cross, there is not much to say. I will definitely be paying attention, but I will not flow it. If something is said in cross that is important to the debate... use it in your next speech so I can weigh it along with the other arguments. Make sure to stay respectful in cross!! Being aggressive does not make you a better debater.

- If a card is called for, I expect that it already be cut and ready to be sent. Given the chance of technical difficulties, it shouldn't be taking 10 minutes to send a cut card. Come to round prepared, I don't want to see cards being cut in round.

- Just a quick thing to know, I DESPISE definitions debates. They do not serve any purpose unless there is a clear misconstruction of a definition, but I doubt that will ever happen.

- Progressive debate within Public Form and Lincoln Douglas is perfectly fine with me. But, just make sure you know what you're doing and make sure you know what you're talking about. It can be easy to get lost, but sometimes progressive PF and LD can be super fun!

- In terms of speaks: everyone will start out at a 28.5 and can go up or down from there. To get good speaks from me just be confident, present yourself well, be respectful, and be engaging.

- Finally, just a quick thing to address. Any racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, or bigoted/demeaning comments/arguments will result in a swift loss for you. None of this is tolerated, it is not to be seen in debate. We are all friends here.

Style Specific:

Honestly, this is going to be a lot, so just look for the style you're competing and it's fine if you just read through that. And, once again, if you have questions just ask me in round!

PF - Alrighty, I really enjoy debating unique cases in PF especially if they link to the resolution well with weird and fun, but relevant take on it. So, I'm definitely going to enjoy watching a round that has good debate between two different cases that aren't generic or common. Let's discuss framework. I honestly do not care about framework, it does not matter to me... however, if you do provide a framework, DO stick to it because that is what I will use to weigh the round at the end. If you are opposing a team that has brought in a framework, you still need to ensure to show how you win based on the framework they provide if you don't have a framework as well. If both teams have a framework, it will likely get muddy, but whomever can show me which one is more relevant and beneficial will get the ballot. I will be defaulting to cost-benefit analysis if no framework is provided and try your bestnot to center the debate around the framework, it really makes it less enjoyable. Some of the biggest things you should focus on is line-by-line argumentation, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Along with this, ensure you extend everything through each speech; if something is dropped or is not mentioned in a speech, I will flow it to the team who made the last argument for/against it. However, it is still the opponent's job to mention that an argument went unanswered for the sake of showing me why it matters that they dropped it. By the end of the round you need to be able to show me which arguments matter the most and what I need to look to in order to come to a decision. I do flow, but it is your job to tell me which ones have the bigger and most beneficial impacts by extending and weighing through the last speeches.

LD - Let's talk about Lincoln-Douglas for a bit. Values and Value Criterions can be very helpful to you in a round especially if you have unique ones (that are topical and link to the resolution). If you utilize them well and prove why your value + criterion matter most AND how you fit best into the "designated" V/VC of the round, then the ballot will most likely go your way. DO ensure that you line-by-line argue/refute, extend your points and arguments throughout the round, and truly show me why your impacts weight/matter. LD is a very short round of debate, think about how you want to use and structure your speech time with your arguments.

CX - I have debated in policy before, but that was quite a while ago and rather brief. If I do end up judging policy, I will try my best and do try to bear with me. Spreading, of course yes... just make sure I'm on the email chain. There's a lot to be covered about policy, but I'll just briefly overview what I'm looking for based on my limited experience. Line-by-line is really going to be important here, ensure that the winner of the ballot is clear. If you're running a CP, make the outweighing net benefit clear and I have no problem flowing it to you. With a DA; do not far-fetch the link or internal link; go for the impacts and explain how the AFF causes a net bad problem and why it matters. I do not enjoy T's, I think most of the time it's just used to steal the AFF. However, if an AFF truly is not topical and you show it to me, I will for sure vote on it. I don't have much experience with K's or K AFF's, but ensure you provide a strong link (throughout the round) and extend the framework (keep it fair) throughout the debate, I will vote on it. Of course, I will look out for de-links and bad alts on the opposition side. Of course, you should extend everything throughout the round (I'm not going to weight dropped points), but always point out if a point was dropped and explain why that matters. Impact calc is going to be important, do not forget about that.

Congress - The biggest thing about Congress that you must remember is that it is a style of debate. I will be expecting you to go up and give speeches with strong argumentation and round relevant refutations. Too often in Congress rounds, I see representatives continuously going up and giving repeated 1st speeches without any actual debate. NO! That is not Congressional Debate, that is quite literally practicing multiple 1AC speeches. Those who are able to show me they come to round prepared and give speeches with well-written argumentation and good speaking skills will definitely be voted up by me. If you PO, ensure you know what you are doing. The round becomes very slow if the PO is unable to keep up and that is no fun, but I doubt that will be a problem! Questioning should always remain respectful and I will be paying attention to questioning also.

So, now that we've gotten all of that out of the way, Speech & Debate is a fun activity that I am sure we all enjoy so ensure to enjoy it to the full extent! Ride on the high of the win and if you lose, so what, come back better and stronger next time. You have room to grow! If you have any other questions feel free to ask me in round. I am very open and will most likely have conversations with you! Have fun and enjoy the tournament!!

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

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.

Cabot High School Senior Captain

TL;DR

I’m good with all arguments

Tech over truth

Make sure to not drop points

Don't give fake evidence, instant loss if you cannot provide the cards if asked.

Attack the case not the person, I will deduct a large amount of speaker points if you're attacking the person.

Have fun with the debate

I have started debating at Cabot since 8th grade. I am okay with all arguments. Use whatever you want as long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone. Make sure that you properly explain all arguments and don't just throw out buzzwords and jargon.

BQ

I generally prefer the standard of morality in BQ but if you can give me a reason not to, then that's great. You don't need to have a lot of statistics for BQ. I personally prefer well spoken arguments and slower speaking in BQ, but I will evaluate anything. Make sure you explain how your arguments and cards connect. I'm fine with all arguments as long as they are relevant.

PF

Make sure to take advantage of any definitions you can. Impact is very important policy wise so make sure to flesh it out throughout the entire debate. Fake evidence equals instant loss. If I cannot trust one piece of evidence I can't trust any of your evidence. Just argue well, If I am not given a weighing mechanism I will default to cost benefit analysis. Just debate and do it well, like I already said up above, I will evaluate any argument as long as it is explained well.

LD

I prefer that you link in your arguments and give me a reason to vote for you. Make sure to expand on your points and impact if you have one. These are important parts of the debate and give me a clear reason to vote. Make sure you expand on your framework and show me why I should consider your value/criterion over your opponents if the framework makes a difference. If the framework doesn't matter, then don't extend it.

Although your argument may hold truth I prefer the technical parts of the debate (i.e. you drop what they say about your point, and it is false if they are right). One thing I don’t like is trying to discredit sources just because they are from the past or not within the past 4 years; yes, it is important to have up to date sources, but at the same time it is not necessary if it is an analytical argument. If you do make an argument on the credibility of sources don't just say it's not credible, you also need to explain why I can't vote on it because of the lack of credibility. I know the connection is obvious, but unless you make it that connection, it won't be on the flow. If an opponent asks for a card provide the card or you lose credibility.

Congress

Just don't discriminate against anyone. Answer questions effectively. I don't do congress very much so I'll be frank and just say you're unlucky to have me.

IPDA

Same stuff for LD basically. Just make sure you explain your points well, I think IPDA is a great opportunity to show off the fundamentals of debate.

I am a college debater who competed on the Arkansas circuit in high school, I have competed in BQ, LD, IPDA, CX, WSD, and parli . I know mainly anything you can throw at me, just be clear with your arguments.

If you want me to flow everything you say, don’t spread. Be very clear with line by line and the flow. When addressing an opponent's case be very specific on which it is ex. " contention 2 sub point b"

Have fun:)

I started out in debate doing IPDA and Congress so I'm well versed in the Arkansas debate style. Now I mainly do Congress and believe when I say it gets really boring when there's no one talking or bringing up new points. So try and be as active as possible, if you have to make a speech that ruins your congressional career then do. Remember that Congress is very special, it's a perfect mix of debate and forensics events based on our own legislative system. Above all, Congressional Debate is a role-playing event meaning that you need to be in character as a congressperson, not jr. high schooler.

EJ Robertson (She / Her)

Cabot High School

I have been in the Cabot Debate program for 3 years now. I have competed in Congress, Extemp., BQ, World Schools, and PF.

TL;DR

Tech over Truth

Articulate well, moderate speed. I won't flow what I don't understand.

Make it interesting, I like a lot of clash

Line-by-line rebuttals

Make sure to be confident in your speaking and have fun!

Public Forum

A really good speaker is usually what sets one side apart from the other, so make sure to be confident and articulate well. Framework is usually neglected, but I feel that’s one of the most important aspects of weighing the round. I like unique arguments, but make sure that they have solid reasoning. Clear road maps are important, and a line-by-line on the rebuttals make it a lot easier for me to flow and evaluate the round. Make sure to be respectful, don’t say anything that’s racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because that shouldn’t really be part of debate. Clash also makes the debate more interesting, and it makes it easier to see which arguments are conceded to or dropped. Don’t make any new arguments during final focus, as it makes it difficult for the opponent to respond. Weighing is important because it tells me how to evaluate which side won. I also enjoy impact debates, but don't focus on it too much / go off topic because of it. Give enough time to rebuild or crystalize all arguments, don't spend too much time on one and neglect the others.

Lincoln Douglas

Again, speaking is VERY important, so make sure to speak clearly and confidently. Framework / Value and Criterion are extremely important, as they show me how to evaluate which side I give the win to at the end of the day. I like unique arguments that really challenge the other side. I like impact debates, just don't focus on them too much. Do a line-by-line rebuttal, because it makes it easier to flow. Make sure to be respectful and don’t say anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Congress

Quality > quantity. Make sure to be confident, remember that you’re talking to your fellow delegates, not the judges. Road map should be clear so that I know where to flow on the ballots. Make sure your arguments have good impacts, and going a little over time is better than going under imo. Questioning period is important to reinforce or build up arguments, so make sure to answer questions with substantial arguments. PO should know how to do their jobs, keep time, and use precedence and recency to call delegates. Make sure to be respectful during the debates and have fun.

Contact me:

schnee1@cps.k12.ar.us

LD:

For LD I enjoy seeing a framework debate and I enjoy yall trying to make me see the round through your “lenses”. Your framework should make sense for the case that you are making to me and you should bring up your framework throughout the entire debate if you are going for a framework debate. If you manage to convince me AND point out to me during a speech that your opponent dropped the framework then there is a good chance you will win the round (as long as it is a framework debate between the both of you and not just one of you). Although framework is a big part you should also try and still create clashes with the opponent's argument and if possible use it to your frameworks advantage.

Definition Debate For LD:

I can also get along with a definition debate as long as it makes sense and it is a topic that heavily relies on definitions (i.e. Is Civil Disobedience in a Democracy Morally justified?). In a definition debate I would still like to see clashes with the opponent's argument and I would still like to see defense for your case. Make sure you don’t get wound up in one thing because if you concede to points and your opponent mentions it I don’t care how good your definitions are I have to vote your opponent up.

Progressive debaters:

I am fine with a progressive debate as long as you make it make sense to me. I don’t want to be told a case that makes absolutely no sense and a case that your opponent can’t even defend against. If you give your speeches on a case that you randomly made I see it as unfair towards the other opponent and you will end up losing the round. Just don’t be too radical if you are going to be progressive and make sure the case is understandable.

P.s. to everybody

BE RESPECTFUL AT ALL TIMES

Congress:

Make sure you speak with confidence and you don’t fidget much. Make sure to list your sources in your speech and make sure that they are credible as well (you don’t want to list PETA as a source). This is a very heavy public speaking event and I understand nerves but don’t let them show. During the questioning period be respectful and don’t cut the other person off. Also during questioning don’t beat around the bush unless it is leading to something. Be polite while others are speaking and if you are going to talk make sure it is barely a whisper if I hear anyone besides the speaker I will ask that yall be quiet or stop talking in general. The PO should know what they’re doing and make sure to keep things fair. All in all be a good speaker and it doesn’t matter how many speeches you gave because quality over quantity.

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

Bailey Van

Cabot - Class of 2024

Add me on the email chain: vanb1@cps.k12.ar.us

Interests & Preferences

Talking Speed: Speed is alright as long as I can clearly hear you and your arguments. Be mindful of internet glitches and cut-outs because if I can not understand you, then I will not flow your speech.

Argumentation: I am a technical debater, meaning that I prefer technical arguments over truth arguments. Be sure to sell me on your arguments and explain how your opponent conceded to your impacts because that will be a huge advantage on your side!

Big Questions

I consider myself a rebuttal type of judge since I am a huge fan of clashing and turning around argumentation, so be sure to include a lot of those in your debate! Other than that, make sure to speak in an articulate manner as well as listen to your opponents’ speeches and main points.

Congressional

Speaking is the most important factor in this style of debate because you need to present your arguments well enough in order to succeed. Make sure to slow down as well as enhance your emotions up a bit because debating with little confidence will not be convincing enough!

Lincoln Douglas

Framework framework framework. This is crucial for winning the debate round because it is the overall “structure” on what your whole argument should be based on. Try to tie it in with the impact calculus since that can play a heavy role on your side. Make sure to not go too overboard with it because it can get repetitive sometimes. Other than that, be sure to speak clearly and provide a good line-by-line argumentation to help organize the whole round.

Public Forum

Impacts are a big factor in winning this style of debate, so make sure to weigh heavily on that during the round. I would also love to see you provide some sort of framework so it can help me view the round better in YOUR lens. It is not a huge deal, but I would definitely prefer it!

World Schools

Framework is a big deciding factor when it comes down to the winner of this debate round because I need to know how to view the round. The content should also emphasize more on the impacts of your side instead of just having pure definitions, so be mindful of that.

Non-Interests & Dislikes

I do not tolerate being rude or disrespectful toward your opponents because at the end of the day, it all comes down to sportsmanship. This includes being racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. towards people.

Hey guys, I'm a sophomore at UARK and you can call me Judge, Brice, Judge Witt, Mr. Guy Man, whatever, honestly. I've competed in PF and Congress, both in-state and out-of-state, and went to NSDA Nationals my sophomore and senior years. I've also dabbled in CX a little. LD is what I'm least familiar with but I can comprehend arguments, will flow, and will make the most fair decision.

All Styles minus Congress:

I am a flow judge meaning I will base my decision off the flow, nothing else. I will listen to cross-examination, if I hear something interesting, incorrect, or otherwise, I will write it down, but it shouldn't effect my decision (unless your opponent calls you out for something you said in cross in a speech).

SPEED. I am fine with some speed, no spreading though, but if you're talking a bit faster be clear. If you are not clear or are speaking too fast, I will put my pen down, will not flow, and will then not be able to judge you properly. In summary, PLEASE BE CLEAR.

WEIGH. If you don't weigh for me, I will end up weighing myself and you may or may not like the outcome.

EXTENDING AND DROPS. If you don't extend evidence for me, I will point it out on my flow and if your opponent points it out and tells me why that matters, you won't be able to win it. Shadow extending is risky, I may flow it and let it slide, but don't count on it occurring. If you drop something, I point it out on my flow, and your opponent discusses it and why it matters, I will give them the argument as long as they extend.

EVIDENCE. If an opponent asks for a card, please be able to supply it in a timely manner, if not I will resort to running some of your prep time. I don't expect to ask for a card after the round, but I will do so if my decision comes down to it or a competitor specifically asks me to call for the evidence in a speech (or I just wanna see it hehe).

Policy Specific:

I don't think I will ever judge this, but if I do, I'm sorry and I will try my absolute best. If you spread, I may miss some things but I don't think it'll be too bad.

PF Specific:

Ah PF, my main style. I am fine with either paraphrasing or carded evidence, however, if you paraphrase, you'd better have the carded, properly cited, properly highlighted evidence if I call for it. I will be very displeased if you make me search through an article or tell me "control f this..." just cut the evidence.

I personally enjoyed progressive argumentation in PF, meaning things like K’s, theory, etc., but because those can make the debate unfair to an unprepared opponent, I will ask that if you plan to run something like this, ask your opponents before the round if it’s okay. 

I do not allow for either sticky offense or sticky defense. This just means to be sure to cover both sides when being the first speaker.

First rebuttal, answer AND interact with your opponents case, use all of your time, even if you have to restate your own case. If you want to weigh at the end you can, weighing earlier makes my decision easier.

Second rebuttal, answer AND interact with your opponents case, answer what they said on yours, and use all of your time. If you want to weigh at the end you can, weighing earlier makes my decision easier.

Summary, group arguments and answer what your opponent said. You have 3 minutes so use it wisely, extend, and weigh at the end or throughout. Set your partner up in the FF, it's like an alley-oop, you set your partner up for the dunk.

FF, VOTERS. Just tell me reasons why you win the debate, offer me some weighing and DUNK THAT THANG.

Congress Specific: There’s not really much I should need to say here, but just speak well, follow parliamentary procedure, don’t just read a speech, and speak eloquently and with conviction.

LD Specific:

I've only ever judged LD and have never debated in it, however, I will be able to judge properly if I am your judge.

I can evaluate K's somewhat as I did run them here and there, just please not overly complicated ones.

Make sure you give your value and value criterion so I know how to judge.

Please ensure you extend, go line-by-line, and relate what you're discussing to the value and value criterion.

Speaker points:

Use good word economy. I won't be mean when it comes to speaks, ever. That being said I also won’t inflate them and everyone will start off at a 28.

Ways to increase speaker points:

Be polite, courteous, etc.

Have good time management, organization, and line-by-line.

Be efficient and make sure you’re clear, especially if online.

If you tell me a good joke before the round I will increase your speaks by .2. If it's not good I will reduce your speaks by .2. Choose wisely.

Ways to lose speaker points:

Being inefficient with and/or not using all of your time, not knowing your case/evidence.

Being rude, disrespectful, demeaning, etc. *Note this does not mean you cannot get into a back and forth with your opponent during cross, because, if done right, it’ll enhance the quality of the debate.

If you are a(the) superior debater(s), showing humility will go a long way, however, not will cause you to lose speaker points.

Ways to automatically lose the round, get a 25 speaker point score, and have me talk to your coach/tab:

You are explicitly racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. Debate is supposed to be a safe place for all individuals, let’s keep it that way, please.

If there’s an email chain I would like to be on it: lolwhatsacp@gmail.com

If you have any questions before the round, please ask and I’ll be more than happy to answer, but if you ask me what my paradigm is, I will first ask if you checked on tab and if you say no, I will not tell you everything, and maybe nothing.

Good luck to everyone! You’re all talented and I hope I get to judge you!!

PF: I vote mainly on the voters you give me, if you dont have clear voters then I will vote on what i think is important and it may not be what you think it is (if one side has voters and the other side doesn't then im going to lean more toward the side with voters). Go down the flow it makes it much easier for me to flow all of your agruments in the right spot. Don't spread if I dont know exactly what you said I wont write it down.

LD: Make your Framework very clear so I understand exactly what it is but dont make it a framework debate. Dont spread if I dont know what you said I wont write it down. I vote mainly on voters, if you dont have clear voters then I will vote on what i think is important and it may not be what you think it is (if one side has voters and the other side doesn't then im going to lean more toward the side with voters).

Congress: I've done alot of PF so I like reliable sources. Be ready to speak on either side of the bill. Try and fill all of your time in your speach but if you have nothing new to add then just leave it at what you have and ask questions. questions are important to me it shows you are still engaged in the round and will give you extra points.

IPDA: jsut try to fill all your time have a good ofense and defense, and be sure to speak well. good luck