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.

quick history : debated four years of HS, did PF and USX. 7th PF at districts and 6th in USX, (not super impressive ik but oh well) I’m a sophomore at miz now go tigers

email: chloricname342@gmail.com for questions ig idk

Speed:

I don't really care about speed, I'd like to think I could keep up w most of the policy guys. If I can't hear you or if ur too fast, I will clear and if you don't slow down or compensate I will just not flow the args. Maybe don't go too fast since we're all on zoom :/ If you can’t spread well then please don’t spread, I will value the arguments over the ability to dump evidence on someone.

Frameworks:

If u run a FW, explain to me why its important and why I should value ur framework over the opps. If u run a FW, then make sure u don’t drop it later.

Roadmapping:

I will most likely be flowing the round so please roadmap and make it crystal clear what you’re defending or attacking. I don’t want to hear the usual “today im going to be attacking my opponent and defending my case”. Just quickly tell me the order and reiterate the signposting throughout the speech.

Types of Arguments:

I'm fine w progressive shit, i honestly don't care – I think that if they are done well then they provide value for debate as a whole. If you have weird args just explain them to me and prove to me why they matter, I’m not super well versed in K and Theory but I will work with it.

Don’t run memey cases just to mess with the opp, I’m fine with weird args so long as they are substantial and worthwhile.

Evidence:

I'm fine with paraphrasing, but you better have the actual evidence to back it up. I'm most likely not going to call for evidence unless both teams are arguing over the same evidence or if a team specifically asks me to call for it. If the topic is extremely knowledge dense or acronym dense, please quickly explain what they are as I haven’t even looked at the topic yet. Please don't drop all of ur evidence into the file share if you didn't read it, i won't either.

Impacts:

I like impacts – I won’t cap. I will flow and value any impact so long as you have strong and legitimate links to the argument. Have strong links and probability and I’ll vibe w it.

Decorum:

Don’t be an ass. I’m okay with jokes/wit/all of that and I understand that debate can get toxic but if you are being overly aggressive and disrespectful for no reason, then you’re losing speaks. I personally don’t care abt appearance, I know that we’re all in quarantine especially – I care abt the argumentation more than looking good. Try not to be distracting in ur the way you present urself. I also don’t care abt cursing but im sure ur coach and other judges do so whatever. I don’t like it when people try and kiss the judge’s ass.

CX:

I like crossfire/crossX, I think it’s fun. I probably won’t be voting on anything that comes from it unless it proves that one debater obviously doesn’t know their stuff or if they’ve been caught up. I would rather vote on stuff provided in speeches. I don’t flow CX but if theres a major revelation or sum crzy goes down, I’ll mark it down.

Things I Like to Vote On:

Impacts go brrr. Don’t just tell me the impact, prove to me that its going to happen. Tell me why the impacts matter and why they’re probable and why they’re more important than the opp. You don’t have to go for every argument/impact as long as you sufficiently cover them in previous speeches. Write my ballot for me in ur last few speeches. Please do not bring up new arguments or impacts in the last speech, its disrespectful and I’m not gonna value them. Same goes for arguments that weren’t hotly debated, if you can’t extend an argument through the round then im not weighing it. Point out drops for mad props. Speaks: If ur mad disrespectful or you don’t have ur cases down whatsoever then you’re probably getting voted down.

Random stuff:

Keep track of ur own prep. Don’t try and abuse it or finesse me. If you take ur sweet time finding evidence for the other team, its going to reflect on ur ballot. Citing pop culture or rap lyrics to me will win style points. If u can rhyme or make puns without them being absolutely awful, confusing, forced, or awkward, then ur getting more speaks :)

Did policy in hs, two years removed now. I'm down for whatever, but if you're gonna spread give me the speech docs. You gotta tell me why you deserve to win (e.g. tell me why topicality is a voter and why I should consider it before everything else). Also please remember I have no idea what this topic is so explain jargon if ur gonna use it.

Did policy in hs, two years removed now. I'm down for whatever, but if you're gonna spread give me the speech docs. You gotta tell me why you deserve to win (e.g. tell me why topicality is a voter and why I should consider it before everything else). Also please remember I have no idea what this topic is so explain jargon if ur gonna use it.

Howdy, y'all!

My name is Tarun. I did 3 years of Debate for Bentonville HS and currently compete in college. I specialized in BQ and PF and competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and have a base knowledge of Worlds. I also know a lot about speech, so that shouldn't be an issue.

General notes for all styles [PF, CX, LD, WS, BQ]

Add me to the email chain pls(taruneisen61@gmail.com)! I am tech > truth. I will buy any arguments, as long as they are extended, warranted, etc. Make sure to collapse on weak args and extend on the winning ones. I think that while FW is important, it isn't the main attraction. If you're running prog, make sure everyone is okay with it. Please don't run Trix and theory shells just to get that easy dub against a novice. I prefer debates on substance, but if it turns into a technicality debate, make sure it's good. If the round turns into a definition debate, I will give everyone 26's. Please bring up all-new cards before FF. I also will not evaluate new contentions beyond 1st AC/NC. Please signpost as well, and give a roadmap. This allows everyone to keep everything organized and allows a clear mind. All weighing and impacts should start in Rebuttal, but I will buy it in Summary if it's strong enough. Link chains should also be presented in Rebuttal and extended through FF. I am not a fan of judge intervention, so make sure the ballot is crystal clear. I will also keep time, so if you go over time, I will stop flowing. You can finish your sentence, but beyond that, I won't flow anything else. Also, speed is fine, but don't spread (unless policy). Again, don't run abusive args. 

Evidence

I love evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case, make sure you have the cut card, or at the very least, the URL for me to find it. Please warrant cards and show why they are both unique and impactful. I will call for any cards that I need, so please have them handy. I always had cut cards when I competed, so please have them. Make sure the cards actually say what you're telling. If you're going to present more cards in Rebuttal and Summary, warrant them and tell me why they outweigh the other side. Make sure those cards are also cut. If you just say the card (e.g., Jones 20) and give me info, but don't warrant it and show why it actually matters, I most likely won't buy it. If the source is biased or flawed, make it an issue. I won't buy new evidence past Summary, so any significant cards have them before that.

Cross X:

Please be respectful. I don't flow CX, but I will pay attention. If you're rude or a bully, I will down your speaker points. I am also chill with flex prep, but make sure your opponents are also okay with it. This time also shows how you flourish with direct questioning, so try your best.

Weighing/Voters:

Just because you say something's a voter does not automatically make it one. Make sure you tell me why this warranted voter is crucial. I will weigh probability, magnitude, timeframe (in that order of importance). Please do all weighing starting in Rebuttal, but I will accept it if you start in summary if it is crazy important. Any beyond that will not be bought. Be sure all voters are fleshed out, warranted, all that jazz. All voters should be in Summary. You can do voters in Rebuttal, but Summary is that last chance. Please show why you outweigh the opponents. It does me and you no good to show weighing A, B, C, but not why they matter more than opp. weighing D, E, F.

Last-minute thoughts:

-I will ave. speaker points at 28.5, but will go up and down accordingly.

-If you make a joke, I will up speaker points, but it has to be good or so bad it's amazing. Any bland jokes will lose speakers.

-Any Eisen cards will raise speaks by 0.5

-If you run Texas theory shell, I will give you L20. So just don't do it.

Otherwise, I am looking forward to seeing y'all debate!

Hi everyone, my name is Liz. I'm fairly easy going and enjoy hearing new material so if you're looking to try a new argument, I'm your judge. I'll get to specifics in a bit.

BIO: I am currently a junior at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. I have three years of LD and Congressional debate experience from high school on the Missouri circuit. I am majoring in psychology with minors in history and humanities in medicine. I have varied interests/experience in everything from political theory to aeronautics, so there's probably very little you could talk about that I will get bored by.

______________

SPEAKS

0-20: you were belligerent/racist/homophobic/rude or some combo of awful. I have no tolerance for disrespect. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another and remember, debate the resolution, not your opponent.

21-25: you weren't any of the above but you still didn't do anything correctly.

26-27: you were decent but need to improve on how the arguments function together and/or delivery.

28-29: you handled the round well and are a solid debater. you answered different arguments well.

30: I have no corrections. You had a perfect round - all your arguments are on point and were delivered properly. You made a strategic argument that I was impressed by.

______________

WILL VOTE ON

Framework

Case Arguments (including K's, DAs, etc.)

______________

POLICY

Speed: I'm LD at heart which means I'm not a huge fan of speed. Talk as fast as you want but speak clearly. I don't consider it a strategic move or a "win" if you speak at a rate your opponent (or I) can't understand. Be concise in your arguments and speed shouldn't be an issue. If you go too fast I will say "speed," after 2x I stop flowing. Arguments not on my flow will not be voted on.

Kritiks: I used K's when I debated but it's been a while so while I'm open to them, make sure to explain the lit and how it applies to the round. Do not run multiples in a round. Race, disability, and queer lit are all good in front of me. Neg needs to tell me to ignore the alt and explain/support why.

Disads: I'm all for them but make them specific. Generic disads leads to generic debates. Don't make me listen to a generic debate.

Topicality: If you're going to argue this, go all in on the 2NR. It can be a voter but it's not going to win the ballot alone.

Theory: Disclosure theory is important to me and I will vote on it if brought up, but I do not want a debate solely on theory.

______________

LD

Everything under policy applies here as applicable.

Framework: This is a big one for me. LD is about supporting your framework. If you can prove that your opponent fails to hold up their framework or your case supports their value/value criterion better, then you got my vote. This is where to clash.

I know my LD philosophers so feel free to use those too.

I like my LD to have the classic framework clash, but I still like progressive Ks and DAs. Make a unique argument that makes me change my mind or think a little harder about it. I give higher speaks to debaters who make concise arguments and remain confident, especially in close debates (don't give up early).

Hello there, I'm Caleb (he/him)

yes on the email chain please Calebwalkerrr@gmail.com

A little about my experience I debated policy all 4 years of high school at Raymore-Peculiar and I currently debate for Kansas State.

Run whatever you would like but if it is more nuanced or there is literature behind it then be sure to do some explaining. For context, I am a big fan of K debate and am familiar with things like setcol, cap, fem IR, and security. That doesn't mean you can't read anything outside of those just make sure you're doing good articulating why the aff does something not good.

As long as I have the doc you can go at whatever rate you want. but slow on the analytics or any other argument not on the doc.

Be nice, don't steal prep, don't clip, pretty simple way to not drop speaks

if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intentionally then don't expect my ballot. If you say something messed up accidentally at least apologize.

flashing/emailing isn't prep but if you steal prep I will start yours without telling you.

Now onto the specific stuff- this is where the fun begins

Aff-

If you arent running a plan- no biggie, I run K affs myself so I'm a huge fan when we aren't talking about USFG policy, however, if you intend on reading a standard policy aff- I ran those for 4 years so I will be excited for those as well. I think affs should at least address some of the parts of the resolution instead of going off and doing your own thing, but if you're doing just that then just tell me why you should be able to.

Neg-

Run whatever you'd like, as stated before if it's a nuanced argument with a bunch of lit on it, just explain it and we should be good. But if you're going for some disads and case turns go for it!

FW-

I say this as a K aff debater, FW is a pretty solid argument when run right, most of my 1nrs are FW and Case so trust me I'm a huge fan. On aff, impact turns are awesome here, just tell me why you don't need to be topical or argue that you are- your choice.

CP-

I will say I did not ever run many CP's but I don't doubt the usefulness of them, I will say I'm biased, if you're running 8 planks, I'm inclined to not enjoy it as much but regardless, run it how you want. Give me a net benefit and don't let them get the perm and you're golden. For aff's, perm do both, and moving on isn't gonna work, make sure you explain how the perm does work and why the net benefit isn't exclusive for the neg and we should be good.

Disads-

Huge fan of DA debates, fast technical debates have a special place in my heart and I enjoy them, that being said, neg have all parts of your disad intact and do some good impact calc so I prioritize this over anything else and we should be good. Aff if you can keep your case at the forefront of the impact calc and address the disad how you see fit.

TLDR- Run whatever you are comfortable with, be nice and give good judge instruction- any questions shoot me an email- make a star wars reference and ill give you high speaks

Hello there, I'm Caleb (he/him)

yes on the email chain please Calebwalkerrr@gmail.com

A little about my experience I debated policy all 4 years of high school at Raymore-Peculiar and I currently debate for Kansas State.

Run whatever you would like but if it is more nuanced or there is literature behind it then be sure to do some explaining. For context, I am a big fan of K debate and am familiar with things like setcol, cap, fem IR, and security. That doesn't mean you can't read anything outside of those just make sure you're doing good articulating why the aff does something not good.

As long as I have the doc you can go at whatever rate you want. but slow on the analytics or any other argument not on the doc.

Be nice, don't steal prep, don't clip, pretty simple way to not drop speaks

if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intentionally then don't expect my ballot. If you say something messed up accidentally at least apologize.

flashing/emailing isn't prep but if you steal prep I will start yours without telling you.

Now onto the specific stuff- this is where the fun begins

Aff-

If you arent running a plan- no biggie, I run K affs myself so I'm a huge fan when we aren't talking about USFG policy, however, if you intend on reading a standard policy aff- I ran those for 4 years so I will be excited for those as well. I think affs should at least address some of the parts of the resolution instead of going off and doing your own thing, but if you're doing just that then just tell me why you should be able to.

Neg-

Run whatever you'd like, as stated before if it's a nuanced argument with a bunch of lit on it, just explain it and we should be good. But if you're going for some disads and case turns go for it!

FW-

I say this as a K aff debater, FW is a pretty solid argument when run right, most of my 1nrs are FW and Case so trust me I'm a huge fan. On aff, impact turns are awesome here, just tell me why you don't need to be topical or argue that you are- your choice.

CP-

I will say I did not ever run many CP's but I don't doubt the usefulness of them, I will say I'm biased, if you're running 8 planks, I'm inclined to not enjoy it as much but regardless, run it how you want. Give me a net benefit and don't let them get the perm and you're golden. For aff's, perm do both, and moving on isn't gonna work, make sure you explain how the perm does work and why the net benefit isn't exclusive for the neg and we should be good.

Disads-

Huge fan of DA debates, fast technical debates have a special place in my heart and I enjoy them, that being said, neg have all parts of your disad intact and do some good impact calc so I prioritize this over anything else and we should be good. Aff if you can keep your case at the forefront of the impact calc and address the disad how you see fit.

TLDR- Run whatever you are comfortable with, be nice and give good judge instruction- any questions shoot me an email- make a star wars reference and ill give you high speaks

I graduated 2015, and competed in CX/Policy debate. I competed in World schools Nationals. I did IX as well.

My CX paradigm is as follows without using any fancy words, I'll vote on anything you can sale me on. Topicality, Theory debate, and Counterplans are hard to sale, but if you have links or good debate it won't matter. Speed reading is fine, as long as I can hear you clearly with Headers for flow purposes.

I graduated 2015, and competed in CX/Policy debate. I competed in World schools Nationals. I did IX as well.

My CX paradigm is as follows without using any fancy words, I'll vote on anything you can sale me on. Topicality, Theory debate, and Counterplans are hard to sale, but if you have links or good debate it won't matter. Speed reading is fine, as long as I can hear you clearly with Headers for flow purposes.

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

I competed in policy debate for four years at William Chrisman High School. I currently attend the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), majoring in both Political Science and Gender Studies. I approach and judge debate primarily from the technical side of things, though I do value truth. In high school, I primarily debated policy-focused affirmatives and negatives, as that was the nature of my circuit, but I am comfortable with critical and theoretical argumentation, as well as stock issues if that's what you do. Ultimately, you do you, and I'll adapt.

For Policy, my paradigm is a combination of Gaming Model and Legal Model. I also have sympathies for the Legislative Model.

For LD and other non-Policy debate, I consider the classical model of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos).

I'm predisposed against counterplans, so the NEG had better convince me it's the right argument for the *specific* AFF case. Otherwise, I'm judging two AFF's, which is not what secondary ed debate is about.

I am primarily a forensics coach who has judged Policy a handful of times. I debated Public Forum in college.

My biggest thing is that you don't spread - if I have to stop flowing because you are going too fast or I am trying to understand what you are saying...you have already lost me and I will default to a policymaker paradigm.

It is important to me as a judge that you are kind to one another - a little sass is okay, but be careful of being hateful or rude to one another. That is not the point of this debate.

I care way more about clarity than speed. I appreciate signposting as a flow judge. Don't spread.

Paradigm below is from 2020 Nats, much of it still applies.

Hi all, my name is Jake (he/him), and I debated from 2011-2015 at Park Hill South HS. I exclusively competed in LD, but have judged all three debate forms extensively.

I strongly prefer on-case arguments to off-case args, but don't let that prevent you from being creative. This LD topic specifically allows for a broad discussion of state authority, structural racism, etc.

For LD, I judge based on the value and criterion. Whoever wins the V/VC debate wins the framing debate, and I'll sign my ballot for which side can prove that their contention-level args better achieve/maximize the winning framework. As an example, I've voted (through gritted teeth) for a 'Death Good" framework argument because the opposing side failed to explain why the extinction of the human race didn't minimize human suffering. Did I like it? No. Did the winning team get perfect speaker points and a glowing ballot? Certainly.

PF is, for me, just LD without the V/VC. If you want to give me a structure/weighing mechanism, that's great (and I think important whether you do it implicitly or explicitly). Otherwise, I'll just default to the criterion the sides generally agree on (saving lives, saving $$$, etc.)

For both of these debate forms, it is important to clash. Disagree with your opponent. Showing why you're right without clashing makes for a muddled debate.

I've asked to judge LD/PF, but if I end up judging a CX round, my only ask is that you don't spread. I can't keep up and generally think that spreading is a regrettable feature of modern debate. I'll keep up as best I can, but please please please impact your arguments. With CX specifically, I'm not familiar enough with the debate form to maintain my crochity preference for "traditional", on-case forms of debate, so go for theory, go for T, go for whatever you want. Just make sure you can explain it to an educated lay audience.

Voters. Are. Everything. Your/your team's last speech should include voters. They make my life easier.

I will flow meticulously and will be as gracious as I am able in us all figuring out how to debate online. Spreading of any kind in any debate form, especially over this online interface, will result in an immediate loss. If everyone spreads, then good luck because who knows what will end up on my flow.

Feel free to ask me questions before! I will be incredibly generous with speaker points to account for the technical oddities. My heart goes out to all of you for competing under these circumstances.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Nathan Miller

School - Lee's Summit North High School

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged 2 years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one)

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40+ varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in around.
It bothers me when students are deliberately mean or distracting to the other team.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Nathan Miller

School: Lee's Summit North High School

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for 2 years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty 2. Twenty to forty 3. Forty to sixty 4. Sixty or more

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

Name: April Palmer

School - LSW

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Assistant Coach of a team

D. Policy debater in HS

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged 20+ years of policy debate.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills -- Be careful not to go too fast. I like conversational speaking.

Stock Issues -- I am "old school" debate and will judge based on the flow as well. Who makes the best and quality arguments for each issue.

Policymaker --

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality IF it is deemed important and worthy of flipping the round.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are acceptable IF it is deemed the only alternative. Then argue quality arguments for/against each side.

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: Not a good idea unless you have very specific links to the case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

L. I have judged LD debate for 20+ years.

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? If I have missed arguments because of speed, then yes.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? YES

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include voting issues and/or major analysis of issues

2. Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow, at the end of the final speech, but either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are necessary to create a "bubble" of the most important arguments.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker and the winner of key arguments in the round.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

I think it's important use evidence to support your points, but you don't need TONS of cards for evidence's sake.

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

I keep a flow until the end.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Michael Russell

School - Lee’s Summit North

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. travel Coach of a team

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged _8___ years of policy debate.

I have judged only 2 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference): faster is fine. There’s a lot to say.

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS I prefer a few well argued and defended arguments to the Costco-sized jumble of random arguments.

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: more often than not; I prefer topicality over theory

8. COUNTERPLANS: Acceptable if well planned and defended

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES tend to make me think you don’t have a solid specific argument to a case. I lean heavily toward not liking GENERIC disads.

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS Personal preference is to stay away from debate theory and stay with topicality

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS I view these as slightly more acceptable than generic disads, but use them sparingly and with precision.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

Highlight your research. Cards are very important, especially up-to-date citations.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Michael Russell

School: LSN

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

J. Community Judge

L. I have judged LD debate for _8__ years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Rapid conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep. There’s a lot to say and we have limited time.

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep and don’t catch the arguments.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

b) line-by-line analysis, or

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

3. Voting issues are

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Always necessary 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I’m a librarian and believe your cards -- quality, effective research from trusted sources -- can make or break your case. Highlight your research. If you’ve got cards that help prove your point, use them.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Michael Russell

School - Lee’s Summit North

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. travel Coach of a team

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged _8___ years of policy debate.

I have judged only 2 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference): faster is fine. There’s a lot to say.

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS I prefer a few well argued and defended arguments to the Costco-sized jumble of random arguments.

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: more often than not; I prefer topicality over theory

8. COUNTERPLANS: Acceptable if well planned and defended

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES tend to make me think you don’t have a solid specific argument to a case. I lean heavily toward not liking GENERIC disads.

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS Personal preference is to stay away from debate theory and stay with topicality

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS I view these as slightly more acceptable than generic disads, but use them sparingly and with precision.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

Highlight your research. Cards are very important, especially up-to-date citations.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Michael Russell

School: LSN

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

J. Community Judge

L. I have judged LD debate for _8__ years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Rapid conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep. There’s a lot to say and we have limited time.

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep and don’t catch the arguments.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

b) line-by-line analysis, or

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

3. Voting issues are

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Always necessary 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I’m a librarian and believe your cards -- quality, effective research from trusted sources -- can make or break your case. Highlight your research. If you’ve got cards that help prove your point, use them.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

I coached Speech and Debate for 12 years. I left K-12 education for a role in Higher Education. I've coached all main NSDA events, and most supplemental and consolation events. I've had TOC, NCFL, and NSDA qualifiers in both speech and debate events.

1. I will flow the round. I prefer less speed, but as long as I can understand you, it won't be held against you.

2. PF and LD are not Policy. Please do not include plans, counterplans, or the like.

3. LD is a debate of value, so please convince me why your value is more preferable.

4. Please don't let the round end in nuclear war, unless that's the topic.

5. Any abusive language or behavior will get you a loss. Period. I'll probably also contact your coach.

6. Humor will get you everywhere in life. It isn't a standup routine, but if you make the round enjoyable you'll be a lot better off.

7. I will never give my decision at the end of the round, unless required to do so by the tournament.

8. Don't abuse prep time. We all have lives, so please be respectful of everyone's time.

If you have questions, please email me at katyschwartzdrowns@yahoo.com

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coach policy debate at pembroke hill in MO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed is my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I'm from a smaller school, and have fully disclosed all of my debate rounds. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): My philosophy has evolved over time but I used to be pretty against K affs without a plan text/advocacy statement. With that being said I find some framework arguments particularly persuasive -- tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. Kritikal advantages are fun and cool. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

I competed all four years in high school predominately in public forum and international extemporaneous. I am currently in law school at UMKC and appreciate well organized and well reasoned arguments. I have the most judging experience with public forum and Lincoln Douglas. I really don't enjoy judging policy, mostly because I didn't actually learn how to do it when I was in high school. I flow everything, and proper flow coverage plays a big role in my decision making (note: flowing is one of the reasons why I don't enjoy policy because I don't know how to best flow, despite it being explained to me numerous times, so I kinda just do my own thing and hope that arguments are covered). I also take speaking ability and presentation into consideration because I think that is critical in establishing a convincing argument. Don't be a jerk, but I also don't hate a little spiciness. most of all just have fun and enjoy these rounds because you will miss it a lot when it's gone.