Policy- I'm tab. I like people to go slower, I feel like as a community speaking quickly and reading more cards have come at the cost of analysis and comparison. To earn my ballot with ease do more of that comparison. I'm fine with Ks, CPs, theory and T. I even like T when done well. I did high school and college policy and look forward to judging the round! 

"Get off my lawn" old person gripes- 

-Don't prep when a timer isn't running. 

-Please don't ask if people read everything in a document, or asking if they could tell you what all they read. Unless circumstances show they've obscured what they did, you just look like you weren't listening or flowing. This makes CX like a episode recap when you've been binging a show. 

-Please don't just say "then the case flow." Still not helpful. Tell me which pages and in which order.

-Be kind. You can give hard hitting questions and answers while still being polite. 

-You may want to look at your judge during CX. It will give you an impression of what they think is a good or bad idea for a line of argumentation you may pursue. Remember- you're trying to convince the one with the ballot you're right, not your opponent. 

-Open CX- I'm totally fine with CX being open. If you are the main person in that CX from  your side, you should still be doing a majority of the questioning/answering and your partner should only chime in when needed. You need your time to shine too! I will lower speaker points for the partner that is more of a back pack. By which I mean just standing up there because it is their cross examination, but doesn't really speak or add to the CX. 

-Finally- be respectful of all of our time. Try to be quick to start prep, move to the next speech, flash/email with speed. If you mosey, you'll irk me. 

Note- I will say clear once and then just let you roll. I don't write down things I can't understand, but most speed is fine. I may also not be up on the topic lingo as I have judge 15 or less policy debates on this year's topic.

I'm a traditional LD coach/judge. I coach CX, as well, but don't care to see CX-style argumentation (CPs, Ks, etc.) in LD (or PF) rounds. That includes CX-style speed. I look for who resolves clash by winning the substantive issues, preferably with a coherent story or clear voters in the rebuttals. I think your values framework is central to warranting how I should interpret the resolution, and any corresponding arguments you make about obligations of how to act should be internally linked to this framework.

In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.

Weigh

I begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost.

-Rupi Kaur

I was a former LDer and congressional debater, and now I’m the assistant coach at Loveland High school. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

1. Spreading is for cowards. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will most likely win).

2. DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. I’ll start ignoring you, and think about my wonderful mother nagging me to do chores. The longer you speak over time, the more annoyed I’ll get.

3. Every time you don’t signpost, weigh or have voters a small puppy dies. In addition, if you reframe, or clip cards the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a small kitten gets adopted into a loving home.

4. Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win.

5. Please inform everyone in the round if you have a trigger. Also, please be kind to each other. The debate community needs to be a safe place for everyone.

6. I don’t disclose after round. If you ask me the other person will get a default win. Congrats you played yourself!

7. Friv theory, no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks need to have solvency and topicality.

8. Please time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time, or I’ll whip out a case and start debating you. Jk, you’ll just get a default loss.

9. If you have an anime reference in your speech I’ll give you extra speaks, and my respect.

10. At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented and NSDA was intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

Individual event paradigms:

LD:

1. The framework is everything in LD. the framework needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong vvc clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF for one, yuck!

2. Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I hate hangnails, and I will hate your case, and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).

3. The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework, rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.

4. I hate counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.

5. I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

PF

1. PF is card-heavy, create an email chain with your opponents before the round. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).

2. The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and have impact analysis. You have four minutes, use them!

3. 1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).

4. The crystallization speech needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all) not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).

5. If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it.

Emma Baldwin and Aiden Hurst are the best (and my favorite) Pfers in Colorado, so just do what they do and you’ll win this round and any round.

Policy

1. My first general rule applies, especially to CX. Cowards don’t deserve to win.

2. I don’t want people in public flashing me, and I don’t want teams to flash cases to each other.

3. I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue they win. Unless they run a counter plan. Then the round is just a comparative analysis on ads and disads.

4. In terms of stock issues, topicality is the most important for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside of the room as Senor Chang did to Annie Edison in Community.

5. Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

Congress

1. My brother was the greatest congressional debater of all time, so I may be a little harsh with my scores (I have high expectations).

2. Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread you are failing in every aspect.

3. PO must follow basic parli pro and must make the session a fun environment for everyone.

4. Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech has an expectation to respond to arguments from speeches prior. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they need to respond to previous arguments).

5. To get a high ranking in the chamber you need to engage (speeches, questions influence on chamber).

My Paradigm should be in the RFD but if not here are my criteria for certain events.

Interp: My decision will be based on the NSDA criteria: Characterization: Is each character well-developed? Is each character relatable? Does a character’s response seem believable given the situation being portrayed? Blocking: Can you tell what the performer is doing in the scene? Is it clear what character(s) they are playing? Is the movement motivated? Cutting: Do you understand what is happening? Is the storyline easy to follow? Does the sequence of events make sense?

Creative storytelling: I based my decision on three things. 1. Storyline: Is there character development and a distinct plotline that has a climax and a resolution. 2. Character/ narration interaction: Do the charters/ narrators developed the story/ plotline. Do the characters have a unique personality and a creative challenge/ issue. 3 Speaking ability are you able to have minimal stutters and pauses do your characters have an accent/ personality and do your voice/ body reflect that trait.

Extemp: I base my decision on three main things 1 Organisation, did you layout clear points with and did you use an intro that grabbed my attention and a conclusion that neatly wrapped your speech up? 2. Source consideration did you provide meaningful evidence that contributed to your speech and was easy to follow and how did you introduce your evidence in a thoughtful manner. 3 Delivery how many stutters or pauses did you have? Did you make clear and consistent eye contact, How well were you able to persuade me that your topic answer made sense? Out of the three criteria, the winner of this round displayed the most out of all three categories.

OO/Info I base my decision on three criteria. 1) organization Organisation, did you layout clear points with and did you use an intro that grabbed my attention and a conclusion that neatly wrapped your speech up(brownie points to those who had a lesson at the end? 2) Delivery, did you have persuasion, did you have purposeful movement. How well did you keep the audience engaged with your speech? 3) overall effect, How well did your speech organization and delivery work together to provide a speech that delivers a message or something to take away(why are you talking about it). The winner had fulfilled all criteria the most.

PF: I base My decision on three main factors. Organization, did you have an organized case that was easy to understand and persuasive? 2) Argumentation, did you effectively address your case and your opponents. 3) Delivery how persuasive were you at speaking. By filling the most criteria the winner should have the most points in their case defended.

If you want a more thorough explanation email me @ Dode5566@colorado.edu

Speech Events

You will see my paradigm on the RFD.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive speech and debate. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Off time roadmaps - Please make them on time roadmaps.  You speak, my timer starts.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose.  Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. if you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Kritiks and counter plans - Don’t - wrong event to run those.

Judging style - If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be the thesis and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

Frameworks - I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Theory - Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Plans/Counterplans - No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks - No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations - The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Congressional Debate

This is one of my favorite events. I want to see you address the chamber and persuade me (and them) with ethos, pathos, and logos. I am a sucker for mythos-driven analogies on the topic or why the other side falls. I give bonus points for good constructive speeches (authorship/sponsorship and 1st neg), especially if you address the chamber. I dislike it when arguments are rehashed/repeated and later speeches do not address the congressional record to date (or worse misrepresent it). In later speeches, I want to see crystallization, impact analysis, and weighing. I break ties in ranking on questions and procedural motions that benefit the flow of debate and the chamber.

Big Questions

Please be sure to address and answer the question.  The event is asking that you take a comprehensive and broad perspective to the question or the inverse of the question.

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

I have quite a bit of graduate work in philosophy, especially ethical theory. While scientific fact is absolutely important in considering an issue, I will likely side with sound philosophical arguments over scientific ones. LD is value debate, NOT policy - if you run policy arguments you will not enjoy my ballot.

I competed in Trad LD for 4 years and currently coach Trad LD in Colorado. I am a flow/experienced judge. I love clash and I love a good debate. I vote based on the flow and coverage first. I vote second based on the quality of the arguments and rebuttal efficacy.

Speed/Spreading: I do not want you to read your fastest. Save that for practice and your friends. I can handle moderate speed. If you choose to spread, I will give you the benefit of saying CLEAR once in the round if you are incomprehensible/going too quickly for me. After this point, if I do not understand you, I will not flow your arguments.

Kritiks, Counterplans, etc: if you choose to run these arguments, the burden is on you to make sure I comprehend them. Impact the importance of your K, counterplan, etc. Why should I care about this argument?

Rebuttals: You do not need to repeat what your opponent has said in previous speeches - signpost and then make your arguments.

Timekeeping: I ask that you keep your own time. However, I am the official timekeeper of the round and will be keeping time as well. I do this for one main purpose - to keep all debaters honest about speech and prep times.

Professionalism: I expect a moderate amount of professionalism in the round. I will not fault you for any technical issues, nor for your background/surrounding noise. I will also not fault you for dress. However, I expect professional behavior in the round. I will lower speaker points for rude behavior, and if I believe it was too aggressive or abusive, I will vote you down. It's okay to be confident, it's not okay to be cocky.

Signpost, signpost, signpost. I won't guess where you want me to flow an argument. You don't want me to guess anyway. Lay it out for me clean and upfront.

Additionally, give me some voters in your final speech. Tell me all the ways you won (while keeping attitude in check).

And finally, I do not disclose and I do not give oral critiques. I'll leave RFD and comments on the ballot. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round starts. I'm not opposed to explaining more or answering other questions not addressed here.

Classical Debate = Yes!

Core Values = Yes!

Criterion = Yes!

Flowing = Yes!

Discussion = Yes!

Philosophical support = Yes!

Spreading/Speed Readng = No!

Biography

I have a MA in literature from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and am familiar with many of the writers cited in K's. It excites me to see young people still utilize this philosophy; however, it does not excite me when people might run a K and then also run a counterplan that the K would also critique. I am all for theory, but be genuine about it. Fred Moten wrote in The University and the Undercommons, "The prophet is the one who tells the brutal truth, who has the capacity to see the absolute brutality of the already-existing and to point it out and to tell that truth, but also to see the other way, to see what it could be." A K is that willingness to speak the brutal truth and then invest in the alternative of what it could be. A K is not to speak the brutal truth and then turn around and propose a counterplan that only perpetuates the systemic violence inherent in a brutal truth

Lincoln-Douglas.

I value debate as a speaking and listening event and also as an education event. After all, the original Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debates were a platform for two senate candidates to meaningfully introduce themselves to voters during the 1858 senate election in Illinois. Also as a consolation to anyone who really tries their hardest in round but winds up losing: Lincoln also lost that senate election. Debate isn't just about winning and losing. Speech and debate is about growing your confidence to prepare you for an even bigger thing in your life.

I hope you as debaters also value communication and thoughtfulness in your own presentation during round by doing your best to meet the following standards:

1. Talking clearly and deliberately. I understand urgency, but you can still be urgent and intelligible.
2. Being mindful of your language. I understand a lot of debate lingo has made our community increasingly esoteric. Words such as "cross apply," "inherency," "exploding grounds for debate," etc. don't mean much of anything to the outside community. They certainly wouldn't have won neither Douglas nor Lincoln any votes. Please do not throw your case or rebuttals full of a lot of jargon. Don't just say "cross apply my Jackson '24 card to their contention 1" when doing a rebuttal. I flow and take notes, but I am not making sure I copy down authors; instead, I'm doing my best to follow your argument.
3. Being mindful of your language (part 2). Please don't use a phrase like "my opponent is being abusive." Abuse is a very specific physical, emotional, and psychological horror. Just say your opponent is being unfair.
4. Doing the work for the audience. Give me clear voter issues that crystallize the round and properly weigh what has been said. I'm still flowing though, so be mindful that you don't strawman or misrepresent your fellow debater's positions! I really dislike it when a debater says another debater "dropped their whole contention 1" when in fact they probably did address it.
5. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate. For Colorado debaters, this means no grace period for speeches! Secondly, during cross if someone asks a question at 2:45 or so, that other person can respond, but please keep the response concise.
6. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 2). I do not participate in email chains or case sharing. My role as a judge is to listen to each debater communicate their case verbally to an audience including myself. Speech and debate is a speaking event. It's not like the US Court of Appeals where over 90% of cases from the appellate are decided by just three judges reviewing written cases.
7. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 3). If you suspect dishonest behavior like misrepresented or powertagged evidence, slow it down and make the case. Don't rely on debate jargon like "the internals of the card does not support their warrant." Break it down for me and spell it out. Also, tell me you want me to pull this card. I don't intervene as a judge unless I am explicitly asked to.

Public Forum Debate (formerly known as Ted Turner Debate)

The original category for PF debate suggests its interest in being arguably the most accessible form of debate. Named after media mogul Ted Turner, PF should give the audience an approachable view of the topic that is ultimately educational. Imagine you are on some distinguished network like PBS and you represent the very best of advocates for your position--like David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart for example (on PBS). All seven of my interests from LD apply to PF.

JD Jacob

Coach, Mountain View HS

jd.audiovisionary@gmail.com

As an educator, my feedback is always intended to help you improve. If you have questions, please feel free to reach out.

I do my best to evaluate every round without my preconceived notions about what debate should be, so you do you. However, if you want to go the extra mile, here are some things that will help:

Clash - Too many debates end with "two ships passed in the night." It is your responsibility to engage with your opponents arguments. Impact calculus, logical refutation, and citing conflicting evidence are all great ways to engage. With so many tools, there really isn't an excuse for a lack of clash.

Choices - With the limited time of speeches, sometimes quality is better than quantity. I tend to reward students who make deliberate and intentional choices when deciding which arguments to go for. While going for "all of them" is a choice, students are often better served by identifying a single (or perhaps two) win condition(s) and going for that. It is OK to concede an argument in favor of spending more time on a better one.

Communication - If your effort to speak quickly interferes with your ability to effectively communicate, then you would be better served by slowing down. I don't mind fast debate, but am more impressed with debaters who go about 80 percent of their top speed and focus on efficiency. Arguments that I can't explain to your opponent are not arguments that I am likely to vote on.

Instruction - I don't want to feel like I had to step in to have a round make sense. I'd rather let the conclusion of arguments come from the debaters themselves. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in the round. When telling me how to vote, show that you have good understanding of what has been happening in the debate round. Your overview should be my RFD.

Persuasion - Persuasive arguments are the best arguments! As persuasiveness can be subjective, here are some examples of what I find persuasive: Comparing arguments, impact calculus, evaluation of a body of evidence, moral imperatives backed by sound story telling. Also, consider avoiding these less persuasive arguments: Extending a drop without providing an impact, citing the rules (I'll take care of it if it is a rule violation), citing evidence without providing analysis.

Style - As far as progressive LD goes, I will not punish students for reading that style of case. I simply prefer cases that provide a Value and a Criterion as evaluative measures I can use to vote. If you do not provide a Value or a Criterion, be prepared to defend that choice if your opponent does provide one.

Topicality - I think students should read arguments that engage in the chosen topic. Topicality helps to facilitate clash and I think fairness is a relevant impact. Non-topical arguments (pre-fiat critiques, etc) tend to limit clash, so I think it is a safer strategy to read topical arguments.

I am an interp coach but a competent PF and LD judge. I prefer traditional rounds and will vote based on who simplifies the main ideas. I enjoy tactical clash.

I coached in Northern Colorado for three years. I now coach in the Denver-Metro area.

Policy: I won't vote on K's. You are welcome to run a K as a DA if that suits you, but I will not evaluate a Kritik at the end of the round. Other than that, I like to hear creative, original, and smart arguments. Debate is a story. I'll evaluate the round through the lens of a policymaker.

LD: LD is not policy, and if you run the round like it is, there's a very high chance I will not vote for you. I'll evaluate the round through the core value/criterion that wins (whoever convinces me their framework is best) and which team fulfills that framework.

Have fun and be nice.

Quick rough-up, you can ask for more detail in round.

Analysis is a primary interest, most notably your links. I want a deeply thought through chain of links that clearly (or convolutedly but still well constructed) ties everything together, from resolution to impact.

I've ran some of the most absurd or complex arguments and occasionally won on them, so I'm not going to vote you down just because something is "stupid." If you can prove it, they have to disprove in response.

Impact Calc good.

As always, I expect that both competitors abide by the NSDA honor code as well as just be respectful and civil. I don't decide only on speaking ability, but I do prefer that jargon and spreading be kept to a minimum. Thank you.

Experience: I was the 2018 LD state champion in Colorado and I have competed in LD, PF, NX/FX, and OO.

Logistics: Please time yourselves and time your opponents. I will most likely be timing as well, but it's your responsibility to make sure both you and your opponent(s) stay within the allotted time. With this being said, don't cut your opponents off- let them finish their sentence.

I'm okay with speed, but if you spread to the point where it's hard for you to understand yourself, I will not vote for you.

LD: I am familiar with circuit-style but prefer traditional-style. I love value/criterion clash. Make sure to convince me why your framework wins. I will probably flow during your round, but your overarching arguments and how they tie into your framework are more important to me than whether or not you are able to cover each and every single piece of evidence your opponent mentions. Additionally, I don't make your arguments for you, so place emphasis on your arguments in your final speech.

PF: Similar to LD, with an emphasis placed on voters (especially for on-balance resolutions, weigh the round and tell me why you win). I am okay with dominant cross-fire styles but do not be rude :)

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. Lastly, I like to be entertained!

Hey! My Name is Conor Rice

I am one of your traditional style judges! I am an NSDA Alumni and I used to compete in the various speaking events.

What I Look for as a Judge:

Speaking Events (OO, INFO, NX, DX, FX)

I look heavy on the content side of these speeches because good content is what makes a speech truly effective. I also do expect a performance of a good content speech is pointless if it is not well presented. I want to feel that personal reason why I should care about the topic. Bring me into the topic and hit me with the facts through an engaging speech. For INFO I want to see the true connection with the audience do not let your props become an obstacle.

Acting Events (Prose, Poetry, HI, DI, POI, DUO, DUET)

I want to see the story (beginning, middle, and end) of your piece and you truly feel it. The pieces that make it the furthest are the ones where you can see the person having fun and loving it. I want to be able to tell this piece is well-rehearsed and not thrown together minutes before the round. I love good blocking and choreography and will always highlight it in the feedback I write. I also look for the small details the attention to detail in the blocking. Ex: How you hold and pick up things.

Debate Events:

LD/PF:

I am looking for a clear framework and articulated argument with a clear structure. Tell me your value and crit and side post so I know exactly where you are in the argument.

WSD:

I need to see a clear framework and structure for the speeches and arguments. In the reply speech, I really want to see you clarify your team's argument and crystalize it, don't use this time to attack the other case.

Sincerely, Conor Rice

Tabula Rasa,

Clash necessary,

I flow everything,

Determine based on final voters and won definitions.

Please generally slow down in online/virtual speech & debate events.

Experience: Most of my personal experience is in speech events, however I've coached and judged all events for several years.

For debate events, I am a flow judge. Online flow will be recorded in tabroom "everyone" ballot.

Things to keep in mind:

No off-time road maps. Everything you want to say to me, the judge, is on-time for speeches or crossfire / cross-examination.

I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters.

When extending evidence to support a contention or claim within a contention, be sure to extend the warrant, not just the author or source (because sometimes I don't write down the author/tag and just record the warrant).

I am looking for a respectful, well-managed, and well-organized debate. Overuse of jargon or talking too fast will result in a loss. The point of a debate is to argue a point so that the public can understand it, not to overindulge in terms your opponent or judge may not know or to speak so fast that your opponent cannot possibly clash your points. I want to be able to understand and enjoy your debate.

Hello! Here´s some things to know about me as your judge. I am in my twenty-fourth year of coaching and have brought competitors to Nationals for the past 12 years straight. My overarching paradigm in Speech and Debate is ethics. You need to be supportive of your fellow competitors in Speech events and respectful of your opponents in Debate. For the later, focus on the actual debate (cross examinations) and show me that you really understand your opponent's case by asking specific questions about their evidence rather than trying to explain to me how their case doesn´t flow for some reason or another. Don´t give me voters - that´s my job. In Speech events, I´m looking for creativity and a true connection to the piece (whether you wrote it or someone else did). Lean into it, and own it. That´s what I´m looking for.

Thank you for all your hard work. Good luck to you!

I am a parent judge - I've judged at a few tournaments in the past and will take notes but I will not be flowing like an experienced policy judge. Adaptation is super important, do it.

Speed - If I can't understand you, I will not write it down or vote on it. Slightly above conversational speed is good, if you spread I will drop you immediately. I don't care if you flash a doc or disclose.

I read the news, but I won't know every acronym and argument. Explain your side in detail, pretend like I know nothing about the topic.

I'm not at all familiar with progressive argumentation (Ks, theory, etc.) and would highly discourage reading them in front of me. If you do this in LD or PF, that's unbelievably cringe and there is basically no chance you will win on it. If your opponent actually does engage in abusive practices in-round, just point it out.

Evidence - Don't misconstrue. If there's an issue, point it out in round, and if it becomes relevant in my RFD, I will call for it. Misconstruing looks really bad, and at the very least the argument will be dropped, if not the team.

*LD specific - I'm not familiar with a lot of philosophy. If you're running a complex moral framework or quoting philosophers, explain it really clearly. Framework is not a voter, it's just a way to evaluate the round.

Zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Don’t be rude. Don't speed-read.

It is your job to convince me why I should vote on flow or key argument clash.