As the parent of 3 speech and debaters, I have judged for a total of 12 years. In deciding who wins a round I value communication and logic. A conversational speed of speech allows judges to understand your words and to process your ideas and your logic. Avoid jargon (both speech & debate jargon AND jargon that relates to the topic) and

Don't make your judge(s) work. Your logic should be front and center and clear; judges shouldn't have to look for it. I'm looking for a "red thread of logic". The other side of the debate will attempt to cut your thread of logic and you will attempt to knot those ends to reconnect your thread. Sometimes speech and debaters cut their own thread (not enunciating, speaking too quickly, swallowing taglines, using jargon and acronyms). Debaters, your responsibility is to present ideas and supporting evidence and to help me understand your case. It is not a judge's responsibility to "figure out" your case and logic (or lack thereof).

Off-time Road Maps: In Policy, yes, please provide one. In all other forms of debate, please do NOT. Quality debaters typically tend to work it seamlessly into their speeches.

Timing: Please time yourself and the others, which frees me to focus my energies on judging the debate.

Prep Time: Please request to use prep time. Time yourself and let me know either how much time you used or how much time you have remaining. I'll confirm that. This allows you to use prep time without someone interrupting you to tell you how much time you've used.

Policy Debaters: While I have judged policy and am a competent judge; however, I am not a confident policy judge. Competent, yes; confident, no. When using policy jargon, I find it helpful to be reminded to what it refers. I do NOT consult evidence you provide via email or some such. I judge solely on the evidence you state in speeches and then only to the extent I comprehend your words and process your ideas. After all, I can't judge based on what I do not understand.)

Welcome to Speech and Debate! I competed in high school debate for two years and am currently competing in Speech and Debate on the collegiate level. In high school, I competed in Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking, Original Oratory, and Humorous Interpretation.

My credentials...

- I ended my career as one of the top 3 competitors in Congressional Debate in Mississippi.

- I competed in out-rounds at NSDA 2021 in Congressional Debate and P.O.ed on every level of competition.

- I was top 6 in HI at State Champs.

- I was State Champion in Original Oratory during the 2020-2021 MSHAA Debate Season.

- I STILL compete as a debater and speech kid!

Generally speaking...

- My pronouns are she/her!

- My email is madisonfbiggerstaff@gmail.com. Evidence? Loop me in! Questions? Don't hesitate to ask!

- Speech and Debate is an educational experience. Try to get something out of every round.

- Have fun! At the end of the day, the skills you acquire during your time as a debater are much more important than the trophies or wins.

For Congress:

- Clash with others in the chamber! Work to further the debate.

- Don't rehash! Bring up new points that haven't been introduced or attack/support points that were previously mentioned.

- Do NOT attack the speaker's personal looks or beliefs (unless you want this L).

- I love a good rebuttal speech. If you can demonstrate why the chamber should pass/fail a bill by addressing your opposing sides' arguments and take them down, I can tell you've been paying attention.

- PO will be in my top 8 if they are fair, clearly follow parliamentary procedure (there's wiggle room for a few mistakes, don't worry), and move the debate along. I'm looking for leadership! Being a PO isn't an easy task.

- Be yourself. Try not to give a "cookie-cutter" speech. I'm looking for originality and something that makes you different as a competitor. If you're yourself, you'll be your most confident and comfortable self. :)

For Public Forum:

- I can understand most competitors when speaking quickly. However, PF is supposed to be accessible, so tread carefully on spreading. If I cannot understand your contentions, it won't be flowed.

- Clearly define any terms in the resolution that may be interpreted in different ways.

- Defend your claims (I know, DUH). But, it is easy to get caught up in the main points of clash instead of dividing up your time appropriately.

- Use your crossfires appropriately. Don't waste any time.

- No long-winded questions/answers. This is interactive. Fair debates > Abusive debates.

Note: I'm big on no abuse in rounds. If you sound like Romeo during crossfire because you decided you must monologue, you aren't helping anyone (not even yourself). Even during your own speeches, there shouldn't be targeted remarks. Debate can be sassy, but shouldn't be disrespectful.

- Practice proper decorum and respect (unless you want the L).

- Explain it like I'm 12. If you can't tell me why I should vote for or against a resolution without using unnecessary jargon, I will probably default to the side that I understand better.

LD:

- My paradigm for LD is very similar to my paradigm for PF.

- Value and criterion are extremely important! Make sure you state these clearly.

Final Notes...

I don't ask for anything extra in rounds I judge. If I gave you a layout of how I wanted a round to go exactly, you wouldn't be your best self, competitor or not. I'm flexible. If you provide a good argument, support it without being abusive/rude, and do it with grace, you have a good standing in my books.

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

I debated all of my years in high school, and one year in college. I'm familiar with everything in LD, PF, World Schools, Big Questions, and Policy. So, feel free to run pretty much anything. There aren't any particular judging ideas that I adhere to. I judge largely based on the flow and care a lot about how the debate is framed. I'm perfectly fine with kritiks, or any other techy debate, as it were. With that said, if you want to run that, slow down a bit so that I understand what the core of your arguments are whenever going over any kind of metadebate. I'm not a very difficult judge to please, and I'm open to pretty much whatever you want to argue. Win my ballot by telling me why I ought to give it to you.

I use they/them so if you want to address with a title using Mx works.

If you make any references to anything that is triggering (sexual assault, domestic violence, alcoholism, racism, homophobia, or transphobia) in your piece and you don't warn the room beforehand I'm docking you 2 points. 

I'm a lay judge, but by day I'm a professional educator and parent of a debater. I love to give my time to this activity because I firmly believe it's good for young people, but I don't have the technical knowledge of someone who either debated in school or coaches debaters. If you feel like you've been "judge screwed," it's probably because you're operating at a level that relies on tricks that those "in the know" use and can judge. I'm not them, but you need to know that people like me make this activity possible for you. In round, please avoid jargon like "dis-ad," "the burden of the neg," and the like. If you can do this debate thing well, you'll present a coherent, rational argument, and demonstrate your understanding by making it comprehensible to an old fool like me, not hiding behind complex language tricks. You won't get my vote based on the quantity of contentions you enumerate, but their quality and coherence. Don't do shady stuff with sources. Stay decent with one another. Don't spread. You'll win my ballot with actual excellence in argumentation, not sophistry. That said, it's my privilege to get to spend time with curious, motivated and capable people like you.

I have done policy debate for 3 years at St. Andrew's Episcopal Schools.

Just have fun and be respectful to your opponent.

D:

:(

:|

:)

:D

Pronouns - he/him

Email - thadflagge@gmail.com

I was a policy debater for Madison Central for 3 years during high school, so that's what I have the most experience with, but I've judged all of the debates.

Generally, I'm tech > truth, and I'll let you do your thing and entertain whatever arguments you decide (as long as they aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

I value respect as well. I want the debaters to be respectful to each other during cross and at other times during the debate.

Policy

I appreciate teams that clearly know the ins and outs of the topic and their strategy. I'll vote for the team that thoroughly explains why they win. I appreciate good impact analysis and very good clash (please don't just say nuclear war and expect to get my ballot without explaining why your DA or case leads to it).

T - I'm tech > truth on T arguments. That being said, I default to the more reasonable interpretation that I receive in the debate unless a team makes the argument why I shouldn't. If you do decide to run T, make sure that you include impacts to your interp, etc.

Ks - I was a K debater for a good bit of my career, so I'm open to any arguments. I'm familiar with most lit on antiblackness, afropess, etc. but again, it's been a while since I've been in a debate round. For the most part, my face will give it away if you have to do any further explaining or something like that.

DAs - I appreciate DAs that are solid on the link level. That being said though, if you're forced to use generics, it's fine, but make sure that they're explained well in later speeches if you have to extend them.

FW - In T debates and K debates, FW, in my opinion, is the most important aspect of the debate. I'll reward the team that does the most effective clash and articulates their arguments the best.

Speed - It's been a while since I've debated, but while I was doing it I was pretty good with speed. To be safe though, if you choose to spread, make sure I'm shared on the case doc and then you can read as fast as you want. Make sure you slow down for anything significant that's not on the document though.

LD

I was a policy debater, so I'm open to hearing more progressive LD debates. If you choose to run something progressive, see the policy section of the paradigm. If not, then just make it accessible to me and I'll give you a fair shot. Make sure there is good clash.

PF

I feel like PF should be the most accessible of the debates; therefore, I won't be as lenient with speed. I'll reward the team who does the best arguing (clash, nuance, etc.).

Hi my name is Christian (he/him) and I am a sophomore on the Harvard CX debate team and did CX debate in high school as well.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN -cagines21@gmail.com

my experiences

I am most comfortable with K/T/Theory positions. The kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however, I've encountered most of the K lit base positions and am willing to evaluate them. Overall, just be sure to explain everything well.

Overview of Args

K v Framework (i dont really default any specific way - i will buy things like impact turns, and debate bad args - but i am also convinced by solid 2nrs on framework )

LARP v LARP - im fine for this but i dont do in depth research about the political implications of the topic - largely just the kritikal ones. keep that in mind while using jargon or abbreviations.

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory however.

non t affs (esp w black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! i think these debates should be conscious about content warnings however. i expect good t-framework interactions.

my least favorite kinds of debate (pls dont make me evaluate these debates sigh)

tricks. full stop. :)

phil is a type of debate i dont know NEARLY enough about - it would be in your best interest to not go for a phil vs phil or phil vs policy round in front of me. however i know phil enough to evaluate it vs kritiks.

disclosure policies

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

debate opinions (take them as you will)

1 - debate is not just a game. yes it is a competition, but it is also a place where POC, and black students express themselves. there are material impacts for black/POC - some of which can show themselves through trigger warnings - dont be violent.

2 - ANY form of racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, lack of trigger warnings, etc -all of which WILL get you downed with an L-20.

3 - i default to competing interps, no rvi's, DTD - the more friv the shell, the lower threshold i have to beat it back. PICs and condo are probably good.

5- PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR QUICK ANALYTICS. i sometimes find myself missing them, esp with the nature of this tournament being online.

5 - please weigh.

6 - other things that will result in you getting the L or/and lower speaks - misgendering your opponent, stealing prep, manipulating ev, reading pess as a non black person, being rude to novices!

things i like to see/good speaks!

1 - collapsing !!

2 - judge instruction

3 -make the round fun or interesting

notes

1 - being toxic throughout the debate is a no

2 - try and have docs ready to go - just so we dont run over time tm - other than that have fun!

3 - if you want to postround - try to keep it constructive! try not to be rude.

I did Speech and Debate for 4 years. I did Original Oratory, Expository Speaking, Prose, Poetry, Congress, and some Policy.

I may stop writing now and again, but this is so that I can focus on what you are saying (I usually just jot down what sticks out). Spreading is fine, but if you can refrain from doing so I'd rather actually hear your points, so be clear. Keep it classy and be nice to your opponents. Don't falsify evidence. Be thorough with your arguments and tell me why you should win.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Best of luck.

I coach IPDA debate (an extemporaneous form of debate) at the college level and actively assist with LD and PF at the high school level. I'm also a non-practicing lawyer who works in legal/regulatory compliance, for what that's worth.

In terms of experience, a good summary would be: I'm capable of handling most technical, "progressive" and/or esoteric aspects of debate, but I really don't think I should have to. It's almost always possible to make even the most novel arguments in a way that is understandable and logically accessible to a reasonably educated non-specialist. And while I probably can understand your terminology or theory, I tend to reward debaters who don't need it.

A few specific things to keep in mind with me:

I vote based on complete arguments. That means claim, warrant, impact, and reason for decision. I probably know what you're trying to say, but can't ethically fill in the gaps for you. So please --if that card really is the killer you think it is-- walk me through why it wins the round for you.

I'm not crazy about speed. I won't say it can never add value. But 80-90% of the time that it's deployed in high school, its principal function is to obscure lazy reasoning or the lack of solid evidence, as opposed to fitting in more useful info. Again, debate is more than tag lines, and I'm not going to pretend that I can understand the particulars of a piece of evidence read at 300 wpm. So if you use speed like that, you assume the risk that I'll miss an essential part of your logical syllogism

On a related note, I'm very unlikely to read your case or cards. If you want to create a competition where people pass papers back and forth to make arguments, that might be an interesting game to play. But the essence of this competition --i.e., debating-- is orally delivering an argument to listeners. There's no reason to have oral delivery unless part of the game is encapsulating information in a way that a listener can process and evaluate. So I will generally decline to read cases or cards unless there is a specific, credible allegation of dishonesty.

I have no objection to theory or kritiks per se, but you're not entitled to tabula rasa judging on these kinds of arguments. That is, if your argument is truly a priori --i.e., it takes precedence over the resolution itself-- then you're no longer operating within the protective shell of imaginary judge fiat, where I can comfortably ignore what I know. Instead, you're asking me to take some stand relating to morality, ethics, fairness, etc., because of some ostensible impact on the real world. I can't ethically take "real world" actions while deliberately ignoring my own relevant knowledge. So full disclosure: if you take the debate outside the resolution, you assume the risk that I'll vote against you based on things that were not said in the round.

Be respectful. I know some tension is inherent in the activity, so I'll give a certain measure of leeway. But I'll happily give you the loss for gratuitous rudeness, mockery, etc.

Hi Everyone!

Background

I have experience in VLD (both local and circuit). I'm currently a first year at Vandy studying Medicine, Health, and Society (possibly prelaw or premed).

How to Win My Ballot

- I love a good a framework debate. If you're engaging framework and making extensions throughout the round to prove why your framework is important, I am much more likely to vote for you.

- If you say anything ridiculously discriminatory in round, that will warrant in automatic L. I will not tolerate it. Period.

- I can flow spreading, but I don't like it.

- I'm not voting for an argument just because it's in your case. That would require me to engage in too much critical thinking. The more work you do to convince me that your argument has an impact (magnitude, scope, time frame), the easier my job becomes.

- Please outline clear voters and signpost.

Make sure I can understand you; don't speak too fast!
Above all, be respectful to each other!

As a judge, I begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. That means I am ok with generally fast speeches, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. When it comes to speaking fast, just me a roadmap before every speech about which arguments you are addressing. When addressing kritiks, I don't care what types of kritiks you use. I just will evaluate based on which team has argued what makes the kritik revelant and why does the kritik give ground to vote in the aff or neg. I prefer if debaters respond to arguments in the order they were presented. Don't overcomplicate points or key arguments. To keep overcomplication to a minimum, clear signposting is greatly appreciated. Regarding the substance of your argument, the most important is the warrants/evidence. The heavy impacts cannot occur if you can clearly argue what triggers them.

On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, you know what the topic is: debate it.

CP- just be topical if a counterplan isnt topical. I'm not going to rely on the CP for a vote.

Hello! My name is Anna (she/they). I was a high school debater for 4 years competing in primarily PF, Worlds, Poetry, and Informative Speaking. I have also experienced and have knowledge in Congressional Debate, Prose, and Duo Interpretation.

My goal as your judge is to make sure that you feel comfortable, are able to take away something important from the round, and have fun! As such, feel free to contact me about any questions you have through my email (annakang613@gmail.com).

Now, here is some important judging criteria for the following events:

Overall Comments for Debate:

- Please speak a bit slower. This allows me to write as much as you want me to judge. Refrain from spreading if you can, and I'll note in the round if you are speaking too fast for me to write. I want to at least get as much as I can to properly judge.

- If you go overtime in your speech, know that I won't flow from that point. Additionally, just know you are keeping yourself from ending the round earlier than you would be.

- (Just my own little pet peeve) I will want you all to refrain from saying, "my opponent made a mistake" or anything that sounds like you are directing comments to your opponents. I want you to focus on the arguments, not directing the mistakes to the opponent. This won't change any differences in points, but it might just be a little thorn on my side throughout the round.

PF:
This is a debate that needs evidence but most importantly elaboration and ability to translate that evidence to your argumentation. I don't want the debate to be based on spreading and ultimately getting confused on what the opponents are arguing. Make sure you are speaking clearly and clarifying your argumentation along the way to win the round. Here are some other things I want you to note:

- I need you to weigh. I am going to heavily emphasize on the fact that I want to see the summary speech be used to not only clear up some misunderstandings, but also be the key deciding factor of the weighing aspects of the round.

- Argumentation should be carried throughout the round. From rebuttal, to summary, and finally final focus. If I don't see that trend, then I can't carry your argument until the very end. Make sure to collapse when you need to, and plan accordingly so you don't get overwhelmed at the end. It makes it easier for me to judge as well.

- I will not be flowing cross. I will still listen in and see how you all act during that time, but I will only flow the content that was taken from that time if you bring it up in your other speeches.

- I will default to a cost/benefit analysis framework if none are given at the beginning of the round. Please make sure to provide argumentation as to why your framework should stand if you are going to provide one. If your opponents are able to adequately answer to it or negate the reason for why we need such a framework, then I won't consider it.

LD:

TBH, I sadly don't know much about this field. All I know is that you have to substantially provide evidence for your value and criterion with your contentions. Follow the comments above if I am your judge for LD, and I will do my best.

Congress:

If I ever judge this, just know that I want to see professionalism, funny remarks, and good speeches. I also really appreciate good questions, since this tells me you are paying attention.

Policy:

I don't know much about this debate form as much, but I will do my best to follow, so bear with me as I try my best. You guys have lots of time in comparison to other debate forms, but I understand the feel and need to fit more information during that time as well. Make the debate not as a speed-race for how many words you can get in, but I would like to see the arguments getting thrown back and forth and engaged with by both teams. Similar to my points in PF, I will judge most of the arguments based on those particular points made above.

Worlds:

If I ever judge this, I can provide more specific comments after round. Most importantly, I want to see teamwork and flowed argumentation throughout the 3 speeches. I love to see how future speeches will respond to the ones that happened earlier and provide answers to certain substantives. Clever remarks and team lines will also give extra points from me.

Overall Comments for Speech:

- Show how much you are passionate for your topic and event. This can differ from each event, but if I see that particular enthusiasm for the topic, you can definitely pull me in and keep me on my toes.

- Speak clearly

- I will provide hand signals and give you ones that I think are necessary for that particular event. If you have specific signals that you would like, feel free to ask me to do them! I have a phone timer for that reason :)

- If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before you begin!

I do not like spreading. A huge part of debate for me is being able to communicate points effectively without having to create an email chain to follow along.

I know some judges do not weigh cross-ex or crossfire, but I think it's some of the most important and pivotal parts of any debate.

Off-time roadmaps are really pointless to me unless you follow them and give a detailed outline of the order, not just "their case, then mine." If you're going to give one, I want a list of the topics you're specifically going to hit (i.e. "Contentions 1-3, Voters 1-4"), and then I want you to follow through with that specified order.

I had lots of experience on the high school circuit, particularly with PF, World's, and Congress, but I am effective at flowing any debate and following lines of reasoning.

Make it make sense; do not just throw out cards without explanation or credentials. I do not care if you have 30 cards in your speeches if none of them connect or have causational links.

I did debate the entirety of high school. Focused on LD but also did PF, Big Questions, Congress, and World Schools at different points. Also did interp and my main focus was speech. Was state semi-finalist and national qualifier in debates.

Both speaking and debate are important to me- speak well so I understand your points.

Please do not get overly caught up in debate style but instead focus on the actual topics at hand. If there is a MAJOR issue, sure point it out, but most other technical issues I will catch anyway.

Do not be rude/condescending to your opponents. This is a fun activity, and I know it can get heated, but being rude won't make me vote for you. Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory is not accepted.

Have strong links between evidence and logic. Highlight your impact. I don't care how much evidence you have if you don't tell me why it matters.

Speaker points are determined by clarity, professionalism, and overall contribution to the debate.

LD:

- Don't forget to argue value and criterion, but it also shouldn't be the only thing you argue

- Please do not try to make LD into Policy. They are separate events. Don't spread.

PF:

- Do not become overly stylized or complex. Anyone should be able to understand your arguments without prior knowledge.

I did debate all four years of high school. I competed in PF and Congress, as well as interp and limited prep events. I was the 2019 State Champion in PF and Duet Acting, as well as national quarter finalist in congress at NSDA in 2019.

Speaking and debate are both important to me. Do not get caught up in the speaking style of your opponents, just address their arguments.

Do not spread, and for PF your arguments should be accessible. It’s called public forum for a reason, and should be accessible to laymen.

When addressing your opponents be respectful. I understand this activity can get heated, but it should still be cordial.

LD should address value criterion as well as the points presented by your opponent. Do not let the debate focus on solely one or the other.

speaker points are determined by clarity and overall contribution to the debate.

Your links between evidence and points should be very clear. I don’t care how much evidence you have if you don’t explain it’s importance.

most importantly have fun and be ready to learn. Despite this activity being about competition the goal should be for you guys to learn and be exposed to new ideas. Have fun and be respectful!

Debates tournaments were not a part of my schooling and thus I am not very versed in technical issues with debate tournaments. So I value clarity of argument and speech. Thus fast speech is something that hinders my understanding of what the participant is trying to present. Well-paced speech which is clear in content is valued more than fast speech with more content. I also like to have participant keep their own time. If possible presenting links of reference in the chatbox are prefered.

I did CX, LD, and a little PF and Congress in high school, though my debate experience is mostly limited to Mississippi (traditional debate). I also was an octafinal at NSDA in HI, and state co-champion for duet acting my senior year.

General Paradigm:

* Speed is okay as long as I can understand you and you're taking time to actually back up what you're saying.

* I assign speaker points based on overall contribution to the debate, tactically and in how compelling you are.

* Make sure to have good tech and counter arguments down the ballot, but I'm not going to consider tech if your argument is just too out there (no "jellyfish will fix our police system" pls).

* Feel free to have creative arguments, but please make it easy for me to flow and make it explicitly clear why you think I should vote for you instead of the other guys. (Weight impacts!)

* Fairness is a thing. Just be nice to each other :)

CX:

* I'm from traditional CX. That's what I'm used to and what I like, so try to keep that in mind as much as possible. It's also been three years since I've done CX in earnest, so I'm rusty, especially on the jargon.

* If you can help it, try not to spread. Speed is fine, though, as long as I can understand what you're saying clearly. If I can't catch what you said, it's tough for me to understand your argument.

* Please tag your arguments, and slow down when you do. A clean flow is a good flow.

* I only read what you read.

* Every case doesn't have to be about the apocalypse. Unless you have a strong link, please don't tell me about the dead rising from the grave, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, etc. (Be creative with arguments, just make sure you have good links!)

* I'm open to but skeptical of kritiks. If you run one, be sure to be very clear on why it's relevant as to how I should vote, with specific links to the opposing team, no "Cap K and run away."

* If you run Death Good, it might be kinda funny but I probably won't vote for you.

LD:

* Not too familiar with progressive LD (remember, Mississippi), but if that's what you know how to run then feel free, just know you'll have to explain things to me and be very clear about what you're doing.

* In a V/C debate, make sure to uphold your value.

PF:

* Accessibility of arguments is really important here. This is a "public" forum.

* Use Final Focus for the final focus please.

* Speaking is more important to me here than in other debate events, but arguments are still what matters most.

I teach rhetorical analysis and argumentation; consequently, I carry that awareness with me in my judging. I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my opinion of arguments.

In judging LD, I concentrate on the values and contentions; I am more excepting of far-reaching contentions as long as you can make the connections. Definitions aren't everything, but I like to know which ones you are using; subtle differences matter. My focus will be on the actual argument, the claims and rebuttals, and the crosses in the debate. I find "arguments" that rely on exhorting the rules of the process to be disingenuous.

In PF, I appreciate seeing a cohesiveness in the team. I focus on the structure of the argument, are adequate supports provided, and is everything rebutted. Again, I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my decision. Unnecessary speaking over each other and attempting to drown each other out is uncivilized and irritating. It also works against following your argument.

In Policy, I am looking for a logical argument that should pass, and for the negation, I am comfortable with nearly all on-topic and off-topic measures. I do find continuous definition attacks to be pedantic. As for spread, not an issue. I have clear hearing and have taught English to non-native speakers, so enunciation is not really an issue.

I debated Public Forum for four years in HS and attempted to compete in Prose for a semester during my Senior year.

Overarching things:

Truth > Tech: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are hypotheticals so I generally evaluate the round based on what's presented regardless of the truthfullness of the argument. Saying that, if you're gonna try to convince me that aliens exist or the Illuminati have my mind in a vat, you'd better have some pretty convincing evidence. Remember, the more realistic your argument, the more likely I am to value it more highly in the round.

Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Crossfire: I will NOT flow cross. Cross is a way for debaters to clarify arguments with each other, so arguments or ideas presented in cross must be extended throughout the rest of the debate. Don't use cross as an extra speech, use it for setup for later speeches.

Other things:
- When time stops, flowing stops. Speaking over the time limit will not add anything to the flow or factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; avoid spreading if possible
- If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. It is your job as a debater to present yourself in a clear manner to me, so if you speak to quickly, to a point where I cannot understand you, you will lose speaks and my flow won't contain all the arguments you mention.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense
- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
- Cross fire should be an exchange b/w the two debaters. I don't want long speeches in it.
- Star Wars references are greatly appreciated and will gain some clout with me.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before we start the round/email me at dfroger1@go.olemiss.edu

Good luck and make the most of every round!

Hi all!

My name is Sarah Grace, and I'm a sophomore at Georgetown University studying International Politics with a concentration in Foreign Policy Processes and a minor in the Korean Language. If you're a junior/senior and you have any Georgetown-related questions, or questions about how debate can help you with the college application process, regardless of your school affiliation, I'm happy to help. You can best reach me at sgs100@georgetown.edu!

As for my speech and debate background, I debated all four years of high school. My three main events were Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Original Oratory, and Extemporaneous speaking. I'm the most experienced with Lincoln-Douglas Debate - I was both the 2021 State Champion and also competed at multiple national tournaments. I've competed in LD, PF, and Policy. I did OO sophomore-senior year, and I'm familiar with most speech events. My blind spot is interp.

This community has meant a lot to me, and I'm excited to be able to give back to it through judging, so I wish you all good luck!

Overall Notes

1.DO NOT SPREAD.

2.I will keep the official time, but you can also time yourself.

3. I give good speaker points, but you are only going to get a 30 if you were perfect in every way.

Debate Paradigm

1. No ad hom attacks/insults/slurs/etc. Be sensitive about the content you are debating.

2. You may give an off-time road map if you want.

3. I look for clarity, signposting, and solid logic in rebuttals. Please let me know WHERE you are and WHAT contention you are addressing. If you are addressing your opponent's first contention, please tell me so I can note it on my flow.

4. In rebuttal, give me impact calculus. Tell me how I am supposed to determine who has the more important impact (probability, severity, scope, magnitude). Please compare the affirmative/pro and negative/con worlds and tell me which one is better.

6. I like to see key voting issues that address major areas of clash in the final rebuttal speeches.

7. I can handle speed, but you need to enunciate. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD.

8. If you use cards in rebuttal, don't just read them out, explain why it matters. Saying "Remember my Williams 2020 card" isn't enough. You should give me some additional analysis as to why it is relevant for your rebuttal.

LD Specific

1. I want to see value/value-criterion debate. Every contention should link back to the V and VC.

2. Give key voting issues in the 1NR and 2AR.

3. Logic-based arguments are fine. That being said, having evidence to back up your claims is also important. If you are saying something that is not entirely obvious, but pin it as "logic-based" I will weigh that in the round.

4. I will weigh the framework debate heavily if it is not collapsed, and if you do collapse the framework, you still need to make it clear what lens I'm judging the round through. If you win on framework, I still want to see solid debate on the contention level.

5. A bad CX won't lose you the round, but if you make a mistake/concession in CX and the opponent brings it up in rebuttal, I will weigh it.

Policy Specific

1. Please add me to the email chain. My Gmail is sgshurden@gmail.com.

2. I'm not super familiar with policy debate, so please make your arguments as accessible as possible. I need to understand what you are saying to flow it.

Congress

1. I treat Congress like a debate event. This means solid evidence, analysis, addressing other people in the chamber, and relevant questioning.

2. I don't like to see the SAME person stand up to give an aff and then stand up to give a neg right after. Pick a side and stick with it.

Overall Speech Paradigm

Dec, OO, Info

1. I'm familiar with Dec, OO, and Info. I know what the conventions are in each event, but in general, I will look for who the better speaker is.

2. Please don't judge how well you are doing based on my facial expressions.

3. Organization and evidence still counts. Even in speech. If I am confused about where you are, or the relevance of a point/piece of evidence, I will consider that when I rank you.

4. The speech I like the most won't necessarily be the one that gets the 1.

Extemp

1. Organization - The well-organized extemp speeches I've seen have a solid intro with a thesis, three points with several sources to back them up, and then a conclusion that links back to the intro.

2. Speaking - this comes back to who is the better speaker (inflection, tone, etc.).

3. Content - if you have 10 sources and they're all from the New York Times, I think you're probably making them up. Give me the month and year for each source. Ultimately, the analysis is more important to me than the source itself.

Impromptu

I look for most of the same things I do in extemp: organization, speaking, and content/analysis. Less emphasis on sources for obvious reasons.

Interp

I've never done interp before. If you get me as a judge, I have no idea what interp conventions are. I'll be judging on who I thought was the better speaker.

I am an attorney and my current occupation is as a Hearing Officer for the Mississippi Ethics Commission. AKA, I am an administrative judge and will evaluate your debates in a similar manner as a case pending in front of me. That is, I will make my decision based on the logic of the arguments and evidence presented. You should consider me to be a lay judge in a traditional circuit.

DO NOT SPREAD. (This includes policy.) I CANNOT handle speed. if I don't understand you, you haven't given me anything to consider. Time constraints are in place to force you to create your best and most persuasive argument. Accordingly, I give the most weight to clear explanations and logical arguments supported by credible evidence. Do not simply read your "cards." If you use jargon, give definitions. I will also evaluate the credibility of your arguments.

I expect relevance - Your arguments need to DIRECTLY address the resolution.

I also expect clash - I'm looking for you to address what is presented in each other's cases.

Finally, be polite and respectful as you debate. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

Good luck!

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

Update for TOC Digital 3: My background is in lay/traditional policy and it's been about a year since I've thought a lot about circuit debate/flowed spreading. I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but the less I understand, the more likely I'll make a mistake. If y'all would help me out by slowing down (especially for arguments that aren't in the doc) and taking more time to explain complex arguments and how they function in the round, I'd really appreciate it :D

Hello, I'm Jason. I competed for Madison Central in Mississippi (mostly PF, Policy, and speech; dabbled in World Schools, Congress, and LD). I do BP and APDA debate at Penn now.

My background is mostly in lay/traditional debate, but I did some national circuit PF and policy and think about debate in a more technical way. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

First and foremost, do what you do, and I'll do my best to follow and give constructive feedback. We are all here to learn, so above all else, please respect your opponents, teammates, and judges. At the end of the day, it's a lot more important to be a good person than a great speaker/debater.

General:

1- Tell me what argument(s) you’re winning, why you’re winning them, and why winning those arguments means you win the debate. The same goes for dropped arguments. Being technically proficient is important, but smart overviews, organization, and judge instruction can shape how I view technical issues on the flow.

2- Be smart and adaptable. Cases that are strategically written, clever logical analysis to respond to unpredictable/unrealistic arguments, and comparative weighing of arguments beyond probability/magnitude/timeframe are all great.

3- Here’s a video that shows the speed I am comfortable with without a doc. Please start off slow and work your way up to speed.

4- Highly warranted evidence is great. If there's evidence-sharing, I won't read evidence to make my decision unless you tell me to or I think there's something fishy going on. I might read it for fun though.

5- Try to make the round accessible and educational for everyone involved. Complex or unorthodox arguments are fine, but make them in a way that your opponents can easily understand and don't be mean or shifty in cross if you're asked to explain them. But also, if you read an argument that you wouldn't usually read just to confuse your seemingly-less experienced opponents, I'll be very sad.

Public Forum:

1- PF speeches are super short. Your speaks will be amazing if the last two speeches focus on winning and implicating a few arguments, rather than going for everything.

2- 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

3- An argument must have been in summary for it to be in final focus.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1- If the framework debate is clearly irrelevant (i.e. both debaters are staking the round on consequences) just concede to your opponent's framework and win under it.

2- If the values are different, I'll probably view the value and criterion as a single framework rather than two separate layers of the debate.

Policy:

1- I'm definitely more familiar with policy arguments than kritikal arguments. Seriously go for anything though (provided it isn't hateful), but the further something strays from what I'm familiar with, the more explanation I'll need to understand.

2- Pls slow down on taglines, analytics, and stuff you really want me to flow.

4- Honestly not super familiar with the K outside of Cap and Security. I like to learn though, so if that's your jam, just explain it well (especially how the K interacts with the aff) and I'll be happy to listen.

5- Same goes for K affs. Just be very clear on what your aff does and do impact calc vs framework. For what it's worth, I went for clash/skills impacts in 2NRs on framework, but am good for whatever.

6- I won't judge kick a counterplan in the 2NR unless I'm told to, and it wouldn't take much from the 2AR to convince me not to.

7- Probably not great for super techy competition/theory debates.

8- I'm not super comfortable adjudicating arguments about something that happened out-of-round.

9- The first lines of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words I put at the top of my RFD.

Other Events:

1- Be organized, be polished, and make me think.

2- Have fun!

I am a math teacher and speech and debate coach at Purvis High School in Purvis, MS. Our primary focus as a team is on speech and interp events, so my experience with debate events is rudimentary.

I judge LD debate, where I would prefer that debaters not spread. I judge primarily on the flow with an emphasis on value and criterion, but I do give a higher weight to presentation than do many debate judges. I feel that debate should not just be an exercise in logic and evidence (though that is the focus), but should also reflect the reality that the way in which information is presented affects its persuasiveness.

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.