I am looking for clearly stated factual evidence. Teams must remain professional and under no circumstances use any personal attacks for any gains. I must be able to understand what is said, even knowing there is a time limit. If I cannot understand what is said, I cannot take notes and form a proper judgment. There must be formal attire and opponents cannot make eye contact with one another when stating evidence or arguing points. I will not tolerate any harsh or demeaning tones when responding to the opponents.

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

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

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 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).

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.

- 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Hello!

My name is Christopher Rosado, and I would like explain my background and paradigm as a forensics judge. I competed in High School forensics in both speech categories & debate, competing in nationals and the MO state competition in 2009. I take great joy in watching competitors practice and apply the skills needed for forensics today. The current change of format, from live to digital, is a huge advantage, I believe, for today's competitors. It is my goal as a judge in 2020, to believe in a competitor's ability to adapt to changes, and use them to create an even more compelling, persuasive, or entertaining product. I have seen first hand the opportunities that speech & debate can lead to when competitors equip the skills they gain here, in their adult lives. Coaches can provide long lists of successful careers that began with a skill set learned through forensics. I see the greatest potential in each young competitor that steps up to speak, and I strive to provide feedback and fair judgement to foster that potential.

Given my background, when watching speech/debate, my focus often lies in communication technique, performance craft, and overall technique and skill within the event/style. Two ancillary attributes that draw my attention in a speaker are: novelty and innovation. In debate rounds, I reserve focus for the argument flow and take necessary notes in order to help evaluate overall argument technique. Nevertheless, I still take notice of speech and communication skill as it pertains to the debate. I personally, have been in the position of the competitor, and I understand the entire range of events and debate formats offered at tournaments. Simultaneously, I have seen the application of speech skills in a variety of professional industries in which the skillset compliments, and I know the changes that speakers can make to further advance those important skills. At a forensics tournament, we are fulfilling both of these pursuits: to compete in the present, and to prepare for the future. I am always open to questions or necessary changes. I look forward to seeing and hearing great speakers in the 2020-21 season.

Best luck to all!

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.

As a judge I look for who has the more complete argument and successfully refuted the opponent. Ensuring that the judge has complete understanding of the debate style and arguments is crucial.

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.

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.

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.

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.