Below are my paradigms sorted by event.

Best of luck!

General:

• Spreading is okay as long as your opponents and I can understand you.

• If possible, I’d like a copy of your case(s), but it is not required by any means. This will just be for my own reference to follow along in the round, and I will return it/delete it at the end of the round if requested (this will not impact my decision at all. If you are unable to provide a copy, that is perfectly fine!).

• For debate, please state an outline before your speech, so that I can know how many pages I need for flow.

• I will keep time, as should the competitors. I can give time signals if requested.

Policy:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• I'm okay with Kritiks, but make the connection to the resolution extremely clear using evidence. If it is not clear, or if the connection is weak, I will disregard it.

Example: Using this year's resolution, "The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States,” you can run a feminism Kritik, but if you have no cards with information on how feminism impacts water resources in the US, I will disregard it. The evidence needs to directly establish a correlation. Implications make a weak case. It needs to be clearly stated.

• No game theory. I won’t dock points for it, but it won't be considered in my deciding the ballot.

• I will hear out Topicality, but again, it needs to be boldly stated, with your points crystal clear. You need to provide evidence. I will not weigh topicality heavier than other voters, nor will it be the sole reason for a vote.

• Disadvantages hold the same weight as Advantages in regards to voters.

Public Forum:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• I prefer arguments over style. I do not mind the way you debate the topic, but I will weigh the arguments made more than style in my vote.

• Any argument that you would like considered as a voter needs to be extended to the rebuttal/ summary speech(es).

• I will vote on arguments raised in crossfire only if they are extended to the rebuttal/summary speech(es).

• I weigh analytics and evidence equally, but you cannot have one without the other. If you have analytics, but weak evidence, I will not vote on it, vice versa.

Lincoln- Douglas:

Anything not listed here is pretty much free game. Do as you please, but back it up with evidence and be respectful.

• You can read Kritiks, or Counterplans, but make sure you stick to the general structure of LD otherwise.

Hi! I’m Tara! She/her

I am judging for RayPec, I’m prez of their team which is rad, I do a lot of IEs too, check end of paradigm for those

Email me evidence @ isoscaryroar@gmail.com !

Experience: I am a 3rd year policy kid who has competed at the conference/district level. I have competed some in PF and LD so I can handle any debate BUT, I am extremely versed in the policy topic (you definitely don’t have to dumb anything down lol)

paradigm:

1. first off, as much as I hate that it has to be said, any sort of in round micro aggressions are simply not going to work and I will mark you down, this is a space I love and I want it to remain a place where everyone feels safe

2. I love spreading, don’t do it if you aren’t versed in it. Bad spreading is worse than no spreading. Also note computers can be screwy and computer issues happen. A big thing I see with young debaters is that they try to spread poorly thinking it will make them win. I’ve seen 480 WPM teams lose to ppl talking 200 WPM, do what you are comfy with! I can handle any speed you give me

3. I loveeee CPs and Kritiks (note: this obviously doesn’t apply if they aren’t legal at the tourney)

4. I’m a tabularosa judge, I value your frame like an argument. Tell me what to value.

5. I would not say I am a super technically-obsessed debater, I care about the quality of your argument. However, you guys are novices and thus I do mostly expect y’all to format stuff correctly because you are still learning.

6. Tech>Truth

7. I flow and will evaluate based off this. Extend your points. Make the flow pretty and easy for me to follow:)

8. if your computer lags or it messes up on my end I will say “cut” and try to pause you time.

9. I love clash, my favorite part of debates is heated (yet civil) back and forth, I expect clash! Bonus points if y’all make this fun for me

10. Versed in high theory, I can handle your authors

11. don’t run T or cases that are clearly T. I’m not going to buy ground loss arguments on cases that are everywhere. T is for timeskew (usually)

12. Generic DAs are valid but I don’t like it if you don’t specifically link to cases you should have prepped out.

yeah, that’s all I can think of :) anyways make this fun ! I’m excited to judge! If you have any of those wack arguments then feel free to run them as long as you do it well I’ll value it lol. Bonus points: mention your favorite animal if you’ve read this far. (You can legit go “by the way, I like monkeys” and I will know what you mean. It’s also funny if the opponent didn’t read bc they look so confused lol

competed in all IEs except storytelling/HI, huge speech kid. Especially extemp!