Do not spread and please signpost.

Hi! My name's Baraa Alkhani, I debated in LD for 3 years at Stagg High School and was the 2018 IHSA state champion. I debated traditionally and never went to the NatCircuit. Though, by Illinois standards, I guess you can say I was a bit progressive in that I valued cards and was a bit faster as a debater. Currently I'm a law student at the Illinois College of Law, so I'll be judging much less frequently than when I was an undergrad at UIC.

If you ever need anything, my email is balkhani50@gmail.com

Important Points

- Weigh impacts, don't just extend them. Also if you extend a card/argument without explaining it, then it isn’t a real extension and it won’t count.

- Please don't arbitrarily debate FW. If they're similar, then collapse them or agree on a standard. I don’t like long winded FW debates. Addressing both should take you a MAX of a minute of the beginning of your speech, and not even. Save your time for what really matters. I don't flow FW warrants or definitions, though I will mentally note it.

- I don’t intervene when it comes to the decision, but if your argument is completely baseless, inaccurate, or clearly pulled out of your butt, then don’t be mad when I give you the L. You are an intelligent debater. Don’t misconstrue evidence or run oily logic. Complex philosophy that has no impact calc or relation to the resolution is a no-no too. Be straightforward, rational, and accurate.

- I’m very approachable, so don’t be shy to stop by and ask any questions you may have. Unless they’re medically related, I should be able to help :)

For PF

- Standard flow judge. Nothing really special here.

Motivation

Finally, as I've learned through my experiences, have fun. If I give you the L, it's not the end of the world. Trust me, it doesn't mean I hate you. Rather, it means that you can still learn and improve in your journey as a debater. Same with if you win. Always strive to improve your game, your speaking, and case writing. If you choose to be complacent with how you're doing, you'll never get to the next level where you want to be.

Be respectful, professional, and confident. I'm pretty outgoing so never hesitate to ask me questions or reach out to me at a tournament. If something here hasn't been addressed, then ask me prior to the round :)

Paradigm = CLARITY!

• Prefer traditional LD style of debate. I do not prefer policy style debate OR new progressive styles of debate.
• I am ANTI-SPREADING = This craft is about communication skills and debates intended or the public...so you should be able yo clearly make arguments.
• Clarity over spreading of arguments.
• Not interested in policy debate style (Avoid spreading, avoid cases that are non-topical (structural violence can work as aVC, but make sure it fits into the resolution
• Especially in your opening arguments, make sure that I know exactly what your contentions are, values, etc. Clearquality of evidence over the quantity of evidence. ,so long as you are clear.
• Stress impact, impact, impact: Make sure the stress how the claims you are making affect people, the country, etc. Tell me what's at stake, what the consequences are of each argument.
• WEIGH your impacts! As a judge I am looking for weighted impacts throughout your case, and especially in your voters issues. What is the scope, the magnitude, the urgency...of your claims. etc
• .Sign Posting: This is an essential tool for me as a judge to follow your case. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are if I can't follow along.
• Framework important to me, but not critical (and totally accept conceding a framework if it is not crucial). Just make sure your VC has a lear link to tpic.

I have judged and coached a long time and can handle just about any style of debate.

Clash is very important in all forms of debate, and one trend I have seen in some events is ostensible refutation which consists of repetition of a previous point rather than responding to arguments from the opponents. I notice this most often in LD voters and 2AR speeches and in PF Summary and Final Focus speeches. I appreciate a little review, but if you aren't giving any new arguments, then I'm not writing anything down and it's not doing a lot to help you.

I should mention that I can handle speed but I don't particularly like it: I'm not sure I've ever seen a round where a speeding debater gained any advantage from speed that judicious selection of words and careful choice of cards wouldn't have done just as well. I also don't judge based on winning a number of arguments - it's how the arguments impact the overall debate that counts.

Hello. I am a lay judge but understand most concepts as long as they are explained clearly.

My threshold for speed is pretty much nonexistent, so spread at your own risk.

Since we are online, I would prefer to set up an email chain. But even if I have your case in front of me, if you blitz through evidence, I am not going to go back during prep time to reflow what I couldn't earlier.

Please Sign Post! Please Sign Post! Please Sign Post!

If you don't sign post, I won't be a happy judge, and you won't be happy with your results.

I am a traditional judge, so please weigh your arguments under a framework or standard.

If framework is a wash, I default to util.

Speaker Points:

I am not a speaks fairy, so if you are looking for one, don't pref me!

On that note, I give an average of about 28 for the winner and 27 to the loser.

I have never given out a 30, but do your best to be the first.

Things to do that increase your speaker points:

1. Do not talk over your opponent. I understand that cross can sometimes be heated, but when your opponent cuts you off, please listen.

2. Please speak clearly and professionally. Yelling at the top of your lungs does not make your argument more convincing.

3. Cut out the uhs, ums, and likes. Just take a deep breath instead. They're unnecessary and nervous speech fillers.

4. Don't abuse prep time. When you stop the clock, please be ready to start your speech. If it's not started soon, I will dock major speaks and will continue running your prep.

5. If you can work in the phrase "Luck is the residue of design" somewhere in your speech you'll get +.5

Framework

As I am a fairly lay judge, please do not run crazy frameworks and frivolous theory. If you do, I need them explained explicitly. Do not blitz through your evidence with their explanations.

That being said, if framework is a wash, I will default to util. If you are running util, never try to justify oppression, slavery, or anything like that. I will not be a happy judge and you will not be happy with the result.

If your framework is close enough to your opponent's that it does not warrant a big discussion, i.e. you can weigh under both fairly easily, just collapse the debate. It's not worth your time to argue about or my time to evaluate.

Overall

I try to be a fairly tabula rasa. That being said, I find liberal arguments more appealing.

I don't like to intervene in rounds, as the rounds should really be dictated by the debaters. But if someone is being rude or stalling for a prolonged amount of time, I will step in.

While I'm not a big fan of spikes, when used correctly, I will grudgingly vote on them.

I prefer a more "traditional" round to a "circuit" round, but don't let that sway you too much. Whatever makes you most comfortable is what will allow you to do your best.

If you are more experienced than your opponent and try to run progressive arguments against an opponent who is clearly a novice and more traditional, I will not be happy. You may begrudgingly win the round, but your speaks will reflect poorly.

TL; DR

I am a LAY judge, but am willing to listen to any arguments as long as they are flushed out clearly.

Do not assume I understand debate jargon!

The round is yours, so do as you please.

Please be respectful, debate is an educational activity.

For Congress

- Have a clear introduction and sign post your arguments

- For speeches early in the cycle, explain the bill and how the bill will directly affect the status quo

- Include clear transitions between contentions

- For speeches after the 4th cycle, refutation is extremely important. Failure to provide any refutation after the 4th cycle will not get you higher than a 3 or 4

- Impacts and weighing are very important if you want to be ranked highly

- I flow the round and make note of the students who are able to reference the points made by previous speakers during questioning and speeches

How to get high speaker points

- Clear speaking

- Quality volume

- Fluidity when speaking

- No speed --> I can flow speed to a certain degree but I do not prefer it. If you speak too fast I will stop flowing your arguments

How to win the argument

- I will be flowing so make sure to tell me what to do... Flow through, drop, extend, turn. if you don't let me know what to do, I will not flow your arguments through.

- I like the use of logic, evidence is good but if you can answer arguments with the use of logic I do value that highly.

(LD) - I like the use of framework, make sure to link your impacts to your framework through out the whole round.

(PF)- Make sure you weigh your arguments throughout the debate not just at the beginning or the end. Please signpost your arguments and refutations to make sure that I can flow your arguments.

- Make sure to have clear voter issues.

Above all be polite to your opponents and keep decorum during the round.

I'm a former high school Lincoln-Douglas debater who graduated in 2018 after competing in Illinois. It is my firm belief that any LD round comes down to winning two things, the framework debate and the impact debate. As such, I would like to hear frameworks fully fleshed out and explored as well as here why I should select it for the round. All impacts, contentions, linkage depends on which framework wins, and following that which debater's impacts are the most convincing in achieving that framework for the round. I will not listen to arguments if they are spread. Outside of that, any line of argumentation works for me. Good Luck!

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Explicit signposting and road mapping is always appreciated. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

Name: Brenda Moreno

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 10

Opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery: I'd prefer if debaters don't speak too fast, but I am comfortable with speed. However, I'd like to emphasize that debaters should speak clearly and audibly so that the judge and opponents can easily understand what is being said. Often, debaters might find 'spreading' as a tool to get more arguments in, but keep in mind that the goal is to argue the issues at length and to do so substantially, so I'd caution against trying to fit in the most arguments since often this can lead dropping arguments or failure to respond to arguments.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): I prefer line-by-line analysis earlier in the debate, and then a big picture analysis when it comes to rebuttals. I see rebuttals as a way to crystalize what has occurred in the round, and an opportunity for debaters to focus on the arguments they believe have won them the round.

Extension of arguments into later speeches: Extend arguments if applicable. However, be sure to explicitly tell me what arguments I should extend andwhy.You can let me know by referring to the author of the card or by signaling to me which contention or argument you need me to extend on my flow.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow the constructive speeches pretty religiously. While I listen to cross-examination/cross-fire very attentively, this time is really for the debaters to gather additional information to use in the round; it is not an opportunity for me to decide what I will be voting on. That being said, if a debater feels something that was brought up within Cross needs to be extended/addressed in later speeches, they need to tell me and explain why I need to flow through what was brought up during Cross.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?: I value argument over style--arguments will influence my decision. Style is important, too, so maintain decorum; however, style alone will not necessarily win you the round. To me, style = speaker points, arguments = who wins the round.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?: In my opinion, arguments need to be extended in both if that's what the debater hopes to win the round on.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?: No. I will flow what the debater tells me to flow. In PF, I believe every speech carries a specific purpose. If you are second speaking, please provide me with an off-time roadmap and tell me what you will be addressing so that I know where to flow.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?: Final focus. See comment above on cross-examination.

I competed Lincoln Douglas all through high school at Fremd and have judged Congress and Lincoln Douglas on the regional and national level for the past 7 years. Paradigm is pretty straight forward for LD -- win Value and value criterion debate based on framework, take down contention level debate, and flow through your voters based on impacts. Be clear in sign posting, extending arguments, pointing out drops, and giving voters, and I will flow the round pretty transparently. That is the basis of how to win a round.

Secondly, I am open to counter plans and other out of traditional scope options of debating for National level tournaments. For counter-plans I will weigh impacts and which side is winning value and value criterion debate based on framework.

Lastly, if a debater is using observations or anything else in the round that ends up getting decided as the basis of how to debate/go forward, I am open to weighing those measures, given it is mutual between the two debaters and I have a clear basis on how the round/voters will be weighed. --- In a nut shell, if you ask clear and direct questions on any given theory you may be unsure debating about, I am pretty flexible to judge accordingly to the situation at hand. Otherwise default to the first half of this paradigm where I explain line by line how to win a round. I don't care about speed (spreading), long as I can still flow. Stand during your cross examinations, speeches, rebuttals etc (if possible). Professionalism is important.

Thanks -- Ask questions for anything you are unsure of.

-- Bushra Shams

Add me to email chains: sharpedebate@gmail.com

Short Verison:

*I specialized in LD in high school and moonlighted in PF when someone needed a partner. PF paradigm - Flow is the most important thing in the round, please be clear; I'll be deciding on the flow. I'm not new to debate, so I won't be voting off the last speech but the big picture of the round, who has the most positive impacts in the round. I'm a progressive judge so do whatever you want, just be respectful of your competitors.

Tho I prefer that folx don't run bad geopolitical link chains leading to nuclear war - if the links don't make sense I won't care.

TLDR:

* I really don't like racism, sexism...etc. I won't vote for hateful arguments.

* Warrant your arguments! Names of authors mean nothing to me. I won't vote for you if you just read cards.

*Weighing is very important (especially with a Value/VC/Roll of the ballot)

*Prioritize impacts, the strategy is important

*If you are going to value Morality, please explain it. What moral framework are we working under

*Be Clear

Former Debater at Homewood-Flossmoor

Lincoln Douglas was the debate-style of my high school career so I am very familiar. I started in traditional Lincoln Douglas and ended my career running Kritiks so I am comfortable with both styles of LD. I can understand most spread, but make sure your opponent is comfortable with the speed and be clear. If you are not clear, I am not flowing. You can go as fast as your mouth and lungs will let you, but if you are not clear it will most likely be detrimental to you. I will say clear twice. If you don't adjust I will probably stop flowing. Refrain from bringing your opponent's identity into the debate space, especially when it comes to sexuality, race and/or disability. I have seen and experienced many rounds where people assume wrong about someone's identity, and it becomes offensive. With that being said, if you are non-black running arguments about anti-blackness (or in general), make sure it's for the right reasons, and don't use authors that write for the black population.

Plans: Call me old-fashioned but I don't think that Affirmative needs to provide a plan in any LD debate topic. But I am not against plans in LD.

Theory: 80% of the time I do not like theory debates because it can get very messy. While I view theory to be a necessary part of debate I hate frivolous theory. To be honest, I don't care if someone's case isn't on a debate wiki, I am not 100% against voting for stuff like that but the reason why its imperative for people to explain the need to disclose.

Kritiks: I think they make debate interesting and sparks great dialogue. But please run a meaningful Kritik don't slap one together before a round that isn't well thought out. I tend to like Kritiks that challenge the topic/arguments, just because there tends to be more clash, but Kritiks about the debate space is fine. I haven't had the time to read a ton of literature in college, so don't assume I know an author.

Clash on the value/value criterion level- I'm a simple person- do the weighing for me, explicitly tell me why your "world" is empirically better than your opponents and why ultimately that should win you the round.

I'll pretty much buy anything as long as it's 1) not offensive (extremely low tolerance for that) and/or 2) well-supported/explained.

Have Fun!

I debated for 4 years in high school, I have been judging LD/PF for 11 years and coaching LD/PF at Fenwick High School for 8 years. I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

In general, I am open to nearly every argument; with a few exceptions/variations.

1. Theory - I am fine with it. I find some theory debates to be quite interesting, however I will not vote on frivolous theory, especially not on disclosure theory.

2. Kritiks - In general, I think they can be very educational arguments. However, I am not a fan of performance arguments. I just do not enjoy them. Plain and simple.

3. Plans/CPs/Disads - Even though I believe these often stunt an otherwise incredibly intellectual atmosphere, there are exceptions to this rule. If you can run a good plan, I can see myself voting on it. As for counterplans—no PICs. Please. I do not find that these make for a decent debate round.

4. Voters Issues - Please have them.

Speed is okay but I will say “clear” if I cannot understand you or if you are speaking too
fast; because if I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it. Be intelligible and make sure to signpost