I am a pretty easy going judge. I’m not a layman judge, I make sure to research the subject.
I don’t count information transfer as part of prep time, but it is not a time to ask questions. I’ll cut you off if you start asking questions past basic information.
If you go over 15 seconds on speeches or cross ex I’ll cut you off as well.
I don’t mind speed, it’s not my favorite but please bear in mind that your internet doesn’t like your speed. If I loose you or can’t understand you I will interrupt as well. Be sure to slow down. The internet is a new game we have to play, so please, please keep that in mind.
I don’t mind if you time yourself, but I will go off of my timer.
I don’t like the abuse argument. Don’t use it excessively. It’ll kill you for me.
otherwise there are no arguments I don’t like.
But, I do expect you to use etiquette and be polite. Remember, debate is a game you play with your friends!

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (7 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

Stay on point.

Documented evidence

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method 

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it. 

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's. 

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

Clarity of communication and Professionalism.

My paradigm is pretty simple. I like a few detailed arguments instead of many brief arguments. Be clear! Be courteous and be ethical. Convince me, and I will vote your way.

Organization, logical, professionalism, articulate, ability to show original ideas, don't speak too fast. Be clear, concise. I need to be able to follow your thoughts.

Hey!

I'm an English and History teacher. I've assistant coached debate for 3 years with no background in it prior to that. I don't have experience doing what you're doing, and I think you're all incredible.

I'm a simple judge- I just want you to convince me that your arguments are correct and that your opponent's arguments are not. I like to hear you cite the evidence- more current evidence will supersede older evidence and quality is better than quantity.

Spreading/Speed is okay if you do it well and you clearly state when there is a new contention/argument. I'd rather hear the arguments in your own words than fly through the highlights of your evidence.

I will NOT make assumptions for your arguments. If you don't clearly link the ideas, I won't link them for you.

The best rebuttals and questions are respectful and have purpose.

Call out "abuses," but move on quickly as though the arguments will flow through. I hate wasting time on it.

Please time yourselves when possible.

Communication is Key!!

I also vote on Stock Issues.

Tag Teaming and arguments based on T are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. You should be able to perform a good speech without having to shock and awe me through graphic depictions.

I have been involved in speech and debate for 29 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 23 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time. The increase in prep was to accommodate filesharing, so you should be doing that during prep, not in addition to prep.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. IMO CP MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for over a decade. I expect professionalism and good argumentation. POs should be efficient; keep recency and precedence; prevent suspension of the rules; and be strict but KIND.

I’m an attorney by profession. A big part of my job is effectively communicating with judges. I spent several years of my career working directly with judges—including at the Utah Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. I’ve watched dozens of legal arguments and I’ve seen behind the scenes how judges rule on these real world cases.

In my view, persuasive communication is about (1) marshaling evidence to establish empirical facts, (2) linking these empirical facts to principles (sometimes laws, sometimes theories), and (3) offering a compelling argument for why the outcome you advocate is just.

You will be most effective in getting my vote if you focus on these three issues. Here are three questions to consider— do you have good evidence of the empirical facts you assert; have you connected these facts to theory or law that explains why the facts matter; and have you explained the justice or rightness of the result that arises from applying the facts to your theory.

In my view, debate should teach students effective communication. So I’ll judge your communication by the standards that would apply to real world activities. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an effective communicator spend their entire time reading, and I’m quite certain spewing or speaking above a conversational tone has ever won a real world debate.

If there were anything I would change about debate it would be to reduce the amount of time you spend just talking and increase the time you spend asking and answering each other’s questions. Use your time in cross examination to ask smart and effective questions or give smart and effective answers and you will score points with me.

Policy Maker Paradigm

Stock Issues primary importance

Old-school approach

Rudeness is death

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your speeches if you can't make logical arguments. When a speech is delivered too quickly, evidence can be lost and therefore can leave the argument unsupported. If I feel that your speed defies normal communication rate, I will set my pen down. This means that your arguments are not being flowed and do not exist.

I enjoy clash, but it needs to be respectful. When looking at the constructive speech a few well developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. I will forever identify as a “communication judge”. After all, if you are not developing positive real-life skills, what is the point?

I will flow to keep track of the debate, but I am not a flow judge.

Lincoln Douglas debates: The value and criterion are the foundation of the debate. Policy does not belong in LD.

Policy: Stock issues are key.

Congress: Well written speeches are wonderful, but they should be delivered extemporaneously and be authentic to the conversation being had. Also, any speeches given, should add depth to the argument; please avoid repeating main points that have already been presented.

Public Forum: Polite and well informed debate is a must, respect your opponents time. This form of debate was created to be a lay person debate, and I will view it as such.

World Schools: World Schools is the debate form that I love the most. You should stick to the style WS was meant to be. Do not spread. Style is important, so I am looking for clear communication that could appeal to any judge. Strategy is also important. Know how to utilize POIs ad how to formulate strong arguments.

Be decent humans.

I like to see plenty of evidence, and for the debaters to speak slowly & clearly enough for me to understand.

I value a professional debate. This means that communication is strong and clear. Clash should be present but polite. I prefer hearing debate on the resolution over strictly theoretical debate. I do flow, so don't drop major points. And tell me in the end why you thing your side has won the debate. Have fun!

Congratulations on making it to my paradigm, this is the first step to a great round!

TL,DR for those who ain't got time for that: I'm experienced in debate as a coach and competitor. I'm not the best with speed and if you wanna go quick give me the speech docs please. Give me some decent framing/weighing beyond surface level. Depth over breadth in general. I am cool with K's and all that jazz. Be ethical.

Do not feel afraid to ask me what something is or what I mean by something. Read the intro, how I vote, and your specific section of debate is my recommendation.

Intro:

I coached mostly PF and LD for 4 years total and I have competed for even longer, placing in college nationals and plenty of tournaments. I have a bachelor's in political science and a minor in philosophy and I listen/read sci-fi and philosophy in my free time (amongst other things). So I am an experienced judge and debater with high academic literacy.

I tend to want to keep a face of impartiality while judging, I try not to go beyond a flat expression when possible. Let me know if you don't prefer this, I can certainly try to be more expressive in what arguments I like versus don't to help y'all out.

How I vote:

Depth over breadth in general.

I try to be as tab ras as possible, when conflicting arguments are similar in strength, especially, since I weigh links heavily. Especially the depth and explanation of the link. Links usually come down to which one is more true in the round, and who gave me the most depth.

I can keep up for the most part on flows but I have trouble at high speed, as I only have one ear so it makes it more difficult to hear at times. I still listen to podcasts and youtube videos between 1.15 and 1.5 speed pretty much always, so I can certainly keep up to a certain point, but clear tags and authors and dates will be necessary and you need to have good pronunciation. So in general, air on the side of flay or fast but not spew speed.

Dropping something in a speech and bringing it up later is pretty much a no-no. If they discuss something in CX I think it's fair game to talk about in your next speech but I don't flow cx so it needs to be on the flow from a speech in order to really count in the round.

Paraphrased and cut evidence needs to be legitimate and not exaggerated. The more you power-tag your evidence the less likely I vote for you. The more you paraphrase the more I rely on your links to be legitimate.

Use of logic, common knowledge, philosophical implications, etc... are all ways to provide evidence to an argument that doesn't necessitate the use of cards. Feel free to use them, I weigh these types of arguments and believe they matter depending on the topic. In general, evidence is preferred in matters of things likely to happen. And the philosophy should have implications to some ethical framing and told why it matters. An example I see students fail at too often that I know could be better is privacy. You need to tell me why privacy matters in this round, not just that it invades privacy but that it causes actual harm to people like distress, corruption, etc....

Road map and organize the flow well in the speech, please. If you plan on following a CP/K/etc... format please let me know how many sheets I need.

Be clear about what your arguments mean for the round, i.e. go back to the framing of the round, whether that be framework of a case or argument. Tell me why it matters for who I sign the ballot for.

Please be ethical. Do not steal prep, get evidence to your opponents in a timely manner, and treat debate as a friendly game. Plastic trophies don't matter after a few years, trust me I have thrown away countless awards from random invitationals at this point. What matters is the work you put in and the memories you get out of debate. Look to 'steelman' your opponents argument, i.e. try to be even better than your opponent at explaining their argument. If they are having trouble framing their argument, help them. This gives you lots of credibility and allows for cleaner wins if you are good enough.

Understand what you are winning and losing on, it's probably not worth going for things you are way behind on unless it's critical to winning the round.

I don't time evidence transfers until they start being laborious. Be respectful of my time and your opponent's time.

Roadmaps can be off time as well and I recommend you use one if you are doing more than telling me aff or neg flow first and the other 2nd (i.e. policy style flowing). Just tell me where you are starting if it's just an aff and neg flow of traditional debate.

I'm open to hearing essentially any argument, including things like speed Ks. The impacts matter a lot to me. Why are the in round impacts worth talking over the education of a traditional round. Why is this an a priori issue or a prerequisite to in round impacts?

Weighing- I've heard a lot of basic impact calculus this year and it's been okay. But you need to do the comparison to why things like your probably impacts matter more than their magnitude impacts. People miss the clash on impact weighing far too often. Usually, you fight over whether the probability vs. magnitude matters more, but if you both run nuclear war you need to argue why your timeframe and/or probability are stronger, or that your severity is stronger. What I mean is, why is nuclear war worse in one area over another (usually because it will cause some other bad impacts like climate change, effect air quality, destroy more crops, etc...).

Tag teaming- In general, I am cool with tag teaming to answer questions or to help your partner by clarifying the language of the question they want to ask. I don't want partners to be ignored and talked over. Each of you need to know what you are talking about, tag teaming only helps the collaborative nature of the debate.

Speaker Points- I tend to give the strongest debaters speaker points but rudeness and influency do make a difference. If the tournament allows, I'm more than willing to give low-point wins because one mistake can cost you a round even if you were the better debater. This is rare but does happen.

--PF--

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

I'm cool with teams running alts but the other team can perm them. Pro does not need a specific plan but not having some sort of model or idea to what you are doing will hurt you in most rounds unless you show me why your ground is more broad than a basic model. This can have multiple parts to achieve something.

Dropping arguments as the 2nd speaking debater is still dropping arguments, don't give new refutation in the summary as I will not listen by that point and will sign my ballot. Figure out what to go for and what not to, figure out how to win without directly refuting an argument, or just get good in general.

--LD--

If you are using Val/Cri's, only debate over them if it matters for the round, disagreeing over the minutia of which utilitarian framework to use is not fun to sit through or debate it. Clash with the key differences if you need to and don't be afraid to clash if you feel it gives you ground you wouldn't otherwise have.

Cool with CPs and Plans, the same rules apply from policy if you choose to do this especially. Consider reading that section if you are wanting to run a CP or plan.

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

Please don't put too much fluff and defense in your case, that's what refutation is for. Only define the terms that need defined. And everyone reserves the right to clarify a definition in the next speech after a definition becomes an issue.

--Policy--

Depth over breadth, please.

I'm cool with K's, CPs, etc... and I will flow the different main arguments on separate pieces of paper, just let me know on stuff like theory, framing, etc... where to flow and I will really appreciate it. I tend to take debate as a serious mental game, and respect what it can be even if most of the time it doesn't reach that. So give me reasons to vote for weird arguments that matter because things like K's and Theory matter when it makes a difference in the debate space.

Like I said above, I'm fairly comfortable with speed to a certain point but just be cognizant about your pronunciation and your taglines with the author and date. I keep a good flow and can handle most people's speed but I can't keep up with spewing usually.

Learn how to actually impact calc, look above for some instruction as I discuss it in how I vote.

I tend to not be conditional, if you feel other arguments are better than others, collapse to what you think will win you the round.

I am familiar with all the categories of debate and speech and would classify myself as a comms judge. I feel that excellent communication skills are critical, and in reality, the point in any style or form of debate/speech. What good is the intent of what you are trying to say if you cannot communicate your point to your audience effectively? So, making sure to be clear and articulate, effectively linking and impacting your arguments, and being respectful of your opponent(s) are all big for me. Speed is not usually an issue, as long as the technology cooperates and the clarity is there.

Other than that, I do really appreciate voters in final speeches. Tell me what you see the focal points for the round being, rather than letting me sort through and pull out whatever stood out or comes to mind. In good rounds the decisions are usually very close. Taking the time to remind me of your important arguments or the shortcomings of your opponent's responses helps ensure that I don't overlook anything in making my decision.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Citations after article introduction are preferred.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

It won't

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

No preference as long as it proves your position.

Please explain your views on kritical arguments.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

What they are comfortable with.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

What they are comfortable with.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

What they are comfortable with.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Show respect towards your opponent. Don't speak so fast it is hard to understand you.

Hello!

My paradigm is rather simple. I tend to be an impacts judge and go for whichever side can impact calc. their arguments out. Students should debate the way they want to, just please make sure I can hear you. I can follow speed, just make sure that you enunciate clearly so that I can still follow. If you have any additional, specific, questions please feel free to ask me about them before the round. For the purpose of setting up email chains, my email is hubbchri@gmail.com

Communications, line by line on the flow, and heavy impacts

I debated in High school, a year in college, and worked as an assistant coach for a short time. That being said I have been out of the community for a good chunk of time and am still a bit rusty.

I am okay with speed but my rusty-ness means I am not going to be the fastest pen. If i dont hear your argument then it cant make it on my flow, if it cant make it on my flow it becomes harder to let that weigh in on my decision. If something is important, make sure you emphasize it. That doesnt mean saying the same thing over and over, it means saying it once in a clear and concise way. I am okay with you moving a bit faster through evidence, if its truly important there is a decent chance I will be asking to see it after the round anyway. I think speed can be a good tool, but if you are simply going to rely on it to outspread your opponent then I start to take issue with it.

I am pretty intentional about leaving my own feelings about anything at the door. You get to tell me whats important, you get to tell me why, and you get to tell me what matters in the debate. Absent any provided framework I default to policy maker, but only cause its the easiest way to evaluate for most debates.

I am okay with alternative frameworks for approaching debate, but it must be clear what the framework is, why it is valuable, and what makes that framework a preferable approach to our time in round. I have no issue with traditional policy making style debate, but I do think that we should be held to account for the positions we defend, and I am okay with the introduction of ethical or moral questions as a legitimate attack on a position. By and large I think you get to decide what the debate is about, You get to tell me what is important and why that is the case. I can vote on just about any impact given the right framing and the right arguments about the way we weigh impacts, but dont think I will vote just because you throw out some grand scale impact with no context or story connecting it to the debate.

I prefer depth to breadth as a general rule. I would rather see a well developed negative position with some built in flexibility to allow for some jetisoning of arguments rather than three or four different positions (counterplans, K's). You can win that having more positions is better in the theory debate, but it will be an uphill battle. Same goes for the affirmative, I would rather see 2-3 advantages with good development and strong links than 5-6 advantages that you just narrow down to 2-3 by the end of the round.

I do love a good K debate, emphasis being good. Dont read it if you arent comfortable with it, or if you feel like you cant defend it or the alternative framework necessary to evaluate it. But I am perfectly okay with bringing into the debate space the questions about how we as individuals need to relate to these larger questions of policy, action and consequence.

I hate shallow T debates. If you think you can win it I want to see extrapolation for why your definition provides the best potential debates and education, not just questions of potential abuse. My partner in high school won T 4 out of 5 rounds and it has given me an appreciation for well debated topicality.

I also place a high value on being civil to each other. You are gonna have to deal with people you dont like and disagree with for the rest of your life, learning how to do so without letting your tone of voice become all angry and confrontational is one of the most important things debate can teach us. There is a distinct difference between calling someone out for being morally or ethically problematic however, in these instances a bit of venom may be called for. But by and large in the debate space there is no reason for us not to be kind to each other, competition is good, being rude is not. I dont want to see people intentionally talking over each other to avoid real questions or conversation.

Also in my judge training they made a big deal about evidence violations. If you feel like there is a real violation occuring let me know, but by and large if evidence is truly important to the round I will be calling to see it afterwards any way. That being said if you feel like a particular bit of evidence is important to the round, whether in regards to impact calculus or framing or what have you, please flag it for me and be clear on the authors name and date so I know what to ask for after the round.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

LD

Im less experienced in this style of debate, but a lot of what I said above will apply here. I have no problem with alternative frameworks and I know that has become a lot more common since my time in the community. That being said you need to tell me what that alternate framework is, what it means for how I as a judge evaluate the debate and the topic and why it is preferable to the framework you opponent provides.

Again I don't have any real issues with speed, If i cant understand you I will let you know. But dont just turn it into a spewing contest, LD has less evidence and more argumentation then Policy and spewing through those arguments means I might lose some of the details that will be important in evaluating the debate.

PF

Not much to add here. I have more respect now for PF then I did in high school since it seems to mirror the conversations we actually have about politics and the world. I flow it a bit different then the other styles of debate, so I am less worried about the line-by-line argumentation, and more about the cohesive narrative that you are defending.

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in high school, mostly LD with some Public Forum thrown in. I placed at State twice and qualified for nationals twice. I also competed at the University level for 4 years, both within the United States and Internationally. I taught in New York for 4 years and I am currently attending Law School.

Preferences:

As a judge, I weigh persuasion and reasoning heavily as long as it is backed up with logic and factual analysis. Communication and professionalism in the round is also important. I appreciate interesting arguments as long as they can be linked to the real world or the proposition of your topic. I am fine with speed as long as there are tag line and a clear impact analysis and the pace is understandable by your opponent. I also appreciate voters at the end of a round, weighing the arguments against each other.

My paradigm is clash. I would like to see you be able to defend your case and attack your opponent, not just read whatever case you have in front of you. I like a good nice debate that overlaps and weaves together.

I've been judging for more than 15 years now. I've been a coach for more than 7 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

Congress: I very much hate redundant, rehashed, speeches. You don't all need to speak on the same bill. It hurts you when you do that because the later speeches don't have new points and don't progress the debate. Direct, by name, refutation is absolutely going to help you. Using evidence AND citing your evidence is absolutely going to benefit you. You don't need to wave your arm like you're trying to conduct an orchestra. Movement can either add or detract from your speech. Move with a purpose and make sure that it adds to your speech otherwise it's a waste. If you use an intro, which is recommended, make sure you tie it into your conclusion because it ties everything into a nice little bow. I, also, use the NSDA guidelines for scoring speeches and PO time.

P.O. Be ruthlessly efficient. Cut out all of the unnecessary wording. You don't need to thank them for a speech. If we just had a speech in affirmation we don't need to tell everyone that. You can just say "negation" and tap and expect people to rise to be recognized. That saves a lot of time. Same thing for questioning. Cut out all the unnecessary words. It slows the round down and makes it so you don't get the maximum number of speeches. Shut down dilatory motions. Only recognize one motion at a time. Keep the chamber in order. Don't recognize motions that aren't a part of Parli Pro.

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

Brendan Malloy - I am an English teacher by trade, so I emphasize the ability to defend and refute claims with logical evidence. I will keep score of how many impactful arguments flow through and determine the winner of the round by that score. I will give notes on comms, but I do not judge for comms. Please do not claim to have a disadvantage during the round. I do not decide who gets to be aff/neg or who gets to go first/second, so I do not want to hear whining about what side you get.

Who am I:

MS CS. I build AI models in industry

7 Years of Debate mainly in public forum.

I am used to national circuit public forum. I won PKD Nationals in college public forum twice.

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

Public Forum

I will do my best to come into the debate with no preconceived notions of what public forum is supposed to look like.

Tech > Truth unless the flow is so damn messy that I am forced to go truth > tech to prevent myself from letting cardinal sins go.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot:

1) Win the flow. I will almost entirely vote off the flow at the end of the debate. If it's not in the FF I won't evaluate it at the end of the day.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponents clean concede an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outway argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Please.. PLEASE extend your arguments from summary to final focus. Public forum is a partner event for a reason. i don't want two different stories from your side of the debate. Give me an argument, extend it through all your speeches and that's how you gain offense from it at the end of the day.

K's/Theory

I am fine with K's but please be aware of the following:

Y'all this isn't policy. It's public forum where you have potentially 4 minutes to detail a K, link your opponents to it, and impacted it out. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate and potentially vote on a K, rather I would caution against running a K just to say you ran a K in public forum.

Theory makes debate a better space. Don't abuse it

Speed

I can keep up with pretty much whatever you throw at me. Signposting is critical but in the rare case I have trouble I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.

Plan's/Counterplans

I will drop you if you run one of these. This is public forum.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will be given with a couple points of consideration:

1) Logic. Anyone can yell cards 100mph at the top of their lungs. Speaker points will be higher for individuals who actually use logic to back up their evidence. Honestly you should be using logic anyways.

2) Signposting and clarity: Organization and well-built arguments are key in PF and.. ya know.. life.

3) Coding jokes. I am a computer scientist and will probably lose it (.5 SP bump for adaptation)

Calling for evidence

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions ask me in round!

Lincoln Douglas:

I have judged quite a bit of Lincoln Douglas in Idaho; however, I am primarily a national circuit Public Forum Coach. I have will no problem following your on-case argumentation. K's, while I have introductory knowledge about, are not my speciality and please adjust accordingly.

I have no problem with counter plans in LD and I will come into the round with an open mind of how LD is supposed to look.

4 Tips for me:

1. Win the flow by extending your arguments and collapsing on key voters.

2. I could care less if you win the value/c debate unless you tell me why it ties to your impacts in a unique scope that your opponent does not.

3. Coding jokes get a .5 SP bump for adaption. (I am a computer scientist and believe adaptation is important to public speaking. But you won't be penalized for this haha)

4. Have fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to ask!

Policy

I have judged well over 50 policy rounds in Idaho; however, I have never judged national circuit (TOC) policy. What does this mean for your adaption to me?

Add me to the email chain marckade@isu.edu

1. Run whatever you want. I have no problem with K's or any other argument some local circuits believe to be kryptonite. I believe debate is a game that has real world implications. I am tech > truth. See #3 for more info

2. I have ZERO issue with fast paced, spreading of disads, on case, and generic off-case positions such as counterplans. You can go as fast as you want on these as long as you are clear in the tagline.

3. If you decide to run something fancy (K's), you will need to slow down a little bit. I have judged K debate, but it is not my specialty and I am not up to date with the literature. But I believe most K's to be fascinating and I wish I judged them more. The most important thing you can do to help me vote for your K is EXPLAIN the links. Links are everything to me <3

Hi, my name’s Sunny Nelson, this is my third year as an assistant coach and my fourth year judging debate. I did public forum and congress, and I also did theater in high school. It’s very difficult for me to describe my paradigm because there is no ONE surefire way to win the round in my eyes. I will be flowing, and I will be paying attention to your communication skills (delivery, body language, etc). Below are some FAQs to help guide you.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS even when there is not a pandemic. Air high fives are my preferred alternative.

Kritiks: Acceptable, though I’d prefer you debate the topic.

Counterplans: Good, great even. I like seeing a good counterplan, but I hate condo. If you’re just gonna kick the CP in the 1NR then don’t run a CP.

Topicality: I like topicality when it’s done well, but I think everyone runs T the same, so I’ve grown bored with it.

Theory: Okay with theory, I think it stimulates discussion and furthers the progress of debate, but same with Ks, I would prefer you debate the topic.

Time: You may finish the sentence you are on when time is complete. I will verbally cut you off if you continue to speak past that. Self-timing is okay.

Masks: Off while speaking, if that applies to you.

Speed: I’m comfortable with it but I have no problem telling you to clear your diction up if I can’t understand you

Tag-teaming: Acceptable in policy, but overstepping will cause a loss in speaker points for the current speaker if I feel that they’re relying too hard on their partner.

Strategic dropping: I appreciate strategically dropping arguments as long as you explain why you’re dropping. Do this with caution because if you drop an argument that I really liked, then you might lose.

Evidence exchanges: Finding evidence is off time. Looking at evidence is on time. Discussing evidence is prohibited outside of cross-examination.

Impacts: If you’re bringing up impacts, use impact calc.

Extinction impacts: If you’ve had me as a judge before, you should already know this. I do not weigh extinction impacts. If your opponent brings up extinction, I still want you to address it for flowing purposes, but please do not impact calc it out and use extinction as a voter. The reason why is because I think that extinction is too heavy of an impact to weigh fairly in a debate, and I try to not have "instant wins" in any of my rounds.

Value-criterion and framework debates: I use the VC/FW debate as a way to develop a lens for the rest of the debate. A VC/FW should never be used as a voter. Instead, you should tell me which VC/FW to prefer and why your case meets the VC/FW better. I typically prefer the debater that can tell me why their case meets both value-criterions/frameworks, but if you outright disagree with your opponents VC/FW, don’t concede just because you think it’ll make me happy.

Decorum: Please remain professional during rounds. Some light joking can be appropriate but points will be docked if it gets out of hand. Rude/disrespectful behavior will result in an immediate loss regardless of how good I think your arguments are.

Hi, my name’s Sunny Nelson, this is my third year as an assistant coach and my fourth year judging debate. I did public forum and congress, and I also did theater in high school. It’s very difficult for me to describe my paradigm because there is no ONE surefire way to win the round in my eyes. I will be flowing, and I will be paying attention to your communication skills (delivery, body language, etc). Below are some FAQs to help guide you.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS even when there is not a pandemic. Air high fives are my preferred alternative.

Kritiks: Acceptable, though I’d prefer you debate the topic.

Counterplans: Good, great even. I like seeing a good counterplan, but I hate condo. If you’re just gonna kick the CP in the 1NR then don’t run a CP.

Topicality: I like topicality when it’s done well, but I think everyone runs T the same, so I’ve grown bored with it.

Theory: Okay with theory, I think it stimulates discussion and furthers the progress of debate, but same with Ks, I would prefer you debate the topic.

Time: You may finish the sentence you are on when time is complete. I will verbally cut you off if you continue to speak past that. Self-timing is okay.

Masks: Off while speaking, if that applies to you.

Speed: I’m comfortable with it but I have no problem telling you to clear your diction up if I can’t understand you

Tag-teaming: Acceptable in policy, but overstepping will cause a loss in speaker points for the current speaker if I feel that they’re relying too hard on their partner.

Strategic dropping: I appreciate strategically dropping arguments as long as you explain why you’re dropping. Do this with caution because if you drop an argument that I really liked, then you might lose.

Evidence exchanges: Finding evidence is off time. Looking at evidence is on time. Discussing evidence is prohibited outside of cross-examination.

Impacts: If you’re bringing up impacts, use impact calc.

Extinction impacts: If you’ve had me as a judge before, you should already know this. I do not weigh extinction impacts. If your opponent brings up extinction, I still want you to address it for flowing purposes, but please do not impact calc it out and use extinction as a voter. The reason why is because I think that extinction is too heavy of an impact to weigh fairly in a debate, and I try to not have "instant wins" in any of my rounds.

Value-criterion and framework debates: I use the VC/FW debate as a way to develop a lens for the rest of the debate. A VC/FW should never be used as a voter. Instead, you should tell me which VC/FW to prefer and why your case meets the VC/FW better. I typically prefer the debater that can tell me why their case meets both value-criterions/frameworks, but if you outright disagree with your opponents VC/FW, don’t concede just because you think it’ll make me happy.

Decorum: Please remain professional during rounds. Some light joking can be appropriate but points will be docked if it gets out of hand. Rude/disrespectful behavior will result in an immediate loss regardless of how good I think your arguments are.

Everyone: I have never done debate but I'm a lawyer. Since I'm new to debate I will be a coms/tabula rasa judge. Speak clearly and with confidence (I HATE SPREADING). I probably don't know too much about the topic so tell me how to vote or why I should vote for you Hint: framework, rule of the ballot, key voting issue, ETC. I will try to flow but tell me why I should care. If you're running a k or T argument then pls explain what it is, why it matters, and why I should vote on it.

LD: be big on impact calculus or why your value is better.

Background:

I’m a working Electrical Engineer and I also teach University classes and workshops in engineering.

Communication:

I look for correct pronunciation, good use of tone and inflection, eye contact, gestures that add to the communication, and appropriate word use. I try to make reasonable allowances when English isn’t a student’s first language. Some speed is okay, but to me extreme speed can indicate poor editing ability. Writing a clear, well-organized, concise speech demonstrates more skill than just writing a long one and reading it quickly.

Case and debate:

I look for and reward unique, insightful arguments, but they must be topical. Avoid speculation and logical fallacies as much as possible, but it can be helpful to point out when your opponent uses them. Support your contentions regarding outcomes of one plan or another with empirical examples that you can demonstrate are relevant when appropriate. I also look for and reward quick thinking, thorough preparation, and grace under pressure. I like an informative or instructive style. Don’t just read evidence; tell me what the evidence means and why it’s important in the context of the resolution.

Scoring:

I like “voters” in the form of a concise and organized conclusion that highlights the strengths of your case and the weaknesses in your opponent’s.

I don't look for formalities. I'll do my best to leave thorough thoughts on how I perceived the round. I did PF in high school but I'm somewhat familiar with LD and Policy. If you're gonna go fast, clear it with your opponents and tell me. If you do, please enunciate card taglines, authors, years and anything you want to stress (e.g. warrants, links, impacts). I'm not familiar with much K literature.

Here's what I look for:

1) Framework is key

Don't make me decide how to view it -- make clear what framework you want me to evaluate the round through. Cost-benefit analysis is the default framework. If you want something else, tell me why.

2) Line-by-line clash at the outset

In early speeches, as much as you'd like to in order to prioritize your time, engage with larger arguments, warrants, links and impacts.

3) Crystalize in later speeches

Tell me why you won and why your opponent lost. Summarize. Give me voters. Where needed, reiterate why you won an argument and why it's important.

4) Know your cards

Don't say "I have cards." If it becomes an issue, evidence credibility is important. Be transparent, and be prepared to weight the veracity of claims between different cards.

5) Civility throughout

Things will of course get tense. But please don't create an uncomfortable environment for your opponent.

Hello! My name is Madison Pritchard. I debated for 3 years in high school with experience in LD, Congress, and mainly Public Forum. I am also the debate captain at CSI, with my highest achievement being getting 5th in IPDA Ireland at the International Forensics Association tournament, so safe to say I am very experienced. I have organized my paradigm by events that I am familiar with, as well as some general preferences. In speech I have experiences in all 3 areas, platforms, interpretations, and limited prep and I have earned awards in all. Happy debating and speeching, good luck!

General:

Be kind! This is high school debate and at its core needs to be about respect and understanding. I love clash but you need to make sure it is respectful, clash makes the debate interesting, without clash a debate ends up being bland. Make sure you are not interrupting your opponent a lot during cross examinations. Be sure that you have all of your evidence on hand and that it is properly cited, if I catch you falsely representing evidence then you will probably get a loss, unless your opponent does something somehow worse. If you choose to run a definition argument, be completely sure you can make it work, I don't love these but sometimes they are needed, make sure it is necessary if you do run one. I am fine with spectators as long as your opponents are fine with it, and as long as they are respectful (NO BEING ON THEIR PHONES). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask in round! Good luck debaters!

Public Forum:

This was my event in high school so you will not be able to get a lot past me here. A good balance of evidence and ethics are the core of this debate. I flow, so make sure your attacks stand and not to drop any main arguments, that will lose you the debate. DO NOT PLAY IN THE REALM OF COUNTERPLANS. Do not make the whole debate about evidence, evidence validity debates are not fun for anyone. If I feel a piece of evidence needs addressed, I will take a look once the debate has concluded. Speed reading is not loved but I can follow to a degree, just remember this is not policy.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I have a decent amount of experience with this event, so I can follow a lot of the jargon and ideas. My main problem sometimes with this debate is when people make it solely about the value/criterion, don't forget to attack the actual case and not just the value it is based on, you will win this debate if you can prove why you win on both value frameworks. If there is no plan, there is not point in presenting a counter-plan, I will still see the argumentation but a CP is a mode of rebuttal that doesn’t make sense when there is no plan. Remember this debate is about morality, you need to convince me that yours is the morally correct argument, I will carry these over on the flow more than solely logic arguments.

Policy:

I don't have a lot of experience participating in this one, but I have ended up judging it a lot, so I have experience in that sense. A lot of the jargon I can understand but still be sure to explain some of your terms if you think there is a chance they could not be understood. Make sure your links are very clear. When your links get muddy, especially on a counterplan, you can lose me. I don’t love K’s, especially Aff K’s, I don’t see how you can be Aff and still run a K so perhaps do not try with me. Topicality arguments can be great, but again, just make sure they are completely clear and explain how it meets the standards of a T. I do not love speed reading; I can usually follow but tread carefully, this can be a reason for me to drop you from the round.

Congress:

I just thought I would put some things in here I like to see in congress just in case someone looks for it. Make sure your speeches have substance, I really hate throw away speeches. If you are getting up just to get a speech in, it will not get you any points with me. Everyone needs to be respectful, do not be rude or personally attack other representatives. Please DO NOT use questioning periods to debate, use your speeches, if you do this it will not reflect greatly in your ranking. PO’s need to maintain order and be efficient, as well as have a good knowledge of the rules of order to get a perfect PO rating from me.

Worlds, I am a Worlds coach and this is my second year judging Worlds at Nationals. I judge to the rubric. 

Other Debate events, I flow the rounds. I also love impacts. If an argument is not attacked or sufficiently attacked in the round, it stands. If both sides have arguments standing, I weigh the impacts against each other and vote on that. I am not a Coms Judge, but I cannot flow what I cannot understand. I need articulation and a thorough understanding of your case.

Try to stay specific as the debate goes on in rebuttals and crystallization.

In PF, use cards sometimes in rebuttals. Do not rely solely on cross applying.

In LD, V/C is framework similar please apply it to your case rather than just debating which framework to go with. Clarity of what AFF and NEG are both advocating for is important for me to follow the debate (definitions), but I hate definitions debates, so don’t spend the whole speech on rebuttaling someone’s definition. Touching on it is sufficient. Be clear, but stay focused on the arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments, communicated in an articulate manner, prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Ideally, arguments should be grouped.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should extend arguments. Provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

With clarity. Tag line, citation, evidence.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

I am not a fan, each debater should be able to hold their own during the parts of the debate they are scheduled to speak without prompting from partner.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

All arguments should tie back to V & C and link together.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

No pref, though evidence must support.

Please explain your views on kritical arguments.

Yuck. No way.

How should debaters run on case argumeents?

Solvency and Advantages are my prefs, but all arguments will be weighed.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

If you are running off case, just make sure I can follow your arguments and that they are logical.

I am good with speed, I flow, and I allow just about everything. I prefer tech over truth, depth over breadth, and don't mind if you group arguments. I am an impact calculus junkie. I don't mind if you want to debate progressively or traditionally. I am open to all arguments. I don't like to set limits on how you debate because I want you to enjoy your round and try new things. I have entertained a conversation kritik (LD) and love letters to the ocean (CX) in the past. I still have my treasured flows from the Beetle Kritik (CX China Resolution). Don't make a mess, keep your arguments clear. Now for some specifics:

In Lincoln Douglas debate I only value the V & C if you do.

For those of you in Congress, I only have one thing to say: warrant your claims with credible evidence. I immediately drop you two ranks if you don't warrant your claims.

Bottom line: have fun and enjoy your rounds. Good luck!

Hello, my name is Tori Sandoval.

I competed in Speech and Debate all four years in high school and I am a two-time national qualifier. I have been judging any and all NSDA events for almost 6 years now.

As far as speed goes I can keep up no problem, but you have to be clear. If you are mumbling into your laptop and tapping your foot so I can't hear you then I will probably not catch much of what you say and I will drop your speaks like they are hot.

I don't flow author names so when you say extend paul Newman in 2013 or whatever I have little to no idea what you are talking about.

I don't like it when speed is used to exclude other competitors or members of the debate community. I believe that debate should be an inclusive event rather than exclusive so if your opponent can not keep up with speed don't try to "spread them out".

I try to be tabula rasa[blank slate] to the best of my abilities.

I like clear voting issues given at the end the debate with some solid impact analysis. I tend to vote for larger impacts if the debaters don't make a big deal of how they are winning an impact analysis through the value debate. So if you show me how you achieve your value you win (assuming you've won that your value is the best value in the round), but if you ignore the value debate, which tends to happen most of the time I default to a net benefit evaluation of the round because that minimizes judge intervention. I hope that makes sense.

I am an attorney and practiced law many years before I started to teach. As a young law clerk, I worked for the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee where I loved going to the chambers to watch the debates. I also helped draft legislation and reports for the U.S. Senate.

With this background I look for arguments and presentations:

1. That are persuasive.

2. That are full arguments (without holes).

3. That a common person (such as a jury member) could easily follow.

4. Good connection with audience.

5. Good speed (not too fast).

6. Believable.

7. Professional.

I love debate as a communication tool. I will LOVE judging your event!

I like a debate with good conflict. I like to see debaters that are well prepared in both their cases and their appearance. I like a debater that is able to support their contentions with supportive evidence. I appreciate speech that is quick and clearly understandable.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com and smithj3@sd25.us They/He pronouns

Background Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho and the former assistant coach at Rigby HS in Idaho. I have been coaching for 7 years, I competed for 5 as well. I co-lead the Gate City Debate Camp, serve on the IMR District board, and was Idaho's debate commissioner, so the activity means a lot to me. I have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies.

Competition History: I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I qualified to Nationals in LD and CX but went in worlds instead to debate with friends. I have coached debaters to out rounds in CX and world schools the last 3 years, a BQ national runner up, and multiple LD and PF debaters to latefrom other schools in my circuit as well.

All Styles: I am a flow judge, speaking skills only matter / factor into my decision insofar as it helps with efficiency/word economy. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. Speed is great (I am good at like an 8 out of 10 if 10 is college policy and 1 is novice congress) but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences, triggers, etc. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

Trad Round LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision.

LARP/PROG LD Paradigm: I can be convinced to judge under any system/standard/role of the ballot. Kritiks and Theory are great when not friv. No 1AR Theory isn't very persuasive to me. I am open to voting on condo and other non-friv Theory arguments. Since Neg only gets two speeches I prefer 2-4 well fleshed out off case positions than 5+ super short ones you can't really blow up in NR without making a bunch of new arguments. 2AR's don't go for too much please challenge. Make sure you layer the debate/tell me what comes first. Not really convinced by most RVI's that are halfway decently responding, but especially on Topicality.

PF Paradigm:

I theoretically prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot and find it way more fun to judge and coach. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either, or do them in an educational manner. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it. I am open to voting on Theory that isn't friv (no shoes, no formal clothing, etc.)

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues/comparative worlds if not given any standard to judge on. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change.

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument.

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically.

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit.

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why).

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate.

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them.

Condo:

I'll vote either for or against condo on how good your strategy/argumentation is for either side. My threshold for voting you down for condo increases if you are using it to flood the flow and they kick everything early on in the debate. But again that depends on how well your opponents prove condo bad.

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote.

Theory I love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

That said, I am NOT good for frivolous theory. If your theory argument is frivolous or otherwise problematic, then your opponent can just say "Judge, this theory shell argument is ridiculous, drop the debater" and I'll do exactly that. Be mindful of the arguments you make

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans and PICs, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down. I NEED pen time

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked.

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

I will flow just about everything. I weigh dropped arguments harder than highly contested arguments. For example, if Team A has ground on their Advantage, and Team B doesn't ever answer or refute and put a counterargument on the flow, that Advantage will be of a larger impact than Team B’s disadvantage which both sides were fighting for back and forth.

If both teams cover everything on the flow to the best of their ability, it will come down to who provided the best analytical and evidential arguments. This will also largely come from whichever team had the best speaking ability.

Hello there, and thank you for taking the time to read through my paradigm!

A bit about my background: In high school I was a regular competitor in policy debate, though there were times where I found the opportunity to branch out into public forum and congress. For speech, I was most competitive in humorous and duo interpretations, and I also enjoyed retold story. After high school, I debated for The College of Idaho and Rocky Mountain College in parliamentary debate, though after my sophomore year I found passions in art and student government that took me away from debate.

I began teaching middle school science in 2014, which is also when I began assistant coaching high school speech and debate. My main coaching proficiencies lie in policy and interp events, though years of coaching, judging, and competition have shown me the breadth of events currently offered in high school competition. I coached the Idaho Mountain River District WSD team twice, and I now teach high school ceramics and biology. I have to say that my preference towards WSD has certainly shaped my outlook for other speech and debate events.

I'm often looking for some stylistic twist that any debater might use to distinguish themselves from others in the round, including their teammates. Humor is awesome, and I appreciate debaters who can tactfully introduce a heavy or solemn point without appearing preachy or disingenuous. Please avoid trigger language, such as rape, holocaust, and genocide, unless it is rather explicitly stated in motion.

I am looking for structure across the board. Case should centralize around a core theme or idea. Definitions, models, and other foundational components need to be articulated or accepted/refuted very explicitly. Substantive arguments should be easily recognizable and include adequate historic or present-day examples. Empiricism is preferred to rationalism. Anecdotal evidence is welcome to a degree. I give quite a bit of credibility to high schoolers as a teacher, coach, and former competitor, though most kids have a lack of experience while still believing they know a lot about most things. I would suggest sticking to your strengths and competencies rather than pretending to know what you do not. In the words of Socrates, "All I know is that I know nothing."

At the end of the debate, my decision comes down to which side impressed me the most in providing relevant and structured arguments, refuting opposing arguments, and showing a degree of positive authenticity. I am a really good cheerleader, but please do your best to avoid reasons for me to think negatively of you at the end of the debate. Tone, non-verbals, and word choice can be great blessings, though these may also be a debater's greatest detriment. Congeniality will win you the debate. Aggression will cost you...

I'm really excited to be a part of your debate experience! I wish you the best of luck and look forward to meeting you.

Richard Wolff - Debate Paradigm

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions (6 years Judging Experience)

I consider myself a communication (comms) judge but I flow everything. If the flow is not backing you up you will not do well.

Well-developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak clearly with an emphasis on communication delivery! Speed is not beneficial to your cause if it is too fast to be understood. (Info dumps are not beneficial to your cause) Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

Please follow the state/national rules and guidelines for evidence. You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer that you write things down or pass the evidence to your partner on a device.

I put a lot of emphasis on a well-developed case. Use criteria and arguments to support a value position. Reference evidence/support throughout the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

Please use empirical and philosophical arguments that make sense! Please explain your views on critical arguments. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I enjoy hearing a well-structured plan and how it will solve the issue being debated.

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link it to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose my vote. Do not go off-topic.

The focus should be on winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a person’s style, flaws, or methods. Please respect your opponent and show professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave. I am less likely to vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.