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.

My paradigm for judging:

Decorum required at all times.

Do not yell at me- We are in a small room and I don't need you to yell to get your point across. I have been involved in Speech and Debate for 20 years- I competed in debate and interp in middle school, high school, and collegiate level. I have been coaching this activity for 8 years. I like cool, calm, collected- not loud and chaotic.

I will flow the round- if I don't look up often, I am not ignoring you- just listening and checking the flow.

Your job is to present ideas, arguments, and rebuttals in a professional manner. Debaters should educate the judges, and have thorough background knowledge of the topic. You should also have fun- show off your hard work and represent your school/state well!

Please do not use full prep time if you do not need it! It is a waste of time to run out the clock if you are ready to speak.

Excited to judge your round!

NSDA DISTRICTS HOA ONLINE TOURNAMENT

A few specifics for this particular tournament:

1. The rules at this tournament are limiting on judges viewing evidence. I very rarely call cards as it is, but in the event that there is a disagreement about what a particular piece of evidence says, make sure that you clearly reference which card it is. When referencing a card that’s being questioned, please read out a more complete citation including at minimum: author first and last name (if there are several authors, the first listed name and “et al” is acceptable), the name of the article, the name of the publication, and the most specific date of publication you have. If possible, please read out any questionable rhetoric from the specified card. Per the rules of this tournament, you SHOULD NOT include me on any email chains, or email me anything directly.

2. This tournament is a no disclosure, no verbal feedback tournament. In keeping with the rules, I will not disclose my decision or provide any feedback on your performance after the debate has concluded on the google meet call. Because all ballots are online, I will provide very detailed feedback there. If you need any clarification on my feedback or have any specific questions, feel free to have your coach email me directly with your questions.

INFO

aryn.m.barnes@gmail.com for all email chain and clarification purposes

BACKGROUND

I did LD at Liberty/Liberty North HS (Kansas City MO) 2008-2012, and NFA-LD (policy style debate) 2012-2015 at Truman State. I also coached several policy/LD debaters from 2012-2017. In 2017 I took a hiatus from speech and debate and am getting involved in the activity again in 2020. I judged policy and LD on an almost weekly basis from 2012-2017, both as a volunteer and hired judge, and have judged tournaments both at the local and national circuit level. As a debater I ran arguments ranging from: traditional LD, kritiks, theory, big impact arguments (affs/DAs), to performance affs.

PARADIGM

**OVERVIEW

This is a general look into my judging style. If you want to know about more specific arguments, see below.

As a judge, I’m pretty tab. I tend to believe that debate should be a space that allows people to engage in whatever discussions they find most interesting, and I will avoid interfering as much as possible. I put effort into setting aside my own personal biases to evaluate all arguments fairly. The only things I won’t evaluate are arguments that are intentionally damaging or offensive (EG something that explicitly advocates for discrimination, genocide, or hate crimes) and reading these arguments in front of me will likely result in an instant L. For evaluative purposes I tend to default to net benefits unless told otherwise. I am comfortable with speed, but it is very important to make sure you’re signposting/tagging important arguments as I’ve been out of the game long enough that my ear isn’t quite as attuned to speed as it once was. Impact weighing is also very important to winning my ballot. I’m lazy and generally vote for the side where I have to do the least amount of work to get to an RFD. You need to be talking about how all of the arguments interact. Good impact analysis could easily be the difference between a win and a loss for you.

Arguments I like hearing: creative affs, structural impacts, kritikal/performance arguments that link to the topic, creative theory arguments, and arguments with a case-specific link.

Arguments I don’t love: inherency, generic counterplans, spec arguments, minor repair, and other super generic theory arguments.

**SPECIFICS

Aff:
Anything you want. Impact everything to extinction? Great. Talk about structural violence? Awesome. Read poems or sing all of En Vogue’s ‘Free Your Mind’? Go for it. As long as you can tell me why this means I vote for you, I’m down.

Inherency:
This is my least favorite debate. For the most part, I’m going to impact inherency arguments as solvency D unless you have specific theory/voters that go with it. Unless you read something that says the plan text verbatim was just passed, inherency alone likely won’t be enough to get the W.

Topicality:
I’m pretty neutral on T. I’m not more or less likely to vote on it versus any other argument.

Theory:
Generally, this is a mixed bag. I don’t need proven abuse to vote on theory args, but without abuse I need the arguments and implications to be clear. The more generic your theory/violation is, the less likely I am to be compelled to vote on it. On the other hand, creative theory arguments that may not come up very often are really fun to see, and I’m more likely to vote on theory without proven abuse when the argument is well thought out and interesting.

On-case debate:
Case defense is very beneficial for impact weighing, but I’m not going to vote on defense alone. On-case offense like turns are always great.

Disads:
the more specific your story, the better. I’m not opposed to more generic disads as long as they clearly link to the aff.

Counterplans:
Not the biggest fan of counterplans in general. I tend to like PICs and agent counterplans the least, as in my experience most of these args seem low-effort. This doesn’t mean I’m more likely to vote against the arguments, I’ll probably just grumble under my breath about it during your prep. Specific counterplans are great, and if you’re going to read a counterplan it’s really important that you take the time on solvency to explain why the counterplan is the best/only option as clearly as possible.

Kritiks:
Kritiks are also fine. As a debater I tended to run Ks that talked about structural violence, rhetoric/language, fem, and narratives. I’m at least vaguely familiar with most Ks that have been around for more than 5 years. If you’re going to read a kritik based on the works of a specific philosopher (EG Baudrillard) you need to be very good at explaining your argument and the literature, as I have a weaker knowledge of the lit base when it comes to these types of Ks.

Performance arguments:
These are welcome. As mentioned under Affs, it’s important that you articulate why your performance is important and why it justifies the ballot.

Non-topical arguments:
I won’t reject an argument for being non-topical without your opponent telling me to (with impacted voters). In general, I prefer that your arguments are at least related to the topic in some way. If you’re going to read a non-topical argument and you want to win, it’s important that you can articulate both why your issue is so important that I should ignore the topic, AND answer all theory/T as clearly and cleanly as possible.

Anything else:
If you need clarification on any of this or you have a question about something I didn’t address, just ask me.

Hi! I have done debate for close to 6 years now and currently go to Fordham University. I am starting our policy team this year and also compete in APDA.

lbaughman@fordham.edu for email chain

Policy:

Top level:

Run whatever you want! Tech>truth, I vote on the flow. Exception: if you are discriminatory/offensive to marginalized groups, you will lose. I like creative arguments!!

I am a policy debater which means I am probably not the best judge for some Ks or K affs. If your thing is super high stuff, probably don't pref me-- not because I don't like it, I just might not be able to adjudicate as well as other judges in the pool. BUT if you get me as a judge, don't be afraid to run whatever you want!!

(More stuff on Ks below but tldr I have run and am comfortable with fem, cap, security. I'll try my best.)

In general, I probably care more about analytics than some. Carded arguments obviously outweigh BUT if you can warrant out your analytical case turns/why a dropped analytic matters I will vote on it :)

Similar to this— you will absolutely speak higher if you make smart analytics!

I'm good with speed, will clear you if I can't understand (analytics and tags). For most HS I prefer accessibility>speed, which means I won't speak you down for not spreading unless it causes you to substantially miss things in round.

PLEASE share speech docs and don't delete analytics from ur speech docs before sharing. It makes it harder to flow and isn't a great norm.

I think open cross is a good norm.

Args:

T: Generally if you think your case is untopical, don't run it (this doesn't include K affs) and if you think ur opp's case is topical, don't run T. Not a reverse voter but boring. Needs standards and voters.

Case: I actually do care about solvency. Negs pls call ur affs out for lack of solvency. Affs pls don't drop case turns bc then I'll be forced to vote on them. Please frame your impacts! Extinction doesn't always win but it does with no alternative framing. Impact defense>>

DAs: These are great, but tbh I hate generic DAs with unspecific links. If you can, please try to come up with something specific to the aff. Similarly, I don't love politics, but if you win on it i'll vote on it!

CPs: I love CPs! Run them well- in most circumstances, you need more than one line/one card.

K affs: I've never run a K aff, but I generally think they are valid/good for debate. Please make sure I understand what your arg is and why it can't be topical. Again, I'm probably not the best judge for this at high levels because I don't understand the minutia of your args, but if you want to go for it, go for it!

FWvK affs and KvK: I'll vote on either. I don't have many opinions other than negs should try to engage with the aff advocacy at least a bit.

Ks: I enjoy K rounds! So don't feel scared to run it if it's your thing. Negs: win the alt debate. Usually I don’t buy that rejection solves for huge impacts, but I’m willing to vote on debate space stuff or if you totally win your FW. Affs: win why you should weigh the aff.

Theory: I don't really care abt CP theory-- I default to drop the arg not the team. Generally won't vote that Ks shouldn't be allowed. Probably don't go for theory in front of me unless there's something egregious or it was totally dropped. If you need to run it, run it.

Have fun!! Debate is supposed to be fun :)

For APDA if anybody ever looks at this lol:

I tend to treat APDA kinda like policy as a debater so as a judge: make sure you have framework! Weigh args in final speeches! tabula rasa or wtv :)

I'd prefer you call tight beforehand because I don't want to sit through that-- but if its unavoidable, it's unavoidable.

For HS LD/PF

**I don’t know a ton of LD specific theory. I will be able to follow you but you will also have to spell some things out.

Fine with CPs and Ks, I think- but also explain to me what your args are and why you should or shouldn’t be able to run them if it becomes an issue in the debate.

I have experience judging and debating more “traditional” HS LD/ NSDA style LD with values and VCs.

I really appreciate speech docs! I’m not sure if email chains are a norm anywhere in LD or PF but it helps me follow along a ton. However if that’s not something you do that’s fine.

Introduction:

I have coached high school speech and debate since Fall 2011 at Ladue Horton Watkins High School in Saint Louis, Missouri. Our program has Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Policy Debate, and Public Forum Debate. I have judged all three types of debate at local invitationals, invitationals throughout the state, the MSHSAA State Tournament, NCFL Grand National Tournament, and NSDA National Tournament. I did not compete in high school or college. I coach and judge on a primarily lay circuit. I have also judged Extemporaneous Debate and Congressional Debate.

Overview:

I view judging as an integral part of coaching. Quality debate rounds in front of knowledgeable judges is key to growth for competitors and judging rounds is a valuable learning opportunity for coaches. My personal coaching judging philosophy is rooted in fun, education, and personal growth. My goal is for each round to be fun and educational for all participants while providing personal growth opportunities for each competitor during and after the round. My commitment to you is that I will provide a ballot giving feedback to each debater that addresses speaking and argumentation and I will give a clear RFD.

Ethics:

Being an ethical competitor is the most important thing you can do in the round. An unethical competitor will NOT win my ballot, regardless of the arguments in the round. Older and more experienced competitors have an educational obligation to younger and less experienced competitors. I expect all evidence in the round to be used in a way that reflects the intent of the author. Dishonest highlighting, summarizing, and/or paraphrasing is an immediate loss. The text and general meaning of evidence must be accurately represented in a round. I do not like calling for evidence but will if I need it in order to resolve an issue in the round. If you are rude in any way, you will lose speaker rankings/points and, depending on the nature of the misconduct, possibly the round. I expect a professional, mature, and kind round. Do not yell at each other and all debaters should refrain from any attacks on their opponents – keep responses based on the arguments and evidence in the round. As my students will tell you, I do not tolerate any use of profanity in an educational space.

I would like to note that harassment, bullying, and discriminatory behaviors of any type will not be tolerated. Should I see those behaviors in or out of round, I will address them. If it is in a round, it will be reflected on the ballot and the team or individual engaging in such behaviors can expect a loss. I will also address this behavior with your coach. I believe that speech and debate should be a safe space for every person and it is the communal responsibility of all of us to guarantee that.

This is also a moment to note that your behavior in and out of round is seen and heard at tournaments. I would encourage all competitors to behave in an ethical manner at all times. Unethical behavior outside of round does affect how people in the community view you – whether this is right or wrong, it is something for all competitors to consider. Think about what you want your reputation in the debate community to be and act accordingly. You are representing your team, our speech and debate community, and this activity at all times. Please hold yourself to the highest standard possible at tournaments. I strongly believe in growth and second chances so if you make a mistake, please take time to reflect, apologize, and then change your actions moving forward.

Communication:

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity; therefore, communication should be your most important consideration in the round. I expect debaters to speak at a conversational rate or a bit faster – I do not appreciate nor do I follow spreading. If you are speaking faster than you are able to clearly communicate, then you need to slow down. I will not interrupt you during a round but will stop flowing if I cannot flow or understand what you are saying. Reading piles of evidence without having analysis is not good communication. I do not believe students need a card for every single idea presented in a round – I expect students to think and bring their own ideas into the round. You should thoroughly understand all arguments you make in a round. Speaking and the ability to knowledgeably communicate arguments in the round are key to winning my ballot.

General Information:

I will keep track of time for speeches and prep time. Competitors are welcome and encouraged to keep their own time during the round; however, my time will be the official time. It is understandable that partners will need to communicate with each other during the round; however, the volume should be low enough that you do not interrupt the speaker. Your prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer and hand it to your opponent. You should not waste time between speeches. Please keep in mind that a tournament has many moving parts and rounds being completed efficiently is key to keeping tournaments running on schedule. To that end, when your prep time is over, please be ready to speak within a few seconds of getting to the front of the room – organizing speeches, etc. should be taken care of before ending prep time.

I do not flow authors for evidence – when you say “extend our Smith card”, I have no idea what you mean. YOU need to extend the ARGUMENT – I should not be asked to extend evidence. I do pay attention to the dates of evidence and will prioritize more recent evidence in most cases; however, there are some exceptions to this general rule. I pay attention to the credentials of authors and the sources being used in a round.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I appreciate a values-based debate rooted in philosophy. The values/framework debate is incredibly important in the round. I am willing to listen to more progressive arguments, provided the value/framework debate is present. Dictionary.com is not a strong source for definitions in L-D – I would prefer legal or philosophical definitions. I believe L-D is arguing what ought to be, not what is. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

Policy Debate:

I generally expect the affirmative team to present a topical plan. However, I am willing to listen to critical and performance affirmative plans provided the team can give a solid explanation as to why I should vote for them in the context of that debate round. If you are running a critical argument, then I expect you to be “all in” – meaning you don’t get to run a critical argument on one flow and then ignore it on other flows. If you are making a critical argument, then you need to be a fierce and passionate advocate for that stance throughout the round and bring the critical arguments into the rest of the round. I am also willing to listen to critical and performance arguments on the negative side of the flow. I expect debaters to tell me the role of the ballot in the round. I do not love counter plans or topicality arguments. If you are running topicality arguments, then I would expect that you cannot address on-case arguments…if you have a ton of prepared arguments for their case, then do not run topicality. Extra topicality and effects topicality can be very interesting arguments. Regardless of the arguments you run, please have a strong understanding of those arguments and be able to explain them without reading cards. Organized and structured speeches are key to a successful round – I expect a roadmap before each speech (except the 1AC) and clear signposting within each speech. I do not enjoy open-cross and will not permit it if I am the only judge in the room. On a panel, I will defer to the majority opinion; however, please know that I have very real concerns about a team that lacks trust or confidence to the point that the partner must intervene in cross-ex. I will default to policymaker but am willing to judge using a framework you give me provided the argument is clear in the round.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is about current(ish) events so I expect arguments to take place in the context of the current world order. I do not want to see a 45-minute debate about evidence – arguments should focus on the big picture ideas in the round. I expect there to be balance in crossfire, which requires a give and take on the part of all competitors. I do not want Public Forum to be Policy Debate, so the ability to give a line-by-line argument is less important to me than being able to effectively summarize key ideas in the round and weigh the two sides. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

Introduction:

I have coached high school speech and debate since Fall 2011 at Ladue Horton Watkins High School in Saint Louis, Missouri. Our program has Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Policy Debate, and Public Forum Debate. I have judged all three types of debate at local invitationals, invitationals throughout the state, the MSHSAA State Tournament, NCFL Grand National Tournament, and NSDA National Tournament. I did not compete in high school or college. I coach and judge on a primarily lay circuit. I have also judged Extemporaneous Debate and Congressional Debate.

Overview:

I view judging as an integral part of coaching. Quality debate rounds in front of knowledgeable judges is key to growth for competitors and judging rounds is a valuable learning opportunity for coaches. My personal coaching judging philosophy is rooted in fun, education, and personal growth. My goal is for each round to be fun and educational for all participants while providing personal growth opportunities for each competitor during and after the round. My commitment to you is that I will provide a ballot giving feedback to each debater that addresses speaking and argumentation and I will give a clear RFD.

Ethics:

Being an ethical competitor is the most important thing you can do in the round. An unethical competitor will NOT win my ballot, regardless of the arguments in the round. Older and more experienced competitors have an educational obligation to younger and less experienced competitors. I expect all evidence in the round to be used in a way that reflects the intent of the author. Dishonest highlighting, summarizing, and/or paraphrasing is an immediate loss. The text and general meaning of evidence must be accurately represented in a round. I do not like calling for evidence but will if I need it in order to resolve an issue in the round. If you are rude in any way, you will lose speaker rankings/points and, depending on the nature of the misconduct, possibly the round. I expect a professional, mature, and kind round. Do not yell at each other and all debaters should refrain from any attacks on their opponents – keep responses based on the arguments and evidence in the round. As my students will tell you, I do not tolerate any use of profanity in an educational space.

I would like to note that harassment, bullying, and discriminatory behaviors of any type will not be tolerated. Should I see those behaviors in or out of round, I will address them. If it is in a round, it will be reflected on the ballot and the team or individual engaging in such behaviors can expect a loss. I will also address this behavior with your coach. I believe that speech and debate should be a safe space for every person and it is the communal responsibility of all of us to guarantee that.

This is also a moment to note that your behavior in and out of round is seen and heard at tournaments. I would encourage all competitors to behave in an ethical manner at all times. Unethical behavior outside of round does affect how people in the community view you – whether this is right or wrong, it is something for all competitors to consider. Think about what you want your reputation in the debate community to be and act accordingly. You are representing your team, our speech and debate community, and this activity at all times. Please hold yourself to the highest standard possible at tournaments. I strongly believe in growth and second chances so if you make a mistake, please take time to reflect, apologize, and then change your actions moving forward.

Communication:

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity; therefore, communication should be your most important consideration in the round. I expect debaters to speak at a conversational rate or a bit faster – I do not appreciate nor do I follow spreading. If you are speaking faster than you are able to clearly communicate, then you need to slow down. I will not interrupt you during a round but will stop flowing if I cannot flow or understand what you are saying. Reading piles of evidence without having analysis is not good communication. I do not believe students need a card for every single idea presented in a round – I expect students to think and bring their own ideas into the round. You should thoroughly understand all arguments you make in a round. Speaking and the ability to knowledgeably communicate arguments in the round are key to winning my ballot.

General Information:

I will keep track of time for speeches and prep time. Competitors are welcome and encouraged to keep their own time during the round; however, my time will be the official time. It is understandable that partners will need to communicate with each other during the round; however, the volume should be low enough that you do not interrupt the speaker. Your prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer and hand it to your opponent. You should not waste time between speeches. Please keep in mind that a tournament has many moving parts and rounds being completed efficiently is key to keeping tournaments running on schedule. To that end, when your prep time is over, please be ready to speak within a few seconds of getting to the front of the room – organizing speeches, etc. should be taken care of before ending prep time.

I do not flow authors for evidence – when you say “extend our Smith card”, I have no idea what you mean. YOU need to extend the ARGUMENT – I should not be asked to extend evidence. I do pay attention to the dates of evidence and will prioritize more recent evidence in most cases; however, there are some exceptions to this general rule. I pay attention to the credentials of authors and the sources being used in a round.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I appreciate a values-based debate rooted in philosophy. The values/framework debate is incredibly important in the round. I am willing to listen to more progressive arguments, provided the value/framework debate is present. Dictionary.com is not a strong source for definitions in L-D – I would prefer legal or philosophical definitions. I believe L-D is arguing what ought to be, not what is. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

Policy Debate:

I generally expect the affirmative team to present a topical plan. However, I am willing to listen to critical and performance affirmative plans provided the team can give a solid explanation as to why I should vote for them in the context of that debate round. If you are running a critical argument, then I expect you to be “all in” – meaning you don’t get to run a critical argument on one flow and then ignore it on other flows. If you are making a critical argument, then you need to be a fierce and passionate advocate for that stance throughout the round and bring the critical arguments into the rest of the round. I am also willing to listen to critical and performance arguments on the negative side of the flow. I expect debaters to tell me the role of the ballot in the round. I do not love counter plans or topicality arguments. If you are running topicality arguments, then I would expect that you cannot address on-case arguments…if you have a ton of prepared arguments for their case, then do not run topicality. Extra topicality and effects topicality can be very interesting arguments. Regardless of the arguments you run, please have a strong understanding of those arguments and be able to explain them without reading cards. Organized and structured speeches are key to a successful round – I expect a roadmap before each speech (except the 1AC) and clear signposting within each speech. I do not enjoy open-cross and will not permit it if I am the only judge in the room. On a panel, I will defer to the majority opinion; however, please know that I have very real concerns about a team that lacks trust or confidence to the point that the partner must intervene in cross-ex. I will default to policymaker but am willing to judge using a framework you give me provided the argument is clear in the round.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is about current(ish) events so I expect arguments to take place in the context of the current world order. I do not want to see a 45-minute debate about evidence – arguments should focus on the big picture ideas in the round. I expect there to be balance in crossfire, which requires a give and take on the part of all competitors. I do not want Public Forum to be Policy Debate, so the ability to give a line-by-line argument is less important to me than being able to effectively summarize key ideas in the round and weigh the two sides. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

I have been involved in competitive debate since the last 90s. I was a competitor in policy debate in the early 2000s and have been a coach since 2008. I actively coach all formats of debate as well as speech and interp. I value communication and clear, logical, persuasive argumentation above all else. If your spoken presentation isn't enough to make your arguments clear, I will not be able to consider them. I am open to any form of argument so long as it is well explained, consistent with your strategy, and persuasively presented (warranted). At the end of the day, this is a communicative activity that asks you to employ logic and persuasion - that is what I hope to see. If we are diving deep into those concepts, I think everyone will have fun and learn that is why I hope we are all here. 

Debate experience

Nats-18

PFD-4 years

LD-3 years

Policy-1

Current Assistant Coach

Introduction: Hello, debaters! I appreciate the opportunity to adjudicate this round. My primary goal is to fairly evaluate your arguments and presentation. Here are some key aspects of my judging philosophy:

Fairness and Respect:

1. I expect all debaters to treat each other with respect. Avoid personal attacks and offensive language.
2. Fairness is crucial. Each team should have an equal opportunity to present their case and respond to their opponent's arguments.

Argumentation:

1. Clear and organized arguments are essential. Provide a clear roadmap at the beginning of your speeches to guide me through your contentions.
2. Quality over quantity: Focus on developing a few strong arguments rather than presenting a multitude of weak points.
3. Logical reasoning and evidence are paramount. Support your claims with relevant and credible sources.
4. Weighing and impact analysis are essential. Explain why your arguments are more significant and should be prioritized.

Crossfire and Rebuttals:

1. Engage in meaningful crossfire. Use it to clarify and challenge your opponent's arguments.
2. Strong rebuttals require addressing the core of your opponent's case. Don't just restate your own points; directly engage with theirs.

Speaker Style:

1. Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. Ensure that your arguments are easy to follow.
2. Non-verbal communication is crucial. Maintain eye contact, use gestures appropriately, and be mindful of body language.

Flexibility:

1. While I appreciate adherence to the rules, I'm open to creative and innovative arguments. Surprise me, but make sure your arguments are still within the bounds of reason.

Time Management:

1. Keep track of your time and allocate it wisely. Effective time management is a sign of good debating skills.

Final Focus:

1. Use the final focus to crystallize your key arguments. Clarify why your side has won the debate.

Conclusion: Thank you for your hard work and dedication to the debate. I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging round. Good luck!

Hello! My name is Weston Brown. I was both a debater and forensics competitor at Liberty High School from 2015-2019. I was a 3x national qualifier and the 2019 State Champion in PFD. My paradigm is relatively simple, just a few things to remember:

1) Debate is communication first and foremost. Make sure I can understand what your saying. Don’t try to spit facts at me- persuade me. Convince me that your argument is the best and that you should win the round.

2) Warrant. The quickest way to lose me is if you don’t warrant your evidence.

3) I only vote on impacts if they are believable and well founded. I’m much more likely to vote for well-defended micro-impacts than iffy macro-impacts (e.g. a well nuanced impact about diplomatic tensions would be preferred over a so-so sourced impact about mutually assured destruction). Push impacts as voters.

4) Carry your framework through the round. If you drop it, I use your opponents. If you both drop it, I use whichever one is better argued.

5) I don’t care too much if your a little aggressive, but let your opponent talk, and don’t be a too much of a jerk. If I hear anything that could be misconstrued as offensive to someone’s identity, it’s an auto-loss.

6) Clearly enumerate your voters.

7) Have fun!

revisions pending

For email chains: amoschen96@gmail.com

Debate Related Experience/short bio:

Debated 2011-15 Policy debate @ Parkway West High School MO

Debated 2015-19 NPDA Parliamentary debate @ University of Missouri-Columbia

Asst. coach 2019-21 for Parkway West High School, mostly specializing in policy and LD

Pronouns: he/him

------

TL;DR Generally, I view debate as a game being played between two competing teams of debaters. The purpose of the game is to win through deploying arguments and proving that one's arguments are better than the competing claims put forth in the round. What form/structure that takes is fundamentally up to the debaters.

I've judged/debated pretty much every style/argument set for policy so as long as you're not being abusive, I'd prefer if you debate using the method/format you're most comfortable with and execute it well rather than risk sacrificing your own speaking efficacy by contorting your style to fit what you think I'm most receptive to.

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

Policy Notes:

***Overall I evaluate on an offense/defense basis. To win my ballot, you need to prove your side has stable offense, and that it outweighs any offense presented by the other side. Most of the time this is accomplished by proving the world created by one team is better than the one created by the other. How you garner offense can be varied--it could be done through policy impacts on the flow, impacts from theory arguments, in-round impacts, impacts affecting the debate space, etc. If you want me to evaluate on a different paradigm (stock issues, facts, etc.) just tell me, and I'll do it if you present a compelling enough case. I'm pretty generous with speaker points as long as you seem to be making a good faith effort to engage in the round; I generally will only give low scores for hostility to the other competitors/judges and microaggressions/bigoted behavior.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments:

Performance/Critical Affs: Philosophically, I feel the debate space should be open to as many people as possible and should be accessible to all folks from all different backgrounds and experience. Same goes for debate arguments/style--I debated a whole range of styles in high school/college, and I'm always going to err on the side of greater inclusivity. I feel affs critiquing the resolution/plan text-less affs drive innovation, so I'll listen to those too. I'm open to theory/critical arguments attacking the methodology of the advocacy; I'm less open to the "you're not the rez ergo you're bad" args, I'll still try to evaluate them, but don't expect my ballot just because you read a generic T-USFG or T-Resolved block.

Kritiks: Overall, I really enjoy judging critical debates, but only if they actually make an effort to create a link to *this* particular aff in *this* particular round rather than just throwing a generic cap/security/militarism K as part of a strat/time suck. If the K is obviously generic to the aff, I'm much more likely to give leeway to the aff's no link/perm arguments. Case specific links are obviously my preference, but links based on representations/rhetoric are fine if explained fully. I'll even evaluate "links of omission" or "you didn't talk about this ergo you link," arguments as long as it's explained fully how they operate specifically in the context of *this* aff in *this* round. I feel most K debates are resolved in the alt/alt solvency vs perm debate so I never really take K impacts into account when evaluating them. The exception is pre-fiat impacts--if a pre-fiat impact comes out, I'll always evaluate it before plan-related/post fiat arguments unless I'm given a substantial reason to discount it. Same applies for Role of the Ballot arguments. Relative to other judges, I weigh framework and offense generated from framework (for aff and neg) more heavily, so make sure you comprehensively cover it.

In terms of critical lit familiarity I mostly ran cap and race-related arguments, so I'm most familiar with that, as well as political theory-based K's/authors like Agamben/Foucault, anything to do with securitization etc. Somewhat familiar with gender/queerness based args (but not as much as I'd like) and colonialism-based K's. Don't really know a lot about the high theory crowd like Bataille/Baudrillard/Lacan/Deleuze/Heidegger (do people even read Heidegger anymore??)

SPEED/SPREADING: Speaking completely personally, my opinion on speed in debate is that it's a good thing when done right, and harmful when conducted improperly. Being able to deploy massive amounts of arguments in a round incentivizes conducting more research, rewards faster thinking and decision making, and requires more memory retention. In addition, having a larger amount of developed arguments on the flow adds an entirely different layer of strategy to the round in terms of which arguments you dedicate time to. However, spreading historically in debate has often been used as a tool of exclusion (i.e., go super fast because we know the other team can't keep up and will drop args). Plus the argument can be made that it makes rounds inaccessible to people with auditory/learning disorders. Functionally, that means speed if you want, but only if the other judges/competitors in the round are comfortable with it.

Especially considering the technical limitations of the online format, I think a good rule of thumb is to take whatever your typical max speed is and decrease it by 20% to account for faulty audio equipment, internet lag and other potential technical issues.

Theory: I'm open to most theory arguments (e.g., this argument is bad bc x reason) with the exception of specificity-based args like A-spec, e-spec, f-spec, etc. Generally, I need instances of in round abuse to vote on theory alone.

Topicality: I really appreciate well-thought out T-debates. Most high schoolers doing this activity have the goal of eventually being lawyers/legislators and in those fields, the technical definitions of individual words and how they're used matters a lot. Thus, I'm totally fine getting down into the weeds of whether this aff is fitting this interp of the rez based on the definition of this word and etc. However, I need detailed standards and voters to vote on T alone. RVIs are a silly argument and I don't listen to them.

CPs: I'm open to CPs, I'm open to multiple CPs, I'm open to conditional CPs, and I'll take multiple perms as well. All things considered I default to multiple worlds good, but I'll listen to theory arguments against. Same goes for theory arguments against multiple/conditional CPs, PICs, process/agent/consult CPs, and theory arguments against multiple perms. Once again, most of the time I need in round abuse to vote on theory alone. I think advantage CP+DA+impact turn is a powerful strategy that gets underutilized by high schoolers.

DAs: I hate generic DAs. If you're able to articulate a specific link and internal link chain that's specific to the aff case, I'm more open to it, but if it's just a general "doing the rez causes this bad impact" link, I'll give way more leeway to the aff in terms of link defense. Go for as large or small of an impact as you want--as long as you establish a compelling internal link chain, I'll evaluate it in the general offense/defense clash. Most DAs are weakest on the internal link level, so if the aff defends against/turns it enough, I'll vote aff on the DA even if there isn't much terminal impact defense. I don't care about uniqueness that much unless it's an argument like "this scenario is literally already happening, thus no effect on round." Comparative risk analysis is very important to me, so make sure you're consistently comparing/contrasting your DA scenario to the story the aff is telling and vice versa.

----

I was a 4-year Policy debater (did a little PuF and LD) in high school, and I now do MUN at Northwestern University.

I genuinely like policy, not just in regards to debate, but as an idea as a whole. I like the analysis and proposals of policy, and because of this, I prefer stock issue and policy-oriented debates, and I like evidence with strong empirics.

Speed: Run your case however you think gives you the best chance to win. With that being said, please be considerate of your opponents, and if you're going to spread, I would request that you give me a copy of your case to help follow along (dlc72501@gmail.com).

Topicality: I'm not afraid to run T. Feel free to run it. Don't run it as a time suck, however, please. Just make sure you cover everything in a T argument (whether you're offense or defense). That includes an Interpretation, a Violation, Standards, and Voters. Dropping one of these 4 (if your opponent points it out) can be a BIG deal.

Kritical Debate: You can run it, I would just prefer that you run policy-oriented on and off case. But, if you do run a K (aff or neg), I will follow along, and will not hurt you for running it.

Framing: While I like stock issues, if you frame the round in a different way, and tell me on what exactly I should vote, I will listen. I am open to voting on numerous issues and on numerous values, even. Just tell me how to vote, and then come back to that at the end of the round when you are giving voters.

Cross: Feel free to be assertive in cross-x, but don't make personal attacks on your opponent.

All-in-all, I'll be fine with whatever you run, but I will not make any arguments for you or your opponent. If you don't say it, I'm not writing it down. Just be respectful of myself and your opponents, and we should be good.

School assistant coach, 5 years judging experience

Policy

Stock Issue approach

Willing to vote on Topicality, Counterplans, Kritiks, or theory.

Against conditional negative positions

Do not exceed 7/10 speed.

LD

Value Criterion may be a major factor in my decision

I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round - winning the value/vc debate determines my framework for choosing the winning side. I then evaluate the contentions based on which side accomplishes that value/vc better.

I keep a flow

I am as fluid as the room needs me to be.
I'll gladly accept Impact Calc, Logic, Ks, Spreading, CEDA-style, Theory, FIAT, DAs, Ts, and just about everything else.

I look for the quality of the debate, and mark high in forms of forcing clash and counterattacks.

Understand that I am an expert on this content, so I do not need filler or backstory.

I want to see teams take calculated risks and show backbone.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ABUSIVE MANIPULATION OF TEXT/CARDS/INFORMATION

Best of luck to all!

Email: shawn.daugherty@nkcschools.org (prefer SpeechDrop to email chain due to school computer 'firewall' from overpaid IT staff...)

In a debate you should speak clearly and articulate what you are trying to persuade me, as your audience, to vote on. Clarity and thorough reasoning should be the ultimate goal.

Balance and authenticity make for the strongest performances. Put your heart into your work, but don't lose track of the story.

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 have experience in judging for 4 years.

I value the following: depth in understanding of the core issue, relevancy of evidence and sources, overall delivery/presentation - including your manners to your opponents, please don't spread, and keep track of both your and your opponent's time.

Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution?

Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

Please give voters. Tell me why you have won.

I have experience in judging for 4 years.

I value the following: depth in understanding of the core issue, relevancy of evidence and sources, overall delivery/presentation - including your manners to your opponents, please don't spread, and keep track of both your and your opponent's time.

Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution?

Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

Please give voters. Tell me why you have won.

I debated in high school from 2009-2013, covering Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Policy formats (primarily policy). In individual events, I focused on International Extemp and Oratory.

I am comfortable with speed (although points will be lost for speed without articulation), and I am an experienced flow judge.

I will not flow arguments in your favor if the evidence you read doesn't actually support your points, even if the opposing team does not directly cite the disconnect.

By most metrics I am a more traditional judge, promoting adherence to the core frameworks of any given style of debate.

I am willing to consider alternate frameworks for determining the outcome of the round if a suitably substantial reason is offered by a team. However, the base reasoning must link back to the overarching framework of the mode of the debate, which is implicitly agreed to by the participation in the event. You can't play a professional tennis match by tackle football rules, any criterion by which the victor of the debate is determined should flow naturally from the basics of the event.

I am a computer engineer by trade with expertise in cyber security, AI, and software development. Additionally, I have spent ample time abroad in China and Taiwan. I am particularly educated around those topics, so be cognizant of that if you are making arguments involving them.

Game theory

Debate experience: assistant high school debate and forensics coach; high school Lincoln/Douglas debate competitor; frequently judge high school debate.

Notes during the round: a moderate flow of the debate.

LINCOLN/DOUGLAS DEBATE:

Preferred rate of delivery: typical conversational speed.

The value is a required element of a case.

The criterion may be a factor in making a decision, depending on its use in the round.

Final rebuttals may include voting issues, line-by-line analysis, or both. Voting issues may be given as one moves down the flow, or at the end of the final speech.

The use of jargon or technical language ("extend," "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable but not required.

The use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) in the round is sometimes necessary.

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

POLICY DEBATE:

Preferred rate of delivery: typical conversational speed.

Quantity of arguments (on a scale of 1 to 9, with “a few well developed arguments” being 1, and “the more arguments the better” being 9): 5.

Communication and issues (on a scale of 1 to 9, with “communication skills most important” being 1, and “resolving issues most important” being 9): 6.

I am willing to vote on topicality when it is actually an issue in the round, but I do not vote on it when it is not.

If 1 is “not acceptable” and 9 is “acceptable”....

Counterplans are a 7.

Generic disadvantages are a 7.

Conditional negative positions are a 7.

Reasonable debate theory arguments applicable to the topic are a 7.

Reasonable critique (kritik) arguments directly applicable to the topic are a 5.

Policy debate paradigm: Stock Issues

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

Preferred rate of delivery: typical conversational speed.

Kritiks: not legitimate in Public Forum.

Theory debate and its jargon: acceptable, but not preferred in Public Forum.

Public forum is designed to be accessible to the average citizen. The decision is based on argumentation and communication skills.

I have judged a handful of tournaments since leaving full-time coaching in 2015. I was able to maintain the same flowing abilities and understanding of arguments. If there are new styles of arguments, acronyms, etc., you may need to clarify those. Aside from that, the below remains the same.

- I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discoursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like facr/value debate and have a low threshhold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments.
- I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line!
The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK!
- I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine.
- I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order).
- You cannot perm a DA….period!
- I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”).
- Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy
- If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round.
- I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and
banter are fine, but there are limits.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical
arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions.
The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good;
make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions.
- I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances).
- I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions.
Performance based arguments…
I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing
interpretations?
I require you to win the argument and have a voter….
I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual
competition ok? functional competition?
The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP.
I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will
use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede costbenefit
analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are
diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts
(i.e. "one million deaths")?
I love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these.
One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority.
I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

I have been a junior high or high school English Language Arts teacher for 24 years.

I prefer debaters not to use spreading. If I can't understand you, it will make it difficult for me to understand your position during the debate.

About Me:

-Middle School Speech and Debate Coach

-Experience in interpretation events and Public Forum

-Judged a lot of PF and LD this school year

Preferences for round:

-Be polite and respectful. It's an argumentation activity, but it doesn't have to be mean.

-I can flow, but not super quickly. I keep track of main points and clashes.

-Speed is fine, but I am only human!

-I judge a lot on speaking skills! I love to see personable people and not debaters who just read off their facts.

-Road maps are appreciated!

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Megan Goss

School - Lee’s Summit West 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 ____ 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 bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Megan Goss

School: Lee’s Summit West 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 _5__ 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.

02/08

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 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 competed in policy debate for four years of high school and in NPDA-style parli for four years of college. Debate how you want to debate. Tech >>> truth, except in extreme cases.

Conditionality good, within reason.

Yes judge kick.

Sorry this is so short; I'm running late for something.

Add me to the email chain: [firstname][lastname]7@gmail

As a former competitor (from middle school to college), I am a flow judge and will decide winners based on evidence/arguments on the flow and how a debater wraps it all up in the last speech (e.g. voting issues). For LD, tying in the value and value criterion are essential parts of this.

For all debates:

I weigh dropped arguments pretty heavily on the flow (less for beginning competitors in middle school, novice, etc.).

I'm fine with creative stances on Con/Neg in PF & LD, but make sure they fall within the status quo. No brand new alternative solutions.

No new arguments or evidence in the final speeches (LD 2AR, PF final focuses). Wrap up the debate with voters and strongest arguments. It's unfair to bring up an entirely new point that your opponents cannot rebut.

Otherwise, let's all just be respectful of each other! And expect a full ballot of feedback from me, because I know we each get better with every round :).

As a former competitor (from middle school to college), I am a flow judge and will decide winners based on evidence/arguments on the flow and how a debater wraps it all up in the last speech (e.g. voting issues). For LD, tying in the value and value criterion are essential parts of this.

For all debates:

I weigh dropped arguments pretty heavily on the flow (less for beginning competitors in middle school, novice, etc.).

I'm fine with creative stances on Con/Neg in PF & LD, but make sure they fall within the status quo. No brand new alternative solutions.

No new arguments or evidence in the final speeches (LD 2AR, PF final focuses). Wrap up the debate with voters and strongest arguments. It's unfair to bring up an entirely new point that your opponents cannot rebut.

Otherwise, let's all just be respectful of each other! And expect a full ballot of feedback from me, because I know we each get better with every round :).

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

I am former Policy turned LD debater from 24 years ago. Since debating in high school I have spent a lot of time judging a variety of events here and there. I am currently a high school speech and debate coach. I like to keep things pretty simple - LD is ultimately a debate of values. Convince me that your approach to the resolution best upholds a value that you have defended as a value worth obtaining and you are likely to win.

Some things worth knowing - I do flow debates and get really annoyed by dropped arguments. I don't mind speed if I can understand you. I do place a large value on confident politeness. It helps you look in control and right. Rudeness or overly emotional debating implies you are losing control which shows you fear you are losing. If you think you are losing then chances are I might think so too.

I like well organized cases and responses with signposting to cue the organization and help me make sense of everything. I also really like explanations of evidence. If you tell me something will lead to more of something but don't say how or why that is a good or bad thing then it's a waste of evidence.

I will try to give thorough feedback to help you understand why I made the decision I made.

I have worked in World Schools for two years.  I like to see clash and will use the ballot as instructed.  

I was a cross-ex debater for three years in high school in the 90s. I flow as well as I can. I am not a big fan of speed. I enjoy good clash in a round. I like it when debaters directly engage with each other's arguments courteously and respectfully. Make your case to me and tell me what arguments stand and why they are important.

I was a policy debater when I was competing. Speed is fine as long as I can still understand your arguments. Stock issues are important but not the end all be all. I will listen to topicality arguments but will rarely vote for them unless there is true merit to them. The more real life you can make your arguments the better. World impact will always be a big deciding factor for me.

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.

Tabula Rasa - defaults to policy maker

POLICY DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY

1. My Judging Paradigm

1. I am a Flow Judge: Stock Issues are Very Important
1. Topicality is a VOTING ISSUE
1. If a teams battle over counter definitions, the team with the best definition (i.e. strongest justification/source for its proposed definition) will win the argument. If the team proposing a definition drops a definition or its justification for the definition, and the opposing team counters, the opposing team will win the argument.
2. BUT NOTE: “fairness” is generally NOT a strong argument on Topicality — no whining -- just argue topicality!
2. Debate theory Arguments are acceptable but MUST be supported
1. “Education” arguments are superior to whining about fairness.
2. Arguments over the propriety of a case can win a round if done well.
3. Counterplans are acceptable, but the Negative should still address the Affirmative case. Permutations are weak. Lack of mutual exclusivity is valid.
4. Well Done Critiques (Kritiks) have won my ballots
5. Generic disadvantages are acceptable if properly linked to the specific plan
1. Brink/threshold arguments are acceptable but can be overcome by valid counters
6. Superior evidence can win the round
1. More recent or more reliable or better sourced evidence can prevail over weaker or older evidence.
2. Teams should not repeatedly read the same evidence UNLESS the other team has challenged a specific piece of evidence. Repeating challenged evidence is acceptable to prove the validity or strength of the challenged evidence.
2. I base my decisions on Substance over Style
1. Presentation skills are Important, but dropped arguments matter
2. Superior presentation skills will lead to higher speaker rankings but dropped or ignored arguments may result in victory for the opposing team. Low-point wins happen.
3. I care about Cross-Examination — It Matters How You Ask and Answer Questions
1. Cross-Examination questions and answers may make a difference in a close round
1. Effective cross examination can tip the scales in favor of a team.
2. Effective answers during cross examination can tip the scales as well.
2. OPEN cross-examination is an abhorrent abomination and should not exist!
1. Each speaker should be able to answer questions without help.
2. Each speaker should be able to ask questions without help.
4. I Appreciate Well-Executed Humor. Debate should be FUN!
5. Being Rude is Unacceptable! Debaters have lost rounds by being rude.
6. Experience with Policy Debate
7. A. High School Policy Debater for Four Years 1. National Qualifier Senior Year 2. State Qualifier Senior Year B. College Debater Freshman Year C. High School Policy Debate Judge Last Six Years

I have experience in debate (policy) in the past. Because I did policy debate, I heavily focus and emphasize impact weighing in deciding my ballot. I will make sure to pay attention to what happens within the round (if you are spreading, I won't be able to understand all arguments). In the occurrence that one of the debaters drops an argument, it will be noted and may impact my decision of the round depending on the importance of the argument. If the round is close between the two debaters (say both debaters didn't drop arguments, and most attacks (that were relevant to their cases) were refuted and/or disproven) then I may come to the conclusion of the round based off of who is a better speaker. While this is not likely to occur, I would just like to let you guys be aware of this.

I want to hear not only why you won the round, but also why your case leads a better world, outcome, or meets a value best (or rather, why the opponent's case does not).

I'm decent at keeping up with taglines for cards, but when referencing a card don't just state the tagline. For example:

If halfway through the round you say "our fox 2014 card trumps their cnn 2013 card" I might be slightly confused unless you say specifically what those 2 cards refer to.

I'm okay with some speed, just please don't spread too fast for me to understand you.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name - Jamie Littlepage

School - Blue Springs 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 (meh, assistant-ish)

F. Occasionally judge policy debate (This is most accurate)

2. I have judged 6 years of policy debate. I have judged 0-10 varsity rounds this season.

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

(cough cough, lay judge)

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY

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

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

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 bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

-Signposting

Recaps are your friend.

Avoid the unpleasantness or temptation of condescension.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Jamie Littlepage

School: Blue Springs 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):

J. Community Judge

L. I have judged LD debate for 6 years.

How many LD rounds have you judged this season?

1. Fewer than twenty

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

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No

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

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}

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.

-Signposting

Recaps are your friend.

Avoid the unpleasantness or temptation of condescension.

Please note that I haven't judged a round of debate since Spring of 2020. So getting some used to the new COVID-style judging beckons some patience and I thank you in advance.

Background:

I attended and competed with Blue Springs South High School in almost every IE event. I qualified and placed at Districts, State, and Nationals. My strong suits were Prose, DI, DUO, POI, and Extemp.

I competed for three years at Southwest Baptist University. I competed in Duo, POI, Drama, Poetry, Informative, Persuasive, C.A., Prose, Exempt, After Dinner Speach Parli, and Public Form, and IPDA. I have judged several tournaments a year every year from 2015 to the present. While Speech events were my strong suits, I competed and placed consecutively in debate throughout my collegiate time placing in state and the Phi Kappa Delta nationals for speech events and debate.

General Comments: (I have borrowed some of this wording from others, as I think it suits well my paradigm when it comes to debate.)

• I prefer policy-oriented debates but will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them. I will follow arguments closely but do your part and tell me what to flow with your warrants.
• I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate, but again I am open to other arguments if you justify them.
• Logic > tech > truth
• I'm far more willing to vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments -- not the other way around.
• On a similar note, my least favorite type of debate is the "card war". Don't just read cards -- make arguments. But don't just make arguments. Justify them and stick with them. If you mess up (as all humans do) then I'd rather you admit it and cover the ground than lie.
• The technical aspect of the debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
• I love cross-examination. If your cross-examination is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase. Remember - make my flow easy.

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC includes 2 Ks and 5 CPs (I've seen it), you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not very well versed in high-theory critical literature, so try to avoid burying me in jargon. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. We are here for education and DEBATE. Let's all play the game. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. I'm open to listening to these arguments, but if the offending team apologizes, I think we should all be willing to move on and learn from the experience to improve all of our individual lives.

Hi everybody, my name is Levi and I'm a decorated alumnus Speech and Debater from Kansas City, Missouri. I have competed in Speech and Debate for 6 years and have competed in Public Forum, Prose, Poetry, Program Oral Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, and Storytelling. I am a three year national competitor with a top 30 national ranking in storytelling (NSDA) and a double top 60 ranking in prose and poetry (@ NCFL and NSDA). All of this is to say that I'm well-versed in the realm of speech and debate and should hopefully be able to give you all constructive feedback!

LD:

1. First and foremost, this is a value debate. I thoroughly enjoy a great clash between values and criterions and feel as though it is necessary to win the value debate in order to have the best chance of winning actual arguments.
2. Second, be respectful of your opponents.Inappropriate facial expressions,outrightignoring preferred pronouns, or even blatantly attacking your opponents character rather than theirevidence will get you docked speaker points and possibly the windepending on the severity of the disrespect.
3. Third, speak clearly, slowly, and calmly. The challenge of speech and debate isn't "who can get the most evidence presented in the shortest amount of time", rather, thechallenge is presenting substantive evidence in a well-prepared, understandable, and confidence filled speech.
4. Fourth, I will most likely ignore any evidence that makes generalizations or doesn't specifically pertain to the topic/argument at hand.This may sound harsh but I think about it like this: everyone of us showed up to either to debate or listen to a debate about a certain topic, if your evidence doesn't pertain to that then it's truly a waste of the round.

Speech:

1. Oral Interpretation: This is by far one of my favorite events as this is what I competed in at NCFL and NSDA for two years in a row. SO, what do I look for in Prose and Poetry pieces?
2. Prose: PLEASE BE CONVERSATIONAL!!! This is NOT DI. If your piece relies upon over the top emotions and super large emotional climaxes then I would suggest trying Dramatic Interpretation next year. Prose should be a narrative presented by your character, it should retell atrauma/joy without the character actively living through the experience. Prose is also not a stylistic piece, the focus should be on vocal and emotional modulation and less on blocking and artistic movements.
3. Poetry: This event should have distinct differences from prose. Poetry performances should be far more stylistic in terms of blocking. Furthermore, the tempo and cadence at which you speak should have rhythm, I mean, you're performing spoken poetry after all. Poetry pieces CAN tell a single story, but the way in which the story is presented should not be as reflective/solemn as your prose.
4. Extemporaneous Speaking: First, have an interesting and fun intro! If I'm not hooked in to your piece by the time your intro/teaser is finished, it will be a lot harder for me to maintain interest in your speech. Second, make sure your try you best to tie in your intro throughout your transitions to different points. Furthermore, 3 MAIN POINTS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT!! If you can only come up with two good main points with substantive evidence to support them, THAT IS OK. Do not have two points that are expressing the same exact idea with slightly different wording. Furthermore, if your evidence is more than a year old in extemporaneous speaking I will tend to dock points, as the issues being discussed are described as "current fact and opinion on the designated topic as presented by numerous sources". Finally, your conclusion should not just retell your main points, it should cleverly tie in the topic of the teaser/intro as well as provide closing insights not yet previously discussed in your main points (in other words: please don't make me listen to an AP Language argumentative essay)

Speaking rate should be normal. Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution? Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

Speech/Debate Experience: Debated policy debate in high school and have been judging debate for the past 7 years.

Speed: I can follow above average speed (it's the duty of the debater to signpost effectively and speak clearly), but I value quality over quantity of arguments.

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, prep time is going. Since policy debate has extended the prep time amount from 5 minutes to 8 minutes, there should be no reason to try to "steal" prep. Evidence exchanges should also be done on prep.

I will be flowing, but will not extend or weigh arguments for you - it must be said in speeches, which have priority. I also will not consider new arguments in the rebuttals. In order to weigh something on the flow, the argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. You need to provide a reason for why the argument is important to my overall decision.

I typically lean more toward traditional debate, in terms of stock issues being the priority for voting. If negative team can prove that the affirmative doesn't fulfill all five stock issues, then the negative should win the round. I will vote on topicality IF it is a clearly untopical case. I am fine with counterplans if the negative can prove why it cannot coincide with the affirmative plan and solves for the same impacts. Kritiks are also fine in the round if they have a clear link to the case, the argument is clear, and provide clash in the round. However, case debate is my preferred style of argumentation.

I have judged debate/speech/congress for 7+ years. I primarily judge in the Missouri NSDA circuit, but I have also judged some out of state tournaments and at the state tournament level. I judge primarily on topicality and each participant's ability to defend their position, both in their speeches and responses. I also judge on presentation of materials (speed, eye contact, clarity, etc.). I will also consider the sportsmanship and ethics of the round in my decision. Competitors should remember, this is a respectful, competitive environment, and should be argued as such. The expectation is respectful and informed arguments by all participants.

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution and topicality. Affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution is, generally, a true statement. Negative has the burden to prove the resolution false. I base this judgement primarily off the topicality of the argument. I do NOT weigh the option of counterplans as a valid true/false decision. I will judge based off of knowledge of the case and resources, as well as the teams' ability to rebuttal to questions being asked. I will also consider impacts referenced by either team in my decision. It is in your best interest to have a complete, well-rounded case, that fully supports your position.

General Notes: Speed - I prefer a manageable, understandable speed and tone. If I don't have time to comprehend your words, I can't flow your argument, which could result in missed points. I prefer the quality of your words, than the quantity. I will not disrupt the debate to address these issues, so please consider this before you start.

Author: I am more concerned with the argument you're making rather than who it is said by. References are important for credibility purposes, but I am not traditionally persuaded in an argument just due to the source being cited.


Policy Debate

Similar to above LD comments, except in policy, the negative team has presumption and affirmative team must must clearly argue their impacts.

Hi there,

I am very familiar with this policy topic, therefore I will be able to follow along just fine and already understand the background of the topic.

If there is an email chain please include me in it:

iskate1516@gmail.com

Speed

(Virtual) - I am okay with some speed, but due to the nature of video chatting the audio is horrible. I'd rather have quality over quantity.

- If I can't understand you due to your speed, I won't stop you. I just won't flow it. Meaning at the end of the round if it's not on my flow then I'm not going to consider it.

- Do not feel the need to spread or talk faster if you are not comfortable with it.

Stock Issues

- I'm not a fan of when people run inherency as an argument unless there is a major dispute

- In solvency, if you have a weak solvency argument I will most likely give that to the neg, but only if they catch it

- Solvency turns are a thing and they're fun if ran correctly.

- Make sure you have a strong link card, have noticed with this topic, the link cards are weak

DA's

- Turns are fun for impacts, but you can't us say that you're turning it. Read me a card, and give me and under view of why that's possible.

- I don't like extinction arguments for impact, if you're going to run that then you need a strong internal link

- DA's are important in my voting decision

- Long link chains are weaker DA'S

- At the end of the round you should be going for the DA that you believe has the most value to the round, do not run the entire neg case.

Topicality

- I do not like T on substantial

- T is fun, but don't run it if you don't plan on going for that in the neg rebuttal

- If you don't bring it up in all of your speech, then I will flow it as a dropped

- T isn't a voter for me, in most cases

- There is on T that I will 95% of the time vote on, but not a lot of people run it. Or if they do run it, it is not used in the correct context.

CP's

- A lot of people don't have all the components for a CP which discourages me from voting on the CP the aff also has to catch the improper set up. The aff has to bring that up though.

- CP must solve better, give me your interpretation of why you solve better

- I like cp's but it must be ran correctly

Abusive arg

- I don't like abusive arguments, they're very whiny.

- They're a time waster, spend your time on better args

- You don't need to bring it to my attention that they brought up a new arg in the rebuttals. I flow speeches. I will write on their ballot that I didn't flow that argument.

- I was once a novice debater too, and novice 2A's are very notorious for bringing up new args in the 2AR

Other policy related notes

- K's do not belong on the novice circuit especially in Missouri

- Impact calc should be ran

- If there are tech issues on my end I will stop you and pause the time, as it is fair to judge everyone the same - if the other team can't hear you I would like for them to say something

- Don't steal prep, I time everyone and everything.

- I read evidence , if your card says something completely different than what the other wrote, that will be on the ballot

- Dates are relevant but at the same time it's not the biggest thing in the world to me. However if your entire case is from '14 then I'll probably mention it. But don't spend your time arguing dates.

- The purpose of cx if for clash and clarification - if you run vagueness on their plan or whatever it may be - I will probably not swing that argument your way.

PuF and LD

- I am more familiar with LD than PuF

- In LD hold up your criterion and value

- At the end of the round I don't want to have to go back and go through all my flow to see which side should win it should be obvious by the last 2 speeches

PLEASE READ THIS

If you're being rude in any shape way or form, you will get last in the round. In cx I'm okay with interrupting but don't be rude. Don't say anything offensive. If I feel that you're being sexist, racist, or disrespectful, I will write it on your ballot for your coach to see.

I will be flowing the round, so all I ask is that you sign post and let me know where you are at on the flow.

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.

My paradigm for judging:

Decorum required at all times.

Do not yell at me- We are in a small room and I don't need you to yell to get your point across. I have been involved in Speech and Debate for 20 years- I competed in debate and interp in middle school, high school, and collegiate level. I have been coaching this activity for 8 years. I like cool, calm, collected- not loud and chaotic.

I will flow the round- if I don't look up often, I am not ignoring you- just listening and checking the flow.

Your job is to present ideas, arguments, and rebuttals in a professional manner. Debaters should educate the judges, and have thorough background knowledge of the topic. You should also have fun- show off your hard work and represent your school/state well!

Please do not use full prep time if you do not need it! It is a waste of time to run out the clock if you are ready to speak.

Excited to judge your round!

I competed in Speech and Debate for all four years of high school in just about every event/debate and have coached for 6 years now (again, coaching all events/debates). In all debates, I'm looking for solid analysis, logic, and advancement of arguments. If your opponent responds to your argument, please do not refute their response by once more citing your original argument/evidence. Advance the discussion and provide additional analysis, evidence, etc. I also value good organization and sign posting as you speak. If you don't see me writing or if I'm making a funny face, you're probably speaking too fast, and I can't understand you. Debate is about communication. Remember that your number 1 priority should be to communicate effectively.

LD Specific Paradigm:

Lincoln Douglas is all about framework, framework, framework. I want a good clash that focuses on framework. Please do not nitpick the tiny differences in framework, but if your framework differs, you need to discuss why yours is preferred. If they're virtually the same, that's fine. Show me why you uphold the framework better. I want solid logic and analysis. I'm not writing down your evidence tags because, quite frankly, I don't care to have a discussion on sources. I want you to connect back to your framework and focus on the conceptual ethics. Please, do not give me an off the clock road map. We know you're going to talk about your opponent's case then rebuild your own or vice versa. There's not a lot of surprises here.

CX Specific Paradigm:

For policy, I want to hear good, well-developed arguments at a speed that I can actually follow. I'm looking for strong links, clear impacts, and solid analysis. I'm not impressed by how quickly you read other people's arguments. I'm looking for how you synthesize evidence into a compelling argument for the specific round. The winning side will have consistency in speeches and arguments throughout the round and spend time weighing arguments and explaining why their arguments are superior. I do not want to be on the email chain. I believe firmly that debate is an oral communication activity, and if I have to read to understand your argument, something has gone very wrong with your communication. Please make sure you're clearly sign posting verbally so that I know what you're addressing.

Please do not spread. I cannot follow. A great strategy for me is to read tags slowly and then speed up on evidence (as a former LDer, I prefer your argumentation over your evidence anyway). I don't know all the CX jargon and acronyms. Be kind and explain what you're talking about. Ex: "Our first off case is a Plan-Inclusive-Counterplan, or PIC." <--That would have been such a helpful line in the first couple rounds I judged. If I can access the round, I will engage fully. I'll nod when you have me, smile when I think you've said something really smart. If you start to lose me, you'll see me squint and lean forward. Eventually, you'll lose me completely if you don't correct, and you'll know that because I'll stop typing/looking at you.

PF Specific Paradigm:

Public Forum debate should be universally accessible. I'm looking for kitchen-table debates; I'm not looking for policy on double speed. You evidence should enhance your argument, but it shouldn't be your argument. I'm looking for good analysis and links to an overall claim that is reasonable and easily understood. I do not want a bunch of stats thrown at me or a book of expert opinions: I want to hear you synthesize the information and explain it to me. Public Forum debaters should refrain from overly-cumbersome jargon and consider their audience as more of a "town hall" style.

I competed in Speech and Debate for all four years of high school in just about every event/debate and have coached for 6 years now (again, coaching all events/debates). In all debates, I'm looking for solid analysis, logic, and advancement of arguments. If your opponent responds to your argument, please do not refute their response by once more citing your original argument/evidence. Advance the discussion and provide additional analysis, evidence, etc. I also value good organization and sign posting as you speak. If you don't see me writing or if I'm making a funny face, you're probably speaking too fast, and I can't understand you. Debate is about communication. Remember that your number 1 priority should be to communicate effectively.

LD Specific Paradigm:

Lincoln Douglas is all about framework, framework, framework. I want a good clash that focuses on framework. Please do not nitpick the tiny differences in framework, but if your framework differs, you need to discuss why yours is preferred. If they're virtually the same, that's fine. Show me why you uphold the framework better. I want solid logic and analysis. I'm not writing down your evidence tags because, quite frankly, I don't care to have a discussion on sources. I want you to connect back to your framework and focus on the conceptual ethics. Please, do not give me an off the clock road map. We know you're going to talk about your opponent's case then rebuild your own or vice versa. There's not a lot of surprises here.

CX Specific Paradigm:

For policy, I want to hear good, well-developed arguments at a speed that I can actually follow. I'm looking for strong links, clear impacts, and solid analysis. I'm not impressed by how quickly you read other people's arguments. I'm looking for how you synthesize evidence into a compelling argument for the specific round. The winning side will have consistency in speeches and arguments throughout the round and spend time weighing arguments and explaining why their arguments are superior. I do not want to be on the email chain. I believe firmly that debate is an oral communication activity, and if I have to read to understand your argument, something has gone very wrong with your communication. Please make sure you're clearly sign posting verbally so that I know what you're addressing.

Please do not spread. I cannot follow. A great strategy for me is to read tags slowly and then speed up on evidence (as a former LDer, I prefer your argumentation over your evidence anyway). I don't know all the CX jargon and acronyms. Be kind and explain what you're talking about. Ex: "Our first off case is a Plan-Inclusive-Counterplan, or PIC." <--That would have been such a helpful line in the first couple rounds I judged. If I can access the round, I will engage fully. I'll nod when you have me, smile when I think you've said something really smart. If you start to lose me, you'll see me squint and lean forward. Eventually, you'll lose me completely if you don't correct, and you'll know that because I'll stop typing/looking at you.

PF Specific Paradigm:

Public Forum debate should be universally accessible. I'm looking for kitchen-table debates; I'm not looking for policy on double speed. You evidence should enhance your argument, but it shouldn't be your argument. I'm looking for good analysis and links to an overall claim that is reasonable and easily understood. I do not want a bunch of stats thrown at me or a book of expert opinions: I want to hear you synthesize the information and explain it to me. Public Forum debaters should refrain from overly-cumbersome jargon and consider their audience as more of a "town hall" style.

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

1) Arguments are good, Impacts are better

2) Clash is important. I want to see where ideas come together, not just two separate cases.

3) I am a flow judge so covering case and signposting is ideal!

Overall have fun! Enjoy it! :)

I competed in L/D and Public Forum, as well as every IE in High School. In college, I was on the Northwest Missouri Team and won 10 national championships through Pi Kapppa and PCSDL leagues. Over half of these wins are in Public Forum Debate, as well as Duo, and platform events.

As a judge I look for who has the more complete argument and successfully refuted the opponent. Ensuring that the judge has complete understanding of the debate style and arguments is crucial.

Hi. My name is Helene Slinker. I am the assistant coach at Raytown South High School in Raytown, Missouri.

In high school, I competed in public forum debate, congressional debate, original oratory, and occasionally U.S. extemp for four years. In college, I competed in policy debate in the NDT-CEDA circuit for two years.

Policy

Policy debate is, largely, a question of impacts. When making a decision, I first look at who had the biggest impact and then evaluate who accesses their impact better. The most important thing for you to do is impact calc/impact weighing.

Speed - I can follow speed. Make sure you're clear on the tagline but you can probably go as fast as you want. I may tell you if you're going too fast or too unclear for me to follow. In general, speaking skills are not a priority to me in comparison to quality of argumentation.

T and Theory - I will vote on topicality, but remember that a topicality argument must have structure. You need an interpretation, violation, standards and voters for topicality to be a viable argument. Make sure you invest time in topicality or theory if you want me to vote on it.

CPs - They are fine, I don't have any strong thoughts. I don't really care either way on conditionality, you need to make sure to invest time on it if you are going for a theory argument.

DAs - DAs are fine, I have no issue with "generic disadvantages." It's all about getting to an impact and outweighing.

Ks - I don't mind Ks. I have some experience running and debating against Ks in college. I don't have an incredibly in depth knowledge of all literature bases though, if you are running something very out of the blue you may want to explain heavily.

K affs - K affs are fine (I have some experience running one) and I will also consider and vote on framework. Whatever is put in front of me, I'll evaluate. Both sides have equal chances to win a framework vs K aff debate.

Other thoughts and pet peeves:

A priority for me is organization. A big pet peeve is when late rebuttals are messy and all over the place. Also, please, split the block!

When you're extending arguments, make sure you're clear about the argument, not just the author.

Please, be nice! I really hate judging mean debates and I will give you bad speaker points if you're mean to the other team. You can be aggressive without being mean.

LD

I did LD for one year, my freshman year of high school. I don't like when people get caught up in the evidence line by line rather than weighing value and vc against each other. The most successful LD teams take their opponents value and prove why they access it more.

Speed - See policy paradigm, I'm fine with it but be clear. Rate of delivery/speaking skills does not weigh heavily in my decision. I will flow the debate just as I would a policy debate.

Evidence vs Values - Values are more important, evidence is encouraged but remember what it is all in support of.

PFD

I did PFD for four years in high school but since doing policy in college my perspective has changed somewhat. PFD can often be confusing to follow. I will flow the debate and vote solely on arguments. Although every speech should be doing impact comparison, the last speech should especially focus on clearing up the remaining offense and defense into a coherent ballot.

tl;dr I've been coaching since 2011 and can handle any way you want to speak and debate. I encourage and support creativity as long as you follow the rules of the tournament, your league or the NSDA.

*************************************

Please hit the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phones and other devices during the round so that your speeches are not disturbed by alarms for calls from your family and Slack notifications from your coach. I wear headphones and your timer going off sounds really loud.

Please "pre-flow" your cases before the round start time. Tournaments want us to start on time.

I don't disclose after rounds unless the tournament requires it. I weigh everything up to the last word of the last speech. So that means I can't start deciding until the end of the debate round, which means I need time to think and write after the round is done so I can turn the ballot in on time.

I don't like when multiple debate teams from a school use the same constructive. Write your own speeches please.

Ask me if I'm ready before you start speaking. I don't want to miss anything you say because I'm still writing notes. Actually ask me - please don't robotically ask "Judge ready? Opponent ready?" then start speaking before receiving an answer.

If the tournament or your league has a rule that judges may only consider arguments spoken about in the last speeches, then I will respect and follow that. If there is no rule saying that, then I will consider ALL arguments given at any point in the round. If you made a great point 20 minutes before the end of the round, then I'm still going to remember it even if you didn't repeat it 5 minutes before the end of the round. Techniques your coaches teach you (like to extend your arguments into the the last speeches) are not rules, they're just best practices.

Congress

I give high points/ranks to competitors who speak well and argue well. If your speech is as good as those in extemp, I will rank you highly. At a certain point in the year, everyone doing Congress is at about the same level for their argumentation skills because everyone is using the same formula for each speech. Therefore, having high-level presentation skills is what separates the top 6 from the bottom 6 for me.

I am biased against speeches that, after the first few, don't rebut or support previous arguments. As a Congress coach, I've seen the student thought process: "Goshdangit I spent all that time before the tournament writing this sponsorship speech and I'm gonna goshdarn give it." Well...ignoring the other speakers and giving a speech that just repeats the arguments of previous speakers does NOT help you get higher scores from me.

Policy

Policy is rare in the 2 states where I've judged, so I haven’t judged it much. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win. I don’t read cases or evidence that you share - I judge based only on what you say so that there is no confusion about what was said vs what was written. I don’t mind spreading as long as you’re understandable, but I’m not a perfect flow-er so I’m going to miss some things and will depend on you to tell me what you think is important after the first constructives. I judge based on who was more persuasive as opposed to who covered more points - this usually means if you have some squirrelly argument I will ignore it and go with the arguments that makes more real-world sense. Speaking of squirrelly arguments - I am so sorry but "everything leads to nuclear war" is hack. We were saying the same thing in the 80’s and it feels played out. If it makes sense that something might lead to nuclear war, like militarization of the Arctic, then I’ll accept it. But when you try to say something like more laptop manufacturing in Malaysia or the military playing Fall Guys on Twitch will lead to nuclear war, you’re going to have to work REALLY HARD to get me to give that any credence. I do not turn my brain off during rounds - there's no such thing as tabula rasa.

Lincoln-Douglas

My LD preferences are pretty much the same as Policy above. There’s not a lot of progressive in my area, so I don’t know all the jargon. I don’t care if you do progressive or traditional, as long as I understand what you’re talking about. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

Public Forum

The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

SPEECH/IE PREFERENCES

No forensbots. If you are giving us a speech that you've polished so much that it shines, make sure your eyes aren't dead. If this is literally the 50th round you've performed this piece, practice it with a friend and tell her to tell you truthfully if you look like a soulless automaton.

My entire life is spent watching young people speak. I notice everything: swaying back and forth; shifting foot to foot; grabbing the bottom of your blazer; pacing too much; purposeless, repetitive gestures. I was once in a national circuit final round in which I ranked a speaker 7 because she kept smacking her lips every other sentence. The other 2 judges didn't notice and each ranked her first. There is nothing wrong with any individual movement or tic, but if you repeat that movement too often, I will see it and tell you. Watch videos of yourself to notice and reduce your own unnoticed habits.

Please don't make fake changes of position. The purpose of changing positions is so that different parts of the audience can see you better. In front of a camera, this means you have ZERO need to change position. Stay centered in the frame just like a news reporter. Please don't do the golden triangle in front of a camera - people whose job is in front of a camera in real life don't do this. In-person in a normal classroom at a tournament, change position based on the people in the room. Don't go over there and talk to a fake audience if no one is actually sitting over there. Adjust your position changes to the actual people in the room you're in. Changing positions during your speech's transitions is WHEN you do it, NOT WHY.

Events I have judged but not enough to have preferences for:

BQ, Extemp Debate, original spoken word, duo improv, radio speaking, broadcast announcing, pro/con challenge, and world schools.

Events I haven’t judged:

Parliamentary, Mock Trial

My experience

High school coach and classroom Public Speaking teacher from 2011-2018, then 2021 to present. Have coached/taught: PF, LD, Congress, and all Speech events. Have coached students to TOC, NCFL and NSDA in PF, OO and POI. Have coached students to state championships for PF, LD, Congress, OO, POI, Extemp and Humorous.

Teacher since 2003.

Teaching private public speaking lessons to adults since 2019.

I judged at nearly a hundred online tournaments during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Online platforms I've judged on so far: Zoom, NSDA Campus, Accelevents, Classrooms.cloud, HopIn and Yaatly.

I've completed the NSDA/NFHS online judge training including the cultural competency section.

I know how to be a Parliamentarian for Student Congress.

I know how to be an Extemp proctor.

In high school I did policy and prose/poetry.

I speak Spanish and Portuguese.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name: Austin Steeley

School - Raytown South High School

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

* Assistant Coach of a team

* Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged __3__ years of policy debate.

I have judged 0-10 varsity rounds this season.

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

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES (6)

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: (5)

8. COUNTERPLANS (5)

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES (2)

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS (2)

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS (8)

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS (4)

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.

"I tend to vote for the team that best proves their side with evidence."

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):

* Assistant Current LD coach

* Experienced LD judge

* I have judged LD debate for _3__ years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? Fewer than 20.

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? No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? No

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? No

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

1. Final rebuttals should include

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

b) not necessary.

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

a) acceptable or

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

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

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

I am a previous PFD debater, but I have been judging all types of debate for 4 years. In any debate, the most important thing is that your arguments make sense and that it’s clear you understand your argument and not just simply reading evidence. Speed is not a huge point to me, just make sure I can understand you, especially since we are online.

I decide the winner based on who overall persuaded me of their side and who had the better arguments of the round.

I will be keeping a detailed flow.

I am a forensics coach. I have judged all debates for over 10 years now. I competed in PFD when I was in high school in 2010. I will not be taking a rigorous flow. I will take notes and focus on the big arguments of the round and keep track of who is winning the largest points of clash in the round. I do value public speaking and persuasion, but do not judge based solely on that. I am OK with speed, but you must have clear diction and articulation.

Open to any specific questions.

- former college debater & grad assistant coach (NPDA, IPDA, Discussion, Worlds, PF)

POLICY DEBATE:

- not a fan of speed / spreading the opponent out of the round. Quality over quantity, persuade me. SLOW DOWN when you read your plan.

- debate is an educational activity first, and I will vote on fairness/ education voters if they arise

- prefer stock issues over K debate

- PIC's are rarely persuasive to me. I will vote aff on the perm 95% of the time if neg runs a PIC.

- CP shifts presumption. If you are running a CP, it needs to be competitive or I will not vote for it.

- T should be used to check aff, and not as a time suck. Really not a fan of clearly throw away arguments.

- IMPACT CALCULUS. Please. Weigh the aff world and the neg world, and do the work of comparing them for me.

- this is the first tournament I have heard this topic this year, but I do have a B.S. in Criminal Justice (grad. 2016) if that's information that would be helpful to you.

LD/ PF:

- Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case) After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don't in a speech, I do not like that.

- Framework : Establish a clear framework for the debate and come back to that FW frequently. If you don't provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.

- Extensions : don't just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and compare your impacts. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team. Extend dropped arguments asap. Don't wait until your last speech to bring up subpoint E that hasn't been talked about for the whole debate.

- Evidence : prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round.

- Narrative : Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case. **Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don't know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning. This is a communication event.

- this is the first tournament I have heard either topic.

ALL DEBATE:

- Not a fan of speed. I can handle most speed even though I don't like it. If it is too fast, I will say clear up to 2x. If you don't slow down, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. If something isn't on my flow, it's likely not going to be taken into consideration when I make my decision.

- Flow judge - So PLEASE provide clear verbal organization for me during your speech.

- I only pull up documents that are shared if there is evidence that I need to check. I flow the round based on what is said in the round. Don't depend on me reading and re-reading your case to understand it and make the arguments for you- you should present it in a way that I can understand it, and that persuades me.

- I will call for a card to check if (1) a piece of evidence is contested, (2) a piece of evidence is uncontested, but relevant to a key issue in the round, or (3) there seems to be a misunderstanding from both sides about what the card actually says (#3 is for feedback to the teams only, and will not effect my decision)

- In your rebuttals, tell me exactly where to vote. I'm a fan of "Judge, pull [the internal link/ framework/ subpoint B] through and put a star by it. You're voting for aff/ neg here because XYZ".

N/A

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.

Hey CX Debaters,

Ladue '23

Email: notallenyou@gmail.com

On speed/intro:

I'm a HS student from a traditional debate circuit. I'm not a very experienced judge nor debater. I apologize, but if you go way too fast or I can't understand you, I won't flow your args. Generally, I can listen to args pretty fast. I prefer if you read the authors name and year slower just so I know what card you reference if you decide to bring it up later. Try to have a good mic. Don't yell.

On content:

I like a good policy debate. I also enjoy critical debates (if there's good lit behind it). I'd be willing to vote for T, but it would be hard to convince me unless there's a genuine reason for reading T. Again I come from a pretty lay/traditional circuit, so I don't encounter a lot of Ks in my rounds, but I am willing to vote for a K. IMPACT CALC MATTERS. I'm willing to adopt a offense/defense paradigm or a policymaker paradigm. DAs/CPs are fine and probably the easiest way for me to give a ballot over. If aff decides to be untopical on purpose, there needs to be an explanation.