Tabroom.com

Cabot Classic Middle School and Junior High Invitational

2021 — Online, AR/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

David Adams Hire 8 rounds

Nelson Athow Goodman Middle School

Amber Nicole Beard Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed May 20, 2020 at 8:57 PM EDT

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.

Evan Beck Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 2, 2021 at 9:28 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Evan, I go to University College London and I study Politics, Sociology, and East European Studies, I did debate for 3 and a half years in highschool qualed for TOC my senior year.

PF-

Boring technical stuff-

>include me in all evidence exchanges please:)

>Tabula rasa (everyone says this but built different I guess), I will never be the type of judge to rattle off a rebuttal during my decision, if it wasn't said in round, it won't affect my judgement, no matter my opinions on topic/argument/political stance

>Flow/flex judge, can handle some speed, that being said speaker points may lower if you're not clear.

>better/more clear arguments always better than speed though

>I much prefer one really well thought out, explained, and carded response to 10 blippy ones with no warranting, don't just flood the flow because you can

>Progressive debate is fine but don't be abusive, don't read theory unless theres actual abuse, will buy disclosure if done well and opponents are running a squirly case, will definitely buy paraphrase, will 100% buy any theory about things that ruin the space of debate for some(TW, excessive gendered language, etc.)

>that being said, progressive debate will make your job as a debater significantly harder, if you think you can win progressive arguments you might as well run normal ones if you just want to win the round

>Must extend through every speech, if not extended through summary will consider it dropped especially on impacts

>Please don't bring up an impact, statistic, or voter in final focus if it wasn't in summary

>Impact calculus is very important but 75% of the time won't be the reason I vote a team up, especially if its done without case extension/defense

>that being said if i'm evaluating 2 arguments extremely closely and one had impact calc and the other didn't I will always vote for the former

>Tech>Truth most of the time, don't run obviously wrong args tho

>Please run unique or interesting cases, stock with spikes or weird warrants are fire too

>aggressive during cross is fine, however don't be a jerk, don't speak over your opponent, don't be rude

>don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, instant 0 speaks and most likely vote down, debate is supposed to be a safe space

>will call for evidence even if not brought up during round only if it seems extremely sus, if you want me to look at evidence I will post round, say it in speech and i'll evaluate it as need be, it's the debaters job to recognize sus evidence, not mine

>please both quantify impacts as well as actualize them, "GDP skyrockets" (tell me how much) "GDP rises by 200%" (better/fine, but what does this mean for people, or government, or one specific area) "GDP rises by 200% meaning every mom in America can by 2 more jugs of chocolate milk" (perfect)

-fun "quirky" stuff-

>I don't care what you do in round as long as it isn't blatantly disrespectful to your opponent, illegal, or something that could get me in trouble

>cursing is fine but no need to over do it

>TKO, if you think your opponent has literally no paths to the ballot you can call technical knockout, 30W if right, 25L if wrong

Congress:

>please don't be boring

>clash is an instant way to get my attention

>if you bring up the same points as everyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you use a prewritten speech late session that doesn't respond to anyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you read off of a laptop or ipad don't expect to be well ranked
>don't be obnoxious with parli pro

>funny intros are enjoyable

>speeches should be atleast 2:30

>use logic or evidence in your speech, make actual arguments please

If you have any questions email me:) i sound mean but i'm not, I just would rather express what I explicitly want in a round so there's no guesswork

evanbeck2021@gmail.com

Astha Bhattad Daniel Wright None

Danielle Brumbelow Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 5, 2020 at 5:24 PM CDT

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 Hire 8 rounds

darlenne chacon Hire 8 rounds None

Alexis Madison Childs Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 4:51 PM EDT

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.

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.

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 :)

Hugh Corkery EDH Debate

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 9:37 AM PDT

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

Brooke Skyler Decker Hire 8 rounds

Carson Reed Duca Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 28, 2021 at 5:55 PM CDT

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.

Robin Eckert Beacon Park None

Adrian Esau Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 26, 2022 at 10:56 AM CDT

TL;DR

Speed is good just be clear and emphasize key arguments

Add me on the email chain adrianesau523@gmail.com

Be respectful

Quality of arguments over quantity of arguments

Cross important for speaks; make sure to utilize it well

Slightly truth over tech

O/V

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

Public Forum

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

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

Topicality

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

Disadvantages/Counterplans

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

Case

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

Kritiks

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

Theory

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

Congress

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

Brooklyn Evans Hire 8 rounds

Tristen Farris Hire 8 rounds

David Finnigan Beverly Hills High School

Phoenix Fogle Hire 8 rounds

William Fry Hire 8 rounds

Ashley Garcia Hire 8 rounds None

Sawyer Giese Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 11:50 AM CDT

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.

Vanessa Gutierrez Berkeley Carroll School 8 rounds None

William Harris Grand Rapids City

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:22 AM EDT

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

Taniya La'faith Henderson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 16, 2020 at 4:44 AM EDT

*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.

Remmington Hicks Hire 8 rounds

Isabella Jenkins Hire 8 rounds

Austin Keefe Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 10:18 AM EDT

Austin Keefe (he/him)

University of Arkansas (akeefe@uark.edu)

Public Forum/Congress/Lincoln Douglas/IPDA

Howdy, I am a former public forum/Lincoln Douglass and a current IPDA varsity debater for The University of Arkansas and have been doing debate for about 6 years competitively. I'm a simple man, any homophobia, racism, xenophobia will immediately lose you the round and 20 speaker points. Just don't, it's not worth it. Please time yourself, if I have to call you out for a time, it'll hurt speaks so just time yourself.

Public Forum

I am a big framework guy so for me to flow it to your side it needs to be thoroughly tied to your case and brought up often. If you do concede to your opponent's framework then I need a card or an extremely valid reason why. Weighing and magnitude also don't hurt when flowing as it gives me a lens for the debate. Personally, I believe debates peak during crossfire. Use your time wisely and don't ask cupcake questions that drag out time. I am an aggressive-style type debater and love it when there is a high-volume clash and argumentation. I don't want free melatonin in the form of a lame crossfire so make the most of it. Lastly, signposting will be crucial to cross-applying arguements. I need to be able to understand your arguments to be able to clearly lay out your case. That being said I can understand spreading but if you do, there will need to be a speech doc shared beforehand.

Lincoln Douglas

Traditional LD is my stuff and I'll be able to follow a case very well. I have had Progressive rounds so I will still be able to flow K's, meta-theory, disclosure theory, tricks, etc... I don't specifically have a preference over the other but I do prefer a traditional case-vs-case debate but if you bring in a K, I'll be able to follow. If you don't need to fill the speech time, don't. I'd have a better time flowing your arguments to you if you condense it down to 5 minutes rather than trying to ramble on for the extra 2 minutes.

Congress

I love congress speeches because they are able to provide humor in the serious world of debate. Funny and entertaining intros will help me tie your case to your points and enjoy your speech more. Evidence is just as important in these speeches though and I will take all of your speech with a grain of salt if there isn't a source to back it up. Also, if we have spent 40+ minutes on a single bill, please do not run a constructive speech (unless its new information) that just reiterates past representative's speeches. It makes your speech appear weak and ill founded. Refutation speeches are pretty rad as it provides clash in the debate so try to do that.

Literally any other debate style

Just speak clearly and I think I am capable enough to follow through with your case/argument.

Speaks

The worst amount of speaker points I'll give is a 27 (unless you are being rude, yelling, racist, you know, the no-no stuff). I throw a 30 here and there but I'll need very good signposting, crossfire, and speeches. But in general, if you speak well enough to understand, a 28 is in your grasp. Going overtime will hurt your speaks (over the 10 second grace period) so don't do that.

Misc.

All in all, its you vs. your opponents where y'all are yelling about topics way above our pay grade. Just enjoy it, it's an event where people are forced to listen to you rant about stuff you spent too much time researching. Spend 5 minutes before your round watching this video rather than spam-prepping. Have fun g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJZeNY6dKo&ab_channel=Lucasamiel0406

Zayd Thomas Kelley Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 17, 2020 at 5:57 PM CDT

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!

Ted Kim Nova 42 Academy

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:02 AM PDT

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Yu Jin Kim Velásquez-Liangyi Leadership Academy

Carter Kirby Hire 8 rounds

Sedona Esma Korzay Phoenix Country Day School (Middle) 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2024 at 2:16 AM MST

Experience:

Hello everyone! I've competed in speech and debate for 5 years doing a mix of congress, extemporaneous speaking, OO, HI, etc. My main event in high school was Public Forum on the local Arizona circuit and national circuit.

Also, I have done no research on the topic. Please ask me any questions you have before round, I promise I'm nice. :)

General:

I am a typical flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

If you have any questions, or using an email chain add me, sedonakorzay@gwu.edu

Speed:

- the faster you speak, the higher chance I will miss something

- I and your opponents can say "speed" at any time and you should slow down, if you don't your speaker points will reflect that

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- Arguments that you want me to evaluate should be extended with a warrant and impact in summary and final focus.

- Don't extend through ink.

- Please roadmap/signpost.

- Collapse; if you don't, you might not like how I vote

- Don't abuse and overview

Weighing:

- do NOT make me do your dirty work, I will not appreciate it...

- Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense.

- don't just throw words out (ie. scope, magnitude) EXPLAIN why I should be preferring you

Speaker Points:

- I will only give you lower than 25 speaks if you do something TERRIBLE

- I do take the way you speak and hold yourself into account for speaks

Notes on Progressive Arguments:

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or most Theory, you're lowering your chance of me voting for you. PF is supposed to be accessible.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments made using simple formats and weighing mechanisms. No to speaker point and disclosure theory.

Misc.

I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, Islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email. (one very important reason for this is because I have experienced it in rounds and the judges did nothing about it until the round is over.)

- Have fun!

Kayleigh Langston Hire 8 rounds None

Brylee Leatherberry Hire 8 rounds

Carter Lester Hire 8 rounds

Greg Malis Isidore Newman Middle School 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Ashwin Aniruddha Marathe Hire 8 rounds

Nathaly Marin Hire 8 rounds None

Kennedy Marrs Hire 8 rounds None

Tim Martindell The Village Middle School

Rachel Mauchline Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:11 PM EDT

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Harrison Merrick Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 14, 2020 at 8:13 AM CDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harrison Mobbs Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 14, 2020 at 12:39 PM CDT

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.

Abigail Montgomery Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 4, 2020 at 2:39 AM CDT

Hi everyone! I’m Abigail Montgomery and this is my 2nd year in the debate program but my first year competing at CFA! I compete in Congressional debate but have also competed in Big Questions and Lincolin Douglas in the past.

TLDR;

Don’t speak super fast and make sure you’re speeches are a reasonable length

For any concerns, you can reach me at Montga2@cps.k12.ar.us

Don’t be afraid to ask each other questions, or answer them later in a speech

Please feel free to clash with your opponent, but stay respectful

I won’t tolerate any form of disrespect

Congress - I will be focusing my judging on how well you speak and the structure of your overall argument (don’t get up and just rattle on about the overall topic for 3 minutes). For POs I will be paying attention to your parliamentary procedure and how you overall run the chamber while also keeping track of your order of speakers. Don’t restate arguments and don’t be afraid to ask questions. If someone has previously stated one of your contentions then drop it out of your speech and move on. Don’t give a short speech just because you’re trying to get one in before the end of the round. You need to be respectful to the other people in your chamber as well, so be respectful during their speeches and questioning period.

LD - Please signpost your speeches when you begin and when speaking don’t rush your speech, especially since I will be flowing the round. My opinion on tech over truth depends on the resolution, but I will focus my judging on your overall speaking skills and how well your argumentation is. Don’t hesitate to call out your opponent on something they say, and you should always answer their questions in cross-examination. Don’t ever drop an argument just because of your opponent. You need to respect your opponent as well, I understand that you can get heated during a round but that’s no excuse for being rude or cruel to your opponent.

Sam Alexis Montgomery Hire 8 rounds None

Jace Owens Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 9:19 AM CDT

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.

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.

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.

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.

Isabella Parker Hire 8 rounds

Alaska Perez Berkeley Carroll School 8 rounds

Conrad Ramakers Baker Hire 8 rounds

Ava Mae Ramos Hire 8 rounds

Damion Reeves Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 2, 2022 at 8:25 AM CDT

For this tournament, I am flowing on notebook paper... goody. Signpost well--

Hey there, I'm Damion (He/Him) and I used to debate at Cabot High School. I mainly did LD but dabbled in CX and basically everything-

Questions before round/about RFD? Text (501)353-9055.

TL;DR: Run whatever you want, as long as you can flesh it out and explain it well you are almost certainly all good.

DA/CP >= Traditional > K > Phil > T > Tricks (strike)
**This is what im most familiar with, not my favorites. I am not a huge fan of traditional LD but I can judge it, haha**

For Speed as long as you slow down on tags and listen if I call "clear" we good, although I am a little out of practice so faster spreading might go over my head. Try to avoid hyperspeed and we should be okay. The out-of-practice thing is even truer now.

As far as Traditional goes make sure to hit that V/VC, I will vote on it. It doesn't need to be the center of debate but I will look at EVERYTHING through that lens. If your opponent says "the Value is Cactus Life" and you don't refute that, I dont care about a single word you say if it doesn't have something to do with cacti.

Theory/T - If you genuinely think there is abuse in the round don't be afraid to run this. I will always hear it out. However, if you want to run super obviously specific or just weird rule strategies to get an easy ballot it's not gonna work. This is a rule we are talking about, so you have to actually convince me as a person rather than as a judge that abuse was present.

DA/CP - Love these. If it is properly structured you are all good. Really hit the impacts, DONT FORGET THE UNIQUENESS.

K/Phil - grouping these together because they both fall into the camp of "I like it, I just have no idea what you're talking about." I probably haven't read the literature and I definitely do not know the philosopher so if you run this make sure to make it extremely clear what's going on. If you can explain these really well to someone with 0 knowledge on the subject, go for it, I'd honestly love to hear it. Otherwise, maybe skip these args. For K's specifically - I am decently knowledgeable about: Capitalism bad, Communist/Socialist, and some race theories. Treat me like I don't anyway, but thought it was important if that's your route. Also-- keep it topical. At least have some form of a link, I will vote on switch-sides/FW as mentioned before. Does what we say in a debate round really matter? I severely doubt it, and you probably do too.

Tricks - No.

Anything else - feel free to ask before the round, but the general rule is if you can explain it well, it is fine. oH and don't be discriminatory, the ballot will reflect it. Debate is a space for learning and fun, not spreading ignorant hate.

Whatever you decide to run I am excited to hear your case, see you in round!

Ebony Jade Robertson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 8, 2021 at 10:43 AM EDT

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.

Ben Saddler Hire 8 rounds

Aiswarya Saravanan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 14, 2021 at 12:43 PM CDT

I'm a debater at Bentonville High School. Usually, I compete in policy, but I do have experience in LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools.

Email: aishups1923@gmail.com

General:

-Please put me on the email chain

- I typically give 27-30 speaker points, anything below a 26 means you should work on your speaking.

-I am okay with spreading if it is a policy or progressive LD round. If you are doing congress of PF, I will not accept spreading.

-While speed is fine, please be CLEAR

-For an argument to be evaluated by me, you have to extend it throughout the entire round. Saying it in the first speech and then never mentioning it again till the final speech does not count.

-I might give you higher speaks if you make me laugh :)

-Have good clash. Clash is amazing and is an instant way to get my attention

-I evaluate tech and truth equally.

-Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, or ANYTHING like that. I will immediately give you zero speaks and may vote you down. Debate is supposed to be a safe space.

-Don't be aggressive or rude, those are not the same as being confident

-Unique or interesting case are very good, just make sure they're topical

-I will call for evidence if it seems sus, but it is your job as a debater to really analyze the evidence

-Having good eye contact with me and going off the flow will do amazing for your speaks

-Open Cross

Policy:

I'm fine with spreading, HOWEVER, after the 1AC/1NC, I expect you to slow down and truly extend your arguments. Simply reading taglines and not explaining the merits of a card will not count.

-policy is a highly technical form of debate and you should adhere to the specifics of the style. That being said, your arguments must have truth to them.

-CP permutations must be explained. You cannot simply say "perm do both" and not bother explaining and arguing it. Be creative with it!

-Theory args are fine, but make sure your links are specific (especially on kritiks). Explain your links well and make sure you can accurately apply them to the aff.

-Do your impact calculus. Tell me why your impact matters.

LD:

-Same thing on speaking as policy, if it is progressive PLEASE slow down after the first set of speeches and truly explain your ev.

-Your case must be the one that better fits the value criterion and framework of the round. Whoever better solves for the value usually wins.

-See above on theory and speaking

PF:

-IMPACT CAL, make sure you tell me why your impact matters and why it o/w

-Do your impact calculus and weighing in the summary speeches, the final focus is too little too late

-Extend your arguments well

-Progressive is fine, I will buy theory args, kritiks, disclosure theory, paraphrase theory, etc. But make sure any theory args aren't unnecessary.

Congress:

-Please have clash

-Have fun with roleplaying as a lawmaker, that's what makes Congress fun

-Ask questions

-Please don't be boring. Congress rounds are long, so having an interesting intro and conclusion makes it a lot more fun

-Don't keep repeating args other people have made throughout the round.

-Later speeches must have clash and rebuttals in them

-Try to use at least 2:00 minutes of your speaking time

Above all, debate should be a fun event and a safe space. Debate can be stressful and I want to make sure you have a clear understanding. Have fun, get creative. I know I sound mean in this, but I promise you I'm nice. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me, just be respectful with it. If time allows, I will try to also give verbal critiques, and I will be writing everything down on your ballot.

Don't be afraid to email me if you have any questions post round. My email is aishups1923@gmail.com

Ethan Leo Schneider Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 5:51 PM EDT

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.

Dylan Sexton Hire 8 rounds

Chirjeev Singh Beacon Park

Amanda Sloan Coral Academy Of Science Las Vegas Middle School

Christina Momoko Smith Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 9:02 AM CDT

Christina Smith

Arkansas State University

Mainly an IPDA Debater but has PF and Congress experience

General

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

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

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

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

IPDA

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

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

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

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

Congress

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

PO Diane Song Beverly Hills High School None

Dorien Steadman LeapUp Learning

Bill Thompson Brentwood School Middle Division

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 4:06 PM EDT

EDIT: If there is an email chain please include me in the chain ThompsonBillM@gmail.com

In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged deep outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.

Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better your structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot

- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like

- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.

- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.

- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.

- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.

- Not a fan of tricks

- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.

PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

Jasmine Turnage Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 8:04 AM MDT

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.

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.

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

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 Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 4, 2020 at 11:19 AM CDT

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.

Lydia Veazey Hire 8 rounds

Madison Wyatt Hire 8 rounds

Trevor Wyatt Goodman Middle School

Darrell Yarbrough Hua Xia Chinese School - Katy 8 rounds None

Chance Young Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Cabot Classic Middle School and Junior High Invitational

2021 — Online, AR/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges