My paradigm for judging:

Decorum required at all times.

Do not yell at me- We are in a small room and I don't need you to yell to get your point across. I have been involved in Speech and Debate for 20 years- I competed in debate and interp in middle school, high school, and collegiate level. I have been coaching this activity for 8 years. I like cool, calm, collected- not loud and chaotic.

I will flow the round- if I don't look up often, I am not ignoring you- just listening and checking the flow.

Your job is to present ideas, arguments, and rebuttals in a professional manner. Debaters should educate the judges, and have thorough background knowledge of the topic. You should also have fun- show off your hard work and represent your school/state well!

Please do not use full prep time if you do not need it! It is a waste of time to run out the clock if you are ready to speak.

Excited to judge your round!

About Me

Hiya! My name is Stevi Kay. I am a Kickapoo Speech & Debate alumni and an aspiring debate coach. During my time in debate, I competed in nearly every event SWMO debate offers. My personal favorite events were LD, POI, OO, and INFO.

Judging Debate

Please have a copy of your cases available to me.

Despite my debate history, I am not your 'traditional' flow judge. I avoid spending a lot of my time on the flow because a) a good debater should be able to convince even a non-flowing judge of the superiority of their arguments and b) because I want to let your public speaking skills shine.

Speed - Please do not sacrifice your skills to read faster. I do not care how many cards you read, I care how well you explain and argue the ones you do. If you read too fast, I will ask you to slow down.

Volume - Speak up! I am here to hear you and your arguments.

Value - I love to weigh values as much as the next guy, but do not make it the entire debate.

Topicality - Unless the case is obviously untopical, I'd rather not listen to a T debate.

K - Unless you know it like the back of your hand, do not run a Kritik.

Abuse - Please do not call something abusive unless it really is abuse.

Attitude - If you have a bad/smug attitude, I will dock you and I absolutely will make a note on your ballot.

Judging Speech

In speeches, I love comedy and cleverness.

In OO, INFO, IX, and DX I will judge on : speech structure, flow, and overall presentation.

In POI, DI, HI, and DUO I will judge on : blocking, flow, emotion, and impact. Particularly in DI and Dramatic POI, the impact is very important. I want to feel your character.

Can't Wait

I can't wait to judge you today! Speech and Debate really is my first love. I am not here to judge you, not really. Speech & Debate is about education, my role as your judge is to help you learn how to improve your public speaking skills by offering feedback. If you ever have questions for me, you are welcome to reach out to me.

Good Luck,

Stevi Kay

(This is my PF paradigm. For other debates, a lot of this is applicable, but I will always vote on quality analysis and speaking. Just be persuasive, and you're good.)

About Me

Hi, I’m John! I debated all 4 yrs of high school (class of 2020 baby), starting in policy and then senior year switching to PF. With that in mind, I switched to PF for a reason; please don’t give me PTSD. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in US Extemp junior year and was a National Semifinalist in USX senior year, so speaks and quality analysis are my highest priorities when judging your round. I’ll go into much more detail later in the paradigm, though.

My Judging Process

I use a Microsoft Excel document that evaluates each speaker based on speaking, analysis, and CX. Speaking and analysis both make up 40% of the score individually, and CX makes up 20% of the score. This isn’t the only thing I use when making my decision, but it is how I give out speaker rankings and does have a large impact on my evaluation of persuasion, from a (relatively) objective standpoint. Above all, I vote on persuasion. Sometimes it lines up with the flow, sometimes the excel doc, sometimes both, and sometimes neither. It really depends on the round, but if you are persuasive to the best of your ability, that is all I ask of you.

What I look for in each portion of the debate Constructive

Really, all I look for here is that you speak well and have pristine analysis. You (hopefully) spent a while writing this case and perfecting it, so I am expecting that it has no lapses in logic and everything is fully warranted/impacted out.

Rebuttal

This speech needs to be focused on attacking your opponent’s case, but I’m cool with 2nd rebuttal frontlining if they want to. If not, I won’t count it as a drop just yet. If you do frontline, just make sure it is not the focus of your speech.

Summary

This speech needs to be primarily frontlining, but at the same time, it is called the “summary” for a reason, so this speech should begin to tie everything together. If that means collapsing, that’s fine. BUT, know that if you do collapse, it could hurt you depending on your opponent’s response.

Final Focus

This speech needs to be all weighing through whatever method you prefer. Voters are fine, line-by-line works (as long as you tell me why arguments are important), really whatever, as long as you substantiate each impact and tell me why it’s important.

CX

Keep clarification questions to an absolute minimum. If you lead your opponent into a trap, you gain major respect and will gain points on CX. However, if they see the trap coming and can escape it/turn it against you, the same will happen for them. Don’t yell, but at the same time, don’t seem disinterested. Confidence is key to persuasion, but don’t be overbearing/condescending. Your speaks will go down.

My thoughts on debating styles/analysis Speed

Absolutely do not spread. You will lose points in the speaker section of my analysis. Speaking quickly is fine, but be aware that I will not flow it if I can’t understand it or if it’s too fast. Ultimately, efficiency shows ultimate debate maturity. Persuasion should be the main goal of your speaking, not getting everything in. If you persuade me, you’ve done your job. If you spit a bunch of evidence at me, I will wipe it off and ignore it. This all boils down to one simple rule: if you’re concerned that you’re too fast, slow down.

Progressive Arg’s (K’s, theory, CPs)

K’s – It REALLY has to be convincing. I have no clue how to “properly” evaluate a Kritik, so beware of my inexperience. If you are not 100% convincing (which is virtually impossible with this style of debate), you are wasting my time, your time, and your opponent’s time.

Theory – Theory is fine ONLY if you tell me why it’s important and don’t let it take over the debate. If theory takes over the debate, you lose BIG on analysis.

CP’s – Don’t run CP’s. If you run one, I will ignore it and lower your analysis score. Instead, if you can prove that something will happen in the SQ (without voting pro), you’re good. I actually like those arguments.

Ad hominem attacks

My rule of thumb is “don’t be a jerk.” Any ___-ism / offensive comments will hurt you significantly. If you are kind, you’re golden.

Flow vs. Lay

I prefer lay debate because I believe debate is about persuasion, not necessarily the nitty-gritty. However, a lot of times, if you are persuasive, that entails you win on the flow. So, I will be keeping a “flow,” but keep in mind I won’t vote based on it alone. I will, however, vote more on flow later in a tournament (elim rounds) because the persuasion really should be there at that point in the tournament.

Tech vs. Truth

I always prioritize truth. Just because you might put 20 responses on their case doesn’t mean they are quality or persuasive at all. However, if they are, you basically win on truth, so ur good.

Clarity of arguments

This might be the most important thing in the debate. If you are not clear, consistent, and refined, you will lose on both speaks and analysis. Use summary and final focus to drive in each detail of your arguments. If you are confusing there, you may as well concede the debate.

Evidence ethics

Indicts are fine, but if there is an indict, I will ask for pertinent evidence flashed/emailed/whatever to me after the round. If I find that you falsified evidence, not only will you lose that argument, but I will consider dropping you entirely and reporting you to tournament directors.

Pacing

PLEASE, don’t wait until the last minute to respond to an argument. Frontlining in summary is perfectly fine, but after that, ur done for. More specifically, onto pacing within your speeches: SIGNPOST. If you don’t, I have no idea what you’re talking about, and you lose big on clarity. Also, grace periods do not exist. If you go over time, not only will anything you say not get on the flow, but it will eat into your prep time as well. During cross, if the question is asked before 3:00 on the clock, you can answer it, but the answer better be concise.

Language

Please be professional. Jokes are fine as long as they make sense and actually make me laugh. But don’t let the round get too casual. Saying “judge” in any of your speeches immediately removes 0.1 points from the evaluation. The debate is about persuasion, not about a winner or a loser. Please don’t use big words unnecessarily. It’s pretentious. Swearing will deduct 1 point from the evaluation. Keep it clean.

Prep time

I score prep too. Using less prep gives you big points. You can work on your feet and don’t need to rely on extra time. ALSO, the team that spoke second will get fewer points on this since they get ~10 minutes of extra prep time during their partner’s speeches/cross.

Framework

If your logic makes sense, I might vote on it. If not, you’re wasting my time. I’m not very big on the debaters dictating the ballot (obviously, since I’m the one judging), but if it's legit, then it's legit.

Key Takeaways

Analysis and clarity are the biggest things I will vote on. A debate is about persuasion, especially public forum. Also, if you can pronounce my last name correctly, you get a bonus speaking point for reading my paradigm (it is pronounced like George-ee-AHH-dis).

Please put me on the email chain-chasity.hance@mjays.us

Note- Some of the things written here are for our local circuit and may not apply.

These are just my thoughts on how a debate looks/is won. However, just because I don't think about debate the same way you do does not mean you won't win my ballot. Just tell me why I should be voting there.

I have a diversity of experience as a debater, judge and coach. If you have questions, just ask.

Affirmatives
I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. I understand the need to read a non-plan based affirmative (I read a project and have coached a team who read one), however I can be easily swayed by theory/topicality debates in such a situation. Be ready to explain why your project/movement/ etc is important or apriori.

Affirmatives shouldn't wait until the 2AC to explain the plan's actions.

Topicality
I am not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates, with that being said if the affirmative is not topical then it is smart to prove such.

However I will vote on topicality if the negative is winning the position, even if I think the affirmative is topical.

If you are going for topicality you need to actually go for it, not just throw it in the 2NR on hopes that I will vote on it. If you aren't focusing the 2NR on T, then it is really just a waste of your limited time.

Being Negative
I am pretty okay with just about any strategy. If a debater is going for a kritikal position, they need to be ready to explain the literature. You should be more well read on the literature than I am, and ready to discuss how they operate. If you can't explain the K to me or still debate on the line by line, there is a high chance you won't win my ballot.

I prefer a thought out strategy compared to a bunch of positions, when most of them are not viable 2NR choices. I don't see the value in reading positions that can't be winnable, why waste your time?

Pet Peeves
Don't be rude or hateful to one another. Whether this be in prep time, in speech, and especially during cross examination. Being rude is not the appropriate way to show that you win the round, in all reality it makes you look like you are losing. Being offensive is a good way to lose a ballot.

If you are paperless, you need to be providing evidence (whether through email, flashdrive, etc) in a timely and efficient manner. If you are taking forever to do such, you probably need to take more prep time. You should be providing organized speech docs. As the receiver of doc you should still be flowing not just reading ahead.

In a virtual world everyone needs to be efficient at sharing the evidence, remember that comes out of YOUR prep time. I suggest dropping speeches before you begin your speech if not you will have to use your prep if the other team asks for it. There is a difference between prep time and tech time, don't try to steal prep during tech time.

Respect the norms and customs of the circuit you are debating within. Lots of types of debate are good, but if you have the opportunity to debate in a community/circuit that you are not typically part of it is your responsibility to understand the way that circuit works. Creating the debate space as an opportunity for others to not participate is completely unacceptable. This could be within your own circuit or not. This all goes back to being kind and respectful.

Bottom Line

I will always evaluate the debate on offense and defense and impact comparisons that are drawn by YOU THE DEBATER. Don't make me do that work for you, it might not turn out in your favor.

Have impacts. Weigh those impacts.

Debate is good. Debate is educational. Debate is fun. Make sure everyone is able to achieve these things in the round.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q- Can I spread?

A- Go for it. Just be understandable. If you aren't clear, slow down a tad.

Q- Open Cross?

A- Go for it, but I don't like when one partner controls every cross x. Your speaks will probably suffer because of it

Q- How do I boost my speaks?

A- Being clear, making smart strategy positions, being kind, being actually funny/witty

**LD Paradigm**

I am fine without whatever approach you choose to take to Lincoln Douglas debate. I have taught traditional value style debate, and have been around college NFA LD.

As you can see from my above paradigm, I have more experience with policy debate. That may help guide your decisions in a progressive Lincoln Douglas Round.

I have judged both progressive and tradition LD.

I am a pretty open book and will judge however I am told to. I default to weighing impacts.

I am a lay judge and will not listen to spreading in debate events.

During IEs such as Prose/Poetry drama and entertainment is important. Speak with personality and gusto. Make me believe in what you are saying.

In extemp be clear and show me that you understand the topic

For OO teach me something new or show me a new side of something familiar.

For all events be respectful to your competitors and have fun!

Preferred pronouns are he/him

Email address: dustinharris1357@gmail.com

I am new to judging debate, so please be slow.

Policy: No theory arguments, and try to keep it more traditional. You can run cp's, but no kritiks and complicated arguments. Also don't run any extinction impacts.

Puf: go slow, and don't be rude in cx.

LD: Just go slow and don't stumble over your words.

POLICY:

Experience/Background

Former high school policy debater at Central High School in Springfield, Missouri (graduated in May 2019). Attended camp at MSDI (Missouri State Debate Institute) in 2016.

Topics I've debated: domestic surveillance, China, education, immigration.

Achievements: Second in State (2019), top 40 in Nation at NSDA Nationals (2019)

Preferences

Overview: Think of me as a flay (flow-lay) judge. I'll vote on DAs, CPs, Ks if explained well, solvency deficits, T, and even inherency if it's made big enough of an issue.

DAs/Case: This is where I'd prefer most of the debate takes place. I like link stories that make sense and can be clearly explained. I think a lot of value can come from the more traditional style of policy (case attacks and stock issues), but I'd like it if most of the clash was centered on impact calc and world comparisons: tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

CPs: Totally willing to vote on it if you can prove there's a net benefit.

T: Very much willing to vote on it. Neg needs to do a good job of explaining what the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are if they want to win on this (not voting on throwaway T in the 2NR), but generally I slightly learn toward reasonability. Neg needs to prove they lost something or something is wrong with the aff interpretation

Ks: I have the least experience here. I've cut a Freire K that I used a few times, but VERY RARELY encountered them. Don't assume I have prior knowledge about any specific K, but I will vote on the K, a perm, a solvency deficit on the alt, significant offense on the K, a de-link, etc. I'd definitely prefer it if you didn't run one unless you can do it EXTREMELY well.

Speed: Around 240wpm is where I'd like a max to be, and even a bit lower if I'm judging online.

Miscellaneous: Structure and order in speeches are greatly appreciated: I'll ask for an order before your speech and all I want to hear is "Solvency, Advantage 1, the DA, then the CP." Don't make arguments at this time. Also, I won't do any work for you, if, for example, one team contradicts themselves, it's the other team's burden to point it out and explain why it's bad/an issue. This applies to drops: if both teams drop something, I'm not going to vote on it with no further explanation.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Don't be mean, hateful, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. I will end the round immediately if I think this is an issue. Otherwise, try to learn something from the debate and enjoy yourself.

If you have any more questions, ask me before the round begins.

Caroline Little- she/her

Washburn Rural ‘20

Congress

I love Congress and you should take it seriously. Be kind to your fellow Senators. That means you cannot refer to your male Senators as SENATOR and your female Senators as MISS or REPRESENTATIVE. We are equal in the room; don't be a terrible person.

If you have a sponsorship or authorship speech talk about the bill. Explain what it is and what is does. That is your only job.

Just be nice during CX. You can make any motions you want, I don't care. Just be respectful to your Senators.

Traditional style LD. Not big on flowing.

Assistant coach for 5 years.

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

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

I am a stock issue and flow judge. I would like to see a clean, well-organized, and signposted debate where both teams use their ground well and have clear, well-written arguments and cases. I prefer a more traditional debate round, but the biggest thing for me is "can I understand what you are saying." I do not want to just read your flashed case off of my computer, I should be able to hear you quickly reading your case to me and flow the round from your verbal communication.

While I recognize the Kritiques have their time and place, to win my vote on them they have a very clear link and a well-articulated alternative.

my email for email chains: breannaprater99@gmail.com

About Me:

I debated for 4 years at Central High School in Springfield, MO, competing at mostly local tournaments. I primarily competed in Public Forum, International Extemp and Original Oratory, and have a little bit of experience with Policy Debate (but only at a very basic level).

General Debate Preferences:

1. Speaking:

I will be flowing, and I do my best to try to write everything down BUT if you go too quickly, I may not be able to catch everything. Be mindful of your speed, and if you think that you're speaking too quickly, you probably are.

Signpost. I won't know where to flow things if you don't.

2. Argumentation:

Warrant everything!

Smart analytics combined with evidence are always going to be better than just evidence.

Weigh the impacts of the round! If your argument doesn't have an impact, I will not vote for it.

Interact with your opponents arguments with analytics and evidence; if I don't understand why a piece of evidence is a response to something, that's on you.

Making good comparative analysis is one of the most compelling things you can do in a debate round, so show me why your arguments are better than your opponents.

3. Progressive Arguments:

I have no experience with these arguments and I am generally uncomfortable voting on these arguments. To ensure that I can judge the round as effectively as possible, I won't evaluate theory, Ks, etc. unless there is an in-round violation that hurts or excludes somebody. At that point, I would prefer that it was not laid out in the format of progressive argumentation, but in paragraph form with a warrant and an explanation.

4. Speaker Ratings/Points:

I am not opposed to low point wins, speaking better does not always mean that you debated better.

If you spin 360 degrees every time you say "turn," I'll give you a 30.

5. Miscellaneous:

Have fun! I know it's stressful, but it'll make the experience better for everyone.

If you are offensive, you will lose on the lowest speaks possible.

If you are reading an argument that you think needs a trigger or content warning, use one.

Don't call me "judge."

If there is ANYTHING you think I should know before the round starts that is pertinent, or you want to talk about my decision, send me an email at askolnic@trinty.edu

I have been a coach for fourteen years. I like debaters to talk slow enough so that I can understand what they are saying and for them to articulate clearly. I also like debates about the topic and not about the rules of debate. I would prefer debaters to "suggest" what I should do if something happens in a round instead of telling me what I now "have" to do. Finally, I want debaters to use excellent public speaking skills such as good eye contact, few vocalized pauses, and no distracting movements.

I am a lay judge and have a difficult time following spreading. I appreciate when competitors speak clearly and at a normal speed. I have a knowledge of some debate terms, but appreciate when terms are quickly defined for clarity. Thank you and good luck!

Aubrey Webster

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Assistant Coach

I did not debate in High School but performed Storytelling for individual speech tournaments. This is my second year as the assistant speech and debate coach at Parkview High School in Springfield, Missouri.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life easier in case there are tech issue or if I need to look things over again.

When judging, I look at the following details:

How well you were able to explain and provide evidence.

How well you were able to ask questions and answer questions during cross examination.

How well you were able to attack your opponent's case.

How well your speaking skills were during your speech.

I truly believe speech and debate provides so many life skills for students and it is an honor to be apart of this amazing activity!

I have judged debate a few times and have children who do debate, but have not done debate myself. I am a college professor.

Hi! My name is Meredith and I am a full-time college student pursuing my Master's degree in Accounting at the University of Arkansas. For my employment, I currently tutor in math and data analytics and will be beginning an auditing position this summer at a firm here in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Here's a quick run-down of how I judge:

1. I was a competitor in public forum debate for all four years of high school, but watched my friends compete in and have judged both LD and Policy so I am up to date on the format, timing, and decorum necessary for each debate.

2. I will be flowing all debate rounds diligently. I will notice if you drop something on the flow, and it will affect my decision-making.

3. Roadmaps are unnecessary outside of Policy debate, so don't give me one.

4. I'm cool with a 30-second grace period at the end of speeches to wrap up your final point. If you bring up something new outside of your allotted time, I just won't consider it.

5. Being hateful will automatically get you a loss.

6. I identify politically as a socialist. My politics should generally not dictate how well you prove a point, but it is something to keep in mind if you're trying to persuade me. :)