Hello!

I am an ex-public forum debater from the New Horizons Debate Team in the Dominican Republic. I am now a debate coach and a business student.

I base my decision on the established framework. If no framework is presented, I’ll just choose my own.

I can keep up with fast-paced reading, but if you spread I will not flow. Slow down when reading your impacts or any important statements you want to emphasize.

Take your time and fill your time. DO NOT leave time in your speeches or go over your time, otherwise, I will take speaker points off.

Use taglines and make sure your speeches are organized.

Use a line-by-line approach in rebuttals if possible and beneficial.

Use impact calculus in summary and final focus. Also, everything not mentioned in summary I consider dropped.

CX can be aggressive but don’t be disrespectful. Otherwise, I will take speaker points off.

I don’t flow crossfire but do take them into consideration.

Both speakers should speak in grand-cross.

Don’t take too long looking for evidence. Don’t add me to any link chains, just show your evidence in the round and it’ll be fine. Also, don’t argue with your opponent when asking for or showing cards.

Have fun and good luck!

I competed in LD and Extemp for two years in high school 2015-2017.

LD: I have been removed from debate for a few years, so terminology doesn't come quickly to me so be careful of jargon or just explain it. I started judging August 2021 for context so consider me Lay. If you speak fast, you should still be clearly enunciating what you are saying. I know what this looks like so don't spread unless you can do it where I can catch all the words. If you spread regardless, just know i'm catching like nothing.

I'm not familiar with progressive terminology things like K's, Theory etc... just FWI since I never ran these in debate. I'm getting more familiar as I hear them but you have to tell me how to evaluate the round and explain the voters clearly. I understand theory more than K's but really don't prefer them ran. I like traditional LD cases or plans. I've only had one round where a debater clearly explained the Theory shell and why I should vote on it.

But, I'll listen to anything and will consider it as the judge but explain it plz and don't let the judge get lost. I don't really flow CX. Slowing down and giving me the tagline or evidence name really helps me flow (:

My speaker points rn are pretty much based on how well I understood your case and how well I was able to follow your speaking through the round.

30 - Perfect speaking, an awesome thought out case, very clear, was able to flow easily, mapped out the flow for me, told me what to vote on and why, responded to all arguments that are active on the flow.

29 - Good speaking, Able to follow case and flow the round, mapped the flow somewhat, some voters, responds to arguments.

28 - Good speaking, case is understandable and was able to flow. No mapping, no voters, drops arguments extensively.

27 - Poor Speaking, drops arguments, case isn't clear. Ran a super super progressive debate against a very new debater. (Different types of case formats are fine (Plans etc...) , but if it gets to a point where your opponent has absolutely no idea what you are saying and cannot respond, the debate just sucks at that point)

26 - Something offensive occurred in round or attitude was very rude towards each other.

If one debater is more progressive versus their opponent and the understanding gap of the type of argument being run isn't there, it will make the debate very difficult to judge. Please make sure your opponent and your judge understand what you are arguing.

You are welcome to add me to the email chain bc we are virtual - I will only use it if you cut off bc it's virtual or if one piece of evidence becomes a huge issue in the debate and makes it a big factor in making a decision. But I will be flowing and listening to what I hear not what I read. - minaal99@gmail.com

I don't disclose and I kinda suck at oral feedback but I can try if you want feedback right away but it takes some time for me to go through the flow and figure out the round. I try my best to be detailed on the ballot unless I am pressed for time.

Please feel free to ask me any questions! (:

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

hi, i'm graham. i competed at vestavia hills for two years, acquiring two bids and qualifying to the toc my senior year.

BERK EDIT:i haven’t really thought about or heard debate in a while. slow down (especially on analytics) and maybe even over explain.

add me on the chain- ingegrahamjohnstone@gmail.com

tldr: read anything. the pref chain is just indicative of what i read as a debater/how comfortable i am with each style. argumentative dogmatism is bad! i also heavily align ideologically to my former coach sira ahuja, whom i will quote multiple times in this paradigm.

pref chain:

k - 1

policy - 1/2

theory - 2/3

tricks - 3

normative phil - 4/5

disclaimer

i do have very slight hearing issues so i will sometimes corroborate my flow with the doc. however, that also means that you should slow down and clear off the doc (which you should have been doing anyways). if i don't catch something, i'll be upfront about it if applicable.

miscellaneous thoughts

- i like to read evidence (especially in policy rounds) - if you read good, warranted evidence and follow it up with contextual, explanatory analysis that makes it to where i have to do less reading, your speaks will be rewarded tremendously.

- lean neg on process and condo and some actor, lean aff on multi-actor, international, etc.

- (in the context of policy) big fan of new 2nr evidence - but will limit it to 4-5 cards at max.

- with regards to t-framework, i actually really love framework debates. despite reading mainly k affs in high school, i have been on both sides of the debate many times and am as neutral as can be. that being said, k 1ars against framework with little-to-no clarity regarding the affirmatives model of debate/the role of the negative will lose in front of me.

- in terms of k literature, most familiar with ir k's (namely grove), baudrillard, set col, psychoanalysis, cap (mainly beller), and queerpess. i never encountered afropess as a debater, but i did read some of warren, wilderson, and gillespies' works.

- i love creative arguments regardless of which style of debate they're categorized as. things like clash royale theory, the 21 savage kritik, the rider disadvantage, and alien wipeout ( thanks anshul) are things i enjoy very much. creativity/interesting strategy will be rewarded with better speaks if executed well!!! (this does not mean spamming random 1ar shells and throwing every other flow.)

things i don't like / will refuse to evaluate:

- do not commit one of the isms

- reading an argument that violates a pre-stated accommodation.

- very high threshold for disclosure against novices and / or small school trad debaters (anything else is fair game tho, i just think disclosure against those who don't know how to disclose / know what it is should be taught out of round.)

if you do any of these things (except maybe disclosure), expect a 25

speaker points:

i'll disclose them if you ask. it feels like debaters are getting less and less clear every year so if you speak well you will be greatly rewarded.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Hi! I'm a junior at FAU HS and this is my 6th year competing in congressional debate.

Debate is not a game
You're usually discussing matters of life and death -- this entire activity is a dialectic about how to improve the nation and the world. Your rounds are about more than just getting the 1 or a W. Similarly, debate affects the lives of people who participate in it. Success can mean scholarships or admittance to great colleges. Please don't trivialize how important that can be for people.

"Principally!!!" is a trendy new filler word in congress
I WILL mark you down for saying this. It adds nothing to your content and does not make you sound smarter. Also a nice little litmus test to see if you actually read my paradigm lol.

Speeches & style -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
"Constructive," "rebuttal," and "crystallization" speeches are a social construct! They are a lens to understand your role as a speaker, not a strict blueprint for a speech. I don't care if you use CWDI, block structure, or just freestyle. I don't care if you use a legal pad or an iPad or nothing. These are just your tools -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.

If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round. Do not pawn other people's prep off as your own.

No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.

Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis. Telling me why your arguments are true and why they matter are different things entirely. Don't mix em up!

In terms of congressional debate, most rounds have two issues: the debate is surface-level yet pretty damn confusing. I love speakers who can cut through to the heart of a topic and implicate that back to the debate as a whole.

I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself!

Delivery & presentation
Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.

OK so people have started using iPads a lot more since I first wrote this paradigm. For context, I don't know anyone who has been using an iPad for longer than I. If you use an iPad, you need to look and sound like a fluent speaker with a legal pad. Bulky cases will weaken your performance. Having to hold the iPad in front of your face the whole time will weaken your performance. Pad dependency, as always, will seriously count against you. The iPad is a tool, not a crutch.

Laptops are a flat out no. You won't get a rank from me speaking off a laptop.

Love padless performances, they're impressive af.

Presiding officers
POs are the worst part of congress. There is no way to fairly rank a room of speakers against someone whose entire job is to update a spreadsheet and bang a gavel. If I had it my way, every round would have a tournament-provided PO. But don't worry. I have a fair way to evaluate POs regardless of anything else: Bad POs will be dropped, good POs will at least get a rank good enough to advance to the next round.

A good PO is fast, fair, aware of parliamentary procedure & tournament-specific rules, and serves as a leader and problem-solver in the round.

I rank POs in final rounds differently. I don't think POs deserve to champ unless they do something brilliant or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I've never seen a final round where I thought the PO deserved to champ, even though they often do. I will never give a PO the 1 in a final round. Think that's unfair? Not really. POs often champ without getting a single 1. If I'm judging a debate tournament, I'd rather give the 1 to a debater.

If you're a PO and get no feedback from me, that means you did a good job. Fret not.

Other stuff
"Automatic previous question after 3 speeches on the same side" is not a rule unless we're at TOC or tournaments that specifically use TOC rules.

Speech equity is great and important, but there is no such thing as a formal base system. I have nothing against someone getting the chance to speak more than everyone else if it keeps debate going and fresh.

Don't yell or be mean in cross-ex. Avoid talking over eachother. If someone starts yelling or talking over you in cross-ex, let them. I promise it's more strategic to let them look bad and perhaps call them out for it, compared to fighting fire with fire. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.

I see all the politicking for what it really is

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.