Frequent Congressional Judge. Be unique with your content instead of repeating over and over again. Use crystallization in your speeches near the end of the bill.

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

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.

Pronouns: She/her

I have NO TIME FOR HATE. Any comments that are offensive, racist, bigoted, transphobic, misogynistic, etc will result in an automatic drop. This includes: speaking down to opponents, using improper pronouns/misgendering, using offensive terminology, etc. Speech and debate is about respectfully allowing our arguments to shine through, not attacking one another; therefore, I will not tolerate it.

LD:

I am an old-fashioned LD judge. No spreading. If I cannot hear an argument, I do not judge that argument. It is not my job as the judge to figure out your arguments; it is YOUR job as the debater to tell me what they are.

I want to see framework debate. LD is NOT Policy! 99% of the time I'm not interested in solvency. I also usually drop counterplans, because that's subverting the intention of LD.

Also, personal pet-peeve: poorly cut cards. Cards should not be cut stringing disparate words together to change the intention of the writer of the card. If you can't pull a clean quote out of it, choose a new card.

I am a firm believer in the idea that an LD round ought to be understandable by anyone off the street.

Congress:

I reward active speakers who participate and advance debate. Rehashing in a late-cycle or giving speeches just to give a speech and not to advance debate will NOT be rewarded. I do notice who is just giving speeches and who is giving speeches, proposing motions, asking questions, etc.

To those running the tournament: My preferred styles to judge are Congressional, IPDA, and I'm happy to judge forensics/speech. Putting me in policy is a bad idea and I don't like policy at all. In terms of Individual Events, I do best with Humorous, Duo, and Dramatic Interpretation, and worst with Poetry.

To competitors: Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, and hate speech of any kind will earn an immediate loss of my ballot. The most important thing to me in a round is that you respect not only me, but your opponent, other judges, spectators, and anyone else. Please don't spread. If I wanted to try to make sense of spreading, I'd do policy. I don't do policy, so I don't want to hear spreading. Please just have mercy and talk at a decent pace. I have no preference in how you present your argument, just do it well.

I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework, and voters should as well. Weigh your arguments as well. At the end of your final speeches, I expect to hear clear voters. If possible, do not spread. If you are, send me the doc. I do not judge many circuit rounds.

Include me on the email chain: Rnold042302@gmail.com

Speed preferences (Please read):

PF: Should not be a policy speed, but a faster pace is ok as long as you are clear. It is still your job to make sure that you emphasize/slow down on the most important points you are making. Basically, if you want me to flow it, make sure its clear.

Traditional LD: Between pf and policy, National Circuit: See policy below

Policy: 6/10. I did policy for 3 years, so I'm exposed to spreading. However, I would still prefer not too fast of a round. This isn't a traditionalist preference, but more of a matter of general accessibility for me. You can still spread to an extent, but it needs to be comprehensible. I should be able to get your arguments clearly even without the email chain (Although I would like to be on the email chain). If I think you are being too fast or not clear enough, I will try to say clear, but it is still on you to emphasize and make sure I get your key points. Don't worry about this too much, just remember not to go too speedy.

General "TLDR" about me as a judge :

I did policy for three years and public forum my senior year, but I also have some experience with Lincoln Douglass. I am currently a student at University of Alabama.

I am most likely familiar with a wide variety of types of arguments you would likely run in the round, but don't assume you don't have to do the work to flesh out the arguments you present in the round well.

First and foremost- Run what you are best at. I'd rather see a good debate than what I prefer personally. This doesn't mean you have a free pass to run super bad args but don't feel like you have to completely fit the round around me.

I'm basically Tabula Rasa. Give me a framework/Framing and Ill go with it until it is refuted or dropped. That goes for aff and neg. I would say that I minimize my interference in the round and with my paradigm as much as possible, and when I do have to make decisions (especially on theory) I try to go with whichever debate norms presented (aff/neg) maximizes education in the round (I take into account impacts like accessibility, racism, discrimination, etc as a part of education, so don't shy away from these args in theory).

Policy Specific:

Case Debate: I will vote probably not vote on solvency or case-takeouts alone (unless there are link/impact turns read). neg still needs to extend offense, otherwise I'll probably be very open to Aff "if there's a 1% chance..." type arguments.

CP's- I default to sufficiency framing. The cp's viability as a winning argument (barring theory) is essentially a product of how much it resolves aff impacts and the magnitude of the net benefit. On neg, be clear on what the net benefit is and how the cp doesn't link. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. This makes it easier for me to resolve arguments on the perm debate level.

For AFF- Perms are the best, but I'm definitely open to other stuff. Theory is good too, condo, specific to the cp, etc., as long as it is warranted out and you provide me with how they violate the theory arguments. Multiple perms are generally ok-ish, but if they are fairly unique or if a perm is similar to a previous perm, you have to highlight the differences otherwise I'm lenient on allowing neg cross-applications of perm answers.

K's-

I am fine with critical debate on both sides, but I need the link story to be clear for me on the flow. Also, pleaseeeeeeee understand and effectively explain the alt. I need to know how the alt resolves the links, solves for the impacts outlined, etc. Too many affs let the neg get away with not explaining the alt well enough. Even if its not "vague", push neg on this.

K affs are definitely chill, you do you. But if neg pushes framework, make sure you have good answers to the TVA. It doesn't have to be a super in depth arg, but I should see something in the 2ac/1ar about why defending the resolution or a TVA of your K aff is bad. Also unless it strictly does not work with your K, please please please try to have some type of /alt/advocacy statement to act as a stable point for neg-testing.

On neg- I'm most familiar with the cap k and wildersonian afropess args, but you are cool to run whatever as long as you explain it well and make sure I understand the story of the K. Don't assume I know your lit. Also, you will likely need to reduce speed on these arguments given my likely unfamiliarity with the specific literature.

T- Default to competing interps but can be convinced otherwise. Also, on aff don't just say "reasonability". Reasonability also requires extension of a counterinterp or you must win we meet bc Reasonability means we meet a reasonable interp of the Resolution. It's not a wishy washy justification of tangentially topical affs.

Theory: I'm open to most all things, but a caveat: I'm not a big fan of generic wiki-based disclosure arguments (unless it is centered around some other impact like accessibility or taken in a critical direction). If I can tell you are just reading generic "Your aff wasn't listed on the wiki so you should lose" I'll listen to it but I will let you know I don't think its a great argument unless it is tied to deeper accessibility or fairness norms (i.e, tell me a story and give me meaningful impacts). You have to prove why this is a reason to drop the debater. Neg has a higher threshold for winning this than T in my eyes.

LD- I'm most familiar with traditional value-framework LD, but Plans are ok on more progressive circuits or if both debaters are ok with it (but then neg also gets full access to cps and K's). In traditional debates, I first decide which value is to be used in the round (based on arguments made), and then look to see which side maximizes that value. Dropping your framework is ok in my book if you can win under your opponents framework.

I'm also open to more critical arguments or circuit debate styles as long as general accessability to the debate is maintained for both debaters. However, If aff takes a traditional ld approach w/o a plan, neg needs to argue why they (the neg) should get conditional advocacies (this is definitely an uphill battle). For more info on my paradigm for progressive circuit ld style, see ^ for policy.

PF-

I default to hypo testing for public forum. The game is one of "resolution: true or false?" This is similar to what you're normally used to in pf so nothing mainly different. The key difference is that this isn't only just squo versus pro world, but instead a test of the resolution as a truth claim. Therefore, con can make arguments that aren't the squo as long as they don't read a specific plan or advocacy. I repeat, No plan statements or specified advocacies!

Please give me impact comparison in the final speeches (Time, magnitude, probability, etc) to help me do an effective cost-benefit analysis on the topic (if that is the framework of the round). I will also admit i'm a sucker for a story. Cohesive impact narratives are much easier to vote on than messy disconnected ideas.

Critical arguments are ok, but no alts/plans. Theory is also ok, but I'll admit personally I'm not a big fan of wiki disclosure based theory args (see policy section for more). That doesn't mean its not a viable option, just you need to show actual in round harms.

Other than that, have fun!

(Any questions on my paradigm? Feel free to email me or ask before the round begins)

Other Notes:

-Feel free to use all of cx even if you don't have more great questions. It's free prep for your partner. I won't dock speaks for this unless it is egregiously bad.

Name: Jay Stubbs

School Affiliation: Bellaire High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: Since the event was introduced

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: PF did not exist when I competed

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 38 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: High School and College

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Congress, Extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery Clarity for understanding is most important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Line by line on most important issues along with big picture to guide the way the debaters want me to vote.

Role of the Final Focus Final resolution of key issues along with framing the decision for the judge.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches Essential for key arguments in the round.

Topicality Can be run if there are blatant violations…anything can be found to be non-topical via definition…that is a waste of time.

Plans This is a function of the wording of the resolution. Acceptable when the resolution suggests a specific action.

Kritiks Are not going to persuade me.

Flowing/note-taking Is a function of the clarity of debaters in the round. Clarity makes it much easier to keep all issues organized on the flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Clarity is most important to me. Just because a debater makes an argument doesn’t mean that I understand it or know how to weigh it in relation to other arguments without intervention. Clarity brings meaning to important arguments…clarity explains how to weigh arguments against other issues. Providing clarity early in the round is essential when it comes to evaluating arguments as the evolve throughout the round. Waiting until the end of the round to provide clarity can be too late.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No…new arguments should have been introduced earlier in the round. An extension of a key argument is a part of argument evolution.

Congress

I evaluate your arguments in a Congress session in relation to your effectiveness in delivering them. An effective Congressional Debater is one who is committed to making sure that the judge understands the arguments and information they are presenting. When a debater's commitment is limited to getting information into the debate they are assuming that I will gain the same understanding of the information that they have.

Introductions should be creative when possible. Generic intros are frowned upon greatly.

Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis.

Devoting time to the summary/conclusion is very important.

Ending speeches at 3:00 is very important. Speeches ending at 3:10 show a lack of discipline and preparation.

Questioning should be focused on exposing weaknesses in opponent's arguments. Questions that cause little to no damage are of marginal value. There should never be a time when the questioner and respondent are both talking at the same time for more than a brief moment.

Respondents should view questioning as an opportunity not an adversarial activity. Attitude and unnecessary aggression will be scored lower. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable if there is no reasonable reason why you should know the answer. I would like to NEVER hear the answer "I am sure you could tell me." I can not tell you how much I really don't appreciate that response in a questioning period.

I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.

I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.

With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:

*I am a flow judge.

*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.

*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.

**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.

*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.

*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.

*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.

*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.

*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution. I prefer clearly labeled contentions and subpoints. It is just easier to flow.

**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!

**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.

*In Congressional Debate

**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.

*In Big Question

**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!

*In Lincoln/Douglas

**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.