Hello! My name is Audrey Behar, I'm a Har-Ber High School student in the class of 2021. I'm the vice-captain of the Har-Ber Debate Team.

Judging Paradigms

- No spreading. I'm pretty good at keeping up but if you talk faster than Eminem then I'm disregarding it. Please speak clear because you can earn a lot of points from me for being a good speaker.

- Make sure your points are clear, it's hard to judge a round if I have no idea what your points are.

- Be organized with your flow and make sure to have good structure.

- Don't be rude to your opponent. This includes rolling your eyes, laughing while your opponent is talking, or yelling at your opponent during cross. It's annoying when people catch an attitude during a round. If you have to, pretend to be polite.

- If there is clash, then it's your job to convince me with evidence and logic.

- Have fun with it! If I can see that you're having fun and enjoying it, then it'll make it easier to judge for me haha

Honestly, I'm a pretty laid back judge. If you want critiques or advice after the round, I'll gladly give them. Speech and debate should be enjoyable and I want everyone to have a good time during rounds. Good luck! :)

Relatively straightforward:

Keep the debate interesting with new evidence and argumentation

Speak clearly

Be polite! Of course keep a bite but never step into the realm of rude.

1. Be Professional
2. NO SPREADING. If I can't keep up, I will stop flowing the debate.
3. Clash is key. Go line-by-line and pick apart every bit of your opponents case while you build your own case back up.
4. Good debaters are good communicators.

Bradley House

Houseb1@cps.k12.ar.us

Congress:

Congress is a fun event that requires a lot of effort to speak and ask questions. I have done a handful of congress sessions and i am hoping to do more in the future. things that I like to see in congress are as follows.

~First you need to have at least 2 or 3 speeches in the congress round in order to attempt to score high.

~Second you need to ask a handful of questions. These shouldn’t be questions that are just fillers for time they should be ligenimet questions and concerns about a bill or resolution. Along with this it is fine if you don’t know an answer for a question or the question trips you up. There is always a way out.

~Also don’t use the same speech as someone else. We all know that sometimes people share things on a group drive and they tend to share speeches. I don’t care if you ask a friend for a speech. I do care about hearing the same speech 5 times.

~Lastly I do want to know sources and weather or not they are credible. If there not credible and you don’t say your source, how do i know weather it is reliable information.

~Bonus try to spread out speeches for both aff and neg. You need to learn about speaking on the other side even if you don’t agree with it. In the end you can make a speech that you don’t agree with then later vote the opposite of that speech.

Lincoln Douglas:

I have recently done a lot of LD this year. I have around 16 rounds of LD under my belt and it is a lot of fun. Things I like to see are as follows.

~Don’t have short speeches because you need every second of your speech. The only exception to me is if your opponent doesn’t have something to say and has a short speech then it is natural for you to have a shorter speech because there is not a lot to go on.

~you need to speak clear and precise. Speed doesn’t matter to me as long as you get your point across and you not stalling. I get it some of us speak slow and others fast you just need to try to find something that works for you. (If you are talking really fast just to try to impress people don’t it just makes our job harder)

~I will not judge cross exam unless it is brought up in the round. So if you have a hard question pinning you down and your opponent forgot to go off of it. Well then to me it never happened also. Don’t waste your time with questions because you might not understand at first but it is a wonderful tool to have.

~ for the arguments that you make i want to see a fight. Along with that one of the best things you can do is make a come back. To me this shows that you can deal with a situation and be able to figure out a solution.

~I am always flowing everything except questions. This is because unless i miss something i will know if you dropped a impact. When it comes down to it if you don’t repair your case and drop a impact chances are you will lose. Also if the opponent doesn’t speak on the thing dropped. Then to me it never happened.

~Tell me why you won. That way I know what I have to evaluate in the round.

~Bonus Don’t bring up contentions in you last speech or new information. This is because you should have brought it up earlier in the round.

Hello all! My name is Andrew Hull, I have had six years of forensics and debate experience from Jr. High through the Collegiate level. I prefer to judge forensic events as this is where my experience lies.

Clayton Kincade

Cabot High School 2021 Alumni

Hello! My name is Clayton, and I did Speech and Debate for 6 years while in high school. While I primarily did speech, my junior year onward, I did debate on the side. I qualified twice for Nationals in WSD, as well as winning best overall delegate at ACTAA Congress in 2019! This experience is where I will be basing most of my judging.

Congress:

I prefer speeches that are clearly organized with a teaser, conclusion, and roadmap. When speaking, provide credible sources (don't make claims or statements without backing it up). Try and provide new arguments not provided in the round when speaking, if possible; this helps keep the debate fresh for everyone involved. Make sure that during the questioning period, you adequately respond to questions and don't circle around what's being asked. Be kind to your fellow delegates and don't speak over them or patronize them. Overall, I value fluid speeches that are well-spoken and easy to follow.

WSD:

1. For speaking points, I value a good "public speaking" voice. Do not spread or rush through the content. Make sure speeches are well organized, follow a template, and flow from each speaker to the next. Sign-posting is ideal for organization, but treat these segments nonetheless as you're speaking a normal sentence--AKA don't fall into a policy style of speaking. Enunciate all words and have tonal inflection that helps keep me engaged.

2. For content points, I highly regard the "world" aspect of world schools. Arguments that are international, unless specifically regarded as a U.S-centric topic, will always be preferred. Respond to each point the opposing side brings up, but don't fall into the "list" trap of going through all the specific issues over having clear organization. Having a debate about framing is okay, but making it a large issue during the round ends up giving everyone involved a headache (and means I can't judge well)!. Organization is key for having a great argument, so find a structure that works well for your team and stick to it! Ultimately, remain friendly and cordial with one another. Being disrespectful or rude to your opponents during questioning or during speaks is unacceptable, and will most likely result in a loss.

If given the option, I will always disclose my decision and provide reasons why. I'm not the best at flowing, so I will mainly look for how each team responds to the broad arguments of one another and provides the most convincing argument for overall arg/content points (though I will still flow).

Hello, I’m Carter Kirby, I’ve been doing debate for 2 years now. I’m most familiar with Congress but not totally unfamiliar with other styles. My pronouns are he/him or they/them and I don’t tolerate bigotry of any kind in a round. Be civil and be smart. I tend to be pretty chill :). My email is carterakirby@gmail.com if you have any questions, concerns, or you just think I seem cool lol

Speaking - I prefer clear speaking and persuasion over spreading. It’s hard for me to keep up and I need you to be articulate. Try not to be aggressive but don’t let that stop you from clashing with your opponent-- this is a debate.

Tech over truth

Theory is fine

Arguments - I really don’t have a preference when it comes to the types of arguments you run so long as you know what you’re talking about, present it well, and uphold it well. I prefer a lot of clash in debate and want to see you defend your arguments while criticizing the others. Adapt well to the person you’re debating.

Evidence - As log as it is up to date and not pulled from somewhere that is clearly shady/made up I could honestly care less where you get your evidence

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

I am a debate and forensics competitor, while I keep my judging for those two separate, please know that the more dynamic and interesting that you are to listen to, the more likely I am to enjoy your argument or your piece.

Forensics:

- All I really ask is that you follow the guidelines for the event and that your characterise well. Please speak clearly and enunciate.

- And please be passionate! There is nothing worse than a piece you clearly do not care about

Debate:

I have competed in PF and IPDA, I do not know much of anything about Policy or LD.

- Please speak clearly and do not spread under any circumstances. I would rather you have quality points over quantity of points

- Do not attack your opponents personally. This will not result in an automatic loss but the scales will be heavily weighed against you.

- Provide evidence and give me clash. You could have the best arguments in the world but if you don't link those to framework and your opponent's case, it will be a lot harder for me to interpret what you've won.

- Use the time for what it's meant for. Do not introduce brand new points in the very last speech

- Keep things cordial, no offensive language

- Make sure to cite your evidence clearly or I will consider it just another opinion

Congress:

- Speak clearly

- Make sure there is clash

- Have topically relevant and appropriate questions

- Bring up a new point every single time that you speak along with rebutting your opponent's points (unless it's clearly a crystallization speech)

- You are representing your constituents, tie things back to them

- For my Presiding Officers: I am not going to rank high purely for PO'ing. You need to do a good job and be better than the actual speakers. Mediocre PO'ing or PO'ing an easy room will not get higher rankings than good or great speeches.

Please have fun and feel free to ask me any questions at the beginning of the round. Feel free to give me your pronouns so that I can refer to you correctly.

LD-

Speed- Medium to medium-fast (If speed gets in the way of speaking style, I'm not a fan. I don't like fast for the sake of fast). I will judge progressive style arguments if that's what's presented, but it's not my favorite.

Framework- May possibly be a voting factor depending on its use in the round, but not always. Voting issues- fine to use, but I'll only vote on them if I agree debater won the argument.

Speaking style/evidence/argumentation- all important!!

Policy- Speed- Medium to medium-fast. I will listen to spreading and it doesn't bother me as long as it's clear. I can handle K and Theory.

Policy Maker/ Stock Issues

Only vote on Topicality if Aff is highly off-topic or a squirrel case.

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.

***Include me in your email chain.*** zatucker@asub.edu

Lincoln Douglas

LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions, value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or policy arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.

Congressional Debate

I encourage any competitor to reflect seriously on the import attributes o the event. Congressional Debate should ALWAYS be a debate – not a presentation of dueling speeches. Delegates should use the sessions as an opportunity to critically discuss the legislation and move the debate along advancing agreements for and against of the matter before the body with each speech. Speeches should be conversational not appear scripted (DO NOT JUST READ A PREPARED SPEECH), notes should be used to quick reference evidence and quotes, reference points made by fellow delegates, cite supporting evidence, and be logical respecting the decorum of the event. Finally, each delegate should holistically contribute to the body and its debate of the measures on the docket. Engaging in questioning and parliamentary procedure respect respecting the decorum of the event.

Policy Debate

As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):

Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.

K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.

T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.

CP/DA: Sure, it's a debate.

Theory/Framework: Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.

The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.

Have fun and promote better discourse.

Lydia Veazey

She/her

veazelydia24@cps.k12.ar.us

tech over truth

speaking- I prefer clear and persuasive speaking rather than spreading.

I do not tolerate bigotry.

How to win my ballot

explain your links and impacts of all arguments.

be well organize.

tell me how I should write my ballot, and why.

you can do evidence comparison as necessary.

IPDA-

Having clash with your opponent is always best during the round.

Make sure your arguments are clear and well understood.

When in the round use up all of your time.

Do not bring up new arguments during your last rebuttals.

During the question period give “to the point” answers. Don't ramble on. It is a waste of time.

A good tip is to really hit on your impacts all during the round.

flow all throughout the round.

Congress

Know your speech.

Answer question without rambling.

Quantity over Quantity

Speak clearly and use up all time.

Have confidence

Have fun with debate!

General:

The key to a debate is to listen, never leave something out. When you listen to your opponent, so much can come to mind. ALWAYS weigh the arguments. I dont believe a debate should be seen as why the problem in the world is bad or good, however a debate should be about how we should either fix or not intervene on something.

Behavior:

We as a society should mantain a large amount of respect for everyone, I hope to not witness any behavior that is racist, transphobic, ableist, or violent-

-Be prepared.

-DO NOT confront agruments and rehash them.

-I value credible evidence. Statistics quotes, sources.

-On one sided debates be prepared to speak on the other side. Be different and provide a different side of things.

IDPA:

-include sources. this helps me understand that you used your thirty minutes to truly understand the your topic.

- Try and have a rebuttal.

-During the second speeches remember to always try and state your oponents points. DONT ARGUE but hash out and make me understand why youre right.

-During questioning period try and make it great

(USE ALL YOUR TIME)

Extemp:

-I truly enjoy good introductions.

-Always try and grab my attention with interesting facts and a backstory.

-Again, I value evidence and sources. Always having credible sources can backup your argument.

- Have a great structure. This is basically impromptu, remember what you are doing.