I am a parent judge and can understand the basics of public forum.

Very traditional, do NOT like spreading. Voters are extremely important to me so make sure you use the time in your last speech wisely.

if you decide to do an email chain please add me drginaaabrams@gmail.com

My pronouns are she/her/hers if you go by a different name or pronouns please let me know before the round starts.

I do not disclose and I will make sure to put all comments in the ballots.

Make sure to signpost well and please give me a roadmap of your speeches.

History

Overall my competitive background is unimpressive. I mostly did Public Forum and Domestic Extemp for my 3 years of competition. I am however very well versed in Lincoln Douglass, and Congress. I was a finalist in the Senate at State after an unfortunate year. I attended James Madison High School. I have been judging mostly LD since I graduated high school in 2015 and I’ve figured out what I do and don’t like in round. I have graduated from UTSA with a major in Criminal Justice, Double Minoring in Legal Studies and Political Science. I am currently attending UNT College of Law. If you are reading this, please ask me how law school is going! It would be nice to see if anyone reads this.

Value Debate

I do not require a value debate in round. If a framework is established I will default to it until it is contested. Framework is the lens of which I view the round. When I make a decision, it is based off a very mathematical calculus. When no framework is established, or two frameworks are negated, I default to a utilitarian calculus. If you and your opponent have the same framework, or the framework doesn't greatly affect the offense in the round, do not feel obligated to keep debating it. Hearing two people bicker about the definition of moral, even though nobody is arguing a nuanced case around a specific definition, is maddening.

Theory

I for the life of me, could not tell you what a proper theory structure looks like. Tell me what happened and why I should care, and I will buy the argument. I do not enjoy theory debate, and I believe that it should be used solely to check abuse.

Kritik

Link to the resolution or I will probably not vote you up. Imma repeat that to make sure it is perfectly clear, LINK TO THE RESOLUTION OR I WILL PROBABLY NOT VOTE YOU UP. Otherwise I do enjoy seeing things like antiblackness, queer theory, Fem, etc. as long as there is a clear link. I do not enjoy seeing cases that can literally be run on any topic without any real research. I am a big fan of permutations to crappy K’s. If you insist on not linking you better have a damn good reason, and provide a clear Role of the Ballot.

Disads and Counterplans

I enjoy both disads and counterplans, when run correctly. I do find it odd though, most of these could very well be called contentions. I'm sure there is some old technical reason that separates them, but its mystery to me. Remember that any plan you produced can't simply be fiated into existence, that is to say, it must be possible at the very least. Of course with persuasion the idea of plausibility can shifted one way or another, but that is on you.

Speed

I am pretty decent with speed, but keep in mind if you are spreading and have time left at the end of your speech or end up repeating the same thing ten times, your speaker points aren’t going too look nice. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it is simply a tool to get more arguments out in a given time.

Update January 2020

Considering it's been 2 years since I've updated this, I figured I'd add this little tid bit at the end. Amazingly my preferences haven't changed much, I do find myself enjoying progressive debate more and more as the years go on, but I think it's important that every judge have an open mind when going into a round. I strongly encourage you to run whatever version of debate you believe gives you the best chance to win the round. If you have any questions please come find me before or after the round.

Update 2023

It seems like 2 and a half years seems to be the pattern on how often I feel obligated to update this little forum. I am now a third year law student and unfortunately have not been able to judge debate nearly as often as a like, so if I look slightly lost or confused in your round, it may not be your fault, I am just rusty. What I enjoy seeing in rounds has not changed. I may ask you to slow down more than I used to in my prime, but I promise to do my best to keep up with what you need.

As of this year I am currently competing in Moot Court, and will be competing in Mock Trial, on behalf of the University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law.

Hey, my name is Ishika Bhatia and I debated all four years of my high school career at local, state, and national level so I am well experienced with the debate community. I focused heavily on Dual Interpretation and Program Oral Interp. My paradigms are as follows:

Speech: I weigh analysis over presentation, especially in extemporaneous. Presentation is still required but if you provide solid analysis I may be convinced to give you the higher rank. Oratory and informative of course is all about presentation.

Interp: Presentation is important to make sure you are presenting in a manner that evokes the emotions of your piece and resembles the message of the piece. Make sure you are staying within the time limit given and don't be monotone in your voice. Props are not allowed so make sure you are not bringing anything else into the round. Other than that I go based on the presentation and how well you convey your piece to the audience.

My name is Huy. My pronouns are he/him/his. I was an avid forensics competitor in middle and high school in the TFA, UIL, and NSDA circuits. I was a speech and interpretation competitor, so I have extensive experience in those events; I have still judged a number of debate rounds.

My critiques are not meant to tear you down. I try to write a lot for every competitor, so please use these critiques to learn and refine/apply new things to your craft.

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

Interpretation (Includes DI, HI, Duo, Duet, PO, PR, POI)

All forms of literature are fair game. I do allow swearing in moderation.

Memorize your piece. Plain and simple. I will mark down for looking at scripts during round/while another competitor is performing for non-binder events (and POI). Look at the binder sparingly during PO and PR.

Clarity. Enunciate--if I cannot hear you, I cannot judge you properly. Please (try to) do accents properly. Eye-contact, confidence, posture, stuttering, and et cetera is included in this criteria; I will recognize when you're doing characters and when you are doing the intro.

Introduction. Have an introduction. It's standard to do a piece in the teaser-introduction-piece format, but I do not mind as long as you have any introduction. It should be insightful and be more than a on-the-surface-level analysis.

Characterization. Have multi-dimensional character(s). I prefer realism when doing serious pieces, and caricatures when doing humorous pieces, but this is up to the competitor(s) discretion. I have seen competitors do well with caricatures in DI, and vice versa.

Blocking. This includes all forms of physical movement: morphing/melting/changing characters, hand gestures, crossing, binder tech, et cetera. Unless specified otherwise by the tournament director, I will judge under TFA rules, meaning you CAN move below the waist AND do binder tech during PO and PR. You have free range of movement for all other events, including POI. Don't overdo binder tech--I do not care how flashy a piece is if it has no substance. Given the online format, I do not encourage using the floor (i.e. lying down) for longer than 30 seconds unless necessary. For Duo and Duet under the online format, please still try to interact with your partner as much as possible.

Creativity. Do not copy online videos. I will down you automatically. Have integrity. I want to see something new and creative with your piece. Make it your own, and have fun with it.

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

Speaking (Includes OO, INF, IMP)

Be persuasive. That is the point of these events.

Memorize your speech. This applies for OO and INF. Plain and simple. I will mark down for looking at speeches during round/while another competitor is speaking. For IMP, please do not use an index card unless it is a novice round. Memorize your quote verbatim.

Clarity. Enunciate--if I cannot hear you, I cannot judge you properly. Eye-contact, confidence, posture, stuttering, and et cetera is included in this criteria. I love speeches with personality.

Structure. Your speech can have any sort of structure you want. Though I prefer 3-point (i.e. intro, 3 body, conclusion), I don't mind as long as there is structure. If you do not have structure, I will down you automatically.

Citations. For INF and OO, please state explicitly where you found your evidence. For INF, if you are quoting someone or an event, please state who they are or what the event was. All events must explain these citations/relate them back to the speech. Have an adequate number of sources. A speech without evidence is a human without bones--no way it can stand up.

Anecdotes. Use sparingly. I do not like speakers who overload their speeches with dramatics. Save that for DI.

Gestures. Find a good balance: do not be excessive, but don't forget to gesture. Use them in the important points you want me as a judge to focus on.

Visual Aids (VAs). Applies for INF only. They are OPTIONAL. I understand the current circumstances, so you VAs do not need to be elaborate. However, if you have words on the display, make sure it is visible on camera while tournaments are still online. I will still mark you have an obviously messy VA (i.e. pieces of paper glued to a board).

Creativity. Do not copy online videos. I will down you automatically. Have integrity. I want to see something new and creative with your speech. Make it your own, and have fun with it.

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

Extemporaneous (Either FX or DX)

Be persuasive. That is the point of these events.

Memorize. Plain and simple. I will mark down for looking at your prep during round/while another competitor is speaking. Please do not use an index card unless it is a novice round. Memorize your question and citations (if you quote) verbatim.

Clarity. Enunciate--if I cannot hear you, I cannot judge you properly. Eye-contact, confidence, posture, stuttering, and et cetera is included in this criteria.

Structure. Your speech can have any sort of structure you want. Though I prefer 3-point (i.e. intro, 3 body, conclusion), I don't mind as long as there is structure. If you do not have structure, I will down you automatically. Try to have a balance of sources in each point--each one should be equally important. Do not put 5 sources in the first point and have 1 in each of the other ones.

Citations. Please state explicitly where you found your evidence (e.g. Reuters on November 17, 2019). I prefer current sources, which is nothing older than ~5 years unless necessary. I do count on the number of citations and do not include repeated ones. If you are quoting someone or an event, please state who they are or what the event was. All events must explain these citations/relate them back to the speech.

Fact Check. Obviously incorrect facts will be noted.

Gestures. Find a good balance: do not be excessive, but don't forget to gesture. Use them in the important points you want me as a judge to focus on.

Creativity. Do not copy online videos. I will down you automatically. Have integrity. This includes using someone else's introduction or conclusion. I want to see something new and creative with your speech. Make it your own, and have fun with it.

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

Lincoln Douglass Debate

Be a good sport. Debate rounds will get heated. No name-calling/cussing.

Clarity. Enunciate--if I cannot hear you, I cannot judge you properly. I will try my best to flow, but given the online format, if I do not catch something, I may have to ask you to repeat. Speaking points will be determined by criteria that apply in Speaking paradigms above.

Run anything. Literally anything.

Time yourself. Obvious for varsity debaters, but many novices do not know.

I will disclose at my discretion if the tournament director permits.

Hi! I did debate in high school, and I loved it. I also love judging! I’m always willing to give critiques to the best of my ability, and I like to see a lot of clash in rounds. Make sure you address your opponents arguments. Don’t speak too fast, especially not online, and make sure that you are being polite while also maintaining a good presence in the room. Really speak to me and tell me why I should vote for you. I’m good with any type of argument, as long as it is done well. Collapsing arguments should also be done intentionally and only in the case of a wash. I don't flow cross, so bring up cross in speech if you want to use what your opponents says as ground.

I am also traditional in the sense that during round I would like the speakers to be standing up, rather than sitting down, and also facing the judge. Debate is also about presentation, as much as important arguments.

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

Hi! My name is Dana (she/her). I'm a parent judge, so please keep the debate rounds traditional as best as you can. Any progressive arguments (k, theory, etc) should be run cautiously, and know that I may not always understand them. If you choose to run something like this, please be sure to fully explain why I should vote for you on it. No spreading, keep it simple. If I can't understand it, it won't be on the flow. If you want anything from cross to be on the flow, be sure to say it in a speech. Signpost please!!! Make sure I know exactly what you're trying to say and where on the flow it will go. Most importantly, have fun!

I'm a National Forensic League member since 1989. I graduated from Loretto Academy in 1992 and I graduated a Gold and Diamond for individual events such as Dramatic, Humorous, Readers Theatre, Debate LD, Duet Acting, Duet Acting Improv, Improv, Oratory, Original Oratory and the list goes on and on for this. I competed all through high school and I became a judge in college.

I'm a fair judge and I look at all aspects of the event as well as how well the students compete. Everything is judged fairly.

My email is jocelynepstein@gmail.com and I would like to be added to the email chain.

I debated policy at Reagan High School for 4 years.

Please refrain from clipping cards. It is a form of cheating. I am fine with prompting and open-cx, but do not dominate your partner during their speeches. Honestly, it is just really awkward to watch that happen. I am fine with spreading, just do your best to speak clearly and try to modulate your tone and speed for tags and blocks. I won't count flashing as prep, but do not steal prep.

Topicality: I enjoy listening to well-developed T debates. I will probably default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I will view a topical version of the aff as a cp to the aff's interp.

Kritiks: Please avoid long overviews on the K. I would prefer you to do the majority of your explanations on the line-by-line. Case-specific links are obviously helpful, but I understand they are not always available, so please at least try to contextualize your links.

CP: CP's are effective arguments, but there is such thing as a cheating counterplan. If you wish to go for theory against a counterplan, just be sure to impact it out.

DA: Zero risk or negligible risk is possible.

Feel free to ask me any questions:)

Background: I retired from Coppell High School a few years ago where I taught Public Forum, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. I am assisting Coppell at the present time.

Judging Philosophy: While I don't think anyone can be truly tabula rasa, I try to ignore my bias as much as possible. I will listen to any argument you want to make as long as you have good evidence, and qualified sources. I expect weighing of impacts and any other reason why your argument is better than your opponents. Your strategy is your own business but if you expect me to vote for you I have to have strong impacts and comparisons to your opponents arguments that make sense.

Style: I have to hear you to flow your arguments. Because of this virtual world we are forced to live in you have to be clear and make sure you are being heard. I will say "clear" once. I prefer moderate to a little faster speed. Again, remember you are debating via computer.

I have judged Public Forum a lot this year.

f

Email:Sakinagoderya@gmail.com

she/her

Yes, I would like to be added to the email chain

History: I've done debate at Reagan HS for 3 years. Most of my debate experience is in LD. I've done Ks, progressive LD cases, and traditional LD as well.

Spreading: I'm fine with spreading, just be sure to slow down on tags if you can. Also please make sure your opponent is fine with it before you start spreading. Be sure you have clarity in your spreading.

Ks: I'm cool with these. While I've gone against some Ks and run some Ks in my debate career, I'm not familiar with all K literature, so please don't just assume I know a K without an explanation. Don't do long overviews of your K links, and try and contextualize the links. I won't vote for you just because you run a K

DAs: these are also fine, be sure to explain impacts, and your evidence well. If you ae going to do a case turn, be sure to explain how it turns the aff

Theory: I am not too familiar with theory arguments, so please slow down and explain your theory shell if you plan to read one

CPs: I'm fine with these. Just explain how your solvency solves the aff, normal cp stuff. If you run an "aff can't perm", you have to have a good explanation for it, or I won't vote on it.

Traditional: these are okay. Value and criterion comparison is important, and so is evidence comparison.

K affs: I'm fine with these, refer to Ks

I'm fine with anything else you run that I might not new, it's fun to hear new arguments and learn about them! I've probably never heard it before so please explain it well.

zoom: I understand that tech issues can be awful and get in the way of things but please do your best to speak loud and clear in round. Try your best to get all your tech set up prior to the round so we have less problems in round.

Other things:

-Base speaks at are around 27, 28 is for good points are arguments, and 29 is really good.

Be sure you can explain why your fw , impact, and solvency are all bigger than your opponent’s. I weigh out all three in deciding the ballot

- Be respectful to your opponent: don't be rude and toxic to them in round, don't interrupt when they are speaking,etc. If you do, I will deduct speaker points. Do not be problematic (racist, sexist homophobic, etc.) to your opponent or in your arguments, you won't be doing yourself any favors for my vote.

-Have fun! Even if you don't win the round, or qual to finals, do your best to enjoy the experience. In my experience, the most I got out of debate was my experience with the judges, the people, the coaches etc. It's what's stuck with me more than any win or qualification I've made.

Feel free to email me before or after the round for questions! have a good day, and good luck on your future rounds :)

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

LD should remain value based. Although some recent LD resolutions cry out for the debaters to present a plan, please don't neglect the value framework tradition.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score. I strongly dislike rehashed arguments. Clash is important, but it needs to have actual refutation and not just mentioning the names of previous speakers. I object to the recent trend toward doing all prep work in-round and the abuse of in-house recesses to allow this.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

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

Doc Sharing

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

Speed

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

General Principle

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

Speaker Points

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

Policy

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Performance/Pre-Fiat

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

Competition

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

Condo

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

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

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

Disads/CPs/NCs

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

Philosophy/Framework Debate

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

Public Forum

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

1. Debate

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

2. Speech

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

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

Theory

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

Framework

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

Finally Word for All

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

DEBATE ROUNDS

To win my ballot: Logical links and clear connections are important whether you're running a traditional or progressive case. Your argumentation skills and strategies is what your opponent is challenging, therefore; a clear, cut, concise connection is what wins the round. Listen to your opponent, (FLOW), provide impacts and know what your talking about. If you've got a few tricks up your sleeve, be sure you know how to use them.

I do not mind speed, but if you decide to spread make sure you slow down on tag-lines. Consider speaker points when spreading. I look to vote for a strong link and one's ability to prove why your case wins the round. Voters are extremely important to me so make sure you use the time in your last speech wisely.

I do my best to flow all arguments presented in the debate and rely heavily on my flow to determine the round winner. Make sure to signpost well, and please give me a roadmap of your speeches.

If you decide to do an email chain please, add me. mhix@neisd.net

Speaker Points

Positives: politeness, confidence, well-placed humor, preparation and well executed strategies/arguments.

Negatives: rudeness and unnecessary condescending comments, pointless cross examination, skirting the issues or avoidance

SPEECH ROUNDS

Staying true to the competition rubrics.

If I can't hear you, then I can't score you. Please, speak loud and clear.

I'm a lay judge, so please speak slowly. This is my first year judging a debate tournament.

LD-I am a very traditional judge. I like VALUE/VC debate. Your contentions should support and link to your value. If you are not the 1AC, you should be attacking/countering things said from the previous speech(es). Otherwise, what's the point of debate?

I AM NOT A PROGRESSIVE LD JUDGE. No K's, CP's, or anything that belongs in CX.

I am ok with speed. I believe debate should be understandable and not an opportunity to cram so much information into 6 minutes that is not understandable and too much for an opponent to attack. With that said, I do like some speed, I just don't feel most people have been taught how to spread well. If I can't understand you, it doesn't get weighed into the round.

I tend to vote on who upheld their value the best and who dropped arguments. I also tend to vote on clash and providing counter evidence. Evidence can be read quickly, slow on taglines. WIN THE FLOW!

PF- I am a traditional PF judge. I should be able to have NO debate experience and walk in and judge a PF round. Treat your round as such despite my experience. This is not LD or CX, don't treat it as such. Persuade me. (Read more below)

For ALL-

I am flowing your debates, so I am aware of what has been said or not said in a round.

Jargon does not impress me.

Speaker points:

Being kind is also a thing for me. I always tell me debaters to "win kindly". You will be docked speaker points if you are using foul language and/or obviously treating your opponent poorly.

Speaker points are important! I should be able to clearly understand you when you speak. Again, I am fine with speed, but most people do not spread well. This is where you will get docket. Practice recording yourself and see if your cousin can understand you word for word.

I do not weigh CX time into who wins the round, but it can/does affect speaker points. CX time is your time to clarify and gather info. Anything you want weighed into the round from CX must be brought up in your next speech.

About me:

I have coached debate since 2004 and run two successful programs qualifying students for state and nationals yearly. Multiple teams have placed in finals at the state level in various events: LD, CX, WSD, Extemp, PF.... My degree is in Speech Comm.

If you have specific questions before the round, ask me! (Just don't ask what my qualifications are, that's offensive.)

I have competed in every event under the "debate" umbrella EXCEPT for CX. To be clear, I’m not as technically proficient as a policy judge would be- you have a better chance persuading me than bombarding me with jargon. Refer to the categories below for specific events.

Debaters start with 28 speaks.

How to Lose Speaker Points: I will say clear twice before deducting speaker points. During cross examination, attack the speech, not the debater- if you harass your opponent in cross examination, speaker points will be deducted.

How to Gain Speaker Points: Be a generally clear speaker. Slow down on tags if you’re spreading.

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

LD I spent a lot of my time doing traditional, "by the book" LD, but I’ve seen my fair share of progressive debate. Debate with the style that you're most comfortable debating, but know that I decide winners on who best carries as much of their case as possible to the end of the round.

Kritiks - I’m unlikely to buy alts that rely on the way I sign the ballot.

Theory/T- Basic understanding.

DA's - I prefer a traditionally structured neg case over DA’s.

PF Debaters should try and stick to an "ask-answer" format during grand cross. I know that grand crosses get messy, and debaters begin to argue and explain their case after someone responds to a question. If you begin to explain your case rather than asking questions, I will deduct speaks. Overall, I decide winners by whichever debaters appear more synced in terms of teamwork. That means debaters who extend their partner's arguments as opposed to only creating new ones will win over those who have their separate debates with the corresponding speaker on the other team. (I want 1st speakers to clash with 2nd speakers instead of speakers having 2 debates).

World Schools Debate I was on the NSDA Lone Star WSD team for 2 years. I understand that this event can be hard to fully grasp due to the focus on presentation over just argumentation.

1st speakers: Present your case. Do not read off the paper, especially if it's a prepared motion. I will be more lenient on impromptu motions.

2nd speakers: Pace yourself. Don't rush through offense or constructive, or else I'll deduct speaks.

3rd speakers: Set up the 4th speech's voters. Give me a hint at what I will have to be looking at in terms of clash points in the round. If you can do this better than your opponent, then you have a better chance at winning my vote. (Note: I'm a huge fan of the 3 question structure. Ask me about it before the round if you're not familiar with it.)

4th speakers: Summarize the voters as best you can. If you cannot give me decent voters, then I have no reason to vote for you.

Hi! My name is Neha Kapur, and I am a student at Trinity University. I debated throughout middle and high school, with a primary focus in LD.

For LD, PF, or CX: I am comfortable with spreading, but if there is an argument that you want to emphasize to me, be sure to slow down. I like clear, articulate speaking techniques and will value that heavily in a round when it comes to determining speaker points. I give 30 speaker points from time to time, but you have to earn it. I am also comfortable listening to Plans, CPs, and Ks. Just know that I'm not familiar with most K's, so if you plan to read one, you should be able to explain your flow of logic and properly contextualize your links. It is important to me that you weigh impacts in a round. If you can prove that your case/plan has a greater impact than your opponent's, you have been a successful debater in that round. REMEMBER: create a safe and fun environment during the round. Don't be rude and disrespectful. We're all here for a good time.

For Extemp and Congress: Have fun with it! I've done some congress and I think it's a great opportunity to let your personality shine through in these events.

Hebron HS '20, UT Dallas '24, 2A for one year, 2N for three, qualified to the TOC, debated for one year in college

Pronouns - He, him, his

Put me on the email chain - rahulk1325 AT gmail DOT com and Mavsdebate AT gmail DOT com

I prefer K v Policy>= K v K > Policy v Policy but will judge anything

Name the email chain: [TOURNAMENT NAME] - [AFF TEAM] vs [NEG TEAM] Round X

Stuff:

- Clarity > speed

- Tech > Truth in most instances

- Don't be violent (racism, sexism, genocide good)

- Clipping is bad (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)

- Reject the arg > reject the team

- I flow on a computer

- Being funny is good - debates can get quite boring sometimes. Just don't be stupid about it.

- I have invested most of my career into exploring critical literature bases and as such am more adept at judging Policy v K rounds and K v K rounds. But I will evaluate anything present in front of me.

- I've judged so many policy rounds that I'm probably good for anything. I just need a clear and concise explanation. Explaining your acronyms is probably a good idea too.

Specific stuff:

Kritiks:

- Enjoy these debates.

- I don't care how long your overview is, but technical line-by-line is preferable and very important.

- More specific the link/analysis, the better.

- Familiar with a litany of theory basis, but when making specific analysis, make sure your explanation starts broadly.

- My evaluation begins with the framework portion of the debate - make sure you have a clear articulation of your model of debate and why it is preferable.

- If you read a kritik against a K aff, I will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.

Topicality:

- I can be convinced to vote for anything in regards to reasonability/competing interps.

- Impact comparison is pretty important.

- Good counter interp ev is very important and will be rewarded.

Counterplans:

- Smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well.

- I lean neg for most counterplan theory except for consult, condo, solvency advocate.

- I need instruction for judge kick.

Disadvantages:

- Good impact comparison makes me happy.

- DA turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams.

Misc. Stuff:

Debate is an unique experience - don't take it/yourself too seriously and make sure to have fun.

Be nice! Debate is rapidly losing participation - don't be the reason debaters quit.

mainalidee@gmail.com

History: Debated for Reagan HS mostly in the Texas circuit for 4 years in LD. Ran a lot of Ks, mostly setcol/coloniamlism/coloniality based towards the end of my career, reaching TFA State multiple times and Nationals my junior year. I also have experience in Extemporaneous Speaking (FX), Public Forum, and Congress debate, reaching TFA state for the latter.

Cool with: Most things! Ks, DAs/As, CPs, PICs, performance, critical (kritikal?) affs, or good old case debate. Not a K-hack, will not be biased in your favor just because you run a K. I think that every argument under the topic ought to be valid unless proven otherwise by the opposing team.

Not cool with: Spreading all the way through a meta-debate thing, like a theory shell. I honestly didn't run a lot of theory as a debater, so if you are planning to win solely on a shell, please do not go spreading through your competing interp and violations. Don't be toxic, don't be rude, make sure your opponent is fine with spreading, etc. You are a person before you are a debater.

Online debate: My mic is a little feedbacky, and I'm sorry about that. For the sake of connectivity, I may be videoless, and might ask you to repeat something if the audio completely dips. If the latter is the case, it will be on you and your opponent to verify that when I ask someone to repeat something, they do not read new information. I do flow on paper and like to have overviews and signposting occurring.

Timing: Please be sure to time yourself and your opponents to ensure no timehogging.

Speaks: My baseline is a 28, and I subtract half-points thereafter for clarity of speech/args and/or misbehavior. I award higher than a 28 for clever arguments and analytics. Overall, I tend to prefer quality of arguments more than the optics of debate, such as eloquence, vocal tone, etc.

Most importantly, have fun! The goal in debate is often phrased as winning the round and getting points, but the educational impacts of the activity, the discussions you have in the space, and the people you meet are what stick with you long-term.

I am a traditional judge and listen for structure in argumentation.

I highly value clear communication. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically, with well-structured speeches. Signposting and clear transitions are crucial for guiding me through the flow of the round. Avoid rapid speech that sacrifices clarity for speed. Analytical depth, backed by evidence and examples, is essential for winning. Show me how your arguments interact with those of your opponents. I prefer well-researched and credible sources. Maintaining a respectful demeanor towards opponents, partners, and the judge is crucial. Avoid personal attacks, derogatory language, or any behavior that undermines the respectful atmosphere of the round. Politeness and courtesy are highly valued.

The primary role of my ballot is to determine which team presented the more compelling case and debating skills. My decision is based on the arguments presented in the round and not influenced by personal biases. I am open to various debate styles and appreciate creative and effective strategies.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

I'm cool with spreading as long as it's audible. Most theory is cool, just explain the impact. Overall be polite, and make good arguments.

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

I am a first time judge. Please speak clearly so I can follow your arguments. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttal.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

For PF, keep it as the event was intended, which is less CX and more general debate. Speed should allow even a novice debate participant to keep up, but does not need to be as slow as a general speaking event. Make sure that you stay civil, as debate in general is intended to make sure that you are learning civil discourse and not just how to argue with someone.