In speech events, I am looking for accessible language and demonstrated preparedness on the speech topic. In debate events, I am looking for a clear and persuasive argument, and rebuttals that address specific claims. I appreciate speakers who are able to hold their audience captive and make concise points. I may deduct points if the speaking is too fast for me to follow.

Regarding time signals:

I trust speakers to keep their own time, however, I will also be keeping time and I will gladly give limited time signals if requested.

(❁´◡`❁)

Add me to the email chain: jbai251108@gmail.com

Did Speech and Debate from 2019-2022. PF 1 year and Policy 2 years. I shouldn't have trouble understanding any arguments, just be clear and show you understand what you are running.

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Background: Former LD, CX and PF debater

I’m tabula rasa on most things, just don’t advocate for positions that are evil or trollish.

I will attempt to respect the norms of the circuit and tournament I am judging at; I do not want to impose on any particular debate style but I am also open to hearing theoretical arguments during the round.

While evidence is good, I believe too often many rely on ‘evidence dumping’ and focus too little on analytics. Basically, spend a fair amount of time framing, contextualizing, weighing, clash, etc.

For speaker points, I base it off everything but your physical speaking ability. How well did I think you navigated the round, how did you choose to order arguments, and overall strategy contribute a lot here.

Respect each other and please signpost!

If you have questions please let me know.

bennettjamesbrown@gmail.com

I did debate for 4 years.

I believe in weighing.

Email me your cards: ethandigi@gmail.com

I am a sophomore at Harvard who competed for 4 years in high school. Most of my national experience is in congress, so I prefer traditional arguments, but I am open to all styles. If you choose circuit debate styles, you should know that I am likely unfamiliar with them, and I may need an explanation. I am very familiar with PFD and LD. If you have any questions at all, ask me before the round starts. I am willing to answer any questions about my judging. If you have any questions about my RFD, email me at hanselasri@gmail.com after the tournament is over.

PFD

- I vote off of CBA unless a team tells me otherwise. If you dislike your opponents framework, then argue against it. If you do not argue against it, I will default to that framework.

- I will call evidence that is crucial to the round or seems too good to be true.

- Speak at a moderate pace: it's best for all of us.

- Use tag-lines, or I will get confused.

LD

- Whoever wins the value-criterion debate determines how I will vote. This means that if you lose the VC debate I will use your opponents framework to vote. I recommend showing how you win both your own and your opponents VC.

- I will call evidence that is crucial to the round or seems too good to be true.

- Speak at a moderate pace: it's best for all of us.

- Use tag-lines, or I will get confused.

CON:

- I know a lot about congress, my senior year I was national runner-up in the House at NSDA, so I absolutely love congress
- Please study the three types of congress speeches: constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization.

- A good questioner sometimes has to interrupt, but there is a fine line between making your point and acting impolite (on the inverse side of this, if someone is rudely interrupting don't be rude back it just makes both of you look bad; if instead you act politely it really makes the questioner look bad and makes you look solid)

- I will call your sources if they seem fishy.

- Please tell me the location of the source, author, author's credentials, and date (this is a good habit to get into; judges at the national level love this)

- Please explain your impacts and quantify if possible.

- If you are on the affirmative, and you ask the question "what is the net harm in passing" you are not making a good argument. Congress doesn't pass bills because they aren't bad, they (try to) pass good bills. Congress defaults to passing no legislation if the legislation doesn't seem good, so you should advocate for your bill's merits on the aff not just disprove potential harms.

- POs, if I forget that you are a competitor until I am ranking that means that you did a good job. I also think POs can have fun as long as it doesn't detract from the chamber's integrity or seriousness and doesn't take up much time.

CX:

- If they call me to judge CX, know that I know very little.

- I use general debate rules to judge policy (see LD and PF).

At the top, I would greatly prefer if you sent me case docs so I could follow along during round and easily reference arguments and specific cards at my leisure. Sending thosesusom.hait@gmail.comas early as you can before round it would be optimal. Outside of that, do include me in the email chain if one is made.

Throughout High School I competed primarily in PF on the national circuit. I went to NSDA twice in PF, was a State Champion in the event, and competed in multiple nat circuit tournaments.

Despite this, I don't really like theory and arguments of this nature very much. If you explain it well enough and make me interested I might vote on theory, but don't hold out too much hope. You stand a much better chance of winning if you stick to relevant on case arguments.

I have a pretty high tolerance for speed, but you need to make sure you're clear if you're going to speak at a quicker pace.

I also want to see frontlining occur in the right speeches. (this primarily means 2nd team rebuttal addressing the 1st team rebuttal and not waiting until summary to frontline) If you fail to address an argument at the right time and your opponent says you don't bring up a response, I'm gonna drop whatever argument was attacked without a second thought.

Most importantly, be civil when you debate. Don't try to harass your opponent, intentionally talk over them, or flex that you're some debate genius. Winning one debate round in high school isn't so big a deal where trying to fight the opponent in round. Debate is about discourse before anything else, so act in a way that best suits delivering knowledge.

For LD and Policy, most of the same things apply. Remember to be coherent with clear arguments.

Let's have a great round!

My judging paradigm is very simple. I believe the purpose of debate is to teach competitors to think critically and communicate effectively. Evidence is only important if a competitor can tell me why it's important. It is imperative for the competitor to demonstrate a true understanding of the arguments they are making. To that end, I think spreading should be avoided when possible, but I am fine with some speed.

I like to see clear clash and persuasive argumentation. Assertiveness is good, rudeness is completely uncalled for and may cost a competitor the round if it is pervasive enough. Further, competitors should be respectful and deferential to judges regardless of the judge's experience.

Debaters should come prepared for technology catastrophes. Bring paper copies, USB storage devices, and contingency plans. I flow when I judge, so I only take things into consideration that are said in the actual debate. If you are spreading to the point that your words are unintelligible, I will put my pen down. If that happens, you will not be getting credit for anything you say until you can be understood enough for me to resume flowing.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

Hello everyone. I wish you all the best of luck during your competition. For Public Forum Debate, I like to judge based on logical arguments. Please be cordial during crossfires. I do not like to see rounds where it turns into a yelling match, because it gets hard to listen to.

I'm a straight forward judge who believes in transparency, encouragement, and professionalism. Please respect your opponents and be a good sport. I look forward to be judging your rounds.

**This paradigm is written for PF debate which is what I have the most experience in. I don't necessarily have different preferences for LD and Policy because I have less experience with them. Not all of these points will apply to LD and Policy so take that into account.

I participated in Public Forum debate for all four years of high school. I have debated locally and on the national circuit so I have seen both lay debate and tech PF debate. That being said there are a few things you should probably know about me as a judge.

1. Speed. I would like to think that I can handle a decent amount of speed if that is your style of debate. That being said, keep in mind that no matter how good of a judge you have, speaking more quickly does make it more difficult for your judge to catch all of the specifics of your case. Essentially, speak quickly if that's your style but keep in mind that I may have more trouble flowing your case comprehensively. If you plan on hardcore spreading you will be expected to flash me and your opponents a speech doc. If you do not flash a speech doc but are speaking so quickly that I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" and will expect you to slow down.

2. Extending. I have a few important preferences on extensions. DO NOT extend through the ink. This makes the debate round less productive and more frustrating for both your opponents and the judge. Make sure you don't try to win every single argument in the summary or final focus. The reality is that in most debates, you won't win every single argument so make sure to talk about only the arguments that are the most important. The voting issues that you present in summary should also be the same as the voting issues that you present in final focus. If you and your partner are not on the same page and go for different voters, it will be more difficult for me to know what you want me to evaluate.

3. Courtesy. Don't be overly rude or pushy if you can help it. I understand that debates can become unintentionally aggressive, but please try to keep the aggression to a minimum. Also, while I understand that this is something that many successful teams do, please do not ask too many questions that only you have the answer to. If you don't know exactly what I'm talking about here, make sure to ask me before the round because this is something that I find very annoying and somewhat abusive of crossfire time.

4. Weighing. I do expect you to weigh throughout the round to explain to me what the most important impacts are. I don't necessarily have a preference of what impacts I am more likely to vote on (except I do prefer impacts with high probability as opposed to low probability arguments with high magnitude impacts), which is why it is very important that you weigh your impacts against your opponents throughout the debate to show me why I should prefer your impacts.

5. Rebuttal. In your rebuttal I like it when you tell me the type of response you are reading. In other words, don't just read a bunch of random cards as responses without explaining what your purpose is with them. If you are reading a turn, say so. The same goes for other types of responses. This may seem obvious to some teams, but trust me, many teams forget to do this. Don't do an off time roadmap unless you are going to do something out of the ordinary. For example, if you plan on frontlining your own case and then responding to your opponents, there is no need to tell me in an off time roadmap because this is a fairly common structure of a rebuttal speech.

6. Evidence. Please do not misconstrue or miscut evidence. This hurts the integrity of the activity and is unfair. If your opponents call for a piece of evidence, try to pull it up in a timely fashion. Sometimes teams will purposely take a really long time to look for evidence to try to discourage the other team from actually getting to see it. DO NOT DO THIS. I will probably be able to tell when this is happening and will likely ask to see the evidence after the round.

7. Theory. I have a little bit of experience with theory but not much. Generally, I don't think that theory arguments are a good fit for the format of public forum, but if you read a theory shell, I will still try to evaluate it to the best of my ability. If you are trying to win off of theory, you will need to explain the interpretation, violation, standards and implication very thoroughly in order for me to properly evaluate it and understand the argument you are trying to make.

I'm a pretty chill judge and I have done PF, Policy, and LD. I have also done congress and worlds.

Tech>truth. To a degree I will only flow an arguement if you mention it, so if your opponent says something blatantly wrong you have to mention that it is blatantly wrong. Now if the argument is ridiculous and offensive I am very inclined to not flow it, but if you mention it I definitely won't.

PF: I think that being more conversational and not super technical is ok. I don't really want you to just throw cards at me instead if you explain your logic and then the link chain I will be happy. If you are going to just throw cards at me I will A: be unhappy and B: be inclined to ask for a ton of evidence which is something I don't really want to do and you probably don't want me to do. Also, make sure to extend everything you want to go for through final focus, or I cannot consider it.

Policy is really weird for me since for now I only judge novices, but the biggest thing for me is organization. Like I understand that for a lot of people this is a very daunting event, but also if you don't tagline any of your arguments I'm gonna have no clue where I am at or what I am flowing.

Also as a general note I would like everyone to disclose ev used in round to me even if you aren't sharing it between the other team.

Theory: I'd honestly rather not evaluate it, and you might not want me to evaluate it simply because I am not that experienced with it. Other than that if you do choose to run a theory argument please take the time to explain why you are running it and what particular action happened in round that caused you to run it.

K's: These are fine, but for the stuff that is a little more out there be sure to tagline well and explain your alt well.

Speaker Points are super arbitrary and I usually give pretty high points unless you're not that good at speaking.

Tapan.kotikalapudi@gmail.com

Hello!

My name is Davis Lynn, and I am currently a college student studying at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX (I also compete for SMU Debate). Throughout high school, I competed in various events but mainly focused on Congress. Regarding my judging, I am looking for competitors who show excellence in speaking, understanding of topics, and courtesy to their peers. Here is my elaboration on each of those points:

• Speaking is half of the name "Speech and Debate." I expect you to fill the time of your speeches, be clear and concise (I understand the internet can make that hard at times), and not cram your speech with information. I ultimately want to hear what YOU have to say, and a word vomit of sources doesn't give me anything unique to judge.

• Being accurate in a time of misinformation is critical. Skewing data or news sources is outright wrong, and I will not tolerate false statistics or misguided points. However, understanding a topic and being accurate in the points and sources you present will get you a high-scoring ballot from me.

• I know debate rounds can get heated, and you may have the propensity to yell at one another. Regardless of the circumstances, I will not buy it. The quickest way to get a losing ballot from me is to be intentionally rude to someone.

Overall, I look forward to judging you! Speech and Debate has been fundamental to my high-school and college experiences, and I hope you have experienced the same. Thank you so much for reading my spiel; I hope it helped you understand my judging philosophy.

Best wishes and Pony Up!

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

I did debate the entirety of high school. Focused on LD but also did PF, Big Questions, Congress, and World Schools at different points. Also did interp and my main focus was speech. Was state semi-finalist and national qualifier in debates.

Both speaking and debate are important to me- speak well so I understand your points.

Please do not get overly caught up in debate style but instead focus on the actual topics at hand. If there is a MAJOR issue, sure point it out, but most other technical issues I will catch anyway.

Do not be rude/condescending to your opponents. This is a fun activity, and I know it can get heated, but being rude won't make me vote for you. Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory is not accepted.

Have strong links between evidence and logic. Highlight your impact. I don't care how much evidence you have if you don't tell me why it matters.

Speaker points are determined by clarity, professionalism, and overall contribution to the debate.

LD:

- Don't forget to argue value and criterion, but it also shouldn't be the only thing you argue

- Please do not try to make LD into Policy. They are separate events. Don't spread.

PF:

- Do not become overly stylized or complex. Anyone should be able to understand your arguments without prior knowledge.

I did debate all four years of high school. I competed in PF and Congress, as well as interp and limited prep events. I was the 2019 State Champion in PF and Duet Acting, as well as national quarter finalist in congress at NSDA in 2019.

Speaking and debate are both important to me. Do not get caught up in the speaking style of your opponents, just address their arguments.

Do not spread, and for PF your arguments should be accessible. It’s called public forum for a reason, and should be accessible to laymen.

When addressing your opponents be respectful. I understand this activity can get heated, but it should still be cordial.

LD should address value criterion as well as the points presented by your opponent. Do not let the debate focus on solely one or the other.

speaker points are determined by clarity and overall contribution to the debate.

Your links between evidence and points should be very clear. I don’t care how much evidence you have if you don’t explain it’s importance.

most importantly have fun and be ready to learn. Despite this activity being about competition the goal should be for you guys to learn and be exposed to new ideas. Have fun and be respectful!

I did policy in hs and currently do British Parli in college, for policy debate I heavily focus and emphasize impact weighing in deciding my ballot. I want to hear not only why you won the round but why your case leads to a better world, outcome, or meets a value best (or rather, why the opponent's case does not).

I will listen to topicality arguments however they need to be fleshed out with good link work. If you do run topicality, please tell me the exact thing your opponent has done that is untopical. Don't read a generic topicality file without telling me what part of their case it applies to. In order to vote on topicality I also need to see why topicality should be weighed above anything else in the round.

I'm decent at keeping up with taglines but please explain what a card is instead of just referencing it. For example, if halfway through the round you say "our fox 2014 card trumps their cnn 2013 card" I might be slightly confused unless you say specifically what those 2 cards refer to.

Overall, I prioritize a clean, civil debate above everything. Please be respectful to each other during rounds and have fun.

Also i'm okay with some speed but please don't spread too fast for me to understand you.

Although I did extemp in high school, it was so long ago we tore pages from the school library's old copies of NewsWeek and U.S. News & World Report for our files. I am the parent of three former LD, PF and IE kids who have all been to national tourneys; my youngest child is competing this year in PF. Consider me a layperson in the judges seat who is familiar with the resolution and maybe even a few arguments, appreciates common sense backed up by evidence from sources that are known and not niche, and doesn't take kindly to spreading and will dock speaker points for doing so.

I like you to clearly state your sources and dates as that lets me know the slant and dependability of your evidence. I always flow on paper, so the clearer and more structured you can be, the better, but my vote won't be decided fully from the flow. I can be persuaded many times at the Crossfire rounds: it shows whether you understand your case and your evidence or if you just bought it off the internet. However, I don't enjoy verbal bullying in the round.

FOR THE EMAIL CHAIN: wwpickering@gmail.com

I’ve been here for a minute, and I teach this activity because I believe that communication is a critical skill. Your primary job as a debater is to be CLEAR and PERSUASIVE.

I typically accept things set out in arguments if they are supported by apparently-credible sources, if they make logical sense, and if I can follow the threads of reasoning. I’m politically agnostic in real life, and I believe that debate topics are written to have strong (winnable) arguments on both sides. You’ve gotta tease out what those things are and share them with me through an organized, methodical style that demonstrates your understanding of the topics and their themes and your consideration of your opponents’ positions. Look for the conflict and unpack it politely; that’s why we do what we do.

Should you be ships passing in the night, rounds will go to the speaker(s) with credible content, clear organizational structures, powerful poise, clearer voice, dynamic life, strong visual connections, supportive gestures, and appropriate delivery tempo. If you address the clash, the presentation skills will weigh less and the rounds will go to the speaker(s) with the more convincing analysis of the sides, the arguments, and the places where the concepts at play in the round butt heads.

Is this a paradigm? Idek. But it is what I want from you as a debater.

Fwiw, I’m also probably going to give you handwritten notes.

Email contact: jrr289@msstate.edu - please add me to any email chains being used in the round

Background: I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school. I primarily participated in public forum debate and international and domestic extemporaneous speaking, but I occasionally competed in LD, congress, and various other limited prep speech events. I attended the NSDA tournament twice in international extemporaneous speaking. I competed at the CFL National tournament three times: once in extemporaneous speaking, once in public forum, and once in congress. I have stayed active in speech and debate by judging a few tournaments a year and helping coach public forum debate teams on the high school level.

Speeches and case organization

I have a fundamental aversion to jargon and unexplained abbreviations or acronyms in debate. Explain and define everything.

The best constructive speeches contain at least some background information on the resolution. Many teams overlook this, perhaps due to time constraints, but this is a critical step. In other words, you need to answer this question up front: how have we arrived at the topic before us?

Organized speeches with clear signposting are an absolute must. Evidence is obviously important, but I will pay special attention to how it is woven throughout your speeches. Are you making it clear why this evidence is important? Why I should trust it? What is its impact? Do you have multiple levels of evidence to support every argument you plan on making?

Crossfire

I will pay attention to everything said during crossfire. While a debate may not be won solely by the crossfire performance, it can quickly be lost. A great debater is one who does not lose their persuasiveness even when they have to think fast on their feet. You should be able to defend all your arguments and evidence without hesitation during crossfire. What I believe to be an extremely effective communication strategy during crossfire that you may want to consider is not forgetting to make eye contact and speak to the judge. Do not limit your focus during crossfire to your opponent or your papers in front of you. Engaging me in crossfire and making me feel included will absolutely earn you some extra speaker points.

Miscellaneous

I will flow each debate carefully, but I do not consider myself a technical judge. You are free to run whatever arguments or strategies you choose; if you can sell it well, I will probably buy it. At the end of the round, my decision is usually for the team who wows me the most. Sometimes that is the team who I think wins the most number of arguments. Sometimes that is the team who wins the strongest arguments. Sometimes it is the team that had the best delivery and persuasiveness.

Please feel free to contact me via email if you have any questions.

I teach rhetorical analysis and argumentation; consequently, I carry that awareness with me in my judging. I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my opinion of arguments.

In judging LD, I concentrate on the values and contentions; I am more excepting of far-reaching contentions as long as you can make the connections. Definitions aren't everything, but I like to know which ones you are using; subtle differences matter. My focus will be on the actual argument, the claims and rebuttals, and the crosses in the debate. I find "arguments" that rely on exhorting the rules of the process to be disingenuous.

In PF, I appreciate seeing a cohesiveness in the team. I focus on the structure of the argument, are adequate supports provided, and is everything rebutted. Again, I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my decision. Unnecessary speaking over each other and attempting to drown each other out is uncivilized and irritating. It also works against following your argument.

In Policy, I am looking for a logical argument that should pass, and for the negation, I am comfortable with nearly all on-topic and off-topic measures. I do find continuous definition attacks to be pedantic. As for spread, not an issue. I have clear hearing and have taught English to non-native speakers, so enunciation is not really an issue.

Hello debaters! Thanks for reading my paradigm! I'm a retired debater; I competed in PF for two years and went on to compete in college in an extemp-style of debate called IPDA. My experience in LD is very limited and within the confines of a traditional circuit. As such, I'm willing to listen to progressive argumentation like plans or kritiks, but you're really going to have to explain them to me. I know absolutely nothing about policy.

I frown upon spreading. I believe that debate is meant to be an educational exercise that equips you to succeed in the "real-world." Spreading is, in my view, almost always antithetical to that goal. I will try my very best to keep up, but I'm not above setting my pen down and not flowing until you become coherent.

*I will not vote for arguments I don't understand.* It's your job to give me thorough explanations. Remember that I've not been researching your respective topic for the last month and will need logical explanations and warranting. I need you to walk through why your argument or evidence wins my ballot.

I'm a flow judge; I will only consider things actually said by debaters in the round and am looking for complete arguments including claims, warrants, and impacts.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, it won't be on my flow unless you bring it up in a speech.

Things that will automatically cost you the round and/or speaks:

Unnecessary rudeness

Falsifying evidence

Not having fun! :)

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

Generally, I like a well-formed outline driven debate. Spreading to the extent understandable is acceptable; however, if you talk too fast to understand I will not consider it. I hate performance debates. Tell me why you should win. Point on deficiencies in opponents arguments.

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

Hi I'm Alex. I think as of right now I'm top ranked in MS which is fun, although a pretty low bar. I've done LD, Nat Circuit LD, PF, CON, and World Schools, all at national levels. Mostly I judge LD, and it's super wacky, so that's what most of this is. If you're something else, focus on your CBA and arg chain, if you run a bad faith or isolating arg I likely won't vote on it.

-"If nobody hates you, you are doing something wrong." - Dr. House

-I have a minimum standard for coherence of arguments or evidence. This probably means you think I’m “Interventionist.”
-I am not the best judge for Bad Theory. This is the area where my “minimum standard” gets used the most.
-I have often voted for kritikal affirmative and negative arguments
-I "can handle" your "speed"
-I will vote on Defensive arguments.
-If you win on the flow, you win on the ballot.
-(Never thought I would have to state this in my philosophy...) Misrepresenting the context of evidence is cheating and can result in (up to) the loss of the round and points.

Bad Theory –
Affirmative Framework Choice – this, Literally, Argues that Argument is Bad
“No Solvency Advocate = You Lose” – this is a solvency press, not a theory argument.
“PICs must have one card which advocates the Action it takes and Advocates Not taking the Action it PICs out of” – like above, but Waaay more silly.
“I cannot turn your theory argument, so you lose.” – Fundamental misunderstanding of how arguments work.
“Topicality is a Reverse Voting Issue” – No, it isn’t.
“You lose because you put your Role of the Ballot on the Bottom, not the Top, of the AC.” – Stunning.

"You said no reverse voting issues. That's a reverse voting issue." – I'm speechless...
“You lose because you ran both theoretical and substantive justifications for your framework” – Really?!
“You didn’t number your Spikes = You lose.” – Strike me. Seriously.

Good Theory –
Whole Resolution / Plans Bad
Truth Testing vs Competing Worlds
Role Playing Policymakers vs Discourse
Conditionality
PICs Good/Bad (only run against Counterplans, not against Plans or the Resolution… Just FYI)

Fiat issues (Multiple Actors, International Actors, Contingent Fiat, etc. NOT "No Neg Fiat")

If you win on the flow, you win on the ballot. Have fun, kiddos :)

\

Hey, I'm noa (they/them), a college freshman with 4 yrs of national debate experience under my belt.

Generally, if I'm judging you, I'm not gonna take your outfit into consideration. The norm of wearing suits kinda excludes those without an expendable income? So just look professional, but I'm never gonna dock you points for something out of your control. This also goes for a sore throat, stuffy nose, or lost voice. It does help to let me know before the round though. Also, if you need to leave after your speech, you don't need to ask me!! Trust me, I've been there, so I understand needing to leave for whatever reason.

Here's what u need to know (for debate):

• Above all else, be respectful, please. I will drop you (and your speaks) instantly if I hear anything hateful in your case, rebuttal, or any of your other speeches. Debate needs to be a space for people to express themselves, and if you take that away from those people, you won't be getting my ballot.

• With that out of the way, I'll buy any traditional argument (that isn't hateful, obviously) that is well-supported with evidence and plenty of warranting. I don't really understand progressive debate arguments, but I won't drop you for running them. Just read them slowly and make them make sense, because, despite four years in LD, I never fully grasped progressive args.

• Have all your sources ready in case they're challenged, just because it saves time.

• Cross-Ex isn't binding unless you make an argument that it is. IE - if your opponent concedes something in cross-ex, you need to point that out to me in a speech for me to weigh it in my decision.

• IF UR IN A RUSH READ THIS: To win, you're gonna want to write my ballot for me in your last speech. I'm a huge fan of line-by-line rebuttals, as I keep a pretty detailed flow, so if you point out everything your opponent drops, and that matches with my flow, that's all the more reason to vote for you. If you're going to collapse, convince me why I should buy it. In your final speech, please provide either a comparative worlds analysis and go deep into the impact calc, or at the very least give me some solid voter reasons.

• Also?? have fun. You're spending your weekend here, why not have fun with it? Be personable in your speeches, keep me interested, and make me care about what you say. Just don't yell at me (please). lol.

• Speaks are usually pretty ableist so I'll start at a 28 and will try and keep it in the range of 26-30. That being said, if you throw in a League joke or make a clever movie/anime reference, and I laugh at it, I'll bump your speaks up a point.

IF IM JUDGING POLICY, IM SORRY :(

send email chain to noaburnerlol@gmail.com

I did Public Forum for three years and competed nationally.

Speaking:

I care about clarity above speed or amount of evidence. If I can't understand you or your arguments, I won't be able to consider them and neither will your opponents who will receive the benefit of the doubt if they are unable to rebut. Speak clearly and understand the risks in "spreading."

Arguments:

Claim, Warrant, Impact. Make sure to evaluate impacts on both sides of the debate. A comparative debate with clash between arguments makes it easy for me to determine who won the round.

Etiquette:

Please don't be rude (i.e. snarkiness, frequent interruption, and condescension), particularly in cross. The new digital platform makes it even more difficult to understand debaters talking over each other. Repeated rudeness, despite quality of speeches, will result in lower speaker points.

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.

I served as a judge for the last two years for public forum section in MS, but not for virtual debate.