LD: In general, please make sure to clearly and explicitly state your V, VC, contentions, etc. The clearer you make your case, the easier it will be for me to follow. That being said, please do not spread! Please treat each other with kindness and respect, especially during cross-examination.

Interp: I enjoy dynamic performances with varied emotion, tone, and volume. Please make sure content is appropriate.

If you have any further questions about paradigms or anything else, don't hesitate to ask- I will do my best to answer!

-Email: bboyce926@gmail.com

Judging Notes:

-LD: Maintain clear goals. Tell me what you want me to value in your round. Whoever has the strongest arguments has the advantage.

-Speed is okay, but spreading doesn't belong in LD. As long as you can enunciate and send me the case beforehand, you'll be fine.

-Don't be condescending, rude, or interruptive.

-Off clock road maps are appreciated.

-I primarily vote off who has adequately responded and defended their case the best.

- Other than that I am really open to any and all arguments if they are ran well.

CX Debate

When speaking, I do not mind if you spread or speak fairly quickly, but if I can't understand you I will dock speaker points. If appropriate I will try to give a warning when it becomes an issue, but at the end of the day if I can't understand you you will lose the debate no matter the strength of your arguments. A large portion of a good debate is how you speak, and I expect it to be done well.

Any voting issues can be touched during the round or at the end of the round. I definitely love a good summary at the end of the speech to sum what your big points are and why they should flow to you. Final rebuttals should be line-by-line and hit each major point of contention in the round.

I will decide the round based on who won the most significant arguments, but do not think that you will win if you drop multiple points. If you only touch on what point made by your opponent and let multiple go by untouched, you will more than likely lose the round. Impact calculus is a major plus in my book.

I keep a pretty rigorous flow throughout the round, and will not dock you for jumping around the flow to hit your most significant arguments if need be. That being said, please signpost before each new topic so I can flow it appropriately. A roadmap before the round is always encouraged to give a chance to prepare for the upcoming speech.

I judge tabula rasa. Do not assume I know something already. Run whatever you want, but run it well. I will vote for anything from Kritiks to just simple stock issues. Here's what I'm looking for:

Disads - Uniqueness, Link, Impact

Kritiks - Link, Impact, Alternative (and if you are running this, lean into it and make it very clear it's a K)

Counterplan - Exclusivity, Net Benefit

Topicality - Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voters

Stock Issues (Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Signficance) - Don't drop any of these if they are brought up in round

Lastly and most importantly, do not lose your professionalism. Do not be catty, rude, or aggressive. I expect sources to be available upon request, and I expect you to treat your opponents like you would a close friend or relative. If you lose professionalism or become combative or completely arrogant, I will dock speaker points and potentially the round if it is a significant enough problem. We are here to compete and learn together, not belittle and brag. Do not forget that.

Before each round I will summarize my paradigms upon request and answer any questions one may have about specifics. Do not be afraid to ask me questions in the round if you are confused or new to the competition.

And lastly, have fun!

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

In terms of speaking speed, I don't mind spreading/speaking quickly as long as you enunciate enough that I can understand what you are saying. If you are speaking too quickly or without clarity I will tell you to slow down. If this happens multiple times I will dock speaker points and possibly vote against you if it is significant enough (we can't have a proper round if the judge can't understand what you're saying after all).

Voting issues can be touched throughout the flow or at the end of the round, either is fine by me. Summarizing at the end is always a plus. Final rebuttals should touch on line-by-line issues and summarize the voting issues.

I usually decide a round by the person who won the most arguments, or who won the most significant arguments. I always love good impact calculus. I am open to any argument, and love to see creative twists on things. Do not drop arguments or I will flow them to your opponent. I expect clear values, criterion, and contentions in all aspects of the round. I am open to listen to literally anything as long as it is argued properly.

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the round. Please signpost throughout your speech. I am a bit ADHD and have a habit of jumping around the flow when I debate, so I will not dock you for doing that if you wish, so long as you signpost and preface each new topic so that I can flow it appropriately. Road maps are always welcome.

Most importantly be polite to your fellow debaters. I expect cards to be available to be flashed or handed in hard copy upon request. Do not spread if your opponent can not understand you, and do not get aggressive during the round. Maintain professionalism. If you choose to flow on your computer I won't dock you, just try to avoid being excessively noisy.

If you have any specific questions, I always start my rounds with a discussion about my paradigms. Please feel free to ask!

And lastly, have fun!

I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps. Be clear when you speak -- enunciate.

In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.

In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.

About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.

I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget, I will need things explained to me.

All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything--with one exception. I am not a fan of disclosure theory, generally, unless something has occurred which is clearly abusive. Even here, though, it's hard for a judge to adjudicate it. Best to have your coach take it up with Tab.

Probable real world impacts are generally more meaningful to me than fanciful magnitude impacts.

That said:

For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.

For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.

For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans are fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.

Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.

World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, and I have judged some this year, 23-24. Candidly I don’t know enough yet to have deep thoughts on preferences.

Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.

I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.

As for SPEED, I understand most debate forms are not "conversational" in pace, exactly. But if I cannot understand you, I cannot write anything down. I believe debate is an oral advocacy activity, so I do not want to be on the email chain. If I don't hear it and understand it, I won't credit it.

Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.

IE's:

For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.

For extemp, I will admit I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any assertion, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..."

I'm a lay judge, so I'm not too experienced in debate. However, I'd like to see you speak slowly, clearly, and with confidence. I will not give you the round if you spread. I also want to see evidence clash and strong values. Above all, treat your opponent with respect and have fun!

Traditional LD judge. Rate and tone are important. No drops. It is value debate so debate the value. Use of philosophy is a must.

Hello! I debated in high school (1995-1999) and have been judging debate for the past 20 years. Here is a quick recap of my paradigm

SPEED: no issue. Talk as fast or as slow as you want.

QUALITY > QUANTITY: it is better to have a few good arguments than many bad ones.

FRAMEWORK: important but not absolutely required. Helps to frame the round, but arguments are more important.

PHILOSOPHY: especially for LD, I think it is important to incorporate philosophy into your arguments. Not as important in PF, but it doesn't hurt to have it.

SOURCES: always cite your sources. I reserve the right to check your evidence during or after the round.

CIVILITY: be good to your opponent. This is a formal environment. Don't be rude or you will lose the round even if you have better arguments.

VOTERS: always give me voters at the end of the round. I will use them as a tiebreaker if the round is close.

CX: try to trap your opponent during CX. Don't waste valuable CX time asking for clarification questions, unless absolutely necessary.

HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!

Background:

-4 years in Policy/Cross Examination Debate (won a multitude of speaker awards all 4 years and often placed 1st or 2nd in local tournaments.)

- About 2 years on and off doing Public Forum and Lincoln Douglass.

-Qualified for State Tournament in my last two years

-Email: adyanna123@gmail.com

Judging Notes:

-I judge off the flow

- Speed is ok, as long as you can enunciate and send me the case before

-Don't be condescending, rude, or interruptive

-Off clock road maps are appreciated. Please signpost as well.

-I primarily vote off of the flow and who has adequately responded and defended their case the best.

- I am a heavy framework judge, if a framework is presented (and extended) throughout the entire round that will definitely impact my decision.

- If a K, CP, or DA is run, I expect you to understand and have all the necessary components in the argument.

- I like critical Affs but people rarely actually know how to run them. Be sure you thoroughly understand your critical aff before you run it with me.

- Other than that I am really open to any and all arguments if they are ran well.

Howard Ritz

I have been Judge, Debate Coach for 26 twenty six years now in Texas circuits both UIL, TFA, and NSDA. I did not debate in college but have taught, coached, judged Debate for Rio Vista HS, Burleson High School, Wichita Falls HS, Northwest HS, and Now Mansfield Legacy High School, all in the DFW area of Texas. Have judged outside the area at Harvard U. , Berkley U, and Stanford, as well as colleges in Texas. Taught Policy and LD debate at Cameron University Summer Debate work shop for several years.

My Policy Debate Paradigms fall in the Traditional Debate category. I look for quality of arguments over quantity. Although I classify myself as a Stock Issue judge, I am open to some Negative Kritiks and conterplans but Kritiks and counterplans must be directly linked to the Aff Case. I am not a fan of theory based affirmatives or alternate worlds and really hate performance debate. Spreading will cost you speaker points if not the round if I can not understand your case. No Open CX for me. No Prompting of Partners written or verbal. Make arguments clear. Evidence and cards should be followed by analytics but analytics without evidence is of little value in my book. Show me that you understand what you are reading and not just reading cards.

My prior experience allows me to judge LD (progressive or traditional) or PF debate at both the novice and varsity levels as well as any IE. I was a quarter finalist in both PF and LD UIL all four years of high school, and competed both novice and varsity in both. I placed top 20 at NIETOC in duet acting and have competed in most IEs and judged all of them at least once. I have been judging novice since my senior year of high school (2018-2019) and varsity since I was able the following school year. I graduated with a Special Distinction from the NSDA.

Debate - Speed as fine as long as I can understand you and I'm getting your tag lines. I generally do not like K's in novice. I judge heavily on framework, net benefit, and impact calculus. If you choose to run topicality violations, make sure you can make the case for them. I do not vote favorably on "racism good/homophobia good/sexism good/ect" cases. I do not flow during CX periods.

Let me see clash. Give me voters. Hit your tag lines. Make sure I can understand you.

Speech/IE - Make sure I can hear and understand you. It should feel to me like you are familiar with the source material where appropriate. Hand signals will be at one-minute intervals from three minutes until the 30 second grace period.

I am an experienced coach and judge. I have competed, coached and judged in all areas of speech & debate.

I am a 'tabula rasa' judge, which for me means that I will listen to any reasonable argument. I am always interested in hearing creative approaches to any resolution. However, I fully support the format, style and philosophy of each debate and speech event.

I am not adverse to rapid speaking, because debate time is limited. BUT I will not condone 'spreading' as a tactic. If you insist you win because the opponent did not address all of your issues, I may or may not accept your premise.

Evidence is primary to any good argument. You should be able to coherently present your evidence with citation in every instance. Referencing 'cards' in a case is ambiguous, since I will not have your case in front of me.

In all Cross Ex portions, LISTEN to your opponent. Address their concerns and their rationale for opposing you. Be civil and understand they have as much a right to be here as you do.

I will not make your case for you. I may be very familiar with the resolution, strategy and line of reasoning you are using, but I will not assume you even know what you are talking about. You have to know your case and be able to defend it.

In Congress, competitors must listen to the line of argument and offer unique and relevant arguments. Repeating points or delivering a prepared speech that does not advance the debate is poor practice and means you do not know the bill. Logic and analysis are fine, but a warrantless argument will not have a very big impact.

I do not rank POs particularly high. A competent PO will score near the middle of a typical Congress round.

In Extemp, I want to learn new things, hear unique ideas and understand my world better.

In LD, I am neither a traditionalist or progressive; I want to hear a values-based argument founded on a good philosophical framework. Values are precursors to behaviors, so there is no solving of problems or plans of action.

Stock Issues

– Topicality

– Significance of Harm

– Inherency

– Solvency

– Advantage Over Disadvantage

POLICY DEBATE--Policy Maker with a Stock Issues background. This judge weighs Advantages and Disadvantages. Counterplans okay but not a fan of Kritiks. Clash is important. Documentation is a must. Neg, state if you plan to split the block. Comparative arguments are okay but must be presented well and well-documented. Spreading is fine IF I can understand you. Be cautious because online you want to be sure the judge understands you! Be reminded of public speaking skills. Courtesy is of the utmost importance. Use eye contact with the camera.

LD DEBATE--Courtesy in the round is of utmost importance. Because LD is based on philosophy, whoever has the strongest arguments has the advantage. References must be documented in the speech. Spreading doesn't belong in LD. Use eye contact with the camera.

EXTEMP--Catchy introduction. State the question. List points. Explain points. Document evidence for each point. Refer to introduction in closing. Eye contact with camera is important. This judge prefers no notecard but understands if needed. Remember enunciation and public speaking skills.

I'm an old school policy/stock issues judge, who likes to see debate over the resolution, & prefers your speech speed to be slow enough to where you can pronounce every word clearly & I can understand you. 

Let me start with; You the debater are trying to sell me your side, don't yell at me and don't speak so fast that I can not hear all your points clearly, you are selling me on something of worth not on a late-night only on TV issue. Faster speaking does not make a better debater. Have many sources if you are only getting your information from one source then you haven't written a speech you have copied an article. Show grace while we are in the virtual world, technology has issues, pay attention and show courtesy if it happens to an opponent or judge. Spreading is becoming a hot topic, let me put it in the most simple terms, do not do it, there are very few people who can spread successfully. I am interested in your ability to discuss, promote and convince, over your ability to bully and perform character attacks. If you want to make a case using only hot button buzz words I will not give in to that sort of conversation, I would rather support a debater whose topic is completely against my core, but who has a great presence and amazing data, than someone whom I agree with but who can not think for themselves and must use the bullying tactic of fear-mongering to communicate.