For debate- I will mostly judge off the flow, but make sure to use good speaking and presentation skills

In LD specifically- the value/criterion is important.

I think definitions debates are boring and dumb and should be avoided please focus on the topic

For speeches, I judge on the quality of the speech itself but also on your verbal and nonverbal communication skills

Hello! I've been doing debate for about 3 years now, and I'm very familiar with Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas. I just have a few ground rules.

Public Forum)

-Use evidence!!

-Be respectful during cross, if you're being rude/cutting them off/being immature, you'll lose on that.

-I'll be flowing the round, so be sure to signpost so I know what you're talking about/what you're attacking.

-If you mess up a little during speeches, stutter, use "ums" or anything like that, I won't count you off for it. Of course, try to avoid it, but I'll be focusing on content, not performance/delivery. Debate can be nerve-wracking sometimes, so I understand.

Lincoln Douglas)

-I will also be flowing, be sure to signpost and inform me on what you're attacking/talking about.

-Value and Value Criterion clash is what I'll focus on quite a bit. But I'll also vote on the moral high ground as well.

-Be respectful, as mentioned before.

-Emphasize to me why your impacts are morally better than your opponents, I'll be paying attention to that a lot.

-If you mess up what you're saying by accident, stutter, or use "ums", as stated before don't worry about that. I'm focusing on content, not if you're a good speaker. Debates can be scary so I understand if nerves are high during rounds.

Policy)

-I'm not too familiar with this, so try to not spread.

-No bigoted arguments, if you make any disrespectful/discriminatory arguments, you'll get low speaks/will lose the round. Please be respectful to your opponents, and when making arguments as well.

-If there's an email chain for evidence, I'm totally fine with being included (if not, just make sure your evidence is clear when reading it to me so I can add it to the flow) Email: havard_gracie2022@gvr5.net

-I'll more than likely vote on the flow, or who has the better long term impacts in their plan. So please be sure to bring that up as well.

-If you mess up what you're saying by accident, stutter, or use "ums", as stated before don't worry about that. I'm focusing on content, not if you're a good speaker. As long as you're refuting opposing arguments well and pulling your impacts, you'll be just fine. Debates can be scary so I understand if nerves are high during rounds.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Debate is a learning experience, so I'm always willing to clarify anything or answer any questions you have. Best of luck!

I am a head coach for Speech & Debate.

I prefer traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas Debate, with a focus on Value Clash.

Evidence should be read throughout the debate.

I keep a good FLOW during the round.

I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate.

I encourage you to give VOTERS. Tell me why you have won the round.

I really do not tolerate disrespect in the round. Being rude will lose you the ballot.

I am a speech/debate coach. Though I did not participate in the activity myself, I have five years of experience coaching and judging at all levels of competition.

I can follow you at whatever speed you wish to debate, as long as you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

I will be taking notes throughout the round, focusing on key arguments in the case. I am willing to vote on topicality, to vote for counterplans, and to vote for a K, but at the end of the day, my decision will come down to who argues their side most effectively. A well-argued stock issues case will win my ballot over a poorly-articulated theory argument every time (and vice versa).

I am a policy debater, I have some experience in Ies. Because of this, I like evidence and being told the information and why you've won a debate. Ies are more about presentation and a pretty way of getting a topic across in my opinion so keep that in mind.

Ies

When it comes to Ies, if you mess up I'm just looking to see it transition back smoothly and make it look like it didn't happen, I don't have the script to what you're saying so I won't know if you don't make it obvious. Hitting time is important to me but also making it smooth and sound good, if you are under but your speech is smooth and gets everything out you won't be ranked badly. I'm mainly looking at performance and structure

Debate

PF-

Don't talk over each other in crossfires, debate is a respectful event, and screaming over each other is not a good look. Provide your information and be confident in you're delivery. Adress what your opponent says, don't drop points, I do policy, and dropped points are something I pay close attention to. In your last speeches don't just give me more information, tell me why you've already won. Just convince me and be confident

LD- Attack the value and value criterion! That is the most important part of LD and what sets it apart, your points are important but the morals lie in the value so argue it! Speed is okay in this format but don't go too fast, in order to get what you need across effectively

Policy- This is the debate I am most versed in. I've been doing it for a year and a half now, I can handle speed and a lot of on case and off case. That being said don't spread if you can't, it's okay to go slow. And don't run a ton of arguments if you can't develop them. I like da's but make them and not expand, by this I mean don't claim nuclear war without a proper link chain. Dropped arguments do not look good so try and cover everything. If you run a K really explain it to me, that is what I am least strong in and something you've never used. I will only vote for it if it has all of the parts. With a counterplan tell me why it is above and beyond the presented plan, and please don't forget the permutation or the actual plan part of the counterplan (you'd be surprised how often that happens).

Other than all of that I am just looking to be educated when it comes to debate, so give me the information.

I am a policy debater at Grain Valley High School. I am open to any type of argument. Make sure you tell me how to vote and why. Be confident, but overall I'd just prefer that you'd have fun with whatever event you're participating in and generally be kind and civil towards one another.

Hello! I did debate, mostly public forum, from 8th grade to 12th grade. Since then, I have judged countless debates.

LD and Public Forum: I am most interested in the clash of ideas, rather than debaters simply restating their cases at each other. I want to discourage off-the-clock road maps as they are often unnecessary and I want to respect everyone's time.

Policy: My approach is tabula rasa, i.e. the debaters tell me how to judge the round. I am open to counterplans and kritiks.

Feel free to ask me any questions.

Hello! My name's Alex (they/them) and I'm currently a college student at the University of Kansas studying Sociology and Pre-Law. I did debate for 3 years in high school (Congress, PFD, LD, and World Schools) and went to nationals for World Schools in 2021. I'm a big fan of clear argumentation and rhetorical skill, and I'm a firm believer in debate as a speaking event and not a reading event (I know tech debate terminology and I can follow it, but try to keep it to a minimum).

General Rules:

1. Try to speak as well as you can. I won't dock speaks for any verbal quirks you may have, I know that ableism is pretty prevalent when it comes to judging speaks. Just try your best to sound convincing.

2. I understand that information can get mixed up, but if you knowingly try to deceive me you will catch this L. Truth matters more than argumentation.

3. Make sure your arguments are coherent. Don't use 50 internal links to an extinction impact, because that's silly. Links are important, but make sure they actually link the warrant and impact.

4. Theory is very interesting to me, especially a lot of K theory (queer theory, cap, ableism, and neolib are some I have more knowledge of) but make sure that you can actually link it to the resolution.

5. Insert Kim K swinging purse video. DO NOT BE RUDE. Debate is not an exercise in domination, it's a conversation. And if you are unable to effectively communicate with opponents on the issue, your speaks will be docked.

6. Debate is not a game, your job is not to win. Your job is to be informative and discuss pertinent issues. Try to inform me on the issue. Don't assume that I know about West African Urbanization, but don't be patronizing. I follow the news (twitter) fairly often, so I try to have context.

7. That being said, have fun! Rounds have a tendency to get unnecessarily heated, and I won't dock points for having a good time. As long as the round runs on time

Public Forum: wawaweewa

Framework: For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE HAVE FRAMEWORK. Especially in a fast-paced format like PF, framework helps drive the round down into core issues faster and gives me a way to vote. And by extension: don't just have it and wait until Final Focus to bring it back around. MAKE SURE IT IS APPLIED IN EVERY SPEECH.

Speaking:

Evidence:

Argumentation:

Lincoln-Douglas

I will generally vote on flow, but rhetorical skill is equally important. If you're a good speaker, that alone won't get you a vote from me. Cross-examination doesn't have a lot of bearing in my decision, but I do want friendly exchange rather than talking over each other. I did LD for 2 years, so I have some experience in this format.

Policy

I vote on flow, but speaking plays into my decision quite a bit. I'm okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc. I will vote on progressive cases if it's presented well. I don't usually vote on T.

Traditional style LD. Not big on flowing.

Assistant coach for 5 years.

Taken from Tyler Gamble's paradigm, but holds mostly true for me:
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often that not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are directly oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained...
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Taken from Ellen Ivens-Duran's paradigm:
Here are the things that matter:
I did not debate as a student.
I have judged and coached PF and LD for (5) years.
I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.
...

I debated policy for four years in high school and attended my state tournament and Nationals. I'm down for anything in round but I know people like specifics so here you go. Here are arguments I will go for-

1. Disadvantages- I will go for any full-fleshed DA with a good link chain. I don't really care how far-fetched the impact is as long as you have evidence to get you there.
2. Topicality- I luv a good t argument. Be concise and clear and it's likely I'll go for it.
3. Theory- Same as T. I like theory, especially on a counterplan level.
4. Counterplans- I like CP's, I think they are a good tool, but I won't vote aff just because there is no CP by the neg
5. Kritiks- Since I'm not debating the high school topic any more I don't know it as well so I will need a little more explanation on Kritikal arguments, but I will still go for them just be aware that I don't have as much understanding of the topic literature as you do. :)

Preferences-

1. Check on open cross- different schools/areas have different norms for cross so I just prefer you check
2. Spreading is all good, I just want to see the speech doc. Only time you shouldn't spread is if it is an equity issue like spreading would exclude your opponents from having a fair round (hearing issues, language barriers etc.)
3. I really just prefer civility- if your opponent is lost in round don't speak down to them, that's how we lose interest in debate.

For 3 years, I have been debating and prefer PF, I believe it doesn't matter whether I flow or not a good debater should be able to win either way. As long as they have been addressed and debated well, I enjoy cases with unique contentions and subpoints.

I have done Speech & Debate for five years and the biggest thing for me is clear speech and weighing of impacts. I will be flowing the round so please make sure to signpost and organize your arguments. Make sure to tell me as the judge why your case and the impacts you present are more important than your opponents. I enjoy cases that evaluate the topic in a new way and present unique arguments, so don’t be afraid to think about the box(just make sure the argument is well-formed and is clearly linked to the topic). Make a point to give me voting issues in your final speech and tell me why your case is the most moral/important. Most of all, please speak clearly and at a good pace, and conduct yourself in a professional manner.

General:

Humor, line by line, and strat will boost speaks, disrespect to opponents or judge will drop them

Will listen and flow at any speed as long as it is clear - don't spread through theory

HS CX:

Will vote on anything non problematic w/ impact calc

tech > truth

Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy

No preference on condo - will vote either side

HS LD:

Will vote on a CP/K, however, I lean aff on fairness and perms

Credentials:

4 Year Debater at Grain Valley Highschool

Qualified to Nationals my Sophomore year

3 year conference finalist for Lincoln Douglas

Currently ranked 2nd and 4th in the state for LD and Congressional Debate respectively

Actual Paradigm:

Speed is okay although not encouraged

Will be judged off of arguments alone although good speaking is encouraged

Tech> Truth

Huge on signposting, if you don't signpost I'm not flowing it.

Prefer traditional debating although am knowledgeable on K's, CP's, PIC's, and PIK's, as well as general theory (condo good/bad for example).

Any questions feel free to email me at BraydenStolle@gmail.com for questions about paradigm, RFD, or individual feedback. Thanks!

I am a 4th year debater, experienced in both LD and PF. I love arguments that are more philosophical and one of my pet peeves is when debaters turn LD into policy discussion. I care about the credibility of evidence, like to hear statistics that are relevant, and care more about your persuasive ability than meeting the exact time slots. I am a flow judge but your ability to communicate your ideas is equally as important as your contentions and arguments. Speak clearly, I can't judge what I don't understand. If you want to speak fast it must be well enunciated. :)

amwilson2502@gmail.com

Summit Christian Academy '21

Harvard '25