I'm a traditional judge with over 30 years of coaching all events. I am currently teaching a new Debate course at Center Academy for Success.

Speech/Debate Experience - Director of Debate at Liberty Sr. HS in Liberty, MO. Debated policy debate in high school and have been coaching now for 6 years. I can follow above average speed (it's your responsibility to signpost/be clear) but I acknowledge this is a communication activity and see more value in quality of argumentation as opposed to quantity of arguments. I will be flowing but don’t expect me to do the work for you in extensions or weighing. Your speeches are the priority when determining what to evaluate.

In order to weigh something on the flow, you need to include warrants with your claims. You can tell me to vote on something but if I don't have a clear (and well extended) reason to accompany it, I will look elsewhere for a claim that does have a warrant included. A complete argument should include claim, warrant, impact. Extend warrants with authors - sure, they dropped Smith '22, but why does Smith '22 matter to the round? is a question you should be answering on every extension. Each side should identify and impact calculate the offense in the round as early as they are able. Do not expect me to do the work for you or to be as well versed on the topic as you, it is better to assume I do not know a term than to jump straight in and leave the judge behind.

I typically lean more towards traditional debate in that it presents topic specific education and clash. However, kritikal arguments are fine so long as the thesis of the argument is clear and the clash is evident. Case debate is my preferred style of argumentation and if the K can provide a good link story into the affirmative world. Alternatives of do nothing in general are boring. That's not to say that they can't win a round (Solvency takeouts alone function in a similar manner) but I always wonder how much more creative the alt debate could be beyond "stay in the squo".

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, someone is running prep time. Per the event rules there are speeches, cross-ex and prep. Especially now that high school prep is 8 minutes instead of the original 5... please don't attempt to steal prep. It is your responsibility to exchange evidence efficiently (if online, establish an email chain before the round if you think you'll need it). I will not stop prep if you "say stop prep, I want to request evidence from my opponent's". Take care of that during cross-ex or email speeches before you speak. There are time constraints in debate for a reason, abide by them, don't try to bend around them.

I mainly look for you demonstrate your understanding of the topic by making clear attacks and building your case back up after being attacked. In the end, I will be looking at the attacks and evaluating who made the stronger attacks. Generally, the more convincing arguments are supported by evidence and are clear in how they relate to your opponents arguments.

Hello! I've been doing debate for about 3 years now, and I'm very familiar with Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas. I just have a few ground rules.

Public Forum)

-Use evidence!!

-Be respectful during cross, if you're being rude/cutting them off/being immature, you'll lose on that.

-I'll be flowing the round, so be sure to signpost so I know what you're talking about/what you're attacking.

-If you mess up a little during speeches, stutter, use "ums" or anything like that, I won't count you off for it. Of course, try to avoid it, but I'll be focusing on content, not performance/delivery. Debate can be nerve-wracking sometimes, so I understand.

Lincoln Douglas)

-I will also be flowing, be sure to signpost and inform me on what you're attacking/talking about.

-Value and Value Criterion clash is what I'll focus on quite a bit. But I'll also vote on the moral high ground as well.

-Be respectful, as mentioned before.

-Emphasize to me why your impacts are morally better than your opponents, I'll be paying attention to that a lot.

-If you mess up what you're saying by accident, stutter, or use "ums", as stated before don't worry about that. I'm focusing on content, not if you're a good speaker. Debates can be scary so I understand if nerves are high during rounds.

Policy)

-I'm not too familiar with this, so try to not spread.

-No bigoted arguments, if you make any disrespectful/discriminatory arguments, you'll get low speaks/will lose the round. Please be respectful to your opponents, and when making arguments as well.

-If there's an email chain for evidence, I'm totally fine with being included (if not, just make sure your evidence is clear when reading it to me so I can add it to the flow) Email: havard_gracie2022@gvr5.net

-I'll more than likely vote on the flow, or who has the better long term impacts in their plan. So please be sure to bring that up as well.

-If you mess up what you're saying by accident, stutter, or use "ums", as stated before don't worry about that. I'm focusing on content, not if you're a good speaker. As long as you're refuting opposing arguments well and pulling your impacts, you'll be just fine. Debates can be scary so I understand if nerves are high during rounds.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Debate is a learning experience, so I'm always willing to clarify anything or answer any questions you have. Best of luck!

I am a head coach for Speech & Debate.

I prefer traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas Debate, with a focus on Value Clash.

Evidence should be read throughout the debate.

I keep a good FLOW during the round.

I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate.

I encourage you to give VOTERS. Tell me why you have won the round.

I really do not tolerate disrespect in the round. Being rude will lose you the ballot.

I am a speech/debate coach. Though I did not participate in the activity myself, I have five years of experience coaching and judging at all levels of competition.

I can follow you at whatever speed you wish to debate, as long as you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

I will be taking notes throughout the round, focusing on key arguments in the case. I am willing to vote on topicality, to vote for counterplans, and to vote for a K, but at the end of the day, my decision will come down to who argues their side most effectively. A well-argued stock issues case will win my ballot over a poorly-articulated theory argument every time (and vice versa).

I have been a debate coach for 11 years. In policy, I prefer traditional stock issue and policy-maker arguments.

I am a policy debater, I have some experience in Ies. Because of this, I like evidence and being told the information and why you've won a debate. Ies are more about presentation and a pretty way of getting a topic across in my opinion so keep that in mind.

Ies

When it comes to Ies, if you mess up I'm just looking to see it transition back smoothly and make it look like it didn't happen, I don't have the script to what you're saying so I won't know if you don't make it obvious. Hitting time is important to me but also making it smooth and sound good, if you are under but your speech is smooth and gets everything out you won't be ranked badly. I'm mainly looking at performance and structure

Debate

PF-

Don't talk over each other in crossfires, debate is a respectful event, and screaming over each other is not a good look. Provide your information and be confident in you're delivery. Adress what your opponent says, don't drop points, I do policy, and dropped points are something I pay close attention to. In your last speeches don't just give me more information, tell me why you've already won. Just convince me and be confident

LD- Attack the value and value criterion! That is the most important part of LD and what sets it apart, your points are important but the morals lie in the value so argue it! Speed is okay in this format but don't go too fast, in order to get what you need across effectively

Policy- This is the debate I am most versed in. I've been doing it for a year and a half now, I can handle speed and a lot of on case and off case. That being said don't spread if you can't, it's okay to go slow. And don't run a ton of arguments if you can't develop them. I like da's but make them and not expand, by this I mean don't claim nuclear war without a proper link chain. Dropped arguments do not look good so try and cover everything. If you run a K really explain it to me, that is what I am least strong in and something you've never used. I will only vote for it if it has all of the parts. With a counterplan tell me why it is above and beyond the presented plan, and please don't forget the permutation or the actual plan part of the counterplan (you'd be surprised how often that happens).

Other than all of that I am just looking to be educated when it comes to debate, so give me the information.

I am a policy debater at Grain Valley High School. I am open to any type of argument. Make sure you tell me how to vote and why. Be confident, but overall I'd just prefer that you'd have fun with whatever event you're participating in and generally be kind and civil towards one another.

be swag.

policy is not swag.

K’s in LD=not swag

progressive stuff be careful, or no swag.

Following flow, determines swag.

Ik LD and PF, not Policy.

the quicker you speak the less I write down

i don’t know policy lingo

SO basically keep it traditional, and you'll achieve swag.

Hello! I did debate, mostly public forum, from 8th grade to 12th grade. Since then, I have judged countless debates.

LD and Public Forum: I am most interested in the clash of ideas, rather than debaters simply restating their cases at each other. I want to discourage off-the-clock road maps as they are often unnecessary and I want to respect everyone's time.

Policy: My approach is tabula rasa, i.e. the debaters tell me how to judge the round. I am open to counterplans and kritiks.

Feel free to ask me any questions.

Hello! My name's Alex (they/them) and I'm currently a college student at the University of Kansas studying Sociology and Pre-Law. I did debate for 3 years in high school (Congress, PFD, LD, and World Schools) and went to nationals for World Schools in 2021. I'm a big fan of clear argumentation and rhetorical skill, and I'm a firm believer in debate as a speaking event and not a reading event (I know tech debate terminology and I can follow it, but try to keep it to a minimum).

General Rules:

1. Try to speak as well as you can. I won't dock speaks for any verbal quirks you may have, I know that ableism is pretty prevalent when it comes to judging speaks. Just try your best to sound convincing.

2. I understand that information can get mixed up, but if you knowingly try to deceive me you will catch this L. Truth matters more than argumentation.

3. Make sure your arguments are coherent. Don't use 50 internal links to an extinction impact, because that's silly. Links are important, but make sure they actually link the warrant and impact.

4. Theory is very interesting to me, especially a lot of K theory (queer theory, cap, ableism, and neolib are some I have more knowledge of) but make sure that you can actually link it to the resolution.

5. Insert Kim K swinging purse video. DO NOT BE RUDE. Debate is not an exercise in domination, it's a conversation. And if you are unable to effectively communicate with opponents on the issue, your speaks will be docked.

6. Debate is not a game, your job is not to win. Your job is to be informative and discuss pertinent issues. Try to inform me on the issue. Don't assume that I know about West African Urbanization, but don't be patronizing. I follow the news (twitter) fairly often, so I try to have context.

7. That being said, have fun! Rounds have a tendency to get unnecessarily heated, and I won't dock points for having a good time. As long as the round runs on time

Public Forum: wawaweewa

Framework: For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE HAVE FRAMEWORK. Especially in a fast-paced format like PF, framework helps drive the round down into core issues faster and gives me a way to vote. And by extension: don't just have it and wait until Final Focus to bring it back around. MAKE SURE IT IS APPLIED IN EVERY SPEECH.

Speaking:

Evidence:

Argumentation:

Lincoln-Douglas

I will generally vote on flow, but rhetorical skill is equally important. If you're a good speaker, that alone won't get you a vote from me. Cross-examination doesn't have a lot of bearing in my decision, but I do want friendly exchange rather than talking over each other. I did LD for 2 years, so I have some experience in this format.

Policy

I vote on flow, but speaking plays into my decision quite a bit. I'm okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc. I will vote on progressive cases if it's presented well. I don't usually vote on T.

Taylor Layman :)

they/she/he

Truman high school class of 2023

Put me on the email chain taylor.laymandebate@gmail.com

Pls TW antisemitism, homophobia, abuse and su!c!de before sending out docs - it's fine to read things with these mentions I would just like a little bit of a warning preferably

Top line/rando quick things

Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic

You do you, I will flow it

Be nice

I much prefer fast rounds but I need to be able to understand you

If you have written blocks/overviews/arguments for your speech put them into the doc I like to read them and follow along (+.1 speaks if you do this I really enjoy it, it also means when I am making my decision I have written arguments to refer back to along with cards which I like)

Don't shake my hand

Disclosure is good

DA's

do what you like here i really dont care.

CP's

Condo is usually good but I will vote on whatever

I tend to er neg on general counterplan theory but again I can be swayed either way

K's

K's are cool K v K is fun, Framework is believable when you make it so, just saying it's not fair is not that.

T

I love T, I love theory and arguing about debate in general. I think it's fun.

Do what you'd like here

Case

Case debate is great. You should read many many case answers and args as negs

LOVE LOVE LOVE case turns

Things you shouldn't do

Be mean

Clip

Not use all of cross ?? (why do novices do this? It is free prep time just ask what a card means)

Steal prepp

take a significant time to send out docs, it just annoys me

Not have pronouns listed on tabroom or in chat or in zoom

Traditional style LD. Not big on flowing.

Assistant coach for 5 years.

Taken from Tyler Gamble's paradigm, but holds mostly true for me:
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often that not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are directly oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained...
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Taken from Ellen Ivens-Duran's paradigm:
Here are the things that matter:
I did not debate as a student.
I have judged and coached PF and LD for (5) years.
I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.
...

I debated policy for four years in high school and attended my state tournament and Nationals. I'm down for anything in round but I know people like specifics so here you go. Here are arguments I will go for-

1. Disadvantages- I will go for any full-fleshed DA with a good link chain. I don't really care how far-fetched the impact is as long as you have evidence to get you there.
2. Topicality- I luv a good t argument. Be concise and clear and it's likely I'll go for it.
3. Theory- Same as T. I like theory, especially on a counterplan level.
4. Counterplans- I like CP's, I think they are a good tool, but I won't vote aff just because there is no CP by the neg
5. Kritiks- Since I'm not debating the high school topic any more I don't know it as well so I will need a little more explanation on Kritikal arguments, but I will still go for them just be aware that I don't have as much understanding of the topic literature as you do. :)

Preferences-

1. Check on open cross- different schools/areas have different norms for cross so I just prefer you check
2. Spreading is all good, I just want to see the speech doc. Only time you shouldn't spread is if it is an equity issue like spreading would exclude your opponents from having a fair round (hearing issues, language barriers etc.)
3. I really just prefer civility- if your opponent is lost in round don't speak down to them, that's how we lose interest in debate.

General:

Humor, line by line, and strat will boost speaks, disrespect to opponents or judge will drop them

Will listen and flow at any speed as long as it is clear - don't spread through theory

HS CX:

Will vote on anything non problematic w/ impact calc

tech > truth

Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy

No preference on condo - will vote either side

HS LD:

Will vote on a CP/K, however, I lean aff on fairness and perms

Shelbee Reeves

She/Her

THS Speech & Debate President

Add me to the email chain: shelbee_reeves23@isdschools.org

UK TOC and Nationally-Qualified Congressional Debater (HoA District Champion, finaled at Catholic + others)

Current: LD, CX, and USX

Pretty experienced in PF too

Policy

I tend to view arguments through a realistic lens. I'm not a fan of judge intervention and I'll do my best not to allow my perspectives to influence my judging, but I will say that if it isn't at least somewhat imaginable in the world, I am probably not going to vote for it.

- Spreading is fine, but please put me on the email chain. That's not to say that you should be completely unintelligible every time you stand up to speak.

- Links are so important. If it doesn't link or the link is weak, you're skating on thin ice. Probably my biggest voting issue.

- Impacts are all up to you. I'm interested in hearing about the big impacts like extinction and space war...if you can link to it. If not, I probably won't vote for you.

- Solvency is huge. If you can't show solvency, that's an automatic L. This is a voting issue.

- Topicality is only as good as the argument you're making. However, if you drop T, that is very bad (kind of a given)

- CPs, PICs, and all those wonderful things: I am cool with any as long as you truly solve better than the Aff. If your CP is essentially the same thing as the Aff but with one minor difference, I'm probably just going to vote Aff. Once again, solvency really matters. Show me not only that you can solve, but that you solve uniquely better than the Affirmative.

- Ks. The K is only as good as it is competitive. If you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to defend it heavily throughout the round, especially if the alt involves my ballot. That being said, I am not likely to vote on anything having to do with identity politics. I have watched too many rounds in which debaters were forced to deny their own identities in order to be competitive, and that defeats the entire purpose of the K. Do you, but know that I am not likely to vote for it if you (a) deny someone else's hardship or existence or (b) don't have any idea what your literature means or what the alt does.

- Disclosure. Do it. If they ask, tell them. If you refuse to disclose just to be shady and I know about it, yikes. I will say that disclosure theory often comes off whiny to me ... do with that what you will

LD

- I prefer traditional LD to progressive. Slow down and explain why I should vote on your framework. Analysis is so much more important than evidence. Don't throw a bunch of cards at me and expect me to vote on it. Tell me WHY. Give me some good voters at the end of the debate.

- Be unique. Generic arguments are no fun and it's hard for me to see why I should consider them in specific cases.

- Framework. Don’t run some bs philosophy you pulled out of a hat in order to confuse your opponent. If the philosophy is ridiculous, I will use your opponent's framework in making my decision. Explain how your framework outweighs in the context of the resolution so that I know what I'm voting on.

- Not big on disclosure in LD. Put me on the email chain if there is one but I'm not expecting it.

- Ks. See my thoughts above.

Puf

Most of the same themes apply as above: make sure you link to your impacts, show me why your world is preferable, tell me why I should care, and be a kind human.

Congress

- In the wise words of every judge's Congress paradigm I've ever had, advance the debate. Please don't make me listen to the same points over and over.

- Really listening for warrants. Make them strong.

- Presiding Officers - if you do a good job, you will be in my top three. Thank you for sacrificing your opportunity to debate. I think people forget that the activity can't happen without a competent PO and you deserve recognition for stepping up. (coming from someone who lost one too many opportunities for stepping up as PO)

Anything + Everything

• Don't waste either of our time going for an abusive argument. If it's not against the rules, it's fair game. These arguments are whiny and have nothing to do with the debate.
• Card clipping is a huge no. I will point it out, I will dock your speaks, and I will vote you down 95% of the time. It's grimy. Get good.
• You don't need to bring it to my attention that there are no new args in rebuttals. I am flowing, I am a debater, I am aware of the rules.
• Assume I'm ready so that we don't have to do the awkward "judges ready" song and dance every time you speak.
• If you act like a jerk, I will copy and paste a bunch of sportsmanship theory on your ballot. It costs zero dollars to be polite, just saying.

Most importantly, make it a good experience for yourself and your opponent(s). This is a great activity and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do :) <3

V PFD Debater, with experience in LD/Cong/Info
I value strong argumentation, evidentiary extensions, and clash
I could not care less about semantics
Treat me like a flay judge, because odds are I'm not flowing absolutely everything
As such, I also value good signposting, pacing, and clarity of speech

Credentials:

4 Year Debater at Grain Valley Highschool

Qualified to Nationals my Sophomore year

3 year conference finalist for Lincoln Douglas

Currently ranked 2nd and 4th in the state for LD and Congressional Debate respectively

Actual Paradigm:

Speed is okay although not encouraged

Will be judged off of arguments alone although good speaking is encouraged

Tech> Truth

Huge on signposting, if you don't signpost I'm not flowing it.

Prefer traditional debating although am knowledgeable on K's, CP's, PIC's, and PIK's, as well as general theory (condo good/bad for example).

Any questions feel free to email me at BraydenStolle@gmail.com for questions about paradigm, RFD, or individual feedback. Thanks!

email chain - AiriyannahWashington1@gmail.com

I debated in policy for 3 years at Truman high school, along with doing oratory and ld.

*IF VIRTUAL*

you should turn on cameras when it is your turn to speak unless your device can't do that for whatever reason.

quality > speed. we are online so being able to clearly hear arguments matters over speed.

I give feedback, but give me time to finish my rfd and comments.

When it comes to this years policy topic, I have little knowledge on it, so please be clear on your tag lines and what you're referencing to.

Things You shouldn't do

Being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or any of the ists. If I find you to be doing ANY of these things, I am giving you the lowest ranks possible, you lose the round and I will stop listening.

Giving me a 100-page doc as your evidence. that isn't a speech doc and I shouldn't have to search for what you're saying.

Be weird about giving your evidence to your opponents.

Policy -

I vote on flow not speaking ability.

I will more likely than not vote on solvency.

Disads

do not care for extinction impacts since the likelihood of one plan being able to cause that is unlikely, but have a good internal link and it's valid.

Cps

I think cps are pretty cool if ran correctly. unfortunately, that is a rarity. if you do run one please have a net benefit. no net benefit = no case

Topicality

I do not see a point in running topicality unless you really feel bringing it up is vital in the round. technicality and impact calc is key in topicality. I would like to see it.

kritiks

(novice running k's? okay)

I like policy args more but on K's, I go as far fem, abolition, and anti-blackness. If you go outside of that I can probably follow and flow. on neg, you need to explain to me extensively on your links, and more on why I should vote on this. weigh the k against the aff. on Aff, I feel kritiks should still be somewhat in the resolution. I will more often than not lean more on the topicality argument if you don't explain to me your case well. Essentially, explain and overextend.

I don't care for abusive args but if you feel something in the round is abusive, run it I guess.

Lastly, HAVE FUN. nothing is worse than being in a round where it is hostile and everyone doesn't want to be there. Trust me I've been in those rounds and I don't want to judge one.