I expect debaters to be courteous to each other and to me, period.

If the following doesn't cover it, oh well!.

Things that don't matter: you don't need to shake my hand. I don't require trigger warnings. I do not want to be included on chains.

Overall judging paradigm across events: I am a non-interventionist as much as possible. I evaluate what you do in round.

I will judge off the flow: I take lots of notes on paper. Weigh early and often, crystallize voters. I do not link, turn, or extend for you, so just naming an argument will not win. If your opponent drops a contention, state that for me. If you don't state it, I think you missed it.

Spreading: Spreading is not the problem, clarity is. If I can't understand you, your argument never happened. If you choose to, keep it only in the constructive speeches. Despite current trends, this is a educational speaking competition, which spreading doesn't necessarily support.

Standing: I expect you to stand when speaking, unless it is GCF or the last round of the night.

Cards: cite your evidence effectively. Be ready if I call for cards at the end of the round.

Don't just read a lot of cards and expect the win. A huge yes to actually debating, have direct clash (without being rude or talking over someone), with well-developed argumentation. Time yourself, I also keep time.

Lincoln Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge, and I do not like the progressive trends.

Public Forum: convince me. Con going first annoys me and will probably lose the round for you.

I don't disclose. I don't disclose speaks, and I usually do not give 30 points.

Interp paradigm: I was recently requested to add this to my judging paradigm. I expect to see advocacy in your piece. Make me believe you are your character in your DI. Humor me in HI, but the best pieces have a message of some kind. Duo is my favorite event, make it magical, whether dramatic or humorous.

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

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

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

I currently compete on the collegiate speech and debate circuit and competed in high school for four years mainly doing IE events. I've judged a decent amount of debate, mostly Big Question, PFD, and IPDA.

I'm mostly looking at your impacts in arguments, a thorough comparative analysis, and use of unique arguments but realistic arguments. I don't mind spreading but if you spread through your argument in a messy fashion I may dock points, especially if I miss key argumentation or theory. All in all, I'm looking for those who can effectively argue their case while attacking key points from the opposing team; verbalize when arguments are dropped by the opp team, when you effectively rebut a point, etc. I'll familiarize myself with the resolution beforehand/do some research on both sides of the topic, but setting up the background doesn't hurt.

Aside from casework and argumentation, I take courtesy and civility very seriously. Attack arguments, not people; I will heavily dock speakers who attempt ad hominem arguments and will stop the debate if civility is breached.

I look for quality evidence that's well articulated and individuals/teams that have solid follow-through after constructive(s) to not only attack the contentions of their opponent(s) but to resubstantiate/resupport their own points in response to their opponent's attacks or what their opponent has dropped. Pre-crafted arguments about what your opponent has said or dropped that are obviously pre-crafted because they're inaccurate for the round will hurt your overall score -- it demonstrates a lack of listening and adaptation.

I want good offense and defense without lacking professionalism. Ad Hominem attacks will work against you.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.