My achievements include eating an entire tub of Ben and Jerry’s in one sitting and being able to quote every episode of Criminal Minds

Slay the day, be gay :)

HISTORY:

4-year Public Forum Debater and 2-time National Qualifier. 4-year Original Orator and 3-time National Qualifier.

PF:

Flow judge who will be very sad if you don’t signpost :,(

I take prep for cards. I have final say for time!

If you tell me to look at a card, I will look at the card.

I value kindness and respect in every debate round. Zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. of any kind.

Have fun! Debate should be a friendly competition. I encourage making appropriate jokes and pop culture references that will make me laugh.

: My Credentials :] :

I debated LD all four years in South Dakota. I have judged LD and PF now for 4 years.

: General Info for All :

For speed, on a scale of 1(slow)-10(fast) I sit at a 5. If you go faster, as long as you are understandable and clear I won't get upset.

Don't be rude in round. If I see the debate turn into an attack on other opponents, I will vote you down. That is not the purpose of debate.

SIGNPOST. This is necessary for all types of debate I judge, greatly appreciated if I see clear signposting of points and arguments.

: LD :

I am pretty traditional, but if you debate circuit/policy arguments I will still vote for you as long as you make your arguments clear - if I'm judging you at a South Dakota tournament please avoid policy arguments :)

Need to see a value/criterion clash of some sort. That is a big factor in my decision and who best links to morality.

I will vote on line by line, but for the last Affirmative speech I prefer hearing Points of Crystallization or clear Voters. Tell me exactly why you win.

: PF :

As long as you give straight forward explanations of your points and arguments, you should be good. Don't give 'fluff' information, I can tell if you are not responding to an argument or an opponent's point.

Give me main Voters during your summary and final focus (this should be self explanatory but sometimes people don't do this).

: Policy :

I know the layout and arguments, but I am not well versed in critiks or higher level tech arguments. I have a very basic understanding of when I debated it my freshman year. However, if you make arguments clear I will still vote on them.

Hey awesome individual, you clearly aren't here for tea or to waste internet bandwidth so let's get right to the content

Credential (aka why should I think this guy's word on the ballot matters at all):

- Three-time NSDA national qualifier, two-time out-round breaker

- have debated on the national circuit competitively since 2017

- Donus D Robert award winner for outstanding performance in Public Forum Debate

- Active Debater and Interper at Simpson College studying Political Science

- If you do any event in front of me, chances are I've done it and will be the best judge in the room

Now that all of that is established, you obviously want to know specifics on your event. Well, I've got you covered.

ALL DEBATE FORMATS:

Email Chain: I would like to be added if it is created, my email is ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu

Public Forum:

Philosophy: I will prioritize the flow for voting before all else, as I see it debate is a game and flow is the only fair way to keep my hands off the decision as much as possible

Tech>Truth, however the more shaky an argument is the less it takes to address it. (Ex. Cutting the NSA surveillance leads to the end of the world because of Swiss Physics)

Tabula rasa in round, but be aware I often know the literature on topics so I can better help you and your partner be better throughout the topic.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.

Crossfire: I will not weigh arguments made in cross unless they are brought up in a main speech.

Front lining: For the first speaking team this should be done in summary, the second rebuttal must frontline the first rebuttal, or else my ballot is written after that assuming they don't fumble the bag.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if all of their impacts come true we still win and be right, then carry that through each speech, you've won my ballot.

New Arguments in Summary: Don't do it :)

Final Focus: Really crystallize the round in this speech. You only have 2 minutes so don't panic to extend the whole flow, my ink is already placed. In this speech tell me the thing standing that without a doubt can't be objected to by anyone viewing the round's flow. The final focus gets overlooked far too much and I think that's a tragedy.

Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry

- Blatant Racism or Sexism

- Taking way, way too much time to find a card

- Technical difficulties over online

Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.

Plans/Counterplans: I will listen to them in the sense that I will not actively cover my ears or mute my computer, but just know that the pro doesn't need to have a defined plan and you can't propose a counterplan as the CON according to section 4 of the PF rulebook so, don't do it :)

Critiques/K arguments: I am not and will not claim to be familiar with the current literature surrounding K arguments. Unless a resolution is truly vile in nature, I will often default to not weighing the K argument at all.

Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I won't weigh it at all. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9.9/10 times ill go with the ladder.

Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory

- Trigger Theory

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, continuous eye contact is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, well-placed meme references are the way to top speaker awards and my heart.

Any other questions just ask at the beginning of round

LD:

Philosophy:

I will vote on the flow, tech>truth, and all that. Something to know, however, is the shakier an argument made is the easier it is for weak opposition to it being enough to make me look away from it.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at 1NC and 2AR. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.

Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry

- Blatant Racism or Sexism

- Taking way, way too much time to find a card

- Technical difficulties over online

K Arguments: Sure, there aren't many rules barring this and while I won't claim to be constantly in the know on the climate and style of K debate, I think that especially in a format debating moral grounds that gives a platform for these arguments to be heard.

Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I will be less likely to weigh as a priority. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9/10 times ill go with the ladder.

Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory

• Trigger Theory
• Speed

Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, well-placed meme references are the way to top speaker awards and my heart.

Speech/Interp:

I always found that speech paradigms were redundant because there isn't a way to cater your speech to me unless somehow you edit your intro or something. I will say this on the matter as my top 5 biggest things

Annunciation

Characterization for Interp, Professionalism for speech

Use of Space/Blocking

Memorization

Cutting for Interp/Chosen Sources for speech

Interp Specific: Loud does not equal sad/emotion. Loud sometimes can equal funny, but please if at all possible have emotion be true to human nature. If I hear sad news I don't immediately grab a bullhorn and breakdown in hysteria, it is much more likely and relatable for any onlooker to your piece that emotion comes in subtle shades like the tone of the character's voice, the facial expressions, the body language, so many more things than the volume of the words being said.

If you ever have any questions or want further explanation of a decision I made or how to improve in your given category, just reach out to me at my email ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu

E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

Hi! I’m a debater at Lincoln High School (she/her). I've debated pf, congress, and policy on the local and national circuit. Be nice or go home. I do not tolerate discrimination; if you say something that is harmful/violent/oppressive to a population or an individual's identity, you lose. If you are debating someone clearly less experienced than you or a novice I expect you to be patient and kind, this is a learning environment. If you are rude or rub it in I will TANK your speaks. If there is anything I can do to make the round more comfortable for you let me know. I'm here FOR YOU.

email: dekramerabbie@gmail.com

email me if you have any questions/concerns before or after the round.

tech>truth

Run something crazy, educate me, engage me.

Keep your own time I won’t track prep/ speech time.

LINE BY LINE <3

PF-

1. I flow.

2. If you're looking for a judge to run something not traditionally “acceptable” in pf- HI!! ME!!!!! PLEASE!!! That would be sick.

3. Defense won't make you win- I vote on offense.

4. If your opponent calls for a card and you don't give it to them/ don't give them the correct card I'm not weighing it.

5. WEIGH & IMPX your arguments out!

6. The second rebuttal must respond to the first.

7. Voters- show me the cleanest way to vote. It's chill if you don't have voters in summary and just do line by line and then do voters in ff with crystallization.

8. Ped peev: Please don’t talk over one another in cx and try to make your answers short and sweet. Don't purposely make your answers 45 seconds to waste cx.

9. I hate paraphrasing, I think it's insanely abusive.

1. If you make a “theory” on a paraphrased case and impact it out for me (ie how it affects debate, hurts education, takes away your ground) and defend it accordingly- I'll vote on it.

2. BUT I will not vote you down (or incorporate my own bias) just for paraphrasing because I understand you can’t change your case for every judge.

10. I’m totally good with speed as long as you are clear. If it's not clear I will yell clear only so everyone in the debate can understand you. I don’t agree with dropping speaks for going fast. Your speaks will reflect if you were clear/funny/mean. If you make me laugh I will increase your speaks by .2

I can flow speed, but if I can’t understand you- I won’t flow it.

QUALITY of the blocks OVER the QUANTITY of blocks you can get out.

I don’t care if you’re mean- as long as you’re not personally mean. Attack arguments, not the person themselves.

DO NOT STEAL PREP!!! Or I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team.

DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren’t going to use them in your next speech!!! It’s SO annoying and wastes my time. I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said: ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don’t have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don’t waste my time.

Run whatever you want.

I’m not familiar with policy strategies, but if you explained it well enough maybe I could vote off it. If you’d like a chance of winning, maybe don’t though.

I would consider myself a tech judge, so speaking pretty doesn’t matter to me. You may be the better speaker, but that doesn’t mean you’re the better debater. I vote off arguments.

Make sure your arguments are cleanly extended.

I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!!

I DO NOT FLOW arguments in the crossfire. I take that time to write feedback in tabroom or look at my flow. BUT I do try and listen!! If I think you made a good point, I hope you bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it in the round. I think the point of crossfire is to catch your opponent lacking, so ask good questions and be on point.

Tell me what to vote on in your summary and follow that same story into final focus. If you don’t tell me what to vote on, I’ll vote on what I think is most important.

The round goes however you want it to go. I’m chill with anything & I’ll try my best to adapt to whatever you guys want me to adapt to.

Speaker points should always be good unless you do something to tank them!

Don’t stress too much and do your best!

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

If you have any questions after the round, my email is vikesgirl146@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

• off-the-clock roadmaps are preferable to on-time roadmaps, just make them brief.
• Ask for your own prep-time, always offered in 30 second intervals.
• Assume the judges can follow along, only ask if your opponent is ready prior to speaking.
• Ideal debater is killer but cordial. Be polite but go for the throat, make sense?
• Keep arguing framework and criterion, do not drop them. Heavy consideration is given there from me.

• Key to decipher ballots: A1a is Aff Cont.1, subpoint a. RA1a is the Neg response to Aff Cont.1, subpoint a.

Professionalism is important. Attacking your opponent's case is cool but when you do it without obviously showing aggression it's even cooler. I'll never have a bias for one side or the other. I vote simply off of how well you attacked your opponent's case and carried your arguments through the round. You can be as picky as you want when it comes to the other team's arguments. The more technical you are the better (plus picking at even simple wording and turning it into a big deal is interesting to watch. Just don't be mean about it). I don't flow cross fire because it's not an extension of any of your speeches. Take the time in cross fire to set your speeches up for success, not to introduce new evidence. I'm also comfortable with speed, just make sure you're speaking clearly so that I can understand you. If you talk fast and your words get all mixed and messed up, don't talk fast.

former pf debater from sf roosevelt

Prefs

---> run anything u want. run something unique. run something basic (if u wanna be basic ig?). just make it comprehendible and run it well and you'll have my ballot.

---> good with speed as long as I can flow it

----> evidence matters

the speech & debate community is the most amazing, accepting, inclusive, and intellectual space there is. remember to leave it better than u found it.

Hi debaters!

A little bit about me:

I was a public forum debater on and off in high school. I also participated in a few speech and oral interp events as well. I love judging and can't wait to see you're arguments! 

General: 

Off the clock roadmaps not only fine by me but very much appreciated! If you are still speaking when time runs out I'll let you finish your sentence/respond the question asked in cross-x. 

Public Forum: 

Keep your flow and arguments organized and you'll have my vote. The fastest way to lose (aside from being rude, racist, throwing chairs, etc.) is to muddle your arguments, lose focus on your main arguments, or not give me any voters. If I can't easily flow and follow your arguments, you've lost my attention. Make sure you follow your opponents arguments and pull through yours on the flow and at the end give some good voters. If the round is messy and hard to follow, the final focus is all that I'm going to remember. So just weigh your voters, organize your arguments, and speak clearly! As for frameworks, I'm not a fan but if you must use one, make sure that you are using it to frame the round with your voters. I don't just want a framework debate but if you're using them you HAVE to weigh how your side upholds your framework. Don't just ignore it. Also if your framework is cost benefit analysis, just drop it. PFO debate is naturally cost benefit analysis so don't stress about mentioning it. As for Ks: I'm not a fan. I'd prefer if you didn't. Also this just a pet peeve: but please before you start just ask "Is everyone ready?" its so much quicker than asking everyone in the room if they're ready (partner? opponent? judge?). Good luck!

LD: 

I'm not as knowledgeable on LD so be very organized with your flow and weighing your voters of the round! Also while I can follow it, I'd appreciate minimal jargon. 

Hey everyone!

I was a PF debater for 4 years, so I understand that style of debate well. As for policy and LD, I'm less experienced.

I consider myself to be a flow judge, so please make sure you signpost in your speeches or else I may not catch everything you say!

As for speeches, I'm really okay with whatever you want to do, just make sure that the FF includes where you are winning on the flow. Please give me reasons to vote for you!

PLEASE be respectful to those you are debating against! I love debate for the inclusivity, so just be a nice person!

Feel free to email me about any questions, or include me in any email chains: jaleigha.kambeitz@gmail.com

Maddie told me not to write a paradigm.

tl;dr: Read what's bolded.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

Also feel free to ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

——> Public Forum <——

Sometimes I get thrown into PF and I seriously question why. I prefer line-by-line analysis with smart analytics rather than you trying to dumb down your opponent's argument and then refuting a strawman. Go after their links, reduce the harm of their impacts, and outweigh.

——> Any Speech Event <——

I spent my debate career weaseling my way out of doing IE’s. I don’t have a TON of formal experience with it but I was the opening attorney for mock trial and I’ve done a decent amount of public speaking, so I know enough about what makes a good speech to follow along, but don’t have high hopes when it comes to technical feedback.

——> LD <——

tech > truth, generally. But if something is clearly counterintuitive and blatantly false you can probably wipe it off my flow by just telling me “this is clearly counterintuitive and blatantly false” with like an extra sentence of analysis.

Even though I can certainly handle flowing a bunch of responses down, and I understand the strategic appeal of doing so, I think I fall more on the side of leveling 1-3 responses to a contention rather than, say, five. Three responses to EVERYTHING that your opponent says is also probably pushing it. I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection. Also, what the heck is up with y'all extending a key drop in rebuttal but then never leveraging it? I've heard so many rebuttals start with something like pointing out that their observation went dropped, but then that's the last time I ever hear about it.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow. If you see me nodding along to something you say that means I thought of an argument and then you went on to say what I was thinking. If you do that then congrats, I think you're smart.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. I've seen too many rounds where someone runs util but then tries to get out of showing how they actually solve for their impacts. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 2+ minutes alone on framework? Let's do it! But it better have strategic value! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win your framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me. I find myself most convinced to buy someone's framework when they warrant it well and when attacking their opponent they do more than just read generics, but discuss specifically why the flaws in their opponent's framework expose the strength of their own.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted (that being said though, you should run Markley '23 :)), and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I used to be adamantly against them but have changed my mind in the past year. The burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative. If they can show that there is a separate moral obligation to pursue some other, mutually exclusive action, or that the fundamental logic/reasoning of the aff is flawed then that is a reason to negate. Therefore, I don't think either are abusive in an LD setting and if anything it's probably bad for fairness on certain topics if the neg just isn't allowed to provide some sort of alt to the aff. That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, but it is in your best interest to level arguments against Kritiks and CPs more than "this shouldn't be in LD" without warrants.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

I used to say at this point that I like topicality debates. I take that back. I expect to be in physical pain on this topic if y'all start to quibble about what countries are in the WANA region. Update: I was right! These debates do nothing but give me a headache.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

Yeah paraphrasing is probably bad for evidence ethics but my standard above applies, I just encourage y'all to exercise strict scrutiny if your opponent starts paraphrasing.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make a 2-3 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

I am currently a Political Science student a the University of South Dakota, and was a Public Forum and Congress debater at Lincoln High School, with some experience in policy.

PF:

Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you, I will shout "clear" if I cannot. I don't like paraphrase cases, but I know most teams run them in pf, just don't expect me to write down all of the authors names.

When extending, please warrant your extensions and do not simply say "extend the Johnson evidence."

Please refrain from identity politics, I really don't think it is fair to use race/gender orientation as an advantage in the debate space, and those arguments generally take away from the core of the topic.

I generally give high speaks unless you are rude in round or don't fill up time/don't try.

Empirical evidence is best

Probability> Magnitude> Timeframe

If no framework is given, I will default to cost benefit analysis.

Congress:

I have the most experience in this field. More speeches do not necessarily mean higher rankings. I expect you to take the round seriously, and joke/meme speeches will reflect poorly on your ranking, as will being rude. Unlike other SD judges, I will value the PO highly if they do their job correctly. Ask questions. It is the best way to stand out in the round.

Content>speaking ability>number of speeches

If I happen to be judging you in novice LD, make sure you are clear on impacts and convince me what to vote on, as I have no experience in that area and will otherwise judge it like I would a policy round.

Linus Ng

Public Forum Varsity Debater

What I Want To See:

-CLASHING AND WEIGHING! Tell me why your evidence is better than your opponent's! Tell me why I should vote for your warrants and impacts vs theirs! I get it, it's hard but it really changes the outcome of the round.

-SIGNPOSTING! Tell me what you are responding to and where you are in the flow because if I don't flow it, it doesn't go towards my voting.

-GOOD SPEAKING! Speak normally. Don't speak too fast or I might miss important points that could've had influence on my voting. Don't speak too slow or you're wasting time where you can get more evidence in. Be respectful towards your opponents and only interrupt during cross if they are going off on tangents. Remember, all of this will go toward your speaking score!

-IMPACTS, WARRANTS, AND LINKS! This is huge! You need to have good impacts and warrants for those impacts to tell me why I should vote for your side. You also need to link them together well to show a clear narrative.

-NARRATIVE! If you don't bring something through a speech, you can't bring it up in a later speech as I won't take it into account on my voting. You're only allowed to bring up new info in Constructive and Rebuttal! And if you're opponent brings something new up in Summary or Final Focus, feel free to call them out, respectfully, in one of your speeches. That way it will make things easier on me to flow.

-GOOD USE OF TIME! Use ALL your prep...even if you don't need it, look over your evidence! It never hurts! I will take note if you don't use all of your prep and if you go over your prep (by a significant amount).

-CONFIDENCE! Make it look like you're winning. If you look like you don't want to be there, neither will I. Don't be rude to your opponents but don't give up, even if you think you're losing.

One last thing, NO looking up anything while you're in a debate! You use what you have. I will try and disclose and give feedback after the round if we have time. Bonus: Tell me your favorite movie before a round starts for +0.5 speaking points! Do not tell anyone else about this, as you get a bonus for reading my paradigm! Happy debating!

Include me on the email chain: Rnold042302@gmail.com

Speed preferences (Please read):

PF: Should not be a policy speed, but a faster pace is ok as long as you are clear. It is still your job to make sure that you emphasize/slow down on the most important points you are making. Basically, if you want me to flow it, make sure its clear.

Traditional LD: Between pf and policy, National Circuit: See policy below

Policy: 6/10. I did policy for 3 years, so I'm exposed to spreading. However, I would still prefer not too fast of a round. This isn't a traditionalist preference, but more of a matter of general accessibility for me. You can still spread to an extent, but it needs to be comprehensible. I should be able to get your arguments clearly even without the email chain (Although I would like to be on the email chain). If I think you are being too fast or not clear enough, I will try to say clear, but it is still on you to emphasize and make sure I get your key points. Don't worry about this too much, just remember not to go too speedy.

General "TLDR" about me as a judge :

I did policy for three years and public forum my senior year, but I also have some experience with Lincoln Douglass. I am currently a student at University of Alabama.

I am most likely familiar with a wide variety of types of arguments you would likely run in the round, but don't assume you don't have to do the work to flesh out the arguments you present in the round well.

First and foremost- Run what you are best at. I'd rather see a good debate than what I prefer personally. This doesn't mean you have a free pass to run super bad args but don't feel like you have to completely fit the round around me.

I'm basically Tabula Rasa. Give me a framework/Framing and Ill go with it until it is refuted or dropped. That goes for aff and neg. I would say that I minimize my interference in the round and with my paradigm as much as possible, and when I do have to make decisions (especially on theory) I try to go with whichever debate norms presented (aff/neg) maximizes education in the round (I take into account impacts like accessibility, racism, discrimination, etc as a part of education, so don't shy away from these args in theory).

Policy Specific:

Case Debate: I will vote probably not vote on solvency or case-takeouts alone (unless there are link/impact turns read). neg still needs to extend offense, otherwise I'll probably be very open to Aff "if there's a 1% chance..." type arguments.

CP's- I default to sufficiency framing. The cp's viability as a winning argument (barring theory) is essentially a product of how much it resolves aff impacts and the magnitude of the net benefit. On neg, be clear on what the net benefit is and how the cp doesn't link. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. This makes it easier for me to resolve arguments on the perm debate level.

For AFF- Perms are the best, but I'm definitely open to other stuff. Theory is good too, condo, specific to the cp, etc., as long as it is warranted out and you provide me with how they violate the theory arguments. Multiple perms are generally ok-ish, but if they are fairly unique or if a perm is similar to a previous perm, you have to highlight the differences otherwise I'm lenient on allowing neg cross-applications of perm answers.

K's-

I am fine with critical debate on both sides, but I need the link story to be clear for me on the flow. Also, pleaseeeeeeee understand and effectively explain the alt. I need to know how the alt resolves the links, solves for the impacts outlined, etc. Too many affs let the neg get away with not explaining the alt well enough. Even if its not "vague", push neg on this.

K affs are definitely chill, you do you. But if neg pushes framework, make sure you have good answers to the TVA. It doesn't have to be a super in depth arg, but I should see something in the 2ac/1ar about why defending the resolution or a TVA of your K aff is bad. Also unless it strictly does not work with your K, please please please try to have some type of /alt/advocacy statement to act as a stable point for neg-testing.

On neg- I'm most familiar with the cap k and wildersonian afropess args, but you are cool to run whatever as long as you explain it well and make sure I understand the story of the K. Don't assume I know your lit. Also, you will likely need to reduce speed on these arguments given my likely unfamiliarity with the specific literature.

T- Default to competing interps but can be convinced otherwise. Also, on aff don't just say "reasonability". Reasonability also requires extension of a counterinterp or you must win we meet bc Reasonability means we meet a reasonable interp of the Resolution. It's not a wishy washy justification of tangentially topical affs.

Theory: I'm open to most all things, but a caveat: I'm not a big fan of generic wiki-based disclosure arguments (unless it is centered around some other impact like accessibility or taken in a critical direction). If I can tell you are just reading generic "Your aff wasn't listed on the wiki so you should lose" I'll listen to it but I will let you know I don't think its a great argument unless it is tied to deeper accessibility or fairness norms (i.e, tell me a story and give me meaningful impacts). You have to prove why this is a reason to drop the debater. Neg has a higher threshold for winning this than T in my eyes.

LD- I'm most familiar with traditional value-framework LD, but Plans are ok on more progressive circuits or if both debaters are ok with it (but then neg also gets full access to cps and K's). In traditional debates, I first decide which value is to be used in the round (based on arguments made), and then look to see which side maximizes that value. Dropping your framework is ok in my book if you can win under your opponents framework.

I'm also open to more critical arguments or circuit debate styles as long as general accessability to the debate is maintained for both debaters. However, If aff takes a traditional ld approach w/o a plan, neg needs to argue why they (the neg) should get conditional advocacies (this is definitely an uphill battle). For more info on my paradigm for progressive circuit ld style, see ^ for policy.

PF-

I default to hypo testing for public forum. The game is one of "resolution: true or false?" This is similar to what you're normally used to in pf so nothing mainly different. The key difference is that this isn't only just squo versus pro world, but instead a test of the resolution as a truth claim. Therefore, con can make arguments that aren't the squo as long as they don't read a specific plan or advocacy. I repeat, No plan statements or specified advocacies!

Please give me impact comparison in the final speeches (Time, magnitude, probability, etc) to help me do an effective cost-benefit analysis on the topic (if that is the framework of the round). I will also admit i'm a sucker for a story. Cohesive impact narratives are much easier to vote on than messy disconnected ideas.

Critical arguments are ok, but no alts/plans. Theory is also ok, but I'll admit personally I'm not a big fan of wiki disclosure based theory args (see policy section for more). That doesn't mean its not a viable option, just you need to show actual in round harms.

Other than that, have fun!

(Any questions on my paradigm? Feel free to email me or ask before the round begins)

Other Notes:

-Feel free to use all of cx even if you don't have more great questions. It's free prep for your partner. I won't dock speaks for this unless it is egregiously bad.

hihi i’m good with speed i’m probably like a 7/9 i did pf and ld 2 years each so i’m kinda familiar with formats

BUT i have terrible organization for rounds and i focus super hard on rebuttal. if you smoke someone in rebuttal you basically win unless u really clearly summarize points at end of round i am super lazy. mostly i prefer line by line but i’m ok with voters.

i’m more familiar with traditional debate so please explain kritiks, counterplan, theory args (i get the gist of them but please clarify)

random things:

tech > truth because i think truth judges kinda do the work for debaters sorry, but if your opponent says something blatantly wrong just give me 2 words on it like "this is untrue call for card" i will call for card and flow that through.

i said i’m good with speed BUT only do speed if u need to (not the drug lol). what i mean is dont talk fast for the sake of talking fast like “ooh i’m so good at reading args quickly oooh” like i don’t care about that, i want u to show me that you know the argument you’re running not just reading off cards. if you use speed to just try to disorient your opponent i think that’s smelly.

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

Tech over truth.

I did policy.

Give a roadmap.

Signpost

I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

LD--I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, and clarity of thought. Please don't spend the entire round debating value/criterion/framework or philosophy; your contentions count too!

Speed

Rapid conversational

I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the Rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable.

Theory/Kritik

I more than welcome you to use your speech time to advocate for any issues you believe in and to educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the ballot for that.

Tips

I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or you have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting.

When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy looking face. Don’t think I am in disagreement with what you are saying because of this.

In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their own case. If you are able to actually defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. If time allows and you are able to do so, I wouldn’t mind a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech. On the same note, if the other team does drop key arguments on case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.

For the final focus, you should select two or three main voting issues. The last 15-20 seconds of the speech should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that works better for you.

Roadmaps are off the clock for me

If you ask me to call for evidence for it to be evaluated, I will.

Please don't try and avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. I believe evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate, try to be as upfront as possible.

I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground, and someone who is using rudeness as a way to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.

Policy-I have debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Policy maker.

LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.

I'm an undergraduate student at Middlebury College where I compete on the debate team in British Parliamentary. During my high school debate career, I placed top 4 at nationals in Lincoln Douglas, and I'm a two time Lincoln Douglas state champion. I also attained state champion for United States Extemporaneous Speaking, and I competed for two years in Public Forum.

email (for chains ONLY): honeydew.kira@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/they/them

General debate preferences:

Tech > truth, I focus on the arguments made in the round. I won't make the arguments for you. I hate interfering my thoughts in the round, you should be doing the work for me.

I'm okay with speed, but don't be abusive. I can understand fast speech (probably 8/10), but I think that if you are speaking fast, you have to be making good, purposeful arguments. I'm personally not a huge fan of using it just to try to confuse your opponent.

I think this goes without saying but don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Hate does not have a place in debate.

While I am not necessarily a flow judge, I still think flowing is important. If your opponent drops something, point it out and blow it up. A response that hasn't been interacted with can create an easy path to the ballot.

I want warrants for cards; don't just tell me to extend your evidence. A clearly warranted card will always mean more than telling me to prefer your article because the person who wrote attended a prestigious school. If you ever say "I don't know know, that's what the study/card says", it's probably a bad sign. Also, I mostly don't flow card names, I often miss them in constructive (unless you emphasize in later speeches) because I focus more on what you're arguing than what the source is. Thus, saying "extend Washington '22" doesn't really mean anything to me. You have to do more work than that.

Weighing and voters are never a bad thing, don't be afraid to use them.

I will read cards if you ask for me to call for them. Otherwise, I probably won't unless it is very important in the round. If you know that your opponent is misusing evidence and tell me to call for that card, I will. If I find that someone is blatantly abusing evidence, depending on the severeness, I will consider voting them down just for that.

In my opinion, debate should always be a productive space where competitors can learn and grow and thus treat their opponent with respect. If you violate this and are explicitly rude, I will be very hesitant to vote for you. Even if you are going against someone who is competing in varsity for the first time, you should treat them with kindness and respect.

I DO NOT WEIGH NEW ARGUMENTS MADE LATE IN THE ROUND. Of course, extending arguments or explaining why your original argument/response still stands is fine. I think that new arguments made past this are inherently abusive because 1. the function of those latter speeches is not to continue to make new arguments 2. it's unfair to your opponent because they cannot respond efficiently/effectively that late.

If you include a reference to K-pop in any of your speeches, I will give you +0.1 speaker points :)

I have specific comments on the types of debate I am most familiar with below, if your type of debate is not listed, please refer to general preferences above. My specific preferences ONLY apply to those types of debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm fine with K's and most other miscellaneous policy arguments as long as you can explain them and why they are preferrable to vote for in round. Don't run a Cap K and say to vote for it just because capitalism is bad. HOWEVER, I normally don't like counterplans. This is just a personal judging preference; I think it can be an unfair burden for the affirmative to have to attack a bunch of alternatives that the neg can come up with because it heavily skews the debate towards the negative (since there are tons of other things that could potentially resolve a problem). I find that they are often provided without warrants and thus not competitive. While it not abusive in all cases, I think that it often can be. Just because one alternative might be good doesn't deny that the resolution could also be beneficial to pursue; if you want to use a CP, you have to warrant why it is preferrable, not just why it can also resolve the issue. I am okay with a different option being used to show that it has higher effectiveness than the stance the aff takes as long as it is warranted. If you are just listing off a bunch of alts, that's probably a bad sign. But since it is a nuanced topic, depending on the way it's run/attacked, I might be fine with it even if you don't run it in the way I prefer. STILL, I WILL NOT VOTE YOU DOWN JUST FOR HAVING A CP. BUT if your opponent argues in the round why the CP is abusive to the burden of the affirmative (having to argue against too many random solutions, not focus of topic, etc), I am likely to buy that.

I'm a strong believer that solvency doesn't necessarily need to be discussed in Lincoln Douglas debate since it is based on morality. HOWEVER, if you are running an argument that relies on solvency (ie: the affirmative is moral because minimizing environmental harms reduces oppression), it is not something you can get around. In my opinion, some degree of solvency towards (in this example) reducing environmental harms has to be guaranteed, otherwise it doesn't make sense to vote for the affirmative without access to impacts. As long as your case doesn't revolve around solvency, you do not need to show that everything is solved for me to vote for you.

I'm also a strong believer that the job of the negative is to disprove the affirmative, not outline a counterplan or solve for the issues that affirmative outlines. How each negative debater can go about disproving the affirmative is up to the interpretations provided in the round, but the default for the negative is not to advocate for the opposite of the affirmative or solve for the aff's issues.

I will never vote someone down because they use a philosopher that committed some irrelevant harmful action/ideas. I believe that philosophy can be separated from the philosopher because, after all, philosophy is based on random bodies of thoughts on human action, not just one person. Even if Locke said or did something harmful, that doesn't change what his moral theory said or change that it has been beneficial, creating a whole body of philosophy still used in modern day. (But general criticisms are fine, just not ones saying that a philosopher said something sexist)

I absolutely LOVE value/criterion turns. If you can find a way to turn your opponent's framework, that is a wonderful way to outline your path to the ballot.

Value criterion debate is huge part of what makes Lincoln Douglas special compared to other types of debate. Please don't forget about it in the round; I am a huge fan of a well-functioning framework.

Public Forum:

WAY more than Lincoln Douglas, warranting is incredibly important for me in Public Forum. Especially if both sides have evidence which disagrees with each other, I want you to provide analysis not only on why your evidence stands more but also on why your opponent's falls. I will not do the work for you. Weighing is also incredibly important since Public Forum defaults on a cost benefit analysis framework. Thus, if one side can show me more benefits/harms it becomes far easier to vote for them.

Avoid hyper-specific topic jargon if I am in the back of your round. Although I competed in two years of Public Forum, I spent the bulk of my time involved with Lincoln Douglas Debate. While I will most likely be familiar with the basics of the topic, I will not know all of the lingo.

I outline most of the rest of my preferences in my general debate preferences, so refer back to those.

If you have questions about a specific preferences, feel free to ask me at any point.

TL:DR - Don't be abusive with evidence or make new arguments late in round. Be respectful. Use weighing/voters and warrant your evidence. Ask me to call for cards you think are abusive/need to be read. I am not a fan of using speed just to confuse your opponent.

Hello. I have been involved as a judge for speech and debate for the past 10 years. I debated in LD and Policy in high school and briefly participated in Parliamentary Procedure in college.

The debate round is your time to demonstrate argumentive and speech skills to convince me of your case. I will evaluate the round as I am told to, but I need the debaters to close for a specific way for me to evaluate the round. If I am not told how to judge the round, I will default as a policymaker judge and evaluate that way.

A few things to consider for arguments:

I am cool with procedural debate to an extent, but I need clear evidence that there was a violation and that there is a specific rule in the handbook that was violated for me to vote on it.

I will vote on T if Neg can prove case is not topical. On the flip side, Aff can totally run a non-topical case if they are really good at arguing through T. If Neg closes for T with an a priori voter and doesn't address the T first, I assume they don't believe in the argument and I'll throw it out of the round.

Aff should have a prima facia case (debate 101 with Paul Harens here). It drives me crazy when the 1AC completes the case without ever reading Inherency and everyone in the room ignores it like it didn't happen. I've voted on Gap Inherency so many times when it is proven in round to be the case.

Disads and CPs are the bread and butter of policy debate in my mind. Not every scenario should lead to extinction, but some do. Nuke war is just another hyperbole, but it lets us discuss the best way to address the harms presented by the case and weigh the solvency of case. If we go for a policymaker decision, please use impact calc to give me a clear reason to vote the round.

I don't live in the debate world. I am just a person that enjoys participating in the activity and watching students grow into great communicators. That said, I am probably out of the loop on the hottest lit for the K right now. I'll listen to it, but the theory and the narrative need to be consistent and clear for me to evaluate. If I get confused on how to interpret it, communication broke down and I am not wholly responsible.

I will vote presumption if Neg calls for it; however, I will need to be convinced that there is no net-solvency to pass plan to do so.

Couple other notes:

I still contribute to killing trees at tournaments, so don't assume that I'll have a laptop to take a copy of case and not flow the round.

Speed is cool with me to an extent. I probably have a tolerance of 6.5 on a scale 1-10. Look, I like some of that Sound Cloud mumble rap out there, but I don't really like mumble speed reading. Be fast, but be clear. I also like to stay organized, so please slow down on signposting and tagging so that I can keep with the debate on my flow.

It is okay to ask for post-round comments, but I will tell you if I feel like disclosing or not. If I tell you I am not going to, don't try to push for it. It won't work.

Experience: I competed in Public Forum for 6 years in North Dakota and am a past state champion in this event and a national qualification. Additionally, I competed on the National Circuit sparingly for 4 years. I competed in Extemp for 5 years in North Dakota/South Dakota and competed in International Extemp at the national tournament for 3 years. Lastly, I competed in Congress for 3 years but only at the local level (ND).

Judging PF: I'm looking for a good, clean round of debate. Be polite, act with class, and don't lose your cool. The team that extends the most impacts of their own and turns, delinks, disproves, or indicts the other teams will win the round 99 times out of 100 for me. I can keep up with nearly any speed but if you are going to talk fast please be experienced enough to enunciate. Truth is king, I don't believe tech should exist. Solvency won't win you the round. I strongly believe that solvency doesn't have a place in Public Forum because it is impossible to solve. If you can solve for poverty, war, climate change, etc. in a 45-minute round, I will personally fly you to the UN and you can go solve it. Extend the impacts, use logic and sources to disprove, persuade me. OFF THE CLOCK ROAD MAPS DONT EXIST. IF YOU START TALKING I START THE TIMER. I don't flow crossfire so if you want to garner offense from it, bring it up in a speech.

Judging LD: I have much less experience in LD however I still know what the basis of the event is. I am still looking for a clean round here too. Solvency doesn't exist in this event either. There's a reason a policy round is 90 minutes long. You cannot solve a moral/ethical issue with real-world implications in your 6-minute speech in a 45-minute debate round. Impacting is still king here. Sources are not as important but the clearer you pull them through the flow the more offense you have the opportunity to gain. I NEED a Value/Criterion Clash. Whoever wins this usually wins my ballot but can be swayed if both sides concede to the same V/C or if one side better upholds both V/C without a clear winner on the clash itself.

Judging Speech: If you're in a more rigid event, i.e. either extemp, inform, oratory, etc. keeping it light or incorporating comedic relief is great. Keeps the judge happy and engaged. Other events I take at face value.

Good luck.

I am an experienced Public Forum debater.

I am okay with fast speaking as long as you are speaking clearly. I will give high speaker points.

Unlike many other judges, I do listen to cross-fire, please be respectful, but do not shy away from clash. I am not very picky on cross-fire, I enjoy heated crossfires, (while also being respectful.)

I will believe what you are saying unless the information seems completely false. I may call for cards at the end of the debate.

Framework: If it is brought up by in the constructive and not mentioned until the final focus, I will not vote on it. If you are presenting framework, you need to show how your case fits the framework throughout the debate.

This does not apply as much to online debate, but, I will not accept post-round arguments or comments against your opponents. Examples of this are thing such as, telling me to call for your opponents card (s) because they are false, after the round. (I know it rarely happens, but it is frustrating)

Condensing on specific voters in summary and final focus is very important if you want me to vote for you. I also like signposting and roadmaps (as many judges do).

Weighing is also critical. I feel this is a fundamental debate skill in the first place but, please remember to weigh in-round.

I do not really have a preference on tech or truth, whichever is presented better, I will vote on.

Have fun!