In my 5th year of PF judging. Looking for debaters to be clear and that everyone contributes in cross-fire.

I track the contentions and I am listening for the debate supporting or refuting those contentions. So the more clear you make your contentions, the better.

I use my own flowing sheet to take notes while you debate. I then will enter them into Tab room.

Hello All,

I have served as a parent judge for over one year. I am not a member of the debate community nor is my vocational background in law.

I value a well-organized, well-articulated, and somewhat concise argument. Please be professional and courteous. Do not address your opponents with inappropriate remarks. Please do not use jargon.

Please speak at a slow to moderate speed. No pressure speech. All participants will be given extra time within reason to complete his / her thoughts. If I cannot understand what you are saying because of speaking too fast, I will not rule in your favor.

Looking forward to hearing some wonderful debate!!

Gray Graves

Please add me to the email chain: graygraves3@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns.

Debate Experience:

High School

- Millard West (2015-2017) Lincoln Douglas

- Millard North (2017-2019) Policy

College

- UNL (2019-Present) NFA-LD (1 v. 1 policy)

I coach Policy/LD at Marian High School.

Misc.

I am fine with speed, but require clarity and slowing down on analytics and tags. I will say “clear” as many times as necessary, which is a signal to be clear and doesn’t necessarily require you to reduce speed.

I think that Disclosure is good in almost all instances. I will vote on Disclosure theory in most instances, when debated well, because of this.

"Extend (Author, Year)" is not sufficient for an extension. Please explain what you are extending; This does not always require a huge time investment, but the former example is always insufficient. Conceded arguments should be brought up if you want it to factor into the round/decision, but I have a low extension threshold in those instances.

Do not clip cards. It will never be worth it. If a tournament describes a process in the instance of clipping, I will adhere to that process. If not, clipping must be pointed out immediately after the speech. The team alleging that clipping has occurred must stake the round on this concern and provide audio evidence. If I witness clipping myself, I will stop the round. Skipping over a sentence, phrases or single words repeatedly is grounds for clipping. Clipping will result in a L and <26 speaks.

Tag-team CX is fine, but please do not control the entirety of your partner's CX.

No prep will be taken for flashing/emailing. Conversely, please do not steal prep time.

Offense holds more weight than defense. Terminal defense is possible, but there is a high threshold for this.

I generally am "tech over truth." Having said that although, some arguments can overwhelm tech through its validity, and some untrue arguments will never win you the round in front of me, no matter how techy you debate it. So, take my leaning toward "tech over truth" with some skepticism and just debate well.

K

Critical arguments are the majority of what I read during my junior and senior year. It is also my favorite type of argument to research. In High School, I read Queer Theory, Puar, Bataille, Semiocapitalism, Neoliberalism, Settler Colonialism, and various identity politics arguments. Please do not read a K you are unfamiliar with in front of me because of my argument history. I will hold the K to a high standard of explanation and contextualization. The best way to read the K in front of me is to spend adequate time contextualizing and fleshing out the links, explaining the solvency mechanism and examples of the alternative (especially if it’s a vague theoretical alternative), and answering the AFF’s framing.

Be cautious on contradictions between the K and any other off case positions you have. If you notice a contradiction between your opponent’s K and another argument they are making, it is better to point this out and flesh out the theoretical implications/impact, than to read a theory argument, like Condo Bad.

Framework

I enjoy this debate. I have significant experience debating both sides. I have an agnostic stance toward it as a judge; I will vote either way.

For the NEG team, please answer the K team’s turns (DAs). This is often the easiest route to my ballot for the K team, and often bad FW teams do very little work to address this offense. I prefer TVAs with a solvency advocate, but do not necessarily require it. TVAs that just say the USFG does the AFF (at least in the context of the more obscure and theoretical methods) are usually not persuasive.

For the K team, I would like a strategic and offensive counter-interpretation. You are likely to lose the debate if you can’t debate traditional FW offense under your C/I, or do not do sufficient work on proving why the turns/DAs mean I vote for you.

Topicality/Theory

I really love a well-done Topicality debate. I default to competing interpretations.

I am extremely unlikely to vote for RVIs in policy. I don't think that it is as unwarranted in LD.

I am not extremely familiar with CP theory outside of PIC theory, Conditionality theory, and Perm theory.

I am not a fan of LD’s frivolous theory trend and am unlikely to vote on these arguments. “Drop the argument, not the team” and reasonability can be fairly persuasive, especially against these types of theory shells. Good and well-tailored theory is encouraged. Outside of this, I rather judge the substance of the round.

DA/CP

I love a good debate with either one or both off-case position. Please read specific links on the DA.

Case

Please spend some time on case, especially K teams. Although it's said a lot in paradigms, it's very true that HS teams often do not utilize/leverage case arguments enough. I particularly engage the use of case arguments as leverage for other portions of the debate.

ROTB

I default to 'vote for the team that debated the best.' I will not be happy if your plan to win the ballot relies on limiting out offense through an arbitrary ROTB that got conceded. I much rather watch a Framing debate than ROTB debate.

Speaks

Generally, I will determine speaks through this loose model:

29-29.5: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

28-28.5: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27.5: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

I am a parent judge.  I am a traditional style judge.  Pretend you are trying to argue this case in front of your non speech/debate teachers. Your case needs to make sense and be logical... no jargon.    

Speed....I can handle a little speed but if you are going so fast that you are tripping over your words... I am not understanding you.  I have NEVER heard or read your case so if you cannot say it fast enough I cannot listen to it.  If you have an important point to make... go slower! Make sure I hear it.

I like voter issues... make sure to provide a concise summary and voter issues in your last speech.  

My thoughts on debate.  It is a fantastic skill to have that will serve you well.  Talker faster than your audience can listen , using words they don't understand, constantly looking down at your computer, and being rude and condescending to your competitor will not typically treat you well in life.  Debate should be teaching and making you use skills that will serve you well long after tournaments are over.  

Our state doesn't do oral critiques or disclose at the end of the debate.  I will be following this same protocol.   

Be prepared, be articulate, be persuasive, be civil.  

he/him

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 4 yrs, graduating in 2019.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. Don't just say the words extend + the card author. Please actually extend argument. If you don't, I will look to vote elsewhere. Weighing is very important. Please give me a way to evaluate the round.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. For online debate, I think its good practice to send speech docs prior to constructive given connectivity issues. If an email chain is used, I would like to be added.

I'll attempt to evaluate any argument you read in front of me, but I am more comfortable with standard stuff. I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. Feel free to ask me specifics before the round!

Lastly, please be nice to each other.

If anything in here was unclear, I'm happy to answer your questions!

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

Judge Summary

I competed in Policy Debate and U.S. Extemporaneous Speaking for Logan-Rogersville High School in Missouri for 2009-2013. I won the Missouri State Championship in Policy Debate in 2013, and I qualified to the National Tournament in 2012 and 2013.

I attended Missouri University of Science and Technology to major in Nuclear Engineering, but I did not participate in Speech and Debate in college.

I moved to New Hampshire after graduation (currently live in Portsmouth, NH) to work at Seabrook Nuclear Station as an operator. I've always enjoyed Speech and Debate, and I look forward to continuing to judge in tournaments in my spare time.

Paradigm

Being that I haven't actively debated since 2013 and only started judging occasionally in 2019, I may not be the most "fresh" on my flowing and debate lingo, but based on my prior experience, I can follow the vast majority of argumentation and would not fall into the bucket of a "lay" judge. I am also good with speed; just make sure that you are properly annunciating where I can still flow to the best of my abilities.

I am open to any form of argumentation and would never dismiss an argument based on my pre-conceptions or personal beliefs. I judge primarily based on the argumentation itself, so speaking style is not important to me.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the debate starts!

Hello! My name is Alexander Perdue, though you can call me "Judge" or "Alex". My pronouns are he/him/his. Outside of speech and debate, I am currently a PhD student in Political Science (MA '23) at Binghamton University.

My personal/"speech and debate" qualifications: I've been working as a judge, primarily for online tournaments, for my former speech and debate program for the better part of the last 4 years. Most of my experience is in judging debate, primarily LD and PF, but I have some Congress judging experience and a round or two of interp under my belt.

Prior to being a judge, I did three years of speech and one year of debate for Salem (Salem) High School in Virginia--competing in extemporaneous speaking (both IX and USX), impromptu speaking, and Congressional Debate (Virginia does not have a House/Senate split in VHSL events), winning the 2019 VHSL 4A Championship in Impromptu Speaking and making it to the 2019 VHSL 4A Finals in Congressional Debate.

As it stands, given my previous speech and debate experiences, the only thing I'd say is "out of my depth" right now are the primary NSDA events of Big Questions and World Schools...and Policy.

Policy / CX / Big Questions / World Schools

I have no real experience judging any of these and therefore have no specific pointers (for now, maybe one day) or preferences. For a more general overview of how I judge/evaluate, please see the following sections about LD and PF as guidance.

I will say that, in general, arguments should be big picture and not hyperbolic. The one round of policy I've judged had debaters discussing the harms of extinction. When it's not plausibly an effect of the resolution (maybe it is on the 2023-24 CEDA resolution, certainly wasn't for the high school resolution), don't argue it. I definitely get annoyed.

Lincoln-Douglas

I largely judge my Lincoln-Douglas rounds on the following evaluative criteria. These are not "perfect", but they are generally how I arrive at my decisions.

1. Who is showing a better flow through the round? Don't just come out in clash and assume that by clashing, I'll get it. I strongly encourage you to make the argument that you won by showing it during non-cross time.

2. Who does a better job of using their value and criterion through the round? Too often in debates I've judged, students have done a poor job of bringing up their value and criterion through the round, not connecting it to their specific contentions and therefore not really providing the values clash that LD, you know, is. Values and evaluation criteria should not be an afterthought in Lincoln-Douglas! Think about ways you can better tie things back to your criteria and value through your contentions, not only will it make you a better LDer, you might stand a better chance at winning a round judged by me.

3. Who better uses Cross-X? Shot and parry is the name of the game in Cross-X, especially in LD where the clash might be more stark than it is in, for instance, Public Forum. Successful debaters having me judge them will use their time in Cross-X to get that their opponents' values through their contentions. If you can show that your value is the better supported one in the round, and or the more logically consistent one, you will do well.

LD Specific Note: Off-time roadmaps are fine, and, in fact, I encourage them. I find they make it easier for me to follow things during the round.

Public Forum

When it comes to public forum, I have three main thing I would say I look for in regards to making a decision.

1. Get to the point and make your arguments easy to follow. That is to say: be organized and make things tight. If I couldn't write down your case, state your position, and know your contentions by the end of your first speaker's speech, something has gone wrong. Making things tight will also lead to better and more...

2. Efficient use of Cross-X to "score points". This is simple, make sure that you can find the argument in your opponent's case that you can seize on, clash with, and clearly show your own arguments are superior to. I strongly encourage you to make this very clear when you speak!

3. In the absence of clash, I simply have to determine whose case makes the most sense and which side does the better job of presenting its argument in its logical consistency. To avoid this, seek out clash! That's what we're here for! The best debates are always the ones in which there is a decent amount of clash because it makes it clear there is a choice to be made between two (relatively) equally-matched sides.

Public Forum Specific Note: Point out if your opponent has dropped one of your contentions. Oftentimes I pick up on it, but it shows too that you're paying attention to what they're arguing.

Congressional

This one is fairly straightforward: make an argument. Then, after you've made an argument (Aff/Neg), support your argument. This is not exactly the most complicated rocket science. Also, do make sure you're getting into the LARP of it all, especially if I (for some reason) end up as your Parli. The best Congressional debaters are the quick on their feet.

DEBATE SPECIFIC NOTE: I am strongly against the practice of spreading. This is for two reasons: it is unfair to me as your judge and it is unfair to your opponents. If I cannot understand you, I cannot fairly judge you. If your opponents cannot understand you, they cannot possibly debate you. That being said, some speed is alright, but make sure you are still capable of being understood. Regardless, if understanding is an issue, it will be reflected in your Speaks and could be reflected in my overall ballot.

Speech

As a former speech kid myself, a few very quick pointers and things I look for in judging:

1. Organization. This cannot be sloppy and expect to score well. It doesn't have to necessarily be a tight five paragraph essay, but it does need to be enough such that I can follow what you're saying.

2. Support. It doesn't have to be all academic articles or jargon (particularly in Extemporaneous or OO), but the best speeches have decent support behind them from reputed sources and people. I know my way around the world of reputable information, and Iwillcall it out in the comments if you're using something you probably shouldn't. In Impromptu, you have a thesis, what you say needs to be connected to that thesis. It's different "support", but it's still "support".

3. Variety. Perhaps it's just the system I trained in but, especially in Impromptu and Extemporaneous (and somewhat in OO), bring it home for us. Tell me why what you're saying matters. What are the implications (in Extemporaneous)? How can you forge a personal connection to the topic (in Impromptu and OO)? The best speeches not only have that organization and internal support, they also do a good job of making me realize that what they're talking about is important or actually showing a personal impact.

Interp

Caveat: I haven't judged this much competitively, but my program practices this thing wherein we get experience seeing everybody do their piece in every event. So, no, I may not "know" HI like a former competitor, but I know what to look for.

Three big things I'd like to say as key to my judging philosophy:

1. Smooth transitions. This one is quite simple, make sure your cuts between scenes or between characters are clear and defined, not choppy. Each character should bedistinct, as it were.

2. Clear characterization. Similar to the above, make sure that your characters are clearly different. For instance, if your piece has an old woman, a puppet, and a frog, make sure that you have an old woman, a puppet, and a frog in your repertoire, whether this be by different voices, different postures, different cadences, or some combination of things that makes it clear that your characters are distinct.

3. Feeling. Make me feel something. In HI or with a humorous piece, make me laugh. Sam Kennedy's winning 2018 VHSL Class 4A Humorous Interpretation piece is still one of my favorite pieces becauseevery time I saw it I could nearly keel over laughing. Similarly, in a dramatic piece, be sure to bring out the emotive parts of your piece. If it's supposed to be sad, make me tear up. Other emotions...same thing.

I am a parent judge and I've been judging rounds for two years (mainly PF) - do not read any progressive arguments including, but not limited to

- Theory/T

- Kritiks

- Plans/Counterplans

If you make a non-topical argument, I will not evaluate it.

Please explain your arguments at a conversational rate as I will not consider them if I can't understand what you are saying.

Be kind and respectful to me and your opponents. Don't be rude during CX- I will reduce speaker points

Do not introduce new arguments in final focus, I will not consider them in my decision.

I will not disclose, please refer to the ballot for critiques. Please time yourselves.

Hello! I look forward to hearing clear, well-outlined arguments, along with eloquent speech.

I value the original purpose of Public Forum debate as designed to appeal to the "non-specialist citizen judge." I am not a native of the debate community--I am primarily a literature teacher. Keeping that in mind, please do not use jargon unique to the debate world or speak too quickly.

I do take notes to keep track of both teams' arguments and key evidence (if I can catch it). In the end, please make sure you explain clearly why your arguments are more significant or weighty than your opponents' arguments, without misrepresenting what your opponents said.

Best wishes to all.

**I have judged this NFA topic once (1). Please go slow and explain. If youre fast on tags, or fast on theory, it is entirely your fault if you drop because there was an argument I didn’t hear or understand.

They/Them

Competitive Debate Participation: Millard North 2014-2017 (PF), University Nebraska-Lincoln 2017-2021 (NFA-LD, 1 v. 1 policy)

Coaching: Assistant Debate Coach, Lincoln High School 2017-2018. Assistant Debate Coach, Marian High School 2018-2021; 2023-Present

Email: addissonLstugart@gmail.com

TBH you can probably avoid the rest if you're familiar with Nadia Steck's or Justin Kirks paradigms.

TL/DR:

Content warnings: If you are running something sensitive, you need to have a trigger warning. This means things such as suicide, human trafficking, domestic violence, etc. NEED to have a disclaimer before you say them. Furthermore, you NEED to have a back-up plan if reading it puts the safety of someone in the room in jeopardy. And, for both of our sakes, please don't use something sensitive solely as a means to win a round. Commodification of trauma isn't something that I will listen to.

I will vote on content warning procedurals.

Tech > Truth (what does that mean?)

I will always disclose first and will always give a detailed rfd. Not doing so is bad for education

Speed is a wonderful thing in all events unless it's used as an exclusionary tactic. If either opponent doesn't want speed, neither do I.

You can probably tell if I’m buying an argument based on my facial expressions.

Judge intervention will only ever happen if the safety (physical/mental) of a student in the round is at jeopardy.

Presume/default neg in all circumstances UNLESS the alt/cp does more than the aff. Then presumption flips aff.

Flex prep is a-okay in all events.

Evidence

I will call for evidence after round in 3 circumstances:

1. I have read the evidence beforehand in some context and believe that how you are construing it is wrong and unethical

2. The opposing team has asked me to

3. The round is decided on this evidence

Speaks:

Should be primarily based off of skill of debate, not eloquence of speaking.

While I believe speaks are arbitrary, I will generally determine speaks through this loose model:

28-29: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

27.5-28: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

For public forum debate:

Observations: I will listen to anything. I LOVE strategic observations. I LOVE observations that narrow the topic based on grammar/interpretations of the resolution.

On the flow: Don't drop turns. Extend terminal offense. Ghost extensions of terminal defense from rebuttal--> final focus are the only extensions I allow to not be in summary. Other than that, if you want it weighed in final focus, have it in summary.

Rebuttal: It is preferred, but not required, for the second rebuttal to cover both sides. I used to card dump in my rebuttals, so I understand how it can get you ahead on the flow, though. I'm not strategically against it, but pedagogically I am.

Summaries: This is the MOST important speech in the round. This should set up the framing for the final focus, and should have all of the offense you want to go for in it. All previous opposing offense needs to be addressed in this speech (for example, if team a drops team b's turns in summary, strategic strat is for team b to sit on them in final focus. It's too late for team a to come back on that part of the flow.)

Final focus: The same framing should be given as was given in summary. But overviews or underviews are the best. I flow summaries and final focuses in columns next to each other. The final focus' main job is impact analysis. Explain to me why your impacts o/w because, as an owner of four dogs, if left to my own fruition, I could vote for 10 dog lives over nuclear war.

For Lincoln Douglas/CX Debate:

Inherency: I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY VALID ARGUMENT TO GO FOR. Ya got me, I am a stock issues judge

"status quo acts as a delay counterplan" = *chefs kiss*

Value/criterion: I will typically default util~ especially in muddied v/c debates.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, COLLAPSE V/C DEBATES IF IT DOESN'T MATTER (if I have to see another util vs consequentialism debate ???? I might SCREAM)

Also, please explain how the substance of the ac or nc actually relates to your v/c, or better yet, how it could *also* relate to your opponents.

Theory: After being in the activity for a while I have come to the conclusion that proven abuse is a silly metric to win theory debate. I do not believe that in order to win theory you should have to skew yourself out of your own time.

I am unlikely to vote for RVI's on theory in regards to things like "the theory is just a time suck".

I find “Drop the argument, not the team” to be fairly persuasive for general theory arguments (excluding t).

I probably won't vote for condo bad when there's one conditional advocacy.

Topicality: (I will never vote on "they have to prove abuse") I default competing interpretations on t but will listen to reasonability arguments. I believe effects t/extra t can be independent voters with independent standards. I think a dropped violation will *almost* always win a t debate. But because t is try or die, consider the following:

1. If you win the "we meet", reasonability explanations are easier.

2. T is something the neg has to win, not that the aff has to prove opposite. What does that mean? I am not doing the work for the neg to find the aff untopical. Extend and EXPLAIN your standards. (utilize clash, don't just rely on blocks) Tell me why the neg's definition is better than the aff's. Tell me why things like competitive reciprocity is key to eduaction, etc. I know all of these things but will judge *only* based on your explanations.

3. T is just like any other debate. The interp is the claim. The violation is the warrant, the standards are the internal link to>>> the voters being the impacts. So, just like any other debate, I expect you to win on all parts of the flow *especially because topicality is try or die for the aff*.

5. HOWEVER, I will always prioritize being tech over truth. That means that *even if* I don't agree with one's sides strats, or find that they are bad at performing the t strat (or responding) if the opposite side drops something of importance (a violation, concedes a voter, or even a standard that is sat on as the key internal link) I am probably voting there. Concessions are the easiest way for me to pick a winner on T debates.

Tricks: Take like 15 seconds to crystallize it after you do it to make sure I got it, and if you don't do this, don't be mad at me if I don't catch on.

Kritiks: I am open to all kritiks, but I am not familiar with all of the literature. Don't expect me to know the argument off the top of my head, but expect me to flow it and (hopefully) understand it the way that you communicate it to me. Debate is inherently a communication activity, and k debaters can lose sight of this. If it helps you to understand my experience with k's better, when I compete, I always go for framework.

I say K aff's have a higher burden of proof for solvency/explanations than standard policy affs.

Disclosure: Well first off, everyone should disclose. Debate is for education, not just the wins. IDK how I feel about voting on this theory. I have, but I don't like it.

Da's: disads with specific links are probably for the best. I am all about the net bens to counterplans. I am open to any type of argument here.

Counterplans: "Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans." -Dr. Justin Kirk; the man, the myth, the legend.

I am a new parent judge, and I was not a debater myself, so I will be depending on you to make your arguments and rebuttals clear and concise.

Give me a roadmap and weigh your impacts.

Please do not spread; if I can't flow your argument because you are speaking too fast, I will ask you to slow down.

I don't appreciate aggressive crossfire--you might lose speaker points.

Sexist, racist, homophobic language is unacceptable and will cost you the debate.

Lastly, have fun!

Email: dkwells62@comcast.net

About Me: I currently attend Texas A&M University, and have competed in Public Forum for 3 years. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. Pronouns: she/her

LD and CX: Please treat me like a mom haha.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, I will flow however I appreciate clear signposting and a roadmap before your speech. Also if you say anything sexist, racist, ableist etc. expect an L25.

Trigger Warnings: If you are planning on running something surrounding a sensitive topic, actually message your opponents before the round or read a trigger warning at the beginning of your speech and give your opponents a chance to opt out, and actually read a different constructive if they ask you to.

Speed: I can flow speed, but if your gonna spread send the doc. If you think something is super important and round defining make sure it is said at an understandable pace. If you are spreading against a clearly less experienced team I will dock your speaks.

How I vote: I am of the belief that a debate round should look like a funnel, as the round progresses the number of arguments decrease but those that remain are deep, well-warranted, weighed and clearly extended through all speeches. I will vote on the best weighed, least mitigated impact, with the clearest and most warranted link chain. Develop a narrative starting in constructive and continuing throughout all your speeches.

I think defense in the first rebuttal is sticky (first summary does not have to extend it unless it is frontlined in the second rebuttal), and require the second rebuttal to respond to offense on their case.

I am tech over truth in most cases- however, I won't vote off something that you blippily extend and you haven't fleshed out and explained, even if the other team doesn't respond to it.

Weighing: I hate hate hate being forced to intervene and only vote off of impacts that are weighed- meaning explain to me why your impacts, as well as links, are the most strong and the most important to consider in the round. Also I don't consider dropping weighing jargon as weighing. Do not say we short circuit/outweigh on magnitude/timeframe without warranting WHY you outweigh that is NOT WEIGHING. Explain why your weighing mechanism is better than your opponents if you have competing mechanisms.

Extensions: This means in order for me to evaluate your argument, I need a clear explanation of the whole link chain leading down to the impact in summary/ff. If you just read me a card name in rebuttal/summary/final focus without reading the argument, and the warrant behind it, I won't evaluate the argument. The same concept applies to impacts, if you skip to them without explaining to me how you got there, I won't vote off of them.

Cross: I won't vote off of anything in cross unless you bring it up in a speech, but if you are overly aggressive or rude I will dock speaker points.

Summary: I LOVE a good big-picture summary, but if that's not your style I'm okay with line by line too, but please remain clear. Weigh!!!! First summary doesn't have to extend all defense, but if it is frontlined in second rebuttal, or is super important and round defining extend it, also respond to turns.

Final Focus: Voters are appreciated, I won't vote off an argument that wasn't extended in summary.

Speaks: I start at a 27.5 and based off of both strategic decisions in the round as well as clarity, sportsmanship (be nice) I will either go up or down from there. But if your opponents are being sassy, you can be sassy back as long as you aren't rude. Extra points if you make me laugh-making fun jokes/puns related to the topic like fun contention names, or quoting vines/tik toks in speeches or crossfire. Read the room, if your opponents are clearly less experienced or uncomfortable with the attitude you are presenting I will dock speaks.

Evidence: I won't call for it unless you ask me to, or if you haven't weighed and I have to intervene, or like if it's really contested or something. Also paraphrasing is okay as long as you're not misconstruing the evidence and don't extrapolate values from a piece of evidence using "debater math" it's unfair to your opponents and not educational. If you take forever to find evidence I will dock speaks.

Framework: I default util (the greatest good for the most amount of people) unless you read something different, don't read a framework in constructive unless you are going to bring it up in your later speeches as a weighing mechanism

Theory/K's/Progressive Arguments: I don't have enough familiarity with these for me to comfortably vote off of them. If the shell is super clear and extended through the whole round I will evaluate it just like any other argument, but I don't have enough technical experience to be comfortable making decisions on progressive rounds that are super close, so if you don't want a weird decision just don't run the argument. Make sure it is MERITED, meaning you aren't reading it just to trip up your opponents and waste everybody's time. I will dock speaks if you are running something progressive on a clearly less experienced team.

Finally, Debate is supposed to be a fun and educational activity, please treat it as such and not scream at each other or make me stressed out, if you have any questions, message me or ask me before round.

My email is bellamanday@gmail.com