Hey, guys. I want to congratulate you all for all of the hard work you have put into this season so far.

Some background: I was on my debate team in high school for all four years and was the captain my senior year. My main event was public forum, although I also competed in congress when I had the opportunity. I am currently an assistant coach at Huntington High School.

I will only be judging public forum, so my paradigm will only be guided by that event.

First speeches: I will be paying attention to your framework provided in your first speech to make sure that it is carried throughout the round. If you are not consistent, your case will look weak. If you spend too much time during the round taking down your opponent's contentions and do not spend enough time upholding your own or do not discuss your own beyond the first speech, I will assume that you have dropped them. In general, I will be flowing everything from this speech to make sure that you remain consistent throughout the round and carry it through to your final focus.

Rebuttal: First rebuttal must address all points made by the opponent's first speech. If anything is left out, I will assume you have dropped it. Second rebuttal must address all points made in the opponent's first speech AND the opponent's rebuttal. If anything is left out or you do not defend your contentions, I will assume you have dropped them. Make sure you make time in these speeches to uphold your own contentions while still responding to your opponent's contentions. If a contention is not addressed by either party in the round, even if it is only brought up again in the final focus, I will assume it has been dropped.

Summary: Make sure you use this speech to actually summarize the round. I know how tempting it is to make this a second rebuttal speech. While you can have some of those elements, make sure you are effectively summarizing what held up on your end, the arguments you already made against your opponent, and why you are winning the round.

Final Focus: Anything that is not flowed to the final focus will be dropped. No new arguments can be made here, and no new evidence will be considered.

General notes: Sign post. Evidence is important to me, but paraphrasing is alright, as long as you can provide the evidence if your opponent asks for it. Weigh your arguments thoroughly. Prove to me why your argument is generally more important than theirs or why your conflicting evidence is more important. Lay out your impacts. Prove to me that your arguments are unique. Make sure all weighing and impacts are provided before the final focus. To re-cap, your final focus should be laying out exactly what happened in the round and why you won. I flow cross. Don't grandstand during cross and make sure you answer the question. Ask questions. Use your time wisely.

Post-round: I will provide feedback if I am able. I will not ask for sources unless absolutely necessary. Do not try to argue post-round or in between speeches.

Good Luck!

Make your points and arguments clear and clearly organized. Don't tell me "this is Contention 1" or, "in subpart B."

More is not better and fast is not persuasive . Being able to hear each word is necessary but not sufficient.

Clear and Concise are far more persuasive than being loud and speaking fast. Salesmen talk fast, advocates speak persuasively.

In Rebuttal, clash arguments and not attack opponents.

On Cross, don't interrupt. Ask your question or give your answer. Talking over, interrupting and other rudeness undermines your credibility.

Use evidence to support arguments, don't use evidence as a substitute for argument.

Don't say "I have a card," tell me the evidence on your card. Also, don't offer a citation as though it stands in the place of its evidence.

Use your notes but don't read your speech.

Final Focus should be your "Closing Argument" Tell the Factfinder (Judge) why to vote for your side.

Lastly, enjoy the experience. Debate should be fun. I know the stakes are high, but Nobody is going to jail today.

I am a lawyer of 20 years, who has been judging speech and debate for the past two years. I prefer you use terminology that is easy to follow and do not spread. I will have hard time following. First and foremost, I look at the debate as a whole, and appreciate well structured and organized arguments and rebuttals. Cross examination will give me a look into your understanding of the topic but will not be mainly what I vote on. The evidence and warrants you use to support your argument need to be factually based with reason to support them. Overall you need to persuade me. Don't focus as much on the number of points you carry, but the quality of the arguments and impacts that will result.

Current School Affiliation

Chair, Depart of English, Elkins High School

Education Entrepreneurship Graduate Student, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education

Speech & Debate Program Coordinator, Randolph County Schools

Elkins High School (Elkins, WV)

2016-present

Elkins Middle School (Elkins, WV)

2019-present

Experience as a Competitor

I did not participate in speech and debate activities until I was in college. The program at Davis & Elkins College was primarily focused on public debates and less so on competitive speech and debate. My time at D&E lead me to see the value of debate to shape and improve public discourse. Additional details about my experience are below.

Davis & Elkins College (2013-2016)

Public Debate (debates on campus and in the community, Madison Cup @ James Madison University, iDebate Rwanda)

College Forensics Association (Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, Poetry Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, Communication Analysis, Informative Speaking, After Dinner Speaking, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking)

Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy

Overview I'm a traditional coach in a traditional circuit that has a general knowledge of progressive LD. However, I am willing to accept CPs, DAs, and Ks, but please be mindful of your opponents/judges ability to adapt. However, I am not likely to vote on theory arguments unless the violation is very abusive.

Speed I'm cool with speed, but be aware of how technology impacts how you are heard.

TL;DR I vote on impact. I want to hear why your argument matters. I will give preference to the debater that does the best job of showing the impact of negating or affirming the resolution.

General Debate Philosophy

1. I judge on impact. Tell me why your argument matters.

2. Create strong links between your claims and your evidence.

Background: I've been involved in every area of debate for around 8 years now. I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS, WV) and three semesters of collegiate debate (Marshall University). I am currently a masters student in chemistry at Marshall University. My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience is in NFA-LD (single-person policy). I coached high school debate for four years during my undergraduate years in Huntington, WV (PF, LD, and Congress). Also broke LD at NSDA (senior, HS), NCFL (Junior, HS), and NFA nationals (Freshman, College).

NFA-LD

I'm fine with speechdrop or an email chain (brndn3379@gmail.com).

High level things for you to know about me: I'm out of the loop on the topic, so don't assume that I know topic specifics (except for the chemistry/physics behind nuclear weapons..). I can keep up with whatever pace you want to go at, but I don't flow off the doc (especially important for T shells and long analytics; if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it). Default competing interps on T/theory, default util, default layering for me is Theory/T > K > plan/CP. Conditionality is good (you can still run condo bad), multi-condo is probably less good. I find myself to be very tech > truth, but also find myself increasingly skeptical of bad arguments that are executed well (this hasn't changed my decisions as of yet). NFA-LD rules is a bad voter generally, but if you are going to use it, then please justify why I should care about the rules. I am probably going to be more tolerant of less serious arguments than most judges, but I'm not going to be happy if those arguments aren't at least executed well.

Disclosure is good, I ran disclosure theory, I will vote on disclosure theory, but a note from me is that I prefer disclosure shells to include in-round resolvability. Basically, if you include something like "if they agree to start posting starting with this round, I'll drop the shell" is what I like to see because I tend to think that 1 - it is the best way to get people on board with disclosure and 2 - there are small school debaters that genuinely may not have known about the norm or how to do it (I was one of them at the start of my collegiate career). It isn't a must (if you make arguments that the lack of disclosure skewed this particular round, that's sufficient for me to vote on disclosure anyways), but it is my general preference.

On T, I typically err on the side that potential abuse is sufficient to vote on T. Proven abuse is always more compelling, but I view T broadly as a test of what the topic should look like, not what it does look like. TVAs are also not essential, but can help for particular AFFs (ones that very much seem to be in the realm of the topic, but your interp seemingly excludes).

Most of the stuff in the below section for HS LD applies to NFA-LD for me, but feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

LD (HS, Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round in comparison to your opponent's framework. Also, please link arguments to both frameworks when possible, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument in the event you lose framework (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never debated skep/permissibility, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020/21/and 22 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. If you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x, then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it. Conditional Ks often feel like perfcons, but I'm not going to say anything if the AFF doesn't.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only respond to one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and permissibility are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments and the warrants are sensible.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: Much more likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, maybe not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (HS, Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All speeches must respond to the previous speech (except for the 2nd constructive, duh). Defense is not sticky, so respond to it. I'm fine with smaller responses and then blowing them up if your opponents go for that defense in summary/FF. Most specifically, FF should only extend from summary. If it wasn't in summary, it is not going to be on my FF flow. With all this being said, it should be obvious that it is best to collapse early in front of me (you realistically should be doing this in front of any judge, but whatever).

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use. Weighing is also important on T/theory, so if you choose to run those, I need a clear idea of why I should care about predictability/limits/ground/etc.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF (but not preferred at all, I am willing to vote on paraphrasing bad). Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me (by this, I mean being hostile about your questioning of my RFD. I am totally fine having a discussion about the round because that can be incredibly valuable, but I don't want an aggressive environment). I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

Hello, I'm Kate, a senior at Eastern Michigan University. I have been out of the debate for awhile now, and my paradigm might be a little outdated. With that, this is what I know and what will help you understand how to best win me over as a judge :)

In short, my paradigm depends on what event you are competing in, so I will break all that down below. For the most part, please be kind. Do not be rude or condescending in the round. My speaker points usually range from 25-30. If you are rude during a round, I will drop you. I am considerate of all tech issues that may arise, as I am not that tech-savvy myself. Please be mindful and do not take advantage of this.

I do not disclose in rounds, no matter the event. I have never seen the education or advantage of disclosure, so I tend to favor not disclosing unless I have to.

For world schools

Worlds Schools Debate relies on style and strategy. I believe this to be a conversational debate where rhetoric and argumentation can come into play. As a third speaker, this should not be another rebuttal. I want to see the breakdown of arguments through either questions or key areas of analysis. You should be answering at least three questions each speech, and I am okay with multiple people asking points at the same time. With that, please be respectful and mindful of the speaker. Points of clarification are also fine but keep them brief: these are not rebuttals. There are no follow-ups in Points of Information, so be concise with your wording when asking a question.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask before the round. I will not go over my entire paradigm with you. Please do not ask me what my paradigm is, as I will be very angry with you :(

For LD

If you are in LD, do not look at my policy paradigm, they are separate for a reason. I was a traditional debater all through high school, but I was also successful on the national circuit, so I know my way around progressive LD. I am okay with speed but not spreading: there is a time and place for spreading, and it is not in LD. also, for most of my debates, I would say I am truth>tech.

YOU MUST HAVE A VALUE AND A VALUE CRITERION. There is no plan text in LD, there is no solvency on the aff. If you plan to run a counterplan, don't. If you do not have these or plan to run these, you do not want me as a judge. I believe this is a philosophical debate, and thus you should focus on the framework heavily throughout. I really hate theory and would not like to see it, often times it gets very abusive and I cannot follow it.

Cross-examination is always my favorite, and I like it when used wisely, so take advantage of that without being rude. I have to see the clash to find a winner. Clash on whose evidence was better or more recent doesn't cut it. I want to know who had the better impacts, value, weighing mechanism- this should also show up in your KVIs in the last speech.

For PF

I would rather see clash on arguments than cards. pf is an on-balance debate which means that at the end of the round, you should be telling me what you are winning and how you out-weigh on impacts, solvency, framework, etc. every speech should essentially be different and have its own reasons for being there, so I don't want constant rebuttals throughout the whole round. I appreciate the whole picture of what the pro and con worlds look like.

speed is okay, but don't spread, and please sign-post throughout the round and the speeches. I want to know what I am putting on my flow and where it needs to go. line-by-lines are also cool in pf. If you are calling for cards you should have a pretty good reason to call the card I think more time is simply wasted on calling for every single piece of evidence when you aren't even making an attack on the evidence you do call.

For Policy

I am a tech>truth for policy so please make sure that if you are running arguments you are not running them to waste time but to win them. I am okay with speed and spreading as long as I have the doc and you slow the tags down for me. I am more familiar with stock issues within the debate, but I am a tabula rasa when it comes down to it. I really don't like affKs so be aware and try to avoid them around me as much as possible. If you want to win with me as a judge, tell me what you have won and how you have won it in the 2NR and 2AR, and if you are running something you know I don't particularly like, spend more time on it.

topicality- only run this if you plan to keep it in the 2NR, but if not then don't run it just to waste time. I am all too familiar with running T on a random word just to waste your opponent's time, but I would rather see fewer arguments and more impacts.

Ks- I really don't like Ks all too much unless it is a really fleshed-out K that not only makes sense but also creates a valuable debate. I think there are a ton of really good Ks that you can find, I am more familiar with: Cap K, Neolib, Hauntology, psychoanalysis K, and afropes K. I know some of these can be a little older but if you know of Ks that might be similar then it would be best to try that then something that is like way off. YOU MUST HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. I have seen too many Ks run without alts which kind of defeats their purpose.

theory- not gonna lie I never ran theory as a policy nor LD debater, but I have seen it and I don't like it. often theory can get really abusive and if it comes to that within a round I will drop you for it. if you need to run theory then make it good and simple or I will not be able to follow it and thus I cannot vote on what I do not know.

CPs- they're great, I've always loved a good CP debate and would vote on these easily as long they are good and you have won it.

tag team CX is fine with me as long as it doesn't get too abusive and the person who is supposed to be asking and answering questions is the one mainly talking. I don't use prep when flashing evidence just don't abuse that or I will start timing it if I need to. if you have any questions or if I have missed anything pls ask any questions but pls read the paradigm. I will drop you for things that are not followed on the paradigm.

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Welcome back and I'm glad to be back for another year.  Here is my updated paradigm.  This has general information and then items specific to LD

PERSONAL:

I have been a coach for 22 years and I have judged all forms of speech and debate.  This means I am pretty open to any time of argument. I will go with what I hear in the round and will not input myself into the debate.  I am a judge, not a competitor so I will not inject myself into the debate.  You don't need to send me your case.  I only want to judge what I hear, not what I can read.  So while I am okay with speed and I can handle spreading, only use spreading in Policy.

DEBATE:

Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate.

LD

I am definitely more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. That doesn't do anything for me. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about.  I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it.  That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate.  Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me!  

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me reasons for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose unless required to and it will be brief. As a coach, I want the coaching to come from me and not the judges.  As I said earlier, I am not here to relive my competitive days so I won't explain all that I am thinking.  

Good luck!

Updated 11/09/23:

A little about me: I am a former high school Public Forum debater and WV State Champion and a former WVU College Policy debater. I also was a Speech competitor for all 4 years of high school (DI, OO, and POI were my events of choice). I am a current graduate student and federal employee. I have fairly in-depth knowledge of a lot of things covered in topics. I am not a lay judge, and can/will keep up and flow the entire round.

Paradigm: I will vote first based on my flow of the round. If you are dropping points consistently and not arguing the topic, that will cause you to lose. If I have two teams/competitors that covered each point, then I will vote based on the information provided and logic and arguments used.

Speed: I have no objections to speed as long as you speak clearly. I am used to people speaking pretty fast at me. I will not deduct your speaker points if you need to speak slower. Debate is an opportunity for learning and growth, so if you cannot speak fast, don't push yourself and mess up. Just try your best to make your words clear at whatever speed you're comfortable with.

PF:

Public Forum was my first debate love, so I find myself being harder on the debaters I watch in this event because I want you to be better. The most important thing to remember in PF is that NEG does not need to provide solvency for the topic and you should not introduce new information in the last set of speeches. Those are two things that I will take off points for and could possibly flow in the other team's favor. PF is also a less technically challenging debate, so you should be working hard to convince me that your side is the clear winner and best solution.

LD:

While I did not debate LD, I have judged it in the past. For me, make sure that your value and VC are clear, and you stick to those throughout the round. Keep me engaged, and it will help you in the end.

Policy: Policy is what I debate now so I am used to its speed and versatility. For the AFF, provide a clear plan with clear extensions throughout. Make sure you are hitting home why the plan is good, why it is timely, and why it should be implemented. For the NEG, I'm really okay with whatever you're going to run. As a 1A/2N, DAs and CPs are my NEGs of choice, but I'm cool with whatever you're going to run as long as it makes sense and you are able to hit the AFF well. My biggest comment is that if you are going to run a K, please don't make it generic. Generic Ks are generally not wonderful to sit through because the AFF is prepared for them.

Miscellaneous:

Cross-X is your time to clarify positions and evidence. I typically don’t flow it unless a really relevant point is made. That does not mean I am not listening. Don't shoot yourself in the foot during Cross.

Decorum: There is nothing I dislike more than a team who exerts superiority in the round and bullies the other team, especially if they are more experienced. Being civil goes a long way with me. I know sometimes our egos get in the way and we just can't help it, but that may reflect poorly on the outcome of the round. My biggest plea is that if you are debating someone less-experienced than you, BE NICE. They are learning, just as you did at some point.

Ballots: My on-ballot comments are worth a read, and I am not just saying that because I wrote them. Everyone has things they can improve, and constructive criticism will make you a better debater. I may also suggest some sources or readings in your comments to help you understand the topic even more. I know that this probably won't be helpful for another topic, but if I include them, it is because I think they will make you a better competitor.

Have a great tournament and good luck!

I am a current student at West Virginia University studying english and journalism, I debate policy on WVU's debate team. Overall, my favorite debates include a lot of clash and I really enjoy when students think on their feet rather than reading off their papers or screens (it's totally fine to refer to notes but don't bury your face in them unless reading cards). My debate partner and I generally run K's those are usually my favorite negative arguments to debate and to watch. In my opinion if you are a good debater you should be able to argue for or against any topic whether or not you agree or disagree with it; debate is beneficial for education no matter the topic. I always want to be on the email chain and after the round I will provide feedback to both teams. If there are additional questions after the round always feel free to email me. I am happy to help anyone with debate or answer questions.

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one carleigh.l.west@gmail.com

I have my masters in communication studies and bachelor’s in political science from West Virginia University. While at WVU, I competed for their policy team for about two years, and I have a year of competing in parliamentary and IPDA debate while at Shepherd University. I am currently a research and evaluation coordinator for a non-profit

I will listen to just about any argument but I enjoy debates with a clear framework to weigh the round. I think debate is an educational activity and creates a lot of great opportunities for learning, so my openness to many arguments really stems from wanting to sus out the ideas that debaters want to bring to the table. Most importantly, though, have fun! Get into it! I appreciate humor in a round as well!

General (And also some framework stuff):

• I love educational impacts, we are doing an educational activity, so we see grounded impacts when we can impact education. That doesn't mean I won't vote on non-educational impacts, just that I have a fondness for education.
• Have fun with this! You're likely up early on a Saturday to be here! Have fun!

AFF/Case: Please be clear about your impacts and your framing. As I had mentioned, I will vote on just about anything, but being clear about where your impacts lie and how I should be viewing the round is really important and will make it easier for me to vote for you. Also love a good case turn or impact turn.

T: I mean, I’ll vote on it, I just might be sad. If you’re going to read T, please just make it clear and uphold your standards. Please be clear about where the violation is and why the limits are necessary.

Theory: like T. My threshold for dropping the debater is going to be pretty high.

CP: Pretty much weighing like how I would weigh the plan.

K: I love a good K. A kritik done well can really lead to great discussions in round. I do think you need to have a good link story to the AFF and a clear alternative. I’ll vote on generic Ks since I think generic Ks help for getting folks into critical literature if it’s done well and is weighed well against the aff. I may know the literature, I may not. Regardless, you should be able to give a good, simple explanation of your K.

Perms: Whether it is a CP or a K if you are going for the perm, please explain how it functions. What does doing both look like? Sequencing can be super important!

DA: DAs are cool with me. Give me a good story of how the DA happens, do your impact calc and I’ll vote on it

LD: Traditional. This requires a value and value criterion that flows beyond the constructive. I will generally vote against theory, ks, and other policy debate components. I will always vote against disclosure theory - sorry kids, no cheating on the test.

Speed doesn't bother me. I was a policy coach for years. HOWEVER, if you sound like you can't breathe or are repeating words because YOU can't handle speed, it will affect your speaker points and how I assess the round. As a judge, I decide who wins or loses. As such, your speaker points will be lower if you tell me what I will do in your speeches. Convince me to vote for you rather than thinking if you say I will, it will happen.