Bentonville Tigers Eye
2021 — NSDA Campus, AR/US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Former debater, Bentonville High School 2018-2021 (Congress, PF, BQ.) Congressional debate national qualifier. Current Political Science and International Studies student at Indiana State University.
For questions or concerns, or if you want to hear critiques feel free to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
PF, BQ, LD, IPDA:
I am a strong flow judge. As long as you say something and have it cited/sourced out I'll probably buy into it. I look down upon spreading; so if you talk too fast I will stop flowing which is bad for you because again, I will make my final decision based off the flow. Roadmaps are greatly appreciated as long as you stick to them; one thing that irks me more than anything else is debaters who give a roadmap and then completely go a different direction.
I'll begrudgingly accept Progressive LD as long as you provide me with a copy of your case and evidence before the round.
Congress is at the intersection of forensics and debate, I will only give high speaks to competitors who speak well but also provide clash and new evidence to the debate. Looking for a consistent and experienced Presiding Officer but I'll probably ignore parliamentary procedure mistakes unless you're correctly point of order'd by another delegate. I try not to rank POs first but I will have no choice but to do that if there isn't a dominant delegate in the chamber.
Don't try to read an entire speech off of your computer, it's easier than you think to tell when someone is doing that and you wouldn't normally get away with it an in-person round.
Yikes! Someone in tab made a huge mistake if they paired me with a policy round lol... In three years of High School debate I've never saw one policy round, I don't understand how policy works, consider me lay if you have the misfortune of getting me as your CX judge!
1.) Extra points for jokes or funny contention names. ;)
2.) I'm totally fine with passion and heated argumentation as long as it's in good faith.
3.) Hearing the stock issues gets boring quickly, I will look favorably upon you if you spice things up with a unique case or argument.
John Block: email@example.com please add me to email chain, thanks
Missouri state State ‘12
Last Updated: September 2020
I am currently completing my final year of medical school so I have been out of the judging game to some extent so be aware that acronyms/the latest K lit I may not be up to date with. That being said I assist LRCH and judge practice debates/listen to practices. I believe that my job is to be a reactionary presence in the room. I do have my own opinions which I’ll get to in a bit but I should be receptive to basically anything you are doing. Being nice goes a long way. Make my job easy. If you can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR I would be happy for you to do so. Even if statements are phenomenal, no one will win 100% of the arguments, recognize and embrace that.
Digital debate will be an adjustment to all. I have watched some debates but they were conducted over Zoom so I will be new to this software interface so please be patient if and when glitches arise.
You don’t need evidence for an argument, although it helps.
Specifics: T/Framework-I am not exclusively a policymaker. I’m just a person evaluating a discussion of ideas. That being said I went for Framework quite regularly in college and have voted on it multiple times. Be interactive with the other side, don’t just read blocks at each other. TVA’s are important and so are aff visions of the topic that are navigable to the negative team.
Theory: bad theory arguments are just that, bad. If you want to go for theory great but I am pretty easily swayed by reject the argument not the team. If you want to read consult/conditions style arguments I can get on board pretty easily. If you want to read multiple CPs without solvency advocates to simply skew the 2AC’s time I’m less on your side.
Case Debates-crucial to a good round. You can make my threshold to vote negative significantly lower if you have good case args, these don’t have to be supported by evidence but again it helps. Ev analysis has gotten somewhat lost in my opinion over the years. Read the text/read who this person is, discuss why one piece of evidence should be prioritized (does it assume the other team’s ev? Is it newer? Is it better analysis etc?)
DA’s-PTX is fun, elections is an exciting time to be reading it. Otherwise topic DA’s are great too. Don’t forget to have specific links to the aff and a good internal link. Similarly, don’t forget to identify flaws in the internal link chain or why your aff is different than what the link evidence assumes/why it would be perceived differently.
CP’s: having a solvency advocate is good but not necessary. I read a lot of hyperspecific CP’s in my day but also think a lot of it can become esoteric. If you have a great counterplan to read go for it, if you have a generic CP, go for it. Delay is questionable from a theory level but I’ll certainly listen to it.
K’s-Guide me through the K and what it means for the hypothetical world of the aff vs the hypothetical world of the alternative. Explain what specifically the aff does, specifically what the 1AC said or the assumptions that went into it. I may not be hip to the latest high theory K’s but I hear of some of them by proximity to debate even if I haven’t sat in the back of rounds in recent times.
K Affs: Most of what I wrote in the K area applies here. I think I am slightly K leaning as far as my threshold for voting on T or F/W so keep that in mind. What is the ballot and why does it matter for whatever the aff is. I am a bigger fan of embracing the K side of the aff and not as crazy about “soft-left” affs as I have been in the past.
CX-don’t just use it for prep. A good CX can end a debate round early on. This may be difficult with virtual debate and people just trying to talk over each other.
Cheating: If I suspect it I will report it. I will often read along and will likely do this even more because hearing specifics of spreading may be more difficult virtually.
For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging. I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow. I'm not a huge fan of spreading. Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for. I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason. If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts. I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools. Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.
I participated in speech for 3 years in high school and am currently on my university’s speech and debate team.
I have experience judging high school speech events from this year and I have also judged debate events at a few college tournaments.
I have the least experience judging debate and would prefer to judge speech events however I am willing to judge anything.
For speech I judge based on characterization, blocking, tone, and overall storyline. I judge on how well the competitor interpreted each character and for platform speech’s I base my judging over how well written the speech is and how well their overall tone is.
I don’t disclose rankings to the competitors
Tabula Rasa Judge- Will listen to any and all arguments on the criteria the debater is able to defend it or is able to explain it's significance or relevance to the debate.
Will default to Impact Calc (Substantiality, Magnitude, Timeframe, Severity) if debater's do not tell me otherwise.
Spreading is acceptable if the speaker can maintain clarity.
I did 4 years of debate at Mansfield Lake Ridge in Mansfield, TX from 2012-2016 Attended debate camps at Gonzaga, UNT and UT.
Put me on your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (you don't actually have to flash analytics, this is just my debate email lol)
I'm fine with speed, but stay clear
Run whatever you want to run, but I am more experienced with policy arguments than kritiks
Policy is the main style of debate I competed in. I personally always preferred to run policy arguments rather than kritiks; however, I have faced kritiks plenty of times to be experienced with how these arguments are ran. I will vote for either type of argument, but I am much more experienced with cutting cards to construct policy blocks, so I have much more expertise with policy arguments. That being said though, don't let that stop you from running a kritik or a k aff because I will vote for either argument, just bear in mind that you might need to explain the story of the kritik or k aff and how it directly interacts with your opponent's arguments more thoroughly for me to vote on it.
As the affirmative, don't be shy when answering T.
As a neg strat, I enjoy T debates if they are not just simply a time suck.
As the affirmative, clearly explain why the case outweighs (more on that later) the DA, try and get some offense on the DA flow if possible but it's fine if you only have defense. Call out the negative if they don't have a net benefit for their CP. Don't forget to perm and try to advocate for the perm in a way that is specific to the CP if possible.
As the negative, make sure your uniqueness evidence on the DA is good (especially on PTX DAs) or else it's really easy to dismantle for the affirmative and it's just a time suck at that point for whatever else you're running. Also, make sure your CP has a net benefit and specifically explain why the affirmative can't perm the CP.
As the affirmative, please don't drop significant portions of case because then it's almost impossible to vote for you. In the 2AC, make sure that you do sufficient line-by-line directly answering their evidence against your case with warrants from the 1AC cards. In the 1AR, I understand you are in much more of a time-crunch than the 2AC, so try and extend what was said in the 2AC on case as briefly as you can while still doing it. In the 2AR, clearly articulate why the case outweighs the off-case argument(s) the negative is going for using impact calculus.
As the negative, if you are running policy arguments you must clearly explain how the DA directly links to the aff and why the aff can't solve for the DA and also why the aff can't perm the CP. If you are going 1 off K or you decide after the neg block that this is what you're doing, please still do work on the case flow. I understand that you might not necessarily have to do this because you are advocating for the alt, but it still makes it easier for me to vote for the K if you do some work on the case flow.
Please don't read kritiks as a time suck. I have made ballot commodification DA arguments during the round when teams contradict themselves by running a K that ideologically doesn't align with the DA(s) they are running or when they decide to kick out of the K and go for a DA with an extinction impact. I personally really believe in this argument so I would recommend running this as the affirmative if the negative does this. Read my general policy sentiments above if you haven't already for even more of my preferences regarding kritiks.
I think theory arguments are really cool and I will vote on them. I haven't really been in many rounds where theory won the round, but if you go for it, please clearly articulate how your theory argument impacts the round rather than just reading a short blip in an attempt to get the ballot.
Public Forum (PF)
I have never competed in PF at a tournament, but I have watched many rounds and helped judge practice rounds. Please just be nice to each other, especially during crossfire where I feel like it can get really pedantic and petty. Remember, I'm voting on the arguments you make during the round, not if you make your opponent look bad. Also, please use evidence and don't take your evidence or your opponent's evidence out of context. Please don't be abusive with when you take prep time i.e. after the first speech if you are the second speaker. Please give me a road map and when you're giving me a road map please don't say "their side then my side", rather, say "pro then con" for example.
Lincoln Douglas (LD)
I have never competed in LD at a tournament, but I have watched a few rounds and I feel like it is somewhat compatible with Policy. I don't have a huge preference and I am willing to judge whatever you want to run. In regards to progressive debates, you might be better off reading my general policy sentiments above especially in how I view policy arguments versus kirtiks.
Big Questions (BQ)
I actually have some BQ judging experience at the Junior High level, but I have never competed in BQ at a tournament. I don't have a huge preference and I am willing to judge whatever you want to run; however, generally I feel like you just need good line-by-line to do well in BQ after setting up your own arguments in your first speech and expanding on them in the later speeches so that you can apply your own arguments specifically when doing line-by-line.
Please don't just speak to speak. If you are just trying to get a speech in without adding anything new to the debate, I'd rather you not give that speech on that particular bill. Please stop speaking when the P.O. is gaveling you out. Please don't stand and raise your placard until AFTER the P.O. asks for everyone to stand. Don't talk to other members of the chamber especially when others are speaking. Address other representatives as "Representative *last name*" if possible. After being selected to give a speech, say your last name, what school you're from, what number of speech that is for you in that specific session and the side of debate of the speech you are giving. For example, "Representative Duca from Bentonville High School rising for the 2nd time of this session to give a speech in affirmation".
If you are the P.O., explain your gaveling procedure before the debate cycle begins and please remain unbiased when selecting people, just go off of precedence and recency to the best of your ability.
Feel free to put me in the email chain but know that I will only flow what I hear you say in the round. I will give you a 10 second grace period at the end of each of your speeches. If you go over that I will drop you a speaker point. I won't flow cross-ex so if something important is said in cross, make sure to use it in one of your speeches.
Burdens are one of the biggest voters I use to adjudicate the round. As debaters, you should know that the Aff has the burden of proof and the Neg has the burden of clash and should be able to uphold these. The Aff will use on case arguments to prove their side and the Neg will use their on and off case arguments to clash with the Affirmative case. At the end of the round, I will decide who has achieved their burden best.
Framework is another important factor whether it be Value and Value Criterion(LD), Framework(PF/Policy), or a Weighing Mechanism(IPDA/BQ). I won't "flow" framework to one side or the other, I will flow the framework as either "upheld" or "fallen". At the end of the round, I will apply only the upheld framework(s) to both sides and decide who achieves it better.
Case Argumentation is an essential voter to emphasize on in the round. The Affirmative needs to present, uphold, and rebuild upon their on case argumentation in order to win the burden, the framework, and ultimately the round. The Negative should provide on case arguments that help them clash with the ideas and arguments that the Aff is presenting. The Aff can use off case arguments to rebuild and extend their points and the Neg can use them to clash with the Aff. Ideally, the strongest arguments have a claim, warrant, evidence, analysis, and impact. I will only flow an argument as dropped if someone points it out. If you are rebuilding, extending, or pointing out dropped arguments don't do the bare minimum, after you're done doing this take some time to explain why your arguments matter.
Miscellaneous: The Neg can use straight refusal but in order for this to work they must go line by line completely clashing with the Aff case. The Aff doesn't have any obligation to clash with the Negative case outside of the framework, they need only clash with the arguments they feel are important to the round. In your cross-ex, you have the control, if your opponent is eating up your time feel free to interrupt them so that you can move on to another question. If it is your opponent's cross-ex be respectful of them and their time, wasting your opponent's time in cross is just a good strategy but if they try to cut you off don't continue speaking or try to talk over them.
Lincoln Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge. I will not flow your Kritiks, Adds or Dis-Adds, or Theory Shells. If you want to use a Plan or Counterplan go ahead, but do not expect or imply that your opponent needs one to win the round. If your arguments are untopical I will not use them to weigh the round. Neither debater has an obligation to provide a Plan/Counterplan. Solvency is not an important factor in the round, so don't waste your time with it.
Pet Peeves: I am ok with speed but if you spread I will give you 20 speaker points. Do not try to put me or your opponent in a double bind that implies that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. If you lost, it was because either you failed to do your job as a debater or your opponent did a better job. With that being said, I will automatically vote you down if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I am a firm believer that debate is supposed to be fun and educational, we all get competitive but you are never justified in being rude to your opponent.
I'm very excited to be back on the circuit again but as a judge! My name is Samantha but you can just call me Sam. I did debate for 4 years in High School as an LD, PF, and Congress debater. So I am very familiar with all styles!
- For cross examination make sure that you let your opponents finish their thoughts and their answers
- In that same sense make sure your answers are short and concise the questioning period is short (to the point)
- Make sure you and your partner sign post and let me know where we are and which argument we're going over
- Your ending speech for the round (voters speech) is what I am going be voting the round off of so make sure all your points that you want me to vote off is what you end with. Any arguments dropped are arguments that I will not be voting on.
- There is 3 minutes of prep time use it wisely, for novice I will be more lenient on using prep to share evidence but for varsity circuit make sure you are well organized to be able to not use so much of your prep time. When time is up for prep time is up for both circuits so be careful
- When sharing or clarifying evidence in email chains please include me as well @ email@example.com please!
- FRAMEWORK, I will weigh rounds HEAVILY on your framework and value criteria make sure you do not drop this, if your opponents framework and value differs from your opponent let me know why I should prefer yours
- I know that spreading can be found in Lincoln Douglas but please do not spread UNLESS I have your case on hand to me. If I don't understand your speech I will not flow and it will be lost on the judges flow to help me make my decision
- Make sure you hold decorum during Cross Examination like any other style let them finish their questions/answers
- I am also not a fan of theory debate so stay away from it please, but other than that debate the round the way you see fit
- When sharing or clarifying evidence in email chains please include me as well @ firstname.lastname@example.org please!
- Make sure you're being kind to all competitors and you hold decorum the ENTIRE round from the moment you walk in to the moment you walk out
- I am in full belief that congress is one of the styles that you can make your own with your speeches. So be unique with intro's I LOVE UNIQUE INTRO's
- I love strong delivery with their speeches and making sure you are not just reading off your paper, walk around make use of the space that is given to you
- MOST IMPORTANTLY I look forward to the civil clash in congress rounds and I expect to hear the analysis of evidence that you are giving and I will be listening for the evidence that is being given in round as well.
speaker points will be ranked on the consensus of how well you present/ articulate your arguments and how concise your speaking is
CLOSING STATEMENTS FOR EVERYONE:
Personally as a judge I will always value respect of your opponents over any argument in the round. Any rude or disrespectful arguments or comments that may occur in the round you may consider the round lost already no matter how it goes after that point. All in all I know this may be a lot but remember that I was in your guys' position at some point too as many of the judges here were as well. Have fun with it and simply just enjoy this time, it flies by.
First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.
I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole
I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.
I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.
Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.
Update for Online Debate
Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.
Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.
I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.
Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).
My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.
I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.
Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.
I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.
When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.
When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.
If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.
If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.
If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.
I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.
I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.
just a little introduction to me, My names Karsten, I debated 3 years at Bentonville High School (2017-2020) in Arkansas and a few national tournaments. I debated mostly Public Forum for 3 years, but i did try policy, congress, world schools, and ipda, i also attended Emory debate camp for PF, do what you want with that information
A few important notes for all styles of debate-
To be honest i hate most debate jargon, but i understand its necessary, so do what you want with that information as well
I really enjoy creative and unique arguments, it makes the debate much more interesting and enjoyable
any sort of racist, homophobic, sexist or ableist arguments will automatically result in a loss for you, theres no room for any of that in debate.
Since i really only debated PF for a majority of my career i only have paradigms for that, sorry!
Few things to prepare yourself for if I'm judging
I cannot stand definition debate, unless there is no clear definition of a word in the resolution, there is no need for you to define every-word in the resolution, you'll lose my attention very very quick. this goes for FW to the most part as well, prefer if you just stick with
I believe PF is a style of debate that literally anyone should be able to come and watch and fully understand, which means no theory, K's or spreading (i can understand but you will see big drop in speaker points, especially over the laptop)
the more unique the argument the more i'll listen but make sure to have solid and reliable links
I really enjoy debates that clash, go after your opponents case, don't spend time defending an argument that hasn't been attacked when you can use that time to prove to me why your opponents are wrong.
Creativity is Key, creativity is what makes debate fun, if you're creative with titles, wording, arguments, etc. You'll hold my attention which is key to winning the debate
for me the debate comes down to impact, who has the biggest impact, most immediate impact, how likely is the impact, etc.
Impact, impact, impact.
Everyone starts at a 28.5
like i mentioned spreading will make that go down
it will be practically impossible to get a 30
I don't think PF specifically needs to be the most formal debate in the world, show me your personality while talking
i don't mind being strong-headed and pushing your opponents buttons, or getting under their skin, but there is a limit, don't antagonize or be overly rude, i will dock speaker points
If you have any questions feel free to email me: Kgjeruldsen01@gmail.com!
- Be Professional
- NO SPREADING
TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: email@example.com
Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.
Tech over truth
Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.
I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.
THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:
Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge
Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion
When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over
Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately
Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.
Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments
Remember to extend your arguments
Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format
Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal
During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.
Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated
Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.
Leslie Harden Greer Judging Disclosure:
I take the responsibility of judging seriously and believe in rendering fair decisions based on a neutral perspective. I share this commitment with most experienced judges. I approach each round with an open mind, eliminating bias and holding no preconceived ideas about the outcome. I can lean affirmative or negative with equal propensity, and teams should strive to persuade me with their arguments.
I bring 23 years of experience as an English, drama, debate, and communication teacher, and have also coached speech and forensics, directed theatre, and coached mock trial and student congress. My approach to judging is influenced by these years of involvement in the education and forensics community.
Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:
1. Communication is Key: I prioritize clear communication over rapid delivery. (It’s as if I can hear the quiet sobbing of the policy debaters reading this.) Effective communication is vital for conveying arguments successfully. I prefer a clear and eloquent presentation of issues in the round. Effective communication is crucial in persuading me of the merits of your arguments.
2. Play Professional: I place a high value on sportsmanship and decorum in debate. Respectful conduct is essential for a productive debate.
3. Affirmative Burden: The affirmative plan should fulfill all of their burdens. If the negative demonstrates that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected.
4. Quality Evidence: I appreciate well-articulated arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Well-researched and substantiated arguments are more persuasive in my evaluation.
5. Focus on Disadvantages and Counter-Plans: I often give weight to disadvantages and counter-plans. While I may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments, I assess the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages.
6. Respect for Judges: I expect debaters to recognize that judges are reasonably intelligent, well-informed members of society. Debaters should present their case comprehensively and avoid assuming that judges lack the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments.
In summary, my judging philosophy centers on fairness, clear communication, and rigorous argument evaluation. I encourage debaters to present their cases effectively and persuasively, regardless of their positions, and I assess each round impartially. Good luck, and I look forward to a productive and engaging debate.
Hey! I'm a debater from arkansas and have attended nationals in PF thrice now. A few important things about how I judge:
-I will judge solely on the flow and arguments made. Speaks are separate than round.
-Everyone starts at 28.5 speaks then goes up or down from there
-Include me in any email chains, firstname.lastname@example.org
-Theory/Kritiks are fine, i will vote on any style of argument that you win (pf,ld,policy)
-Spreading is fine (ld and policy only), but if you spread you must start the email chain before ur speech and include everyone.
I was an English major for my undergraduate degree and appreciate logical and well-expressed arguments.
Some general preferences:
No theory arguments. Debate the given topic.
Be considerate and polite in Cross Examinations.
Speak at a rate that can be reasonably understood.
Discriminatory/demeaning arguments or expressions will NOT be tolerated.
I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.
I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:
1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.
2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.
3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.
Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.
Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.
This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.
Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.
Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory
• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?
• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'
• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.
• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.
• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.
• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.
TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)
Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).
The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.
The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.
Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms
Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.
Impacts should be specific and never implied.
Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).
More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.
Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.
- Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.
Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."
Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate
Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot
Put me on the email chain @ email@example.com
speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)
tech over truth
I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.
I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.
weighing.... weighing.... weighing.
I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.
Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...
I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.
This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.
I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.
I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis
I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.
Current Debate Coach at Bentonville High School. Forensics competitor in high school 2008-2012. Debate (mostly IPDA) competitor in college 2014-2016.
Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.
Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.
Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches
Spreading is fine! I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow.
Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominate speaking ability, emotion, stronger clash, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots. Definition debates are my least favorite thing ever! Clash with the content of your cases!
I judge primarily as tech over truth. If you say something that is outright NOT true, I cannot overlook that, but I leave my bias/knowledge at the door as much as is appropriate & will judge simply on what happens in-round.
Don't be afraid to make me laugh!! Bachelorette/Survivor references are always appreciated.
General Debate Paradigm:
Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).
In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)
In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run topicality in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading only but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.
I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.
A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.
Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.
Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.
A word about style within the round:
Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.
A word on technology and style choice:
I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.
Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.
- Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.
- Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here.
Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)
Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand.
If Aff doesn't rebuild and/or extend, they lose. If Neg doesn't attack and disprove, they lose.
Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.
- In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't right it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.
Hello, Debaters, Speakers, and Interpreters! I'm Tonya Reck, and I'm a debate coach at Arkansas School for Math, Science, and the Arts in Hot Springs, AR. I've taught Theatre, Communication, Speech, and Debate in public school for nine years (plus a lot more) in Texas and Arkansas.
I have experience judging most events, and I'm willing to judge any debate, congress, or forensics event style. I'm glad to hear all students and support their progress and achievements.
First, let me say how glad I am that you are participating in a Speech and Debate tournament. I am here to help you advance in life and public speaking. I am also here to celebrate your accomplishments! Win or lose your round, there is so much to gain by participating in debate, and I hope I can help to move you forward.
Are you new to debate?
If you are a novice debater- have no fear! I hope I can help you recognize your strengths and help you get to the next level. EVERYONE starts somewhere. Huge props for stepping into debate! Pretty much everyone starts learning from zero. All that is expected of you is to be the best you can be here today, right, now, just as you are. You don't have to be like anyone else. Just bring your best and do that. And then don't stop. Keep learning and don't give up. You will get better every time.
Are you an experienced Debater?
If you are experienced and ready to try new things- OK. I want to support students who are trying new things, taking intellectual risks, and learning new ways of doing things. Stay intellectually humble and gracious to all your opponents. Learn something new from every judge and every competitor. Keep growing. Keep it fresh. Listen to yourself- are you repeating debate clichés? Using jargon? Would the average person in Wal-Mart on Saturday night understand you? Are you persuading and compelling the judge9s)? Is this an info dump? Are you making the most of every round? What are your debate goals? What do you need to do to get there? Are you doing it?
Are you nervous?
Be prepared. Be rehearsed. Be well-researched. Be organized. Put your energy into your debate.
What do I like to see from you in a round?
Give me the best you've got. This round is for you to shine and grow. Follow the rules, but otherwise, go for it.
I think we are all here to learn. I'm still learning, too! So, seek first to understand. Then be understood.
I like to think that this is a marketplace of ideas. So, if you are reading this a few days ahead- take this debate topic to the dinner table; to people who see life a little differently from you. Talk to children. Have honest conversations with real people. Find out how they think. How do they see your ideas? If it doesn't work on the street-- it might not fly in the round either.
How important is professionalism?
Very. Sportsmanship, kindness, humility, integrity, understanding. All of these will get you a long way in life and in debate. Ask yourself some questions. Who have I enjoyed debating against the most? Who has treated me the best as an opponent? What do I expect of myself? How can I raise the level of the round and the tournament?
What about Debate Ethics and Equality?
How you treat others says a lot about you. Experienced debaters and congressional debaters, please note. Even small behaviors that might mean to diminish another will actually diminish yourself. Be mindful of your humility. Be mindful of the humanity of others. Realize that you come into every round as equals with equal chances.
Does nonverbal communication matter?
Absolutely. So often, it's not what we say but how we say it. True in life and debate.
Do I have pet peeves?
Talking too fast, debate jargon, lack of humility.
Yes. Play by the book. Don't falsely accuse your opponent of breaking the rules. It's OK to be on the offense and be forward. But don't get out of bounds or run over people to get to the top of the heap. This applies to life as well as debate. I often quote from the rules and official ballots in the comments.
Speech and Interpretation
Give us the very best that you've got. If you are reading this well in advance of the tournament, start quality pieces of literature for interpretation. Then be true to what is going on in the piece, and above all, be true to yourself. The best pieces create the illusion of the first time. Something that seems effortless, genuine, and sincere. Well-rehearsed in a way that doesn't seem like something that was ever rehearsed. These pieces will always take the 1 on the ballot. Likewise, pieces that still are shaky on the memory work, awkward in blocking, unclear in characterization, etc., will not pull out a miracle. Hard work ahead of time - investing in yourself and your work- will pay off.
New to Speech and Interp
The very best thing you can do is just to get in there and start doing it. Of course, no one is perfect the first time(s) they try something. We just keep working and getting better and better. The best have learned from the best. Make a note of what people are doing and how that is working for them. Find things - every time- that you can do. There is so much to matching the piece to the performer. Every minute you spend finding and cutting a piece for your talents is well invested. Keep growing. Don't let the initial bumps discourage you. It's not where you start that matters.
In short, do all the good things your teacher taught you. Bring the very best you can, and I will do my best for you to walk away with some solid advice to move forward as a debater.
I'm pulling for each of you and wish you the best in the tournament and life! Good luck!
update (9/27/23): added detailed judging record for most accurate data. poached from David McDermott.
update (9/24/23): tried to make my paradigm as short as i could only to realize there is a lot to write, but most of my opinions are highly irrelevant and easily overcome with technical debating. i do not think "evenly debated" ever happens unless both teams decide to never respond to any of their opponent's arguments, and have only had to intervene in one debate where the warrant in a piece of evidence a debate was staked on was interpreted incorrectly by both teams.
1. joe, not judge. yes, email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
email subject should include tournament, round, teams, and codes.
example: 2021 TOC - Round 4 - Mitty AP (Aff) vs Little Rock GR (Neg)
2. have seen a lot of unkind behavior while judging. i used to think being angry was cool, and it's fine to show emotion, but don't push it too far. not trying to police expression, but sometimes its either just cringy or directly making individuals uncomfortable.
3. speech times are non-negotiable. outside help is prohibited. each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal, unless there's a maverick situation that has been pre-approved.
4. i check to see if you clip. it actually happens a lot, and i won't hesitate to vote you down. accidents happen, i get it. this doesn't mean you need to worry if you skipped one word out of your 3000 word 1AC without realizing, but i have voted down two teams who skipped a sentence, several words, or even paragraphs, in more than one card. you may have scrolled past without realizing, but repeated instances are misrepresentation of evidence and i will draw a line in the sand.
5. if a rehighlighting is longer than 3 lines, read it.
6. if i'm judging you:
a. [online] would prefer camera on just because online debate is soulless as is. won't ask or punish you for it though.
b. [in person] i will try to sit at least 10 feet away. don't move closer. don't shake my hand.
7. don't assume i know anything about "community consensus" or the topic.
1. little rock central '22, vanderbilt '26. human and organizational development major, minoring in data science and asian studies. i read a lot of philosophy, behavioral journals, cultural studies papers, international relations and economics articles for both debate and college. you can ask me questions about vandy if you want, although preferably after a decision has been made or through email.
2. read basically everything in high school as a 2A and 2N. did one tournament in college that was about the same.
some of my favorite arguments included:
aff: code-switching poetry in korean, wynter, soft left refugees, soko arms sales.
neg: the security K, the allied prolif DA, the onticide K, T-subs, a conditions CP, spark.
3. very data oriented. i think of debate as a time game. my flow is not the number of words you said, but the number of words i could write down. assuming argument quality is the same (it usually isn't), the side with more time spent on the core issues of the debate will win.
4. have voted for many pro-growthers and nationalists although i do not agree with them. wish more teams would say stuff about cards from brookings or cato or one of 10 gazillion other think tanks and more about evidence quality in general.
5. did the toc once. broke there. qualed twice. did about 10 tournaments a year all 4 years, mostly national circuit. aware of most trends in debate, and coach both policy and K teams, though I research more Ks and K answers than anything else.
6. if you don't feel like reading my paradigm, my thoughts on judging are essentially like both of Texas DK, Debnil Sur, Rafael Pierry, and David McDermott, although I am perhaps not as steeply neg biased.
1. i judge about 50% policy rounds, 40% policy v k rounds, and 10% k v k rounds. read what you're good at.
2. i will flow your speech. i will decide the debate based on said flow. you will not change my mind on this.
3. tech over truth, but arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication. ok with trolly arguments. your fault if you lose the sky is green, but you do have to say why the sky being green matters. if an argument is bad, beat it.
example of an incomplete argument: condo is a voter for killing straight turns - dispo solves.
example of a complete argument: condo is a voter - kills straight turns by incentivizing least credible offense, which destroys aff research and depth. dispo solves because they can kick if perms or theory.
tech is most important but also entails that a debater uses concessions to illustrate the big picture so that the judge does not intervene on WHAT it entails.
this is the single most important part of my paradigm. way too often, debaters are dissatisfied with a decision, saying "they dropped this thing!" without ever explaining why it matters for the overall debate and instead leaving it to the judge's devices. implication debating of core concessions wins debates far more often than going for dozens of concessions and not explaining implications.
4. similarly, please do impact calculus. why does something matter more? old-school novice-style impact calculus debating is actually helpful for most debates.
5. i have very little strong preferences, but incorporating some of my small ones can help render a decision in your favor. as far as i can tell, my bias is very minimal, and i am open to being proved wrong.
6. i obviously will really hate you if you read something racist, sexist, transphobic, or otherwise, but if the other team doesn't call you out, i may be almost just as mad. if you said something that harms others (i.e. calling someone a slur, misgendering, etc) i will intervene, but if you say something that could be interpreted as such (i.e. drone strikes good, malthus, etc), i won't intervene. the closer you toe the line, the more likely i am to intervene. i will try my absolute hardest to let the debaters debate this out, but participant safety vastly outweighs the educational benefit of just letting personal attacks continue.
i can and will not make a judgment on a debater's behavior out of round because it lacks a verifiable warrant and is thus not a complete argument. i understand there are many objectionable people in debate who have done terrible things to others, but i unfortunately do not have the authority nor resources to conduct an investigation on them. if your opponent says something objectionable in the round and you want to make it a link argument or voting issue, feel free to do so, but i will evaluate it like any other argument.
7. given this, feel free to postround. i will most likely disagree with you, given that i rendered a decision the other way, but i feel like it's an important way for debaters to hold judges accountable for potentially questionable decisions and make them rethink certain parts of their decision. that being said, if you become hostile, i will similarly become hostile. there's a difference between respectfully questioning someone's evaluation and simply being mad because you disagree.
obligatory K section for prefs because no one cares about anything else nowadays
you can read whatever, with some caveats.
1. don't assume i know anything about your authors or what they are saying. explanation is imperative.
2. please be specific. reading a K is not an excuse for not having links. quotes are great, but need to actually prove the link.
3. Ks that are not "plan focus bad" are an uphill battle due to uniqueness issues, the perm double bind, and utopian fiat bad. they are not unwinnable, just usually have warrant problems. if you go for a root cause link without an alt or uniqueness or framework, you will probably lose. because of this, i am usually better for Ks that moot the plan with framework DAs than the "we fiat international revolution" K with "try or die turns aff impacts".
4. framework is not "usually a wash" and determines a lot of offense. i will not vote for a "middle ground" interp i constructed in my mind, although you are free to introduce a middle ground interp. if it doesn't matter, tell me why. if you don't tell me why "fiat racist" outweighs "procedure", or vice versa, you will lose. defense helps as a tiebreaker, but usually impact comparison matters more.
5. aff teams should read less state inevitable cards and more impact turns. solidify strategy by the 2AR and don't shotgun. don't have a preference for extinction/framework strategy over the perm/link turn strategy, but it makes less sense to go for the perm with an aff that talks about heg.
6. K v K: the link matters most for the perm, but impact comparison or turns case matters most overall. framework helps. explaining what the role of debate is helps me evaluate the alt vs the aff a lot better. the more absolutist position you take the better, although PIKs are fine if there's an actual impact to the link.
1. T v K affs:
a. explaining what the ballot does for the scope of impacts is most important for both teams:
affs often have big impacts but don't do a lot to solve them. doing risk calculus like you're debating "x-ism outweighs procedure" and doing solvency debating to show you solve some of the impact is most important.
negs often have small impacts that they can solve but lack impact comparison. limiting the scope of what debate/the aff can solve is most beneficial. good 2Ns ask the question: how would either the counter interp or the aff solve this in any capacity?
b. strategy wise, consistency is important.
affs would be better served choosing just a counter interp strategy or just an impact turn strategy. defense helps.
negs would be better served going for a small impact, solvency takeouts to DAs, and switch side.
c. TVAs are meh. if the aff says "free palestine now!" the neg has no obligation to say how this might be solved by a job guarantee. if you can, more power to you.
d. more persuaded by limits than ground for the neg. preparing for tons of affs usually means in depth debates are much harder, even if the neg could pull a K out of their backfiles.
e. i have coached teams to both answer and go for fairness and clash. i have not heard a debate involving topic education/lawyering since 2020, so it will be a bit unfamiliar.
f. fairness is not inherently "just an internal link" OR "an intrinsic good". teams must explain beyond two words why it is or isn't an impact. warrants please!
similarly, i'm not sure why aff teams are only answering fairness with either "just an internal link" or "structural unfairness". usually neg teams are good at just no linking both. aff DAs about how the neg has weaponized fairness are much more persuasive than answers 2Ns are all too ready for.
2. T vs plan affs:
a. i think some judges have an unreasonably high burden for T. that being said, you have to not spread your T blocks at an incomprehensible pace.
b. T evidence quality is on life support.
c. don't have a preference for limits or precision. just do comparison.
d. reasonability should be framed as offense. it doesn't make sense without a counter interp.
e. no idea why T has to be 5 minutes of the 2NR if substance is also bad for the aff (example: they dropped presumption).
1. solvency deficits need impacts. if you don't have any, find a better aff.
2. i do not share disdain for a general enemy known as "process junk". every counterplan has a process.
i am open to affirmative theory objections about why some processes do not meet the burden of rejoinder, but i am not biased for or against them.
1. i am fine with rider DAs, "a logical policymaker could do both", "winners win", or any silly disadvantage arguments you might like to make on either side as long as they are warranted.
2. bad DAs can be reduced to zero risk if well debated. same with bad advantages. this is not because i dislike disadvantages or cases, but because the strength of warrants are often made up.
3. affs don't straight turn enough.
1. case debating is a lost art.
the state of 2AC line by line is abysmal, resulting in incomprehensible sound bytes that do not resemble even half of an argument, making me want to abandon technical evaluation to scold every 2A for not saying full sentences. conversely, neg teams usually just spam cards instead of actually reading the affs terrible cards and pointing out how terrible they are.
if you don't do these things, your speaks will certainly improve.
2. i love impact turns. this includes death good, spark, wipeout, and pretty much anything else. would much rather judge a debate like this than a competition 2AR.
1. condo is the only (obvious) reason to reject the team. i could be convinced otherwise, but i haven't heard a warrant (yet) for why international fiat or the like made the entire 2AC undebatable.
2. much less biased for the neg than i used to be. i actually enjoy theory debates, but a lot of times, both sides just assert truisms about how debate works without explaining why or questioning the other sides warrants (example: why is aff or neg side bias actually true?)
pretty even on the few theory debates I've judged.
1. last year everyone was around 29, so i've started to start at 28.5 instead. i'll adjust based on tournament pool.
2. your speaks will go down if you yell or insult each other. conversely, speaks will go up with jokes and humor.
3. last year's median was around 28.7. if you reach below 27.3, you almost assuredly did an ethics violation. if you reach above 29.7, you are the best speaker i have ever seen.
4. reading better ev, doing line by line with warrants, and actually comparing impacts will make me less grumpy and correlate with higher speaks.
5. i will not give you a 30 just because your opponent technically conceded you should get one, since i am not bound to technical concessions even if your opponent is.
1. if i look confused, this just means i don't get it. if i nod, it just means i get what you mean, not necessarily that i think it's the best/winning argument.
2. if you say your evidence is great and its not, i will be annoyed.
3. emailing is not prep, but if you take obnoxiously long, i will tell you to start prep.
4. deleting analytics is definitely prep.
5. "tag team" cx is fine, but if one debater is taking every question, speaks will suffer.
Hello Debaters! I'm excited to be judging Tiger's Eye this year. This is my 3rd or 4th time judging debate tournaments. While I didn't debate in school, my oldest son has been in debate for several years and I've learned a great deal about the events from him. I'm a curious lifelong learner with degrees in Physics and Math (undergraduate), Business (Masters), and International Policy (Masters). I enjoy thinking critically about current and historical events. You will impress me if you make strong arguments with good reason and analytical rigor and you do so while showing appropriate humility and self awareness and demonstrating respect for your opponent. Don't compensate for poor reason and logic by being too aggressive. Most of all, be yourself and have fun!
Hi, I’m Wyatt, I have 3 years of debate experience in Congress and PF, but I’m also happy to judge LD. I also have 2 years of forensics experience. My paradigm is not super extensive, just some things to keep in mind.
Be civil. Debate is open to anyone, an educational activity that expands your thinking and speaking skills. If you can’t put aside any prejudices you may hold for the duration of the round, then you don’t belong on the circuit, and I will be happy to tell you that.
I judge based on flow. Speaker points will not affect the outcome of the round. That said, if your speech is unorganized and sloppy, then that could make it harder for me to flow, which could lose you the round
Logic and technical arguments will always move me more than conjecture and emotional anecdotes. They have their place but support your arguments with real evidence as well.
The PF circuit is becoming more progressive. If. Theory and off case (Kritik) arguments are valid, but must be well justified and well linked.
Don’t spread. Especially on the novice circuit.
Most of the same as PF above.
Make sure you connect your values through the entire round, don’t put them at the beginning of your speech because you think it’s required, and then never bring it up again. Don’t assume that I understand your link to the value.
LD is also becoming more progressive. Don’t be afraid to use Theory or Kritiks but still make sure that it’s airtight.
Spreading is acceptable BUT:
Start an email chain before your speech. You don’t get to start spreading as a way to stop your opponent from understanding you, If I can't understand your speech, or I don't have your case in front of me, I can't flow it.
Include me on any email chain: email@example.com
I love congress.
I want to see clash, bring up points that your fellow representatives have brought up. Congress is not a forensics event, so we need to be debating, not acting.
While it isn’t a forensics event, speaking is important. You need to be organized and passionate about what you’re saying
Do not speak for the sake of speaking. It is painfully obvious if your speech is a filler fest with no original content or clash. These speeches will not get you very far and will hurt your chances with me.
It’s really easy to be rude or act superior in congress. Don’t.
Hello! I have been judging debate for a couple years now and I did speech in high school.
I expect you to be respectful towards one another and to efficiently keep your own time to keep the debate moving forward.
I give speaker points based on who was the most natural speaker. I am okay with you spreading, however, please be aware that on this format the audio may lag and I may miss some of the things you say.
I love cross-examination. A big deciding factor will be who can effectively get their point across while debunking the other team's points through questioning and rebuttal arguments.
I'm a debater at Bentonville High School. Usually, I compete in policy, but I do have experience in LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools.
-Please put me on the email chain
- I typically give 27-30 speaker points, anything below a 26 means you should work on your speaking.
-I am okay with spreading if it is a policy or progressive LD round. If you are doing congress of PF, I will not accept spreading.
-While speed is fine, please be CLEAR
-For an argument to be evaluated by me, you have to extend it throughout the entire round. Saying it in the first speech and then never mentioning it again till the final speech does not count.
-I might give you higher speaks if you make me laugh :)
-Have good clash. Clash is amazing and is an instant way to get my attention
-I evaluate tech and truth equally.
-Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, or ANYTHING like that. I will immediately give you zero speaks and may vote you down. Debate is supposed to be a safe space.
-Don't be aggressive or rude, those are not the same as being confident
-Unique or interesting case are very good, just make sure they're topical
-I will call for evidence if it seems sus, but it is your job as a debater to really analyze the evidence
-Having good eye contact with me and going off the flow will do amazing for your speaks
I'm fine with spreading, HOWEVER, after the 1AC/1NC, I expect you to slow down and truly extend your arguments. Simply reading taglines and not explaining the merits of a card will not count.
-policy is a highly technical form of debate and you should adhere to the specifics of the style. That being said, your arguments must have truth to them.
-CP permutations must be explained. You cannot simply say "perm do both" and not bother explaining and arguing it. Be creative with it!
-Theory args are fine, but make sure your links are specific (especially on kritiks). Explain your links well and make sure you can accurately apply them to the aff.
-Do your impact calculus. Tell me why your impact matters.
-Same thing on speaking as policy, if it is progressive PLEASE slow down after the first set of speeches and truly explain your ev.
-Your case must be the one that better fits the value criterion and framework of the round. Whoever better solves for the value usually wins.
-See above on theory and speaking
-IMPACT CAL, make sure you tell me why your impact matters and why it o/w
-Do your impact calculus and weighing in the summary speeches, the final focus is too little too late
-Extend your arguments well
-Progressive is fine, I will buy theory args, kritiks, disclosure theory, paraphrase theory, etc. But make sure any theory args aren't unnecessary.
-Please have clash
-Have fun with roleplaying as a lawmaker, that's what makes Congress fun
-Please don't be boring. Congress rounds are long, so having an interesting intro and conclusion makes it a lot more fun
-Don't keep repeating args other people have made throughout the round.
-Later speeches must have clash and rebuttals in them
-Try to use at least 2:00 minutes of your speaking time
Above all, debate should be a fun event and a safe space. Debate can be stressful and I want to make sure you have a clear understanding. Have fun, get creative. I know I sound mean in this, but I promise you I'm nice. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me, just be respectful with it. If time allows, I will try to also give verbal critiques, and I will be writing everything down on your ballot.
Don't be afraid to email me if you have any questions post round. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach
I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.
Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.
I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.
I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.
PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.
Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.
You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.
I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.
If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.
Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.
This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!
I judge majorly based on the flow. This means that I primarily look at argumentation and refutation. Are your arguments well supported, is there a clear warrant and impacts, do your refutations directly apply to and negate your opponents points, did you drop any points, etc.? In order to ensure a good flow, so that I can better judge the round, competitors should not spread and should use signposts during speeches. I do not tolerate ad hominem fallacies (personal attacks to the opponent) within debate rounds. Debate should remain respectful to all parties involved, this includes groups of people being debated about or mentioned within the debate, not just the competitors and judges.
I started judging when my daughter was in the Forensics/Debate program in Bentonville. This is my 6th year to judge.
I'll take lots of notes and like clear, concise, and logical arguments.
Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples and evidence.
When presenting evidence include citations after introduction of article.
The focus should be winning the debate, not attacking a persons style or any method flaws. Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.
Respect towards your opponent is paramount. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.
Virtual Debate Updates:
I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.
Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.
Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.
Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.
I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.
I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.
I listen closely to cross-ex.
Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.
Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.
Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.
K Affs vs. FW
For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.
For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.
I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.
No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.
1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.
I do not feel well this weekend therefore I need simple, basic debate format to follow. I am more communication based. I’m looking for an organized, easy to follow style. I will vote for whomever is easier to understand and most persuasive.
Hey guys, I'm a sophomore at UARK and you can call me Judge, Brice, Judge Witt, Mr. Guy Man, whatever, honestly. I've competed in PF and Congress, both in-state and out-of-state, and went to NSDA Nationals my sophomore and senior years. I've also dabbled in CX a little. LD is what I'm least familiar with but I can comprehend arguments, will flow, and will make the most fair decision.
All Styles minus Congress:
I am a flow judge meaning I will base my decision off the flow, nothing else. I will listen to cross-examination, if I hear something interesting, incorrect, or otherwise, I will write it down, but it shouldn't effect my decision (unless your opponent calls you out for something you said in cross in a speech).
SPEED. I am fine with some speed, no spreading though, but if you're talking a bit faster be clear. If you are not clear or are speaking too fast, I will put my pen down, will not flow, and will then not be able to judge you properly. In summary, PLEASE BE CLEAR.
WEIGH. If you don't weigh for me, I will end up weighing myself and you may or may not like the outcome.
EXTENDING AND DROPS. If you don't extend evidence for me, I will point it out on my flow and if your opponent points it out and tells me why that matters, you won't be able to win it. Shadow extending is risky, I may flow it and let it slide, but don't count on it occurring. If you drop something, I point it out on my flow, and your opponent discusses it and why it matters, I will give them the argument as long as they extend.
EVIDENCE. If an opponent asks for a card, please be able to supply it in a timely manner, if not I will resort to running some of your prep time. I don't expect to ask for a card after the round, but I will do so if my decision comes down to it or a competitor specifically asks me to call for the evidence in a speech (or I just wanna see it hehe).
I don't think I will ever judge this, but if I do, I'm sorry and I will try my absolute best. If you spread, I may miss some things but I don't think it'll be too bad.
Ah PF, my main style. I am fine with either paraphrasing or carded evidence, however, if you paraphrase, you'd better have the carded, properly cited, properly highlighted evidence if I call for it. I will be very displeased if you make me search through an article or tell me "control f this..." just cut the evidence.
I personally enjoyed progressive argumentation in PF, meaning things like K’s, theory, etc., but because those can make the debate unfair to an unprepared opponent, I will ask that if you plan to run something like this, ask your opponents before the round if it’s okay.
I do not allow for either sticky offense or sticky defense. This just means to be sure to cover both sides when being the first speaker.
First rebuttal, answer AND interact with your opponents case, use all of your time, even if you have to restate your own case. If you want to weigh at the end you can, weighing earlier makes my decision easier.
Second rebuttal, answer AND interact with your opponents case, answer what they said on yours, and use all of your time. If you want to weigh at the end you can, weighing earlier makes my decision easier.
Summary, group arguments and answer what your opponent said. You have 3 minutes so use it wisely, extend, and weigh at the end or throughout. Set your partner up in the FF, it's like an alley-oop, you set your partner up for the dunk.
FF, VOTERS. Just tell me reasons why you win the debate, offer me some weighing and DUNK THAT THANG.
Congress Specific: There’s not really much I should need to say here, but just speak well, follow parliamentary procedure, don’t just read a speech, and speak eloquently and with conviction.
I've only ever judged LD and have never debated in it, however, I will be able to judge properly if I am your judge.
I can evaluate K's somewhat as I did run them here and there, just please not overly complicated ones.
Make sure you give your value and value criterion so I know how to judge.
Please ensure you extend, go line-by-line, and relate what you're discussing to the value and value criterion.
Use good word economy. I won't be mean when it comes to speaks, ever. That being said I also won’t inflate them and everyone will start off at a 28.
Ways to increase speaker points:
Be polite, courteous, etc.
Have good time management, organization, and line-by-line.
Be efficient and make sure you’re clear, especially if online.
If you tell me a good joke before the round I will increase your speaks by .2. If it's not good I will reduce your speaks by .2. Choose wisely.
Ways to lose speaker points:
Being inefficient with and/or not using all of your time, not knowing your case/evidence.
Being rude, disrespectful, demeaning, etc. *Note this does not mean you cannot get into a back and forth with your opponent during cross, because, if done right, it’ll enhance the quality of the debate.
If you are a(the) superior debater(s), showing humility will go a long way, however, not will cause you to lose speaker points.
Ways to automatically lose the round, get a 25 speaker point score, and have me talk to your coach/tab:
You are explicitly racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. Debate is supposed to be a safe place for all individuals, let’s keep it that way, please.
If there’s an email chain I would like to be on it: email@example.com
If you have any questions before the round, please ask and I’ll be more than happy to answer, but if you ask me what my paradigm is, I will first ask if you checked on tab and if you say no, I will not tell you everything, and maybe nothing.
Good luck to everyone! You’re all talented and I hope I get to judge you!!