Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

To the degree that I have what one might call a paradigm, I would have to say that I bring a tabula rasa to the table. By this I do not mean that I have a preference for that being the stance of a tournament participant, but I come with an open mind, prepared to listen and judge on the basis of your stance and style rather that on my preconceived ideas or expectations. . . . I like to hear a good, well prepared, well executed debate, presented by contestants who are able to state and defend their premises with clarity and at the same time with conviction (one could say with passion). . . . Respectfulness and courtesy toward your opponent(s) play very well in my book.

As regards pointing out your opponents technical errors, of course site them if you are disposed do so. But the entire debate does not hinge on technicalities. Still, a clear understanding of the rules and parameters are noted and are positives as part of the total evaluation.

In short, concentrate on being yourself and doing your best. The rest will follow. . . . Stay sharp, but at the same time relax. . . . Good luck!

I am a flow judge but for me it's all about the voters! I do judge on appearance and behavior, especially in team debate but it will most likely come down to the flow.

Good Luck!

Name: April Palmer

School - LSW

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Assistant Coach of a team

D. Policy debater in HS

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged 20+ years of policy debate.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills -- Be careful not to go too fast. I like conversational speaking.

Stock Issues -- I am "old school" debate and will judge based on the flow as well. Who makes the best and quality arguments for each issue.

Policymaker --

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality IF it is deemed important and worthy of flipping the round.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are acceptable IF it is deemed the only alternative. Then argue quality arguments for/against each side.

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: Not a good idea unless you have very specific links to the case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

L. I have judged LD debate for 20+ years.

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? If I have missed arguments because of speed, then yes.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? YES

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include voting issues and/or major analysis of issues

2. Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow, at the end of the final speech, but either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are necessary to create a "bubble" of the most important arguments.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker and the winner of key arguments in the round.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

I think it's important use evidence to support your points, but you don't need TONS of cards for evidence's sake.

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

I keep a flow until the end.

Hello,

I have experience and success in policy debate in both high school and college. My judging paradigm is best described as tabula rasa (blank slate) with the exception of adherence to traditional debate rules (stock issues, topicality is a priori, etc.). Although I am older, I will be able to keep up (flow) as fast as you can speak.

I believe Lincoln Douglas is more about persuasion than speed. That being said, issues still must be carried through in an LD debate as they form the underlying basis for an effective ability to persuade.

I am open to any questions you may have before the round begins.

Thanks & good luck!

Judging Experience

Judged live debate for zero years and fewer then twenty ld rounds this season so far. These tournament rounds will be first ever.

Attitude toward typical LD practices

I have judged LD debate for ___ years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

Typical conversational speed of 4.

Rate of delivery does weigh heavily in my decision as I want to be able fully understand each debater argument.

Will vote against student for exceeding your preferred speed.

Rebuttals and Crystallization

Final rebuttals should include line-by-line.

Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow.

How the winner is decided?

I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals should be kept to a minimum.

Q1) How important is the criterion in making your decision?

It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Q2) Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

No

I’m a former Public Forum debater (three years experience) and 2007 graduate of Rock Bridge high school in Columbia MO. I am a frequent judge for PF debate and extemporaneous speaking in mid Missouri tournaments.

For me the best articulated argument wins. I’ll be voting for the team that is able to best present their case and in turn address their opponents contentions with relevant evidence and logic.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name : Katie Cross

School - Raytown High School

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one)

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40+ varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues & Possibly Policymaker

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

-- maybe in the middle :) but honestly no preference

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I am fairly new to being a judge and knowing jargon for debate. I encourage professionalism, respect, and kind manners throughout. I don't mind if you call me judge, I encourage fluidity, restating, providing evidence in speech and in chat. I encourage communication with the judge if you are having technology issues.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Katie Cross

School: Raytown High School

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for ___ years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty 2. Twenty to forty 3. Forty to sixty 4. Sixty or more

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

--I am new so I don't know what it means so I would say to use it

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

-- who persuaded me, has manners & respect towards one another, and speaks wells.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

02/08

I encourage professionalism, respect, and kind manners throughout. I don't mind if you call me judge, I encourage fluidity, restating, providing evidence in speech and in chat. I encourage communication with the judge if you are having technology issues.

School assistant coach, 5 years judging experience

Policy

Stock Issue approach

Willing to vote on Topicality, Counterplans, Kritiks, or theory.

Against conditional negative positions

Do not exceed 7/10 speed.

LD

Value Criterion may be a major factor in my decision

I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round - winning the value/vc debate determines my framework for choosing the winning side. I then evaluate the contentions based on which side accomplishes that value/vc better.

I keep a flow

Experience:

-Assistant Coach

- Experienced LD, Pf and Policy judge

-Former LD debater

I rigorously flow rounds.

Jargon is acceptable.

Preferred Style of delivery:

-Well paced. Not too fast, not too slow. Typical conversational style to rapid conversational speed.

*Rate of Delivery does not affect my decision but does affect speaker points when applicable.*

My decision is primarily based on the quality of the debate. That is, how well you are able to support your stance (and the value/criterion for LD) through evidence and logic as well as how effective you are at rebutting your opponent's case and attacks. The best speaker is not necessarily the winner, but being an effective speaker is very helpful.

I have experience in judging for 4 years.

I value the following: depth in understanding of the core issue, relevancy of evidence and sources, overall delivery/presentation - including your manners to your opponents, please don't spread, and keep track of both your and your opponent's time.

Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution?

Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

Please give voters. Tell me why you have won.

I prefer well-structured arguments supported by thorough analysis and credible evidence

I have been a school judge for 4 years. I have a background in theatre and IE events. I am not very fluent not the topics that are being debated. Educating me about the topic will be important and making significant clear points. Speaking fast to cram in as many facts as possible is not going to help me understand your points. The point is to communicate your ideas and for me to understand.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name: Paul Gansen

School - Belton High School

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one)

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40+ varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Paul Gansen

School: Belton High School

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for ___ years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty 2. Twenty to forty 3. Forty to sixty 4. Sixty or more

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

I will consider content delivery as well as substance. You must be understandable. My primary concern regarding substance is that you provide the most convincing argument with supporting points and sources.

As a judge, I am looking for the following:

1. Offering of a solution

2. Overall speaking confidence

3. Depth of topic knowledge

4. Speaking fluidity/smile/facial expression

5. How the topic impacts world

6. No mean speaking

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Dr. Gill

School: Summit Christian Academy

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate):

Two of my children are LD debaters. I am a school administrator who oversees the debate teacher. I have taught

speech courses, and I have judged LD once previously

L. I have judged LD debate for: 1 year.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? None

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? No, unless they speak unintelligibly

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision? It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include: voting issues

2. Voting issues should be given: Either as the student goes down the flow or at the end of the speech

3. Voting issues are : absolutely necessary

4. The use of jargon or technical language during rebuttals: should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position

overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? Always

necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

Speaking/delivery is important to me. I also greatly appreciate a thoroughly researched, well-documented case. I expect debaters to be respectful of one another at all times.

02/08

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Megan Goss

School - Lee’s Summit West High School

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one)

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40+ varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Megan Goss

School: Lee’s Summit West High School

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for _5__ years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty 2. Twenty to forty 3. Forty to sixty 4. Sixty or more

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

02/08

Policy

Debate is about persuasion, not about speed. If you can't formulate an appropriate argument because you're too busy speeding through 14 cards in an attempt to make sure that your opponent doesn't get to one, then I'm going to be prone to vote more for the person who missed your cards, but actually formulated well developed arguments.

Also, Policy is policy, I'm voting on pre-plan and post-plan worlds along with stock issues.

It takes a lot to get me to vote on a K, especially with many of the underdeveloped and overreaching kritiks people put out. (Not everything ties into your Anti-Cap or Sexism K believe it or not)

L-D and PuF

This isn't policy debate. Don't treat it like such. And Crossfire/Cross examination is a time for questions. Treat it as such. If you make arguments instead of asking questions in the time allotted for such, I'll be ignoring the argument that you make.

I am a student parent.

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 have been a debate coach for 11 years. In policy, I prefer traditional stock issue and policy-maker arguments.

Experience: Policy debate - 4 years of high school 1 year of college

Paradigm: I'm open to most arguments. Debate in the style you're comfortable with. I can handle a bit of speed but I've been away from the activity a while so it might be safer for you to not go as fast as you can. If I can't understand you, I won't flow your arguments. For policy debates, I will default to reasonability on topicality if given no other frameworks.

Feel free to ask any specific questions not covered here before the round.

I don't like speed. Evidence and clear structure are important. I like a clear, easily understandable speaking style.

Traditional style LD, be respectful in the round. If you speak clearly and are not harassing to your opponent, you will be successful.

Overview: I was a policy debater from KCMO circuit with Pembroke (class of '19). Qualified to NSDA Nats in policy.

General: Feel free to run any args you want, as long as it's clear you understand what you're saying. I'll be able to handle it as long as you provide overviews and explanations. I won't vote for an arg without a warrant/impact. Proper impact calc and framing are a must. Quality > quantity. Don't think sending me a speech doc is a reason to stop enunciating. Tech > truth. You should be writing my ballot for me. CLASH IS KEY.

Speed: Speed is fine. I won't bother flowing if you aren't clear. Keep it simple and go down the flow. Pay attention to what I’m doing (having a computer doesn’t mean you can’t make eye contact) eg if I stop flowing.

Affs: I don't have much experience with K affs, but I don't have anything against them. I've always preferred policy affs.

Disads/CPs: Love them. Down for anything (e.g. topical CPs) but be ready to debate theory on it.

T: Spicy stuff. Love a good T debate, as long as args are well warranted. Don't just yell "reasonability" at me.

Theory: Even spicier stuff. But don't just spread blocks to overload your speech.

*Ask if you want to know anything else*

IMPORTANT: I will automatically vote you down if you are rude, disrespectful, yell over your opponents, or act sexist/racist/discriminatory in any sort of way. I believe in morality in debate. Don’t be a horrible person just to win, because you won’t win my ballot.

Overview: Policy debater from KCMO circuit with Pembroke about 1.5 years ago. Qualified to NSDA Nats in policy, but don’t assume I know everything, especially if it’s specific to this year’s resolution, which I haven’t looked at.

General: Feel free to run any args you want, as long as it's clear you understand what you're saying. I'll be able to handle it as long as you provide overviews and explanations. I won't vote for an arg without a warrant/impact. Quality > quantity. Don't think sending me a speech doc is a reason to stop enunciating. Tech > truth. You should be writing my ballot for me. CLASH IS KEY.

Speed: Speed is fine, but keep in mind that computers won't pick up on all of your words if you go too fast. I won't bother flowing if you aren't clear. Keep it simple and go down the flow. Pay attention to what I’m doing (having a computer doesn’t mean you can’t make eye contact). If I stop flowing, it’s because you’re spreading and Zoom is getting angry.

Affs: I don't have much experience with K affs, but I don't have anything against them. I've always prefered policy affs.

Disads/CPs: Love them. Down for anything (e.g. topical CPs) but be ready to debate theory on it.

T: Spicy stuff. Love a good T debate, as long as args are well warranted. Don't just yell "reasonability" at me.

Theory: Even spicier stuff. But don't just spread blocks to overload your speech.

IMPORTANT: I will automatically vote you down if you are rude, disrespectful, yell over your opponents, or act sexist/racist/discriminatory in any sort of way. I believe in morality in debate. Don’t be a horrible person just to win because you won’t win my ballot.

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.

I judge very highly based on speaking. Debate is not just the art of "being right". It is the art of convincing someone, namely me, that you are right. If you have a great flow and argumentation, but speak incredibly fast with no emotional or weighted impacts spoken in a dispassionate tone, ill be more likley to vote for your opponant who spoke better. That is not to say I dont flow, but I do not vote exclusively off of it. It is a balance. You must have good argumentation spoken well. Obviously if you demolish the flow and it is not close I will vote soly based on that. Outside that scenario, however, I vote very highly on speaking. Do not spread or I WILL vote you down.

In congressional debate specifically, I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY discourage one sided debate. If you give the second or third speech on a POL in a row (or motion to open debate on a POL specifically just to give a speech and its the only speech on that side) i will vote you down 

- Current Forensics Coach at Pembroke Hill, 7 years of coaching experience and 7 years of competitive experience between NSDA and Collegiate Speech and Debate

- Flay-lay judge. Lightly flow to follow the debate and issues.

- Moderate-low speed preference.

- Voters in final speeches are appreciated.

- Policy- will vote strongly on issues of topicality and relevance to the debate.

I was a policy debater when I was competing. Speed is fine as long as I can still understand your arguments. Stock issues are important but not the end all be all. I will listen to topicality arguments but will rarely vote for them unless there is true merit to them. The more real life you can make your arguments the better. World impact will always be a big deciding factor for me.

I am primarily a forensics coach who has judged Policy a handful of times. I debated Public Forum in college.

My biggest thing is that you don't spread - if I have to stop flowing because you are going too fast or I am trying to understand what you are saying...you have already lost me and I will default to a policymaker paradigm.

It is important to me as a judge that you are kind to one another - a little sass is okay, but be careful of being hateful or rude to one another. That is not the point of this debate.

I care way more about clarity than speed. I appreciate signposting as a flow judge. Don't spread.

Have fun and be energetic. Let me know that you want to be here.

PSA: Please keep in mind when you use lingo that I've judged 0 debates on the criminal justice topic. I have however read plenty of literature on mass incarceration so I wouldn't worry about talking in depth. I know nothing about the PF and LD resolutions so please take that into account.

For experience, I did policy debate for 4 years at raypec HS, qualified to nationals and state (graduated 2019)

The most coherent and educational debates will be when you:

- Give organized speeches and tell me the order of the offcase/oncase your speech will be covering

- Flow and speak clearly, if you spread then please slow down on the most important parts

- In the last speeches think big picture and think strategically

I would appreciate if you'd send me your speech docs by email/etc. (at jadenalanza@gmail.com). I'm tab rasa, argue whatever you want but as a former missouri debater, I recommend to other missouri debaters to not run a K at NSDA districts unless you are very confident and have 100% confidence in your judges. Please be respectful and stay focused on the substantive debate

(Though if you are good at it please do run the Cap K, also please be smart and do not do this if I'm part of a lay judge panel)

Do not do anything scummy please, I will definitely vote against you if you're clipping (skipping over words in between sentences in your evidence) or if you intentionally lie/misrepresent your evidence egregiously.

I am a huge fan of CP + DA debates. Topicality debates can be fun as well if they're very well argued.

For neg, far and away the easiest way to win my ballot is a CP + DA combo where CP solves 99% of the aff and avoids the disad. For aff, please argue both that the perm avoids the link to the disad and ATTACK THE CP (ie., say the CP doesn't solve the aff advantages and why this is important) if you want to win

If you're going for just DA, talk a ton about impacts and weigh against the aff impacts.

Quick, smart analytical arguments are just about the best thing you can add in your speech. If you're quick on your feet flowing then make a ton of them--number them off, say them quickly, then move on to carded arguments. Attack uniqueness, threshold, link, link UQ, impact UQ, and definitely say the case outweighs every time.

Ignoring/cold dropping arguments is a concession that is virtually impossible to ignore, no matter how dumb the argument dropped is

I am very unsympathetic to arguments like disclosure theory. I think nondisclosure is possibly a good argument as part of topicality if their aff is particularly specious

condo is probably good, running new offcase in the 2nc is very very bad (both for you strategically and for your rank)

I’m a junior at MST but do not debate in college. I did CX for 3 years at Raymore-Peculiar HS outside Kansas City.

Yes I would like to be in the email chain: nick@lanzan.xyz

Fine with speed when I have the speech doc. Make sure to slow down a bit for tags and analytics.

Kritiks - I debated predominately policy, and have only some experience running or facing K’s. You are welcome to run them, but understand I will not be familiar with your literature so your understanding and explanation is key in tags and cross for me to keep on the same page. I will be less inclined to vote if aff can cast doubt on links/uniqueness or the failures of the alt.

K Aff – Very little experience, your framing is going to be crucial for this due to my experience level. Explain your position concisely and I shouldn’t have a problem.

Case – Aff, please don’t use bad evidence. If and when neg decides to take a peak at your cards I will be right with them tearing apart the case from the inside out.

DAs – I dislike extremely generic DAs and prefer specificity to the plan. I need solid links and uniqueness or I’m going to ignore the impacts. If possible establish a clear brightline.

CPs – One of my favorite parts of debate. Competition is key. I will err on the side of conditionality unless abuse can be proven.

T – Only run this if you believe its truly impacting neg ground.

Ultimately some good underviews and impact calculus is where the ballot comes from. I want to vote on probabilities and severity of outcomes.

Did policy for 4 years in HS, judged for 5 years since

Haven't done much judging this year so I'm not super familiar with the topic area

90% Tabula Rasa, with a few exceptions:

Unless told otherwise by the debaters, I will be weighing the status quo vs a world with the aff plan implemented, based on impacts and their likelihood. Stock issues are fine if you want to go with those.

Be reasonable on T. I won't vote on whether substantial really means 20% or 25%, I will vote on it if their case is ridiculously small or off topic.

Big on links (preferably specific) for DA's

Be clear about what your alt is on K's -> tell me clearly if it's the status quo and if not, tell me exactly what the alt is. I won't vote on vague concepts, but I'll seriously consider a well thought out alt.

If Neg reads new args in the 2NC, don't try to convince me that aff isn't allowed to answer them in the 1AR. Also please be reasonable with new args in the 2NC.

No issues with speed, but if you want to throw a bunch of arguments at me they better all be logical. If you read a completely nonsensical DA in 25s with no link and generic extinction impacts then claim in the 2NR that the aff dropped it I probably won't vote on it.

I care very little for quality of presentation, just quality of arguments

I'm good with T, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, Framework, whatever. If you tell me why I should vote on something and provide good arguments for it, I'll vote on it, except when outlined above.

Background:

-I competed in PFD 4 years in the show me district, and would be considered "high flow." I expect competitors to meet a baseline of polish and presentation, after which the round will be decided on the claims, warrants, and impacts I have on the flow.

-Specifically, the round will be decided on who wins the most important 2-3 issues in the round. Not all contentions are equally weighted from the get-go, and both teams will likely mutually drop a few. Bringing those up in the final focus and saying "they dropped X" when you haven't talked about it since your opening speech either will fail to move the needle on the ballot.

Standards of Evidence:

1.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it is impossible for me to leave reason at the door. Claims such as "Affordable housing will lead to nuclear war" are not dispositive per se, but frankly I would be shocked if you had good evidence for it. In such cases, opponents need not have a ready made card against it if they can attack the logic. (and I will be inclined to believe them)

2. In general, pointing out flaws in logic (eg: "opponents have shown correlation, not causation,") is an equally valid form of attack and will go on the flow just as any attack with a card would.

3. Quality evidence>quantity. (Both is ideal, but if you have to choose between nuanced debate over 3 cards vs a skim of 12, I would prefer you do the former.)

4. Kritiks will not fly in a LD round or PFD round, and are unlikely to persuade in a Policy round. Use at your own peril.

5. As mentioned earlier, mutual drops are fine. Trying to resurrect them at the end of the round as a voter will simply be ignored. True drops, where a contention went ignored, and you point that out and make an issue of it, can have a large impact on the ballot. The key is keeping your contention alive by continuing to discuss it even as your opponents don't attack it.

Presentation:

1. Both teams are expected to present their cases in a way an educated and attentive listener can follow without difficulty. Spreading will therefore result in a loss in a PFD or LD round, and is highly discouraged in a Policy round.

2. Lack of signposting won't directly cost a team, but signposting makes flowing, and thereby voting, much easier.

Sportsmanship:

1. There is passion and aggressive pursuit of truth, and then there is bullying. You know the difference. Failure to respect it will result in a round loss.

2. Good luck and have fun!

In General—

Put me on the email chain-- kathrynlipka16@gmail.com

I debated in high school, briefly in college, and have been coaching with Lawrence Free State & Pembroke Hill off and on for 6+ years.

I don't think it is my job as a judge to call for evidence, kick CPs, decide how I should evaluate the debate, etc. It is your job to tell me these things. This means impact calculus plays a significant part in the way I evaluate the round—please do it. I default to moral obligation claims. Warranted extensions or it probably isn’t an extension.

I don’t put up with rudeness, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, or ableism -- these are worthy of losing a ballot and certainly a reason to dock your speaker points.

I expect debaters to do whatever they are best at and/or have the most fun doing in front of me-- debate is not an event for conformity.

My speaker point scale (taken from the KellyThompson):

29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournament

28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation.

Topicality—

If you’re going for T it should be the entire 2NR. If it is not, you’re not doing enough work. I evaluate education and fairness as impacts, so treat them as such. I am more persuaded by education. I am fine with creativity to make the aff topical, but at a certain point would rather you just reject the resolution than squeeze your way into a nonexistent “we meet” arg. I think rejecting the resolution is fine and switch side debate is typically not a winning argument. If you can prove that your education is best in the round I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

DAs—

Specific links pls or be really good at storytelling

CPs—

Generic bad. I think smart and well-developed PICs are a good way to control offense in a debate. Don’t assume doing theory and a perm is enough to get out of the CP. I default to sufficiency framing so I need clear reasons why the aff is more desirable. Blippy word PICs and delay CPs are annoying.

Ks—

Most familiar with neolib/fem/anthro. You need to explain what the alternative does specifically—even if it is inaction. I like to hear “in the world of the alternative…”. I need to know why the aff is uniquely bad. Permutations are always valid, but often poorly executed and cause severance. Severance is probably bad. If I have to do a lot of work just to understand your jargon and what the K is I’m not the judge for you.

Theory—

I have a higher threshold for voting on theory, it needs to be the center of the rebuttal if that is what you want. I almost always view theory as a reason to reject the argument not the team. Obviously, I can be persuaded otherwise. Severance is mostly bad. Condo is mostly good. K’s are not cheating. PICs are good but also sometimes not. Slow down on theory.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name - Jamie Littlepage

School - Blue Springs High School

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team (meh, assistant-ish)

F. Occasionally judge policy debate (This is most accurate)

2. I have judged 6 years of policy debate. I have judged 0-10 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

(cough cough, lay judge)

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 {7} 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

A few well developed 1 2 3 {4} 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable 1 {2} 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 {6} 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 {5} 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

-Signposting

Recaps are your friend.

Avoid the unpleasantness or temptation of condescension.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Jamie Littlepage

School: Blue Springs High School

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

J. Community Judge

L. I have judged LD debate for 6 years.

How many LD rounds have you judged this season?

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- {Typical conversational speed} ---Rapid conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

{2. It is a major factor in my evaluation. }

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

{Yes}

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) {both}

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) {either is acceptable.}

3. Voting issues are

a) {absolutely necessary} or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) {acceptable or}

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. {I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round}

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 { 7 }

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. {I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round. }

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

-Signposting

Recaps are your friend.

Avoid the unpleasantness or temptation of condescension.

Brenden Lucas

He/Him

Senior @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

This is by no means comprehensive, it's just a few highlights to look at when the pairings get blasted.

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State

2X NDT Qualifier

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. But, don't let that sway you from doing what you prefer. Do you and I'll adjudicate it.

If you need to use the restroom or step out of the room you don't have to ask.

Disclaimer for HS Topic: I'm not as active in high school coaching as I was last season, I don't really research or think about the topic all that much so watch your use of jargon.

CPs & DAs

I'm a big fan of CP disad debate, most of my HS 2NRs were CP disad.

The way I evaluate a disad doesn't deviate from the norm. Have all four parts and do impact weighing.

Turns case args are very nice

I'm down with most counter plans, especially agent and process. However, "cheating" counterplans like delay will not jive with me so keep that in mind.

I default to judge kick

T

Competiting interps is better than reasonability

Plan text in a vacuum is cool for me

Theory

Deep in my heart, I think condo is good. But, I'm open for a good condo debate. Tbh I prefer affs that limit the neg to 1 or none as opposed to like 1 and dispo or infinite dispo.

Most theory args are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

K's

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

I have voted for K affs before, FW is not an auto dub, debate well and you shall be rewarded.

Fairness on framework is a good impact imo.

TVAs are legit

"You link you lose" is nonsense. Teams can win by bitting the link and winning independent offense on the alt, so keep that in mind.

Other

If you read death good, I'm auto-voting against you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.

LD & PFD

I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts for these types of debates. I think they are valuable for students but my judging is policy-focused; so just do what you do best and I will judge accordingly.

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.
...

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Nathan Miller

School - Lee's Summit North High School

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged 2 years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one)

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40+ varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in around.
It bothers me when students are deliberately mean or distracting to the other team.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Nathan Miller

School: Lee's Summit North High School

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for 2 years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty 2. Twenty to forty 3. Forty to sixty 4. Sixty or more

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

I'm interested in hearing and seeing professionalism. Arguments and speeches with complete thought and well-researched ideas; and not just regurgitated talking head points. Speakers who are well-spoken, and not rushed, with sources cited.

High School Policy: I was a debater in high school and college with more experience with college-level policy than high school but I do frequently judge high school policy (about 6 years of experience). I haven't judged any high school policy debates this season yet. I mostly consider myself a policymaker judge but that being said I can also be convinced in a round to judge by a more tabula rasa position depending on what metrics are given to me to judge the round by and the clash on those metrics. I'm okay with speed with the understanding that virtually you probably have to slow down more than in-person because more of your speech is lost via glitches, tech issues, etc. I generally prefer quality of arguments over quantity. Communication skills are very important as is keeping the debate organized as it plays out. I rarely vote on topicality unless there is an absurd violation or in-round abuse. I'm cool with counterplans, disads, conditional negative positions. When there are debate theory args or kritik args, I expect a thorough explanation from the team running them instead of a reliance on using the right buzzwords to try and win the argument (in other words there's gotta be real substance if you're running these args). I strongly encourage impact calculus, clear voters, and an organized flow.

High School LD: I've judged high school LD for about 6 years but never participated in it myself. I'm okay with any rate of delivery as long as it is clear and accessible for both debaters. Criterion and values are both very important for my decision as is the clash on these issues. Final rebuttals should have base line-by-line and voting issues (I don't care where the voting issues appear in the speech just clearly signpost them). Voting issues are absolutely necessary. Jargon is cool with me. I would say my decision comes down to both of these things: who is the winner of the key arguments in the round and who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall. I expect the key arguments to made clear to me via voting issues. Evidence is very important to me (empirical and analytical). I keep a rigorous flow (so keep it clear and organized for me!).

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

John Nichols

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate X

2. I have judged __2__ years of policy debate.

I have judged 0-10 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Hypothesis tester

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I encourage a quality debate that includes respect for the other speaker including not speaking outside of your turn first and foremost. I also prefer that debates and crosses stay close to the original argument utilizing strong evidence, along with the practicality of such arguments and don't expound too far off course, even when the debater feels like they may be falling behind in the argument.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

John Nichols

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for _2__ years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season?

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I prefer facts coupled with practicality of execution regarding the debaters position.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Holli Nicholson

School – Summit Chirstian Academy

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

I have never judged a Policy Debate.

2. I have judged __0__ years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one)

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40+ varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I have never judged a Policy round. I am not very familiar with the terminology. I would say that I would expect you to be a good communicator. I don’t mind fast talking as long as you are not using a lot of jargon and technical terms. Again, since I have not judged Policy debate I am not familiar with the terminology. However, to the best of my understanding, I would say that I would view Policy debate through the eyes of a Policymaker or Games-Playing lens.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Holli Nichoslon

School: Summit Christian Academy

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for _0__ years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty 2. Twenty to forty 3. Forty to sixty 4. Sixty or more

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

02/08

I have never judged a Lincoln Douglas debate. I will vote for the person that does the best job of convincing me of their case. I have some exposure to flow.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Zack Nicholson

School – Summit Chirstian Academy

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

I have never judged a Policy Debate.

2. I have judged __0__ years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one)

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40+ varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I have never judged a Policy round. I am not very familiar with the terminology. I would say that I would expect you to be a good communicator. I don’t mind fast talking as long as you are not using a lot of jargon and technical terms. Again, since I have not judged Policy debate I am not familiar with the terminology. However, to the best of my understanding, I would say that I would view Policy debate through the eyes of a Policymaker or Games-Playing lens.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Zack Nicholson

School: Summit Christian Academy

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for _0__ years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty 2. Twenty to forty 3. Forty to sixty 4. Sixty or more

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

02/08

I have never judged a Lincoln Douglas debate. I will vote for the person that does the best job of convincing me of their case.

Vishesh Patel (Pronounced Vish - Aysh) *updated as of March 21

email: vipatel67@gmail.com

Debate experience: I debated Policy for 4 years at Pembroke Hill and graduated in May of 2017. I'm currently a student at Washington University in St. Louis doubling in Computer Science and Healthcare Management and plan on attending WashU's masters in CS program for the 2021-2022 academic school year.

I'm a Flow judge, I will be flowing your round. I'll briefly outline what I want to see from Aff/Neg.

For both teams: Feel free to talk fast but don't start spreading, I was never really a fan of the concept. Also, I'll vote on whatever you choose to make voting issues and I'll also consider impact calculus. Make sure to cover the flow as best as you can! Make sure to roadmap before speeches and be organized for yourselves, for your opponents, and for me as well.

Aff: I want to see you extend your advantages and case across the flow whenever you can and make sure to do impact calculus because I'll be weighing the impacts of the Aff vs. Neg scenarios in my decision.

Neg: I know this topic is a bit harder to run generic offcase on, but I want to see as healthy a mix as possible of offcase v case specific arguments in your constructives. I've seen Neg teams pretty much only run case, and they end up losing because the Aff 9/10 times will be prepared for those attacks and win on impact calc. Don't run any weirdly overly complex K's (you can still run K's of course just), but otherwise feel free to run anything you feel would strategically make sense, just debate it well.

Overall, I'll vote on the arguments left standing at the end of the debate and will let the debaters guide me through what's important in the round. Make sure everything is structured properly and also to extend/point out drops for me.

Last thing - be proud of yourself for participating in this activity. You may not realize it now, but you have built up lots of communication, argumentation, and presentation skills that a lot of people do not have. It's going to help you out so much in interviews and life in general, I promise. The second thing, be proud of yourself for doing this during a pandemic. It's definitely weird and different, and you should be proud of yourself for adjusting and being able to compete like this. If you're a debater I'm going to judge in a round, I'm looking forward to seeing your round and regardless of the outcome, you rock and I wish you the best going forward.

1. Experience with LD debate: Community Judge

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

B. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? No

C.Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? No

3. How important is the criterion in making your decision? It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

A. Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes

4. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

A. Final rebuttals should include: Voting issues

B. Voting issues should be given: at the end of the final speech, or .

C. Voting issues are: not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is: acceptable

5. How do you decide the winner of the round? I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

6. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? Always necessary

7. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round: I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

1. Your experience with policy debate: Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate: 0-10 years

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate: stock issues

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY: 7

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS: 4

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES: 6

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: 3

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS : 2

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS: 5

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS: 3

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name: Delaney Pummill

School - Lee's Summit West HS

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Coach of a team

B. NDT Policy debater in college

C. CEDA Debater in college

D. Policy debater in HS

E. Frequently judge policy debate

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged 5 years of policy debate. I have judged (circle one)

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40+ varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

A. Current LD coach

B. Former LD coach

C. Former LD competitor

D. Summer LD instructor

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

G Collegiate policy debater

H. Current Public Forum coach or judge

I. Speech Coach

J. Community Judge

K. No LD experience

I have judged LD debate for 5 years. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty 2. Twenty to forty 3. Forty to sixty 4. Sixty or more

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes / No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes / No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes / No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

I recently graduated college where I was one of the debate captains. Ive done debate for about 6 years, i have competed and understand all forms of debate. But I'm also down for critical theory, have some fun in the round. Don't tailor your debate style to me, just debate how you debate. I am a very straight forward flow judge. That being said if you don't have impacts and do impact calc I cant vote for you.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Michael Russell

School - Lee’s Summit North

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. travel Coach of a team

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged _8___ years of policy debate.

I have judged only 2 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference): faster is fine. There’s a lot to say.

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS I prefer a few well argued and defended arguments to the Costco-sized jumble of random arguments.

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: more often than not; I prefer topicality over theory

8. COUNTERPLANS: Acceptable if well planned and defended

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES tend to make me think you don’t have a solid specific argument to a case. I lean heavily toward not liking GENERIC disads.

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS Personal preference is to stay away from debate theory and stay with topicality

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS I view these as slightly more acceptable than generic disads, but use them sparingly and with precision.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

Highlight your research. Cards are very important, especially up-to-date citations.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Michael Russell

School: LSN

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

J. Community Judge

L. I have judged LD debate for _8__ years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Rapid conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep. There’s a lot to say and we have limited time.

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep and don’t catch the arguments.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

b) line-by-line analysis, or

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

3. Voting issues are

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Always necessary 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I’m a librarian and believe your cards -- quality, effective research from trusted sources -- can make or break your case. Highlight your research. If you’ve got cards that help prove your point, use them.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

POLICY DEBATE

Name: Nafkot Seife

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

D. Policy debater in HS

2. I have judged 0 years of policy debate.

I have judged 0 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in around.

- Respect is important to me therefore attaching someone's character rather than their argument will be considered.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE

Name: Nafkot Seife

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

F. Former Policy debater

K. No LD experience

L. I have judged LD debate for 0 years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes/No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

Yes/No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision. ,

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes/No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

a) voting issues or

b) line-by-line analysis, or

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

b) at the end of the final speech, or

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

a) absolutely necessary or

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

b) unacceptable, or

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Not necessary---------------------Sometimes necessary------------------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

- Respect is important to me therefore attaching someone's character rather than their argument will be considered.

I am Amanda, a former Lincoln-Douglas debater and National Qualifier. I have about 6 years experience in judging all forms of debate and will maintain a rigorous flow regardless of the type of debate. Below, I have included my judge philosophy cards for Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. In short, I will vote on key issues in the round (whatever they may be!) and the substance of the arguments made. I absolutely prefer few, very well-developed arguments rather than a ton of arguments. I will put personal beliefs and biases aside and vote on what you tell me are the most important issues in the round. Communication skills are important, but I will never make a decision based on them alone. I do not have a preference on speed of delivery, though I prefer that true speed-reading is kept to a minimum for the sake of everyone in the round.

NFL POLICY DEBATE JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

1. Your experience with policy debate:

Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged (6) years of policy debate. I have judged (0-10) varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

My attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY - Anywhere from 1 - 7

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS - I prefer a few, well developed arguments

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES - 6, issues are more important, though communication skills are weighed heavily

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: 5 (If it is a key issue, sure!)

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS : 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS: 1 (acceptable and always appreciated)

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

Former LD competitor, Experienced LD judge

L. I have judged LD debate for (6) years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season?

Fewer than twenty

2. My attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? 4

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization

1. Final rebuttals should include voting issues

2. Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow or at the end of the final speech

3. Voting issues are

absolutely necessary

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable

D. How do you decide the winner of the round?

I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? Often necessary

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

I keep a rigorous flow

In my daily life, I am a federal constitutional lawyer. Presenting your argument in such a manner that a layman can understand a topic they may not have researched is very important. Speaking skills are key. Know your audience and present your argument/case how you think it is most appropriate.

I am not a technical debate person. I listen as a lay person and make judgements bases on convincing arguments and clear, smooth and understandable speaking.

Hi. My name is Helene Slinker. I am the assistant coach at Raytown South High School in Raytown, Missouri.

In high school, I competed in public forum debate, congressional debate, original oratory, and occasionally U.S. extemp for four years. In college, I competed in policy debate in the NDT-CEDA circuit for two years.

Policy

Policy debate is, largely, a question of impacts. When making a decision, I first look at who had the biggest impact and then evaluate who accesses their impact better. The most important thing for you to do is impact calc/impact weighing.

Speed - I can follow speed. Make sure you're clear on the tagline but you can probably go as fast as you want. I may tell you if you're going too fast or too unclear for me to follow. In general, speaking skills are not a priority to me in comparison to quality of argumentation.

T and Theory - I will vote on topicality, but remember that a topicality argument must have structure. You need an interpretation, violation, standards and voters for topicality to be a viable argument. Make sure you invest time in topicality or theory if you want me to vote on it.

CPs - They are fine, I don't have any strong thoughts. I don't really care either way on conditionality, you need to make sure to invest time on it if you are going for a theory argument.

DAs - DAs are fine, I have no issue with "generic disadvantages." It's all about getting to an impact and outweighing.

Ks - I don't mind Ks. I have some experience running and debating against Ks in college. I don't have an incredibly in depth knowledge of all literature bases though, if you are running something very out of the blue you may want to explain heavily.

K affs - K affs are fine (I have some experience running one) and I will also consider and vote on framework. Whatever is put in front of me, I'll evaluate. Both sides have equal chances to win a framework vs K aff debate.

Other thoughts and pet peeves:

A priority for me is organization. A big pet peeve is when late rebuttals are messy and all over the place. Also, please, split the block!

When you're extending arguments, make sure you're clear about the argument, not just the author.

Please, be nice! I really hate judging mean debates and I will give you bad speaker points if you're mean to the other team. You can be aggressive without being mean.

LD

I did LD for one year, my freshman year of high school. I don't like when people get caught up in the evidence line by line rather than weighing value and vc against each other. The most successful LD teams take their opponents value and prove why they access it more.

Speed - See policy paradigm, I'm fine with it but be clear. Rate of delivery/speaking skills does not weigh heavily in my decision. I will flow the debate just as I would a policy debate.

Evidence vs Values - Values are more important, evidence is encouraged but remember what it is all in support of.

PFD

I did PFD for four years in high school but since doing policy in college my perspective has changed somewhat. PFD can often be confusing to follow. I will flow the debate and vote solely on arguments. Although every speech should be doing impact comparison, the last speech should especially focus on clearing up the remaining offense and defense into a coherent ballot.

I debated at Emporia High School (in Kansas) from 2009-2013. I won the Kansas State 4-Speaker Championship in 2013, made it to CFL national quarterfinals in 2013, and went 10 rounds at NFL (now NSDA I guess) nationals in 2013. I also won a state championship in Informative Speaking in 2012.

I coached debate and forensics from 2013-2015 at Emporia High School and then Olathe North High School. I also debated a ~small~ amount in college for Emporia State University and Kansas City Kansas Community College.

After that, I moved to Omaha, NE where there isn't really a lot of debate, so I've been out of the activity for a while. So I am so sorry I know this is annoying but please don't spread. I used to do it, I understand why you want to do it, but even in high school I couldn't really understand people reading fast and now as an adult I'm pretty sure I have sensory processing issues so I just literally will not be able to understand you if you go too fast. It is nice to go slow though! It will help you more in real life, and if you have to rely on making a ton of arguments to win then you're probably not actually learning to be persuasive.

Otherwise, as a debater, I did it all - straight-up policy, a bit of K debate, a ~tiny~ bit of performance stuff in college. But it's seriously been so long since I've been involved in debate that it's probably best to treat me like a lay judge. In general though, I am familiar enough with plenty of different arguments, theories, philosophies, authors, government departments, policies, politicians, etc.

And in case what I do in real life helps at all, I'm a graduate student getting my Master's in Urban Studies with a minor in Geography, and my undergraduate degree was in Political Science, English, and Biology. My graduate research focus is on the housing system. I am super active in community organizing work, especially the tenant/housing movement. I'm an active member of my local tenants union as well as the national Autonomous Tenants Union Network. I also host a podcast (I know, I'm annoying) called Tenants United Podcast. You can check out all those orgs/podcast if you want to see what my general political ideology is, but you don't have to cater to me. Just win the debate. :)

So ANYWAY, a lot of things from debate were really helpful in preparing me for my life outside of debate, but the competition/speed/anxiety of arguing all the time was NOT helpful. So y'all should debate how you want to debate, but just know that actual education and persuasive skills are what I personally would want to see students getting from their time in debate. (This is not an argument about theory or topicality though, again, debate how you want - it's just my general inclination which hopefully is helpful!)

Of course if you have any questions, ask. :)

Debate:

- I would like to see:

- Money saved

- lives saved

- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers

- Not a huge fan of spreading

- I love seeing new ideas

- Love seeing on case attacks as well

IE Forensics:

- I'm looking for the following

- Your own interpretation of the literature

-Good Memorization

- Understanding of the character

- Understanding of the entire literally selection

- Good characterization

- Projection

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name: Austin Steeley

School - Raytown South High School

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

* Assistant Coach of a team

* Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged __3__ years of policy debate.

I have judged 0-10 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference)

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS ( No preference)

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES (6)

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: (5)

8. COUNTERPLANS (5)

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES (2)

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS (2)

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS (8)

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS (4)

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

"I tend to vote for the team that best proves their side with evidence."

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

* Assistant Current LD coach

* Experienced LD judge

* I have judged LD debate for _3__ years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? Fewer than 20.

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

c) both.

2. Voting issues should be given

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable or

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Always necessary

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

I am a previous PFD debater, but I have been judging all types of debate for 4 years. In any debate, the most important thing is that your arguments make sense and that it’s clear you understand your argument and not just simply reading evidence. Speed is not a huge point to me, just make sure I can understand you, especially since we are online.

I decide the winner based on who overall persuaded me of their side and who had the better arguments of the round.

I will be keeping a detailed flow.

I am a forensics coach. I have judged all debates for over 10 years now. I competed in PFD when I was in high school in 2010. I will not be taking a rigorous flow. I will take notes and focus on the big arguments of the round and keep track of who is winning the largest points of clash in the round. I do value public speaking and persuasion, but do not judge based solely on that. I am OK with speed, but you must have clear diction and articulation.

Open to any specific questions.

- former college debater & grad assistant coach (NPDA, IPDA, Discussion, Worlds, PF)

POLICY DEBATE:

- not a fan of speed / spreading the opponent out of the round. Quality over quantity, persuade me. SLOW DOWN when you read your plan.

- debate is an educational activity first, and I will vote on fairness/ education voters if they arise

- prefer stock issues over K debate

- PIC's are rarely persuasive to me. I will vote aff on the perm 95% of the time if neg runs a PIC.

- CP shifts presumption. If you are running a CP, it needs to be competitive or I will not vote for it.

- T should be used to check aff, and not as a time suck. Really not a fan of clearly throw away arguments.

- IMPACT CALCULUS. Please. Weigh the aff world and the neg world, and do the work of comparing them for me.

- this is the first tournament I have heard this topic this year, but I do have a B.S. in Criminal Justice (grad. 2016) if that's information that would be helpful to you.

LD/ PF:

- Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case) After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don't in a speech, I do not like that.

- Framework : Establish a clear framework for the debate and come back to that FW frequently. If you don't provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.

- Extensions : don't just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and compare your impacts. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team. Extend dropped arguments asap. Don't wait until your last speech to bring up subpoint E that hasn't been talked about for the whole debate.

- Evidence : prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round.

- Narrative : Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case. **Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don't know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning. This is a communication event.

- this is the first tournament I have heard either topic.

ALL DEBATE:

- Not a fan of speed. I can handle most speed even though I don't like it. If it is too fast, I will say clear up to 2x. If you don't slow down, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. If something isn't on my flow, it's likely not going to be taken into consideration when I make my decision.

- Flow judge - So PLEASE provide clear verbal organization for me during your speech.

- I only pull up documents that are shared if there is evidence that I need to check. I flow the round based on what is said in the round. Don't depend on me reading and re-reading your case to understand it and make the arguments for you- you should present it in a way that I can understand it, and that persuades me.

- I will call for a card to check if (1) a piece of evidence is contested, (2) a piece of evidence is uncontested, but relevant to a key issue in the round, or (3) there seems to be a misunderstanding from both sides about what the card actually says (#3 is for feedback to the teams only, and will not effect my decision)

- In your rebuttals, tell me exactly where to vote. I'm a fan of "Judge, pull [the internal link/ framework/ subpoint B] through and put a star by it. You're voting for aff/ neg here because XYZ".

This is my FIRST time judging virtually, over webcam.

Competed successfully in LD and CX debates in Show Me district during high school years. Experienced judge at invitational, NSDA districts, and MSHSAA district competitions in Missouri and Texas. Speed is fine if I can understand you. Note: I did NOT compete in debate in college, although I hold Bachelor's and Master's degrees.

Topicality matters. If you are debated, and accordingly deemed, to be a non-topical affirmative, you cannot win the round--even if you are the best speakers in the room. Smooth talkers can still lose a debate on the facts discussed.

Not a big fan of Kritiks, but if you run it very well--and it is convincing--you might win my ballot.

CX specific: Inherency matters. There must be firm, legitimate reason(s) why status quo does not contain your plan.

Name: Elaine Whitfield

School: Summit Christian Academy

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

K. No LD experience

I have judged LD debate for 0 years. This is only my second time judging a debate competition

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Slow, conversational style

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

Yes

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

Not enough experience to answer this question

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

No

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

both voting issues and line-by-line analysis

2. Voting issues should be given

c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are

?

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Sometimes necessary

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater's case.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I'm completely new to this, so I'm not quite sure how I will judge. Convince me you're right!

1. As a judge, It is a priority of mine to not let bias and predisposed opinions of topics to influence how I judge a competitor. I do not want to award winners just because I agreed with their side beforehand. Fairness comes from a clean slate beforehand and a newfound opinion after the round. I value the the time and effort you put in to debate such challenging topics so I try my best to be someone that really trusts and listens to what you say.
2. I value respect over anything. Respect the judge of course, but also respect your opponent. Losing a round is not worth an attitude of disrespect. I have seen too many rounds recently where people talked over the other and it got ugly. I do not like that. Also remember, this is something that should be considered fun. Enjoy yourselves.
3. it is often thought of to take debate as way more serious than it should be. Humor, puns, and side jokes are ideal. I get bored if it’s all talk and no games. Give a joke or two. Even if other jokes do not like this, it makes it more lively for me.
4. paint me a picture. As a future lawyer, I need to see a picture and a concrete image of your plan and ideas rather than having to try to imagine something in my mind. That makes me get lost in the “what if’s” and “could be‘s.
5. Imagine yourself as a policy maker or politician rather than debate competitor. Convince me that you know how to get the job done and that you know what you are talking about. It is more convincing than talking like a student trying to win a debate competition.
6. Refer to me as “judge”. I am nice, you can make conversation with me. I love meeting competitors and hearing about what they do because it is something that I used to do.
7. pace of speaking is a huge part of how I judge. If you talk too fast, I get lost. A little goes a long way when you keep your pace under control.
8. Snark is okay, don’t be a jerk, please.

9. Know and understand your evidence. Become an expert of it.
10. Prove to me that there ARE flaws and that you CAN fix them.

I competed all four years in high school predominately in public forum and international extemporaneous. I am currently in law school at UMKC and appreciate well organized and well reasoned arguments. I have the most judging experience with public forum and Lincoln Douglas. I really don't enjoy judging policy, mostly because I didn't actually learn how to do it when I was in high school. I flow everything, and proper flow coverage plays a big role in my decision making (note: flowing is one of the reasons why I don't enjoy policy because I don't know how to best flow, despite it being explained to me numerous times, so I kinda just do my own thing and hope that arguments are covered). I also take speaking ability and presentation into consideration because I think that is critical in establishing a convincing argument. Don't be a jerk, but I also don't hate a little spiciness. most of all just have fun and enjoy these rounds because you will miss it a lot when it's gone.

My name is Will Wood, I was a 4 year high school debater with experience primarily in Puff and policy. I recently graduated from Truman State University with a History degree and am now working on my masters in education. As for my judging standards, I recognize I am a bit out of the loop (especially when it comes to policy). For the most part I will try and remain Tabula Rasa as best as possible while also maintaining my own love of logic and statistics. I will be flowing during the rounds, but as I am 4 years rusty, be prepared to emphasize the flow for me incase I missed something. For Puff especially I find value in some emotionally based arguments and evidence, but they should not be the entire basis of a case. Overall, I am just looking forward to getting back into debate and will try to value what you as the debater tell me I should value.

I've judged various kinds of debate for 13 years.

I don't like it when debaters talk really fast and I usually don't follow most of it when they do. Trying to get more in by taking fast won't help the debate, I would rather they slow down and make less points more meaningful.

I have very little tolerance for debaters who are rude to each other or disrespectful to me as a judge. Good sportsmanship is a must. Debates are so much more fun to watch when the participants are civil :)

I decide a winner based on whoever does the better debating, not based on what I think about a particular issue. So saying, "For these reasons and many more, I urge a ___ vote on today's ballot." will not help. I don't judge anything that isn't said in the round, only the points the debaters actually make.