As a former National Forensic League State Champion (Debate, Poetry, Dramatic Interp & Impromptu Speaking), I appreciate the hard work that all of the participants have invested in their preparations to date. As a parent of a debater/speech participant, I also recognize the selfless support that coaches and parents have made to allow their students to excel and achieve.

Speech and debate prepares orators that will move nations towards greatness while collaborating to craft policy that will solve the world's toughest humanitarian challenges. I take participants' work seriously and expect you to do the same by aiming to do your very best and continuously improve from round to round, tournament to tournament. It is with this mindset that I carefully provide thoughtful feedback on every ballot, which I hope you find valuable.

I respect your work, fellow judges and expect all participants to show the same respect for each other, before, during, after and behind closed doors.

It is a privilege to be a tournament judge.

School Affiliations: DVHS

I’ve been judging various different Speech and Debate events for about 4 years.

“What you say” is as important as “how you say it”. I award points based on arguments you make to support your points, logical flow and clarity of your speech, as well as how you deliver it.

What influences my decision making at the end of the debate is: Logical reasoning, clarity of speech, effective delivery, overall being civil and not being rude.

I take notes for each speaker/team, keeping track of the main arguments and more importantly what I liked in the speech vs areas of improvement. I don’t look for random facts here and there. Rather, I look for strong evidence that supports your arguments and adds to your points.

Effective cross examination for me means bringing out valid points to challenge the other team and not being rude or overly aggressive.

Make sure your arguments and evidence is true, but use your debate skills to put those points across in a way that can influence the audience/judge.

• Recent UPenn College Grad

• 4 Year Public Forum Debater- State and National Level- I know and understand all of the jargon

• Looking for a weighing mechanism, framework and impact analysis

• Summary Speeches are Key

• I will be flowing so please signpost and do not drop arguments

• Ex. If your opponent does not touch on your argument I don’t need you to tell me because I will have it written down

• I will not be flowing CrossX for content, but it will impact your speaker points

• Dont waste time with evidence exchanges, if you want to share cases and cards do so as efficiently as possible

• I don’t generally allow off time roadmap- so if you need to roadmap then do so quickly at the beginning of your speech

• Be Polite!

In Congressional Debate, I believe in clear, concise analysis. I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal. I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have an importance to their constituents back home. I understand that the end result is artificial, but for the moments in which you are in session, act like it matters.

I also expect that you will treat your colleagues with respect and avoid the parliamentary games which serve to prevent them from speaking. I've been around too long and can see through such tactics.

- I am a parent judge.

- Has judged: HI, Impromptu, Extemp

- I judge based on clarity, content of your speech, and how your speech flows together.

- I do take notes when you speak.

- Your performance should look practiced

- Make your gestures intentional

Experience: Debated LD for 4 years at BCP, mostly on the CFL/CHSSA/NSDA circuit. Now at Stanford but I don't debate.

Top-Line: Basically, treat me as a competent Nationals judge. I debated for four years in high school and I can handle some speed, but any fast knowledge I had by senior year has disappeared almost instantly. Circuit debate is valuable not because you're allowed to talk fast, but because you can run some actually substantive and deep positions.

K: For those who still want to run fast and off-case positions, please explain your critical positions and theory arguments. I don't keep with K lit in college. This would be a good time to not do your best attempt at policy level speed. If you don't want to spoil the perfection of your beautiful kritik by reading it at an intelligible pace, strike me.

Theory: I'll vote off theory since this is apparently the only area of debate with any clash left in it, but I prefer clear interps and structure.

Framework: I believe normative ethical frameworks distinguish LD from every other type of debate. Warrant your own framework and attack your opponent's. Explain to me why the round should be judged under your framework and how impacts are evaluated under each one. Basic stuff. Feel free to both agree to util, but make that clear in both the top of your case and in the impact analysis.

CX: Don't waste CX. It's entertaining and useful. Goes for both debaters who sit down and use their three minutes as prep time and cowards who don't actually answer questions. If you commit either of this sins, let alone both, you will be punished with low speaks.

Voters: Give me some offensive voters that make sense. I'm not going to dive through the flow for you: crystallize, crystallize, crystallize. A cohesive story with concrete examples would be amazing, but that's too much to ask.

Evidence: Weighing of evidence is important. Don't expect me to ask for evidence after round to determine which card is more legitimate or of greater magnitude: do it in round. A card is not necessary to refute a piece of evidence, a clear analytic refutation is often stronger in my book.

Conclusion: I'm a lay judge with some experience in fast. As long as your cases are clear and your arguments actually logical and offensive, you'll be fine.

I am a parent judge. No preferences

Clarity and conciseness are very important with logical flow of ideas.

Normal paced delivery with an emphasis of quality of information over quantity are also very desirable attributes.

DVHS

I think of debate as an art of argument. The arguments that are formed by sound research, are well structured and conveyed clearly. I have judged congressional debate a few times in the last few years, big questions debate once but a lot of Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates. I have also judged almost all speech events. I enjoy all forms of speech and debate. I look for well researched, well structured arguments delivered clearly. I understand that students might need to go a little faster than the normal conversational pace but I hope it is not too fast. I also pay special attention to cross examination. This is a great opportunity to challenge your opponents arguments respectfully. I don't appreciate when a speaker does not give the other speaker a chance to question or launches into a big speech in response to a question. This results in monopolizing the time and talking over each other. Good luck to the teams!

General:

- Pronouns: she/her

- I have experience competing/judging/coaching in CD, PF, LD, and WSD.

- If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations, please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).

- Be kind and have fun!

- Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.

Congress:

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!

- If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.

- I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.

PF:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponents.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

LD:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Although I prefer a traditional debate, I can follow/have voted on most progressive arguments.

- Spread all you like, but it should still be clear.

- Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent drops something in a speech or concedes in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponent.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

Last updated: December 4, 2020 before La Costa Canyon Tournament

DEBATE:
Going straight to the point: I can flow but act as if I am a lay judge!! I would appreciate it if you can do an off time roadmap as well :)

1. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.
2. Standards should be clearly established, framework at the top of the case is helpful
3. I dont flow during cross, you'll have my full attention and I will judge based off of how well you can reason w/ your opponent and how confident you are with you case.
4. Dont run theory or kritik literature as I will get confused (learned the hard way off of some crazy debate jargon). Does not matter how well you link or impact it, please stick to the topic at hand.
5. Voters at the end is the majority of helping me what my RFD will be!! Please include them!!

SPEECH:

If I am being honest with you, whenever I saw a judge with a speech paradigm as a competitor, it always made my day so I hope it makes yours!

1. Your social message is the most important thing I am looking forward to hear. Bonus points if you can talk about a general topic but find that unique twist to set you apart. I seriously love speeches like those.
2. Facial expressions! Hand gestures! Pauses for effect! OMG!!! Those are so important when delivering a powerful speech like yours. I will point out on what you did excellent and what you can improve... as presentation of your speech is what can make or break you.
3. Manners. Simply put, don’t let your ego get in the way when you step into a round. I hate when competitors stone wall or didn’t clap someone up as a tactic to seem better. Remember to be kind and have empathy, we're all here for the same reasons.

Video logistics

Even though your speech may or may not be pre-recorded, here are some critiques that I learned judging through the era of recorded videos! Use these tips to better enhance your performance for next tournament!

1. Platforms - Always stare at the camera. Dont worry, it wont look as awkward as it feels!

2. If possible, make sure you record full body! Especially in interp, it is hard to tell how when you pop/morph if your character stances aren't clear enough.

ABOUT ME: she/her

Hello! My name is Brianna, I was a competitor in my speech and debate team for 3 years. What got me into speech and debate was when I was volunteering for a state tournament that my school hosted and I had the honor to spectate one of my classmates in her HI round. Ever since, I have loved every second of this activity. Im a platform girl so if I’m judging your OO/OA/EXPOS round, just know I have a slight bias and I’m already excited to hear what you have to say. I’ve competed in NIETOC, TOC, NCFL and all those fun tournaments so I like to believe I know what I am doing lol! Oh– and don't worry, I will be sure to give you a long and completed ballot (I’ve always hated when judges would just say “good speech” on mines ugh).

Thank you for reading this far and I can’t wait to see you in round! Good luck to all :)

I am open to all types of arguments, but if you run a problematic argument, I won't evaluate it.

My least favorite thing is when people are rude during cross. There's no reason for it, so if you are rude, I will drop your speaks.

Tell me how to vote. I prefer voting on impacts, but if you tell me where you've won the round on the flow, I'll vote there.

If anything here is incomplete or you have clarifying questions, please feel free to ask.

Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safer or better experience for you. I love debate and I want to make sure rounds are a place that you can love, too.

If you don't have time to read all of this, tldr: signpost, read dates, warrant args, time urself, cover turns, don't touch me, lmk what I can do for you

(As a disclaimer, I look to the side when I'm thinking. It may look like I am rolling my eyes.)

The Split

I like the split. I don't think you have to cover all of first rebuttal, I am perfectly fine with you just covering turns + disads for me.

Speed

If you're clear, I can flow speed. That said, I am not the fastest flower in the universe, so proceed at your own risk. If you actually can't understand your opponents I'm fine with you yelling "clear" so they will slow down, but obvi don't say that and then like go faster than them. If your opponents yell "clear," slow down.

If I don't hear it when I am flowing, I won't vote on it. I don't use speech docs to fill in whatever you supposedly said if you spread and I didn't understand it. This is still a communication event, so I'm going to vote on things I actually catch.

Types of arguments

You are the debater, and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are very few things I refuse to hear, but there are things I enjoy more or less.

I prefer well-warranted mid-level impacts to logical leaps of bad faith to nuclear war every round. Not that I refuse to vote for unlikely but high level impacts, I just enjoy them less than more probable (and likely relatable) issues. Also, love a good warrant debate instead of just a big impacts round.

I am not opposed to progressive arguments in principle, but I do think their execution is frequently pretty bad. You can try to run them in front of me and I'll evaluate them fairly, but it'll have to be done pretty well for you to both win and speak high (this is probably slightly more true for Ks than theory). I am also not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run weird obscure things just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you. If you run something super random and your opponents respond with good logical warrants I will accept those responses.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" (eg the military spending topic) please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring. I hate when people run super obscure advocacies that make zero sense just because they can.

Dates

please read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Please don't do debater math. It's often unethical and usually just uneducational. Pls.

Know where your evidence is fam. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked.

Bracketing in your card is bad. If your card says "Amar continues" and you add "[Yale Law professor Akhil Reed] Amar continues" that isn't a huge deal, but it's probably easier to just note it somewhere else before/after the card.

Card dumps ≠ warrants, pls explain your arguments.

Summary and Final Focus

If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. For the love of god, don't go for everything. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Be funny, be witty, but don't be rude. Jokes and puns are welcome, but be chill about it. I really hate how rude and aggro some PFers have gotten, and while I will not automatically drop you for this, I am not afraid to tank your speaks.

Prep

keep track of it.

Misc

I could not care less if you enter the room or do the flip before I get there. Go ahead, if you want to.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/even wear pajamas bc it's the last round of the day/etc to be comfortable, go ahead, I won't dock you for it. How you debate matters more to me than what you're wearing.

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. Unless I am weeping from the sheer beauty of whatever earth-shattering revelations your speeches gave me I don't intend on giving you a thirty. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-28.5 range.

In theory, I'd like to be tabula rasa, but I struggle to stomach truly ridiculous arguments. Tech > truth, but not to an extreme, and I will ~gently~ intervene against blatantly false args (eg weighing them less if I can) but I won't like autodrop you.

I am not amenable to speaks theory. It is anticompetitive and unfair to anyone who doesn't have theory hack judges. I won't punish you for it but I will ignore it which is a massive waste of your speech time. Please don't even bother.

pls don't shake my hand

I'll try to remember to leave my email on the ballot, so you're free to ask me questions there or on Facebook if you want to know anything. Feel free to message me for feedback.

If you show me photos of cats, I'll give you a 30. Just kidding. No I won't. But you can do it anyways.

I've been a Speech and Debate coach for the past 7 years, but primarily on the Speech side.

When it comes to policy debate, I tend to be more of a stock issues judge and believe that the Aff's burden is to protect and prove the stock issues; I especially look for that. I also want you to clearly articulate your positioning and prove why your arguments outweigh your opponent.

For Congress, be clear and efficient with your speeches. Feel free to lean into the "Congressional" part of it and performance is always key, but if you don't have sufficient evidence and don't explain or otherwise discuss the consequences and implications of that evidence then all the rhetoric in the world won't make up for it.

Overall, please speak clearly and slowly. Do not spread. And above all, analyze your evidence. Don't let it stand for itself - prove why it's important.

Archbishop Mitty Class of 2019

Competed in:

International/Domestic Extemp (IX more so), Parli, Policy (Mix of Circuit and Lay), LD (Mix of Circuit and Lay)

Treat me as :

Flay for Policy

Flay for LD

Flow for Extemp

Flow for Parli

LD Stuff that I updated for SCU 2020

- do a good framework debate and def address the FW (value vc) in your final speeches framed relative to the args you're going for, collapse collapse collapse and don't go for random stuff in your final speeches

- for econ number numbers relative to GDP growth and inflation with jobs programs, I will call cards if needed so don't power tag

General LD/Policy Stuff:

Im gonna be flowing and looking at the line by line when judging the debate so don't treat me as a parent judge. At the same time, I have not competed in fast LD or policy since 2016/2017 so don't assume full knowledge of K, Theory or any topic specific literature, you can run it but like explain it thoroughly and if you're running a K there needs to be a solid FW debate to win.

Whether the speed will be fast or slow will be decided based on comfort level of both sides. speed is generally fine, I'll tell you to slow down if you're going too fast (above all i will not stand exclusion of opponents or usage of speed to win the round)

i will not keep time.

if you are very clearly problematic, you will be dropped regardless of the flow.

if you have any questions about my paradigm or the round, feel free to ask me before or after the round! other than that have lots of fun :)

Logan Guthrie

Coach at Mountain View High School, debated policy for Arizona State

lmguthrie0624@gmail.com

Overview

Hi, I am a tabula rasa judge that tries to minimize intervention as much as possible. This means that I value thorough extensions and arguments that arrive at a terminal impact. Unless otherwise argued, my default role as the judge is to compare competing worlds within an offense/defense paradigm. I am comfortable with speed and any literature base. Below are some thoughts on specific match-ups:

Plan vs. Counterplan

- I really appreciate numbered net-benefits when the debate gets muddled. Highlight the few stand-out impacts and then give judge instruction on how my decision should come together

K vs. Policy Affs

- Framework is really important. The K doesn't make much strategic sense if it doesn't re-orient the way I view my ballot or the round itself. Be sure to explain why ontology or epistemology comes before policy-making

- Alt's don't need to 'solve' the links of the criticism if you win framework. Just prove why the ballot is only a question of orientation, or a referendum on ethics, etc.

K vs. Fw

- Both sides should spend a significant amount of time on impact framing. How do I weigh a risk of unfairness against the risk of framework reproducing fascism? The debater that answers that question best is probably going to win

- Defense counter-interpretations are more persuasive with a clear model of debate under the k

- Topical Versions of the AFF (TVAs) with an explicit plan text are more persuasive than general assertions that the AFF could have been topical

K vs. K

- Comparative analysis is really important. Re-explaining their theory of the world or a particular structure through the lens of your own literature base is persuasive

- Be sure to emphasize the terminal impacts of the K -- Ex. Neoliberalism is an internal-link, not an impact

- The perm is probably important. I appreciate multiple, diverse arguments to prove or disprove competition (DAs, Solvency Deficits, etc.)

Theory

- Theory debates can get really messy, especially with competing interps, so weighing between standards or voters is key. I much prefer quality over quantity; collapse to a few standards or a single voter and sit on it

Random

- Please do your best to have the speech doc flashed when prep stops

- I usually only read cards after the round if they are flagged

- Clean up the room before you leave, it helps the tournament directors out a lot!

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

About me: I am a parent judge with a daughter who does Varsity Original Oratory and Parliamentary Debate. I am no stranger to speech techniques as I mostly judge for speech.

Duration of Judging: 3-4 years (the judging record won't reflect this)

Below is the outline for how I will judge for speech:

I will rank competitors based on:

Fluency

Complexity of Topic

Structure

Presentation

Clarity

Please be present and respectful during rounds.

I’m a former high school speech kid, competing in Oratory, HI, DI, and Impromptu.

Platform events:

First of all, your speech should make sense. It doesn’t matter if you talk well if what you’re saying has no substance. Give me proper arguments (if this applies), show examples, and create a solid foundation. I’m a fan of good rhetoric and the like, but if it’s between someone with a good foundation or good rhetoric, the former will rank higher. Your speech should flow, and your presentation should match it. All basic stuff, really.

Interp events:

You’re telling a story, so I do care about the script—not the originality or such, but if the way you cut it makes enough sense. My preferences are pretty regular: clean presentation, good acting, etc.

Non-Prepared events:

Have a clean argument before anything else. Your examples serve as a support to your argument.

Most importantly: have a good time! Looking forward to judging :)

My name is Maggie Kenney and I am a senior at Saint Louis University. While in high school, I debated in Public Forum primarily, with Congress and Big Questions on the side. My university doesn't have a debate team, so I now compete in Model United Nations at the college level.

When judging Public Forum, I emphasize the importance of interacting with your opponent's arguments in a dynamic way and providing clear comparisons between the impacts of your case and your opponents. I also appreciate clarity in your speeches and sign posting which contentions that you are referring to so that it's easier for both judges and opponents to flow. I'm open to any and all arguments, especially those that I haven't heard before.

I judged speech last year - but did Lincoln-Douglas debate eons ago in college and am an expert in negotiation. I know a bit about speaking as I speak professionally on negotiation, ranging from conference keynotes to multi-day training programs (at least I did pre-pandemic). Now I largely speak to a camera lens - not nearly as fun! Hopefully in person conferences will start up again soon!

Email: notwyattlayland@gmail.com

Background

University of Reno, Nevada 2023
He/Him/His

Speech Paradigm (Also applies to all debate)

Please do your best to speak loudly, steadily, and fluently. I am sympathetic to fluency breaks caused by stress or general nervousness, so if you need a second to collect your thoughts I will not reprimand you. Besides that, I value organization and conciseness--I want to feel like you've put thought into what you're saying, why you're saying it, and even how you say it

Congress Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready. I typically write down my comments during the cross-ex period, and by the time the period has elapsed I'm pretty much done and ready to listen to the next speech. I also keep my own time of all speeches and write down the times on your ballots for future reference

+ Roleplaying GOOD. Refer to your opponents as Representatives/Senators. I'm not one of those judges, however, who ranks competitors if they "act like legislators" by helping set the docket or resolve procedural conflicts. Just don't speak out of order and don't attempt to step over the PO or Parli

+ RHETORIC. I enjoy unique rhetoric and purposeful speaking, so please go beyond the forensic grain when delivering your speeches. If you REALLY want to rock my ballot, a strong hook or extended metaphor in your speech and altogether sturdy rhetoric will expedite your path to a higher rank. Hearing debate jargon in this event (e.g., "contention", "block", etc.) tends to be a pet peeve of mine, so best rely on standard words and phrases

+ Maximum points for sophisticated, structured speeches. On GOD. If you warrant your claims and support them with reliable evidence, and on top of that impact your arguments to a broader context, and do all of this without filler or awkward digressions that interrupt the focus of your speech, I will rank you. Plus I want to hear your speech provide at least two distinct contentions (ik I said no debate jargon but whatever) so that your arguments don't blend into one-another

+ CLASH ON REBUTTAL SPEECHES. After the second or third cycle of speeches I expect that you spend your time speaking off the cuff and refuting/crystalizing the speakers before you. If you're called up late to deliver a speech and decide to NOT adapt to the situation and instead read off a constructive speech, you will fall in ranks. Even if you're not the best extemporaneous speaker, it still shows that you're engaged with the debate and want to make an impression

+ INTERNALIZE YOUR IMPACTS. I listen to impacts above all else, and to that end I expect your arguments will always point directly to a basis in reality. If you can make the room understand what it's like to be part of the population this legislation impacts most, you're not just giving a good argument, you're giving a great speech

+ For the Presiding Officer (PO): I will always rank the PO unless if they do something contemptible that specifically urges that I do otherwise (e.g., flagrantly violating procedural rules, favoring some competitors over others, unwarranted or nasty remarks towards others, etc.). Besides that, if you go fast, make little to no mistakes, and treat your fellow competitors equally and impartially, I will guaranteed rank you in the top 3

Public Forum Paradigm

+ Truth > Tech. I weigh on a framework of benefits and harms--fewer vague appeals to common sense, the better

+ Clearly warrant, cite, and explain evidence--no speculation or over-generalizations

+ SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

+ Separate rebuttals of your opponent’s case and your case if possible. Jumping around makes it difficult to follow your args

+ Please don't interrupt during cross-ex. Moreover, I would prefer to see strong and even engagement across the board during questioning, but don't abuse your platform to give shallow or overly long answers

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

+ My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs

+ Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality (it should be anyway). Not gonna lie, I almost exclusively pay attention to criterion because they address real-world implications, so please focus your framework debate around that. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework

+ I already said my PF paradigm carries over, but please, I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments

Policy & Tech Debate Paradigm

+ For prefs: The more trad you are, the higher you should pref me

+ My emphasis is typically on stock issues, which almost always defaults to my primary voter.

+ I am cautiously open to technical negative strategies as long as they are A) relevant to the substance offensive and B) realistic in the sense that they authentically reflect prima facie obligations in debate

+ I have a high threshold for Kritiks based mostly on alt solvency & impact calc

+ If your CP is not competitive I will hate you, and if you PIC I might just die

+ Assuming the interpretation and violation are accurate, I only ever listen to voters on T or Theory and expect the debate to revolve around those factors, so good luck convincing me on competing interps

One last, super important thing for my master debaters

Regardless of events, I will feel more compelled to vote for you (or, and especially if you're in Congress, rank you high) if you demonstrate effective extemporaneous speaking in your speeches. Just have fun!

Mainly did interps (DI DUO OPP) and some debate (LD) in high school (Palo Alto, 2018). Qualified to a few things. APDA in college (Johns Hopkins, 2022) for a semester, left team due to time constraints. Now I coach interps for Paly. Add me to the email chain: stephaniekaelee@gmail.com. Pronouns: She/her/hers.

Debate:

General:

- Signpost please. If you don't I'll assume you're going off/on case and doing line by line.

- I flow on paper. If my pen is down/if I'm staring at you, I'm not writing anything down — whatever you say will not be evaluated.

- I'm pretty non-interventional. Walk me through your arguments, voters, and weigh (plz). I vote on voters and crystallization. However, I'm a sucker for warranting and clash and may vote on line by lines over voters if it's well done.

- Don't use your evidence as a crutch - tbh well-warranted & impacted args are king and I'll probably vote on that over evidence with okay warranting & impact.

- Speed is fine as long as it's not spreading. If you spread I will k word your speaks.

- Don't expect me to take existential impacts seriously, unless your links are very strong and it's topical.

LD-Specific:

- Treat me like a lay judge because I haven't done high school debate in over six years and APDA isn't super techy compared to circuit LD.

- Kind of goes without saying but I don't tolerate dumping/other abuse (especially 2A).

- I'm okay with CPs. Read them if you want — they won't affect speaks.

- Values debate is cool, but it's annoying when your values are justice/equality/morality/etc etc. If they're all pretty similar, save everyone some time and skip it. Unless it's a key voter and you and your opp have very different V/VC, I don't care.

Speech:

- Trigger warn the whole room - this is a good practice to do in general.

- Ask for signals if you need them.

- Don't stonewall, that's not fun and it's toxic. Audience reactions are independent of my rankings, but I will note if you are a bad audience member.

Finally, be respectful and decent. If you are sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic etc., I will not hesitate to destroy your speaks.

On another note, if you make a TikTok reference in one of your speeches I'd probably feel genuine happiness for the first time since March.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

I am a historian of the classical Greek and Roman period, and I have a lot of experience with classical rhetoric. I often think of arguments through the lens of classical rhetoric. I am looking to be persuaded by arguments. I consider whoever wins the most arguments to have won the round. Additionally, I am not looking for speed but rather clear explanation of argument.

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

• Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
• For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
• I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
• I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
• If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
• Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

• Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
• Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
• Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
• Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
• Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

Tran Nguyen

trannguyen0002@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

- I have some competitive experience in LD and prefer more traditional, substantive debate. Thorough debates over stock issues are more appealing to me than other strategies which may sidestep the resolution. I'm most comfortable with Plan v. Counterplan debate - weighing the consequences of hypothetical implementation.

- I am okay with Kritiks but am probably not familiar with the topic literature. If you decide to pursue a kritik, please explain the concepts fully and avoid buzzwords. I also prefer concrete, implementable alternatives.

- I am not very amenable to theory. I am willing to vote for theory if real, round-altering abuse occurs but I do not have a lot of experience with the intricacies of theory (like standards/counter-interps/RVIs, etc).

- Please do not speak too quickly. You may talk faster than a conversational pace, but nothing close to spreading. I will let you know if you are going to fast, but please respect my boundaries after I establish them.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about anything else you would like to know!

I am a parent judge. I have judged multiple speech and debate events. I am an attorney and have experience with oration, delivery and making evidence-based arguments under pressure within time constraints. I have read the rules and will strive to judge fairly. Thank you for this opportunity.

EMAIL (for email chains/mid-round memes): mikayiparsons@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."

NPDA:

I debated for Lewis & Clark in parli for 4 years and coached at SDSU for 2. I liked policy and critical debate - no preferences there, read what you want to read. Some caveats: especially in K v K debates, I am prone to buy your argument more if you spend time explaining your method/advocacy, how it solves, and why it's better than the other one (hopefully with offense!). If I can't explain what your solvency mechanism is as I am writing my RFD, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on it. For theory debates, if you do not collapse and choose to go for theory and other offense, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on the theory. If you clearly win the sheet in a way that requires absolutely no intervention on my part fine, but that is highly unlikely if you are not collapsing. Be nice, have fun, and maybe read some overviews or something idk.

I've been out of the college parli world for a few years, so I do not know the current popular blocks/arguments being read. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them; just take the extra 10 seconds to explain why you are reading what you are reading, add some warrants that others might fill in for you in their heads, etc. I am also not as fast of a flower as I was a few years ago, so I may ask you to slow down (I want to get as clean and accurate of a flow as possible!). I've outlined some more specific preferences in the high school section below, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have!

ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:

Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.

The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.

Speed: I was a somewhat fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).

Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.

Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.

Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg! I have voted for and run critical affirmatives, and have also run/voted on framework answers to those very affirmatives. I am about as middle of the road as you can get, so again have the debate and I will decide from there based upon the arguments presented in round.

Finally, if you've made it this far, please please please do what you can to make debate educational, accessible, and worth all of our time. Coming in and being mean/spreading out some novices will not make you better debaters, so there is no point in doing so! This activity means so much to so many people; the least we can all do is be respectful of those around us.

Daughter of the judge writing here. She is a lay judge and prefers clear concise argumentation. The better you can make you more point the better she will receive it and evaluate. Do not try to spread or talk too fast.

I am a parent judge with some experience judging speech and public forum. I will try to take notes, but I am not a flow judge. I look for competitors with a clear and smooth speaking style, solid gestures, but most importantly, logical and well-supported arguments.

Style:

• Speed: Speak clearly regardless of your speed. Don’t use speed as a tool of exclusion. If you need to speak quickly to make all of your arguments slow down on the important points, I will only evaluate arguments that make it to my flow.
• Flex Prep: I have no problem if debaters choose to use some of their prep time for additional clarification questions.
• Be respectful and professional! This is supposed to be fun and educational, don’t be rude.

Content:

• Theory: Demonstrable, round-specific abuse is necessary for me to vote on theory arguments. I would rather hear arguments that address the substantive issues of the round so please consider the legitimacy of the argument on the discourse of the round before running Theory.
• Kritik: I love a good, thorough K argument! (with strong links and impacts)
• I will entertain most arguments as long as you are deliberate about your choices and provide significant and high-quality impacts. If you can't explain to me how this argument weighs out in the evaluation of the round, I am not likely to vote on that argument. If nobody does a good job providing me with a quality impact calculus, then I am likely to start looking for my own reasons to prefer one side over the other instead of remaining tabula rasa. Do your work so I don’t have to do it for you!

School Affiliations: Dougherty valley high school

I have been judging Speech and debate for the past 2 years

I’ll judge based on the debate guidelines provided. I judge each debater against a common set of guidelines.

I do take points/notes during speech/debate. Would like the debaters to use real world impacts as well as evidence (but not overwhelming). Prefer well thought cross examination and will try to find a balance between debate skill and truthful arguments.

I coached Speech and Debate for 12 years. I left K-12 education for a role in Higher Education. I've coached all main NSDA events, and most supplemental and consolation events. I've had TOC, NCFL, and NSDA qualifiers in both speech and debate events.

1. I will flow the round. I prefer less speed, but as long as I can understand you, it won't be held against you.

2. PF and LD are not Policy. Please do not include plans, counterplans, or the like.

3. LD is a debate of value, so please convince me why your value is more preferable.

4. Please don't let the round end in nuclear war, unless that's the topic.

5. Any abusive language or behavior will get you a loss. Period. I'll probably also contact your coach.

6. Humor will get you everywhere in life. It isn't a standup routine, but if you make the round enjoyable you'll be a lot better off.

7. I will never give my decision at the end of the round, unless required to do so by the tournament.

8. Don't abuse prep time. We all have lives, so please be respectful of everyone's time.

If you have questions, please email me at katyschwartzdrowns@yahoo.com

Hi all- my name is Natalie Steinbrink and I am an assistant coach at Phoenix Country Day School, where I've been since 2015. I graduated from Arizona State University in 2018 with a degree in English Literature. I am primarily a speech coach, but I do enjoy coaching and watching Congress when I can. Here is what's important to me in a Congressional Debate round:

-Clear argumentation. Don't make me work to understand your argument. Your structure, evidence, links, and impacts should be clear and easy to understand. I can appreciate a complex argument, but if I'm still wondering what your point was by the time we've moved on to the next speech, you haven't done the job.

-Be INVOLVED in the session. Be an active listener and don't get wrapped up in your own speeches (i.e. please don't practice your speech while others are talking). Ask good, varied questions. Be a congressperson who's going to foster good debate in the round (the most fun part of congress!).

-Give me some genuine emotion! This may be the speech coach in me jumping out, but the bills you're debating impact real people in the world, and you should treat them as such. How is anyone going to believe in your argument if you don't act like you believe in it yourself?

-Good delivery is a must. Try to get away from your legal pad as much as possible.

-Be respectful. If you're rude or aggressive to other debaters, you'll be dropped. Plain and simple.

I'm excited to listen to you all, and I hope you're excited as well!

I have judged few speech events over the course of last 2-3 years. I am more of the lay judge w/o formal experience as a coach.

I am looking for well thought out and structured, persuasive, convincing, and passionate performances. I am not as much the nit-picker type.

I use a rubric of my own that I use for the various events which I try and grade right through the performance - which I use to arrive at an overall score to make it fair - so that all aspects are individually weighted and accounted for.

INTERP EVENTS

- In speech/ acting events I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.

- Energy

- Characterization from beginning to end.

- Make big bold choices that you have perfected for this character, this story, this moment in time.

- Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you.

• Clean pantomime and connection with off stage characters
• - Take us on the journey with you.
• Take a deep breath and have fun!!! Leave it all out there and take your seat feeling like there was nothing else you could have done.
• Don't forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?
• Be honest. These are real people sharing real stories of their lives. Breath through their struggle and be honest.
  - Be you, you're enough.
• Believe in the story you are telling, be confident, be bold, own your time in front of us.
• Make sure everything you do has a purpose. If it doesn't have a reason, it begs the question of why do it?
• ENJOY! The more you forget about all of the static in your head the clearer the performance will be for us. 
• Finally, "Just be." You are enough.

SPEAKING EVENTS

• Be specific with the topic at hand

Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
• If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

- Solid confident delivery style

I am parent Judge.
I prefer clear and concise thoughts.

I am not a fan of speed. I prefer quality or quantity.

Style - Be nice!!! Don't address me as "Judge". Please engage in good faith. This means: avoid misinformation or exaggeration, don't put words in others' mouths, etc. In LD, spreading is okay but give me a heads up and be clear, especially during tags. In PF, don't talk too fast or I'll put my pen down and stop flowing. Please signpost!!

Content - I'm open to any kind of argument (unless it's problematic or offensive), but it must have a clear explanation with strong links and impacts. Tell me beforehand if you're running a K or theory. I'm not the biggest fan of framework debate but I'll listen and flow; just make sure you explain your philosophy well!

***If no one mentions impacts or does any impact weighing, I will flip a coin to decide the winner.

If you have any questions, don't be scared to ask before the round!

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

HI.

I did LD, Impromptu, and Policy in high school.

Add me to the email chain pls: alina.wang@berkeley.edu

I don't mind if you sit during CX

off-time road maps don't offend me - I prefer you tell me the order of your arguments.

LD/Policy

Framework debate(MOSTLY FOR LD) - one that answers the question: which framework is more superior in the round?

Tabula Rasa for me.

Explain it well.

Clash and links.

Make sure links are clear and that your argument is easily traceable.

WEIGH your arguments/impacts.

If you are going to spread, slow down at the taglines for your own sake.

Theory

I don't like theory. Do not run theory unless there is an obvious reason for you to run theory. I won't vote on it unless it's necessary or credible.

I hate Disclosure theory. If generations of debaters can win without it, I don't see the point in you wasting my time.

K's

Always love hearing a good K.

Plan/CP

Internal Links should exist.

PLEASE DONT SHAKE MY HAND. Give me a fist bump instead.

If you have any questions about my paradigms, please ask me before the round starts.

I am an ex-LD debater with an emphasis on framework arguments. I do not like theory. If this is an LD round, I want a values debate, with persuasive, coherent, and eloquent arguments. Sign-posting is important! If you don't sign-post, it is very easy for the debate to get muddy very quickly. We don't want that. I can't be as fair and as effective of a judge if that happens. Also, please come prepared, be professional, and you'll perform well. So let's make this a great round: sign-post, weigh, crystallize, win. Looking forward to evaluating your round and good luck!

Coaching for 23 years and taught debate for same amount of time. Holistic judge/flow judge, but want CLASH on both sides. I am okay with speed, but should not deplinish your arguments-those come first. Some progressive is okay, don't like Plans or Counter Plans-those need to stay in CX.

This is still value debate so would like to see value criterion used and supported.

K's okay, not optimal, but will listen to them.

Standing during debate is a must-lazy if you don't.

Some background: I did four years of high school debate- both lay debate and nat circuit focusing on mostly LD.

Include me on your email chain please: helenawehr@outlook.com

Speed:

I’m okay with spreading, but please make sure you speak clearly, if I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t flow it. Better slow than sorry.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are fine, just don’t assume I have any comprehensive understanding of the philosophy- especially if it’s more obscure, and make sure you actually know what you’re talking about. Also, make sure your kritik has solid impacts, when it comes down to a wash between policy versus in round impacts, I’m more likely to favor policy.

In general: I mostly liked policy debate, that's definitely what I prefer. I'm fine with theory. Mainly, just be organized and don't be rude.

Email: Brandirw29@gmail.com

She/Her

Undergraduate student at New Mexico State University

Speech background

-NSDA Alumni, class of 2019

-Competed for 5 years in public address

-Two time National Speech and Debate Tournament qualifier in Informative speaking

Judging style

-Super big on the rules for the event

-Clear speaking goes a long way

-I give a lot of feedback

I look forward to hearing from all the amazing and talented speakers!

Background
I was a high school and college policy debater in the 1980's. I have taught policy debate for 21 years both in California and Oregon. I have coached several policy teams to nationals. I love this form of debate.
Paradigm
I am a real world policy maker judge, who is somewhat traditional. I look to see who advocates for most viable and beneficial policy. I am a recovering stock issues judge.
What Makes Me Smile
I like to see an organized flow, with lots of analysis connecting evidence to claims. I also like to see a fun spirited debate, where debaters are polite to one another and are in this activity to learn, not just to win.
Speed
I can flow a fast debate, but prefer communication over speed. I find that most policy debaters who spew, can't really handle the speed they are attempting and therefore lose their judge and opponents, ultimately rendering this communication event moot. However, if you must race through your arguments, at least be slow and clear on the tags. 
K's
I do not like Kritiks. I will listen to them and weigh them against other arguments on the flow, but overall am not a big fan. If you run a K, make sure to fully explain your philosophical position and don't run positions that will bite your K. 
T
I will vote on T if not used as a time suck. "If you run it, go for it, don't kick out of 4 T's in your last rebuttal."
Tag Team CX
I don't mind tag team cx; however, I award speaker points based on your ability to ask and answer questions, so if one partner is "tooling" another, then one of you will suffer point wise. I like to see that both partners are knowledgable about the topic and debate theory and get disgruntled when one partner will not allow the other partner a chance to answer any questions.
Flex Prep
What? Really? No!
Flashtime
I don't count flash time as prep time, unless it becomes ridiculous.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

I am a beginner judge. My background is participating in Speech Tournaments and taking Speech/Debate classes. I look forward to hearing your speech!

I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging IE. I award speaker points based on how well I can understand you. So please speak with clarity and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend.

Good luck and have fun!

add me to the email chain/doc share alexzavaladebate@gmail.com

Not a fan of tricks/friv theory but will vote on it only if opponent responds poorly enough

Pretty OK with theory/tshells but they tend to dominate rounds when brought up

K Aff’s force you to do so much work for me the understand. I just wouldn’t

K’s are interesting and can make compelling round winning arguments but again my threshold for understanding it completely are low

Prefer impact heavy/analysis focused rounds

Clash is great

Topical affs >>>>> questionably topical affs

Likelihood of your DA probably matters more than how much it turns case

Being respectful to your opponents gets you far

Slow down for most important voters

COLLAPSE IN THE DEBATE please