Hello, I am your classic lay parent judge. Please speak slowly so I understand all of your arguments.

PF Paradigm

• Do NOT spread
• No theory
• Please weigh because if you don't I'll be forced to intervene and you may not agree with my opinion
• Signpost
• be civil and respectful of one another
• keep your own time. Please ask for time signals if you want.
• do not use cross as a chance to respond to your opponents

In high school my main events included Congress, Info, Extemp, and a bit of PF. I did a very minute amount of LD and CX, so while I am definitely not an expert, I know some basics of the events and understand most of the arguments that can be presented.

Speech events:

Please annunciate and speak relatively loud. I will rank you higher if you utilize your gestures effectively, have good voice inflection and tone, can tell me about your topic in an informed and thought-out manner, and present the information in an organized way.

For prepared speaking events, I am really looking for that clean and crisp presentation. It is a memorized event, so it can be easy to start droning on when speaking. Please try to make your speech as engaging as possible with your presentation style, and I probably will rank you higher.

For limited prep events, if you show me a good amount of analysis on your topic that shows that you know what you're talking about. You most likely will get more points from me. Also, if your speech is organized in a way that makes sense and flows well that will get you more points as well.

Debate events:

I don't particularly enjoy debaters that are super pushy and aggressive in their questioning and speeches. If you have a point that is going to completely destroy your opponents argument and you know it, please don't be snarky and don't put down your opponent. I get it, you have a good argument, explain it and explain why it is the better argument and keep it at that. If you do decide to be snarky, then just keep in mind your speech points will likely reflect.

I love contention. That is what debate is all about. If you (and your partner) are second speakers, and have multiple cases, then use a case that will provide the most clash. In Congress, don't talk about the same thing as everyone else, be unique and present arguments that clash well with everyone (I find it extremely difficult to rank speakers highly that just repeat everyone else in a different way, even if you are a great speaker).

I am not a fan of spreading. I did it a bit in high school, and it is not my thing. With that being said, if you feel the need to spread, understand that I am certainly out of practice flowing speed and most likely won't be able to keep up. I prefer quality over quantity with your arguments. I will not give you a warning word or anything along those lines. If you see me looking up and not flowing. Most likely it is too fast.

Arguments (Partner-debate):
Topicality/Theory: I used these arguments a lot in high school and thoroughly enjoy them. However, I will not vote on it unless you actually go for the argument, so be careful. I also want to see a lot of justification for these args if you go for them.

DAs: I love good DAs. Present me the link chain and explain the argument well and you could easily get a vote from DAs. Especially when paired well with a CP.

CPs: Typically I won't vote on these arguments specifically, so make sure to pair it with another arg such as a DA or maybe topicality. Also be able to explain why it is mutually exclusive otherwise I will just flow the arg towards the aff.

Kritiks: I do NOT enjoy kritiks. I understood their place in high school, and thought it was interesting, but it is very unlikely that I would ever vote on a kritik. I have not voted on them in the past, as many times the debaters do not themselves understand the argument they are trying to make. However, if you simplify the argument, and really really explain it, then there is the slight chance I might vote on it. Please, explain to me exactly why I must vote for it if you really want to run this argument.

Everything else (inherency, solvency, etc.): I will vote on any other arguments you present as long as you explain the impacts and do impact weighing.

Overall/TL;DR:
Don't spread. Explain your args well. Don't kritik. Weigh your impacts, I prefer probability over magnitude, but will vote on anything if argued well, and PLEASE extend your arguments throughout the debate.

I will vote off of the flow. I.E if you don't say the argument in your speech, I most likely won't vote on it. Even if it was in Cross-ex.

Special note:
I make several references of things I did in high school and such. Please know that I am now a few years removed from the S&D scene and have only judged a few tournaments over the years. After reviewing my paradigm, I think it all still applies, but especially on the spreading aspect, I am very much out of practice with flowing, and will likely need you to speak at a conversational pace for me to keep up. Thanks!
Best of luck to all.

Hi debaters!

Seasoned speech judge dipping her toes in the debate pool for the first time!

Keep your spread on your bread (no spreading) and humor is encouraged.

Good luck!

I am a 5th year LD coach for BASIS Phoenix in Arizona.

I did LD in high school (2009 - 2013) primarily in the Oklahoma local circuit attending a small private Christian school that no longer exists (American Christian School in Bartlesville, OK if you're curious).

Add me to e-mail chains: chisumdebate@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

- Don't spread.

- Traditional LD good. Policy good. K’s good. Philosophy good. All of these have the caveat that if I don’t understand the argument and its warrants, I won’t vote on it.

- I have and will vote for non-topical cases, but I have a high threshold for doing so. My prior is that topicality is good for debate, and that debate itself is good. You are free to try to convince me otherwise in-round.

- Frivolous Theory bad (“I know it when I see it”). Tricks bad.

- Give voters; be clear how you want me to evaluate the round.

- Warrants, warrants, warrants. I need clear and developed reasons to believe your argument.

- Be respectful.

EXTENDED VERSION

Presentation

As said above, do not spread. That goes double in an online format where clarity is already impacted. I'm concerned about the quality, not the quantity of arguments presented, so excessive speed is both unnecessary and harmful. If you are going too fast for my taste, I will say "Clear!" After saying "clear" twice, I will simply stop flowing if you are still going too fast.

A lot of people ask me "How fast is too fast?" Here's my answer: Speak to me as you would speak to the most intelligent person you know who is not at all involved in debate.

Argumentation

I'm willing to vote on basically any argument that is well-warranted, clearly explained, and persuasively argued.

I have limited familiarity with most K and phil literature, so do not assume I will understand your arguments beforehand. If you do not believe you can explain the literature within the round in a way I can understand, probably don't run that K.

Policy Stuff

In terms of impact weighing, I tend to be more friendly to weighing on probability over magnitude (especially on extinction scenarios that are poorly warranted and obviously false). Instead of thinking solely of doomsday scenarios, risk evaluation is a much more practical way of thinking about impacts (and is much closer to how policy-makers in the real world make decisions).

For counter-plans, be careful that you are actually competitive to the Aff. I'm iffy on some of the more "tricky" CPs (Condo CPs, certain PICs, Agent CPs etc.), and I find perms or theory args against them to be fairly persuasive, so be careful about that.

Theory and Topicality

I have a high threshold for theory. In my view, theory ought to be a check on actual abuse, so if you're intending to run frivolous theory (I know it when I see it; you know you're running it), striking me is probably a good idea.

There are two questions that I will be willing to outright answer in the middle of a round:
1. “Judge, do you consider my theory (or my opponent’s theory) argument ‘frivolous’ theory.”
2. “Judge, do you consider my case (or my opponent’s case) topical.”

If I consider a theory arg frivolous, it will not be evaluated on my ballot, and it does not need to be addressed in rebuttals. If I do not consider a theory argument frivolous, it will be evaluated on my ballot and can be won by either side.

If I consider a case topical, I will not evaluate any topicality arguments on my ballot. If I do not consider a case topical, then I will be evaluating topicality arguments on my ballot, and either side may win that portion of the debate.

Other

I am a stickler on warrants. I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow, the only way I'll vote on it is if your opponent drops it entirely (and you extend it). Note: just because you have a card that makes a claim does not mean you have a warrant for why that claim is true.

If your opponent drops an argument, don't assume you automatically win the debate, or even that portion of the debate. You must extend that argument and tell me why it's important that it goes through.

Give voters. Tell me exactly why you should win the round. If you do your job as a debater, my RFD should sound extremely similar to the end of your last rebuttal.

As a last point, debaters should be respectful to each other and have fun. There's no reason to ever be disrespectful to an opponent or engage in any behavior that makes debate a less accessible and enjoyable activity.

Overview: I have been the Head Coach at Scottsdale Preparatory Academy since founding the team in 2013. I have been fortunate to coach dozens of students both at the AZ-local level and on the national circuit, but believe this activity (regardless of event) is first and foremost about "seeking the truth" through deep reading, active listening, clear thinking, and finally honest speaking. Your goal should not be to only be able to convince people with insular prior experience and expertise in S&D; good communication is good communication and should be about being able to reach anyone. As a coach, I also have the privilege/challenge of training lots of new parent/community judges who are scared to judge for the first time. My honest belief is that if you've "read a book before, watched a movie before, listened intently to a lecture before, and had a conversation with someone who disagreed with you" then you have sufficient life experience to become a good speech and debate judge (assuming they also learn the event rules/format, give feedback, and keep asking questions to keep improving).

Congressional Debate: Congressional Debate will forever be one of my favorite events. Your job is to be the whole package: convincing speaker, solid researcher, active questioner, and get into the collegial role play (without wandering too far into excessive, unnecessary motions).

- Speeches: There is no specific speaking position that is prone to do better or worse than others for me. I've seen and coached dozens of students who were primarily constructive speakers who liked speaking in early cycles on each bill. Thoroughly researched and original constructive speeches are vital for inviting good debate to follow. Others preferred (and were successful) at being a mix of late-constructive-speaker with some refutation (I welcome direct refutation as long as it is deeper than "Rep XX says YY and I disagree", offer an analysis of their claims/warrants/impacts). Others preferred to be a late cycle ("crystalization") speaker with greater emphasis on "weighing" and clarifying the overall issues brought up in the debate (please know that just giving a laundry list of previous speaker names, what they said, and whether you agree/disagree is not a crystalization; I was already here to hear their speeches, you still need to offer unique research and original analysis, even if it is analysis of their analysis). Any of those three speaker positions can do well or can do poorly depending on the speaker/speech. All three of them have an important role to play in Congressional Debate. In all 3 speaking positions, evidence is necessary.

- Decorum/Speech Length: The NSDA rule is that speeches have a time limit of 3 minutes, but does not specify a penalty for those who abuse the speech length. My belief is that exceeding the time limit is un-collegial (privileging one's own speech over those of others), shows a lack of decorum, and disrespects the rules. Many tournaments/leagues have begun offering a 10 second grace period (with the idea of letting a speaker finish their sentence/thought). If you are competing at a tournament that allows such a grace period, know that your goal should still be to give a 3:00 speech and not 3:10 speeches. Exceeding 3:10 is frankly rude (I've been horror-struck to see speeches go to 3:17, 3:26, 3:42, etc.), particularly when your PO is giving you several warnings. Stealing time from Congress’ ability to get to other speeches is unfair and poor form.

- Presiding: I have trained many students to preside (and even been fortunate to coach a student who Presided in the Finals at Nationals), and know how incredibly difficult it is to lead your peers. I have judged many POs who have been ranked in my Top 1-3 or Top 6, and also judged POs who have been in the bottom 25% of my Parli ballot. I know how difficult POing is and wish to reward a truly great PO, but the bar for leadership is still quite high and getting elected is not a guarantee that you're going to earn a good rank. POing takes practice both inside and outside of tournaments.

- Mentorship/Civility: In some ways I am grateful that there isn't a novice division of Congressional Debate because it means that new students or competitors from teams who are new to Congress will hopefully get to see some good models from experienced students in the room which they can learn from and emulate. If you are an experienced Congressional Debater, you already have a sizable competitive advantage over these students learning the ropes; they are not a threat to you. Build them up, invite them to discuss the docket with you before the round, encourage them to come to the next Congress (its in your best interest for Congress to grow across the State and Nation). Bludging a new congressional debater to death or being condescending just makes them never want to do the activity again, and makes judges less inclined to vote for you (even if you give solid speeches). This activity is about more than winning rounds; "speaking with good purpose" should be about more than giving quality speeches.

Public Forum Debate: Despite having a background in debate, I wish teams would emphasize the "Public" nature of Public Forum Debate. I competed in Public Forum Debate shortly after it was founded, and remember that part of the rationale for creating it was that debate was getting too far removed from the public and becoming increasingly insular If this community exists to only persuade those who have been specially trained to think in a specific way, then this activity fails at its goal of being relevant in the real world.

Speak clearly, medium slowly, persuasively, and be grounded in thorough research (in all speeches, not just the constructives). Unsubstantiated claims, or rebuttal/summary/final focus speeches that keep re-hashing your side while ignoring the opposition's side, are not rewarded. Even though I am coach, you are inevitably far more broadly and deeply read on this specific topic. Your job is to teach me just like it would be to teach any judge. I should leave feeling like I've learned something about the world, or think about the topic in a slightly new way.

Lincoln Douglas Debate: Please allow me to give you the respect of speaking honestly. I have coached lots of Novice LD through the basics of traditional LD, and past that I admit my limitations. I am essentially non-responsive to kritikal arguments and spreading. I acknowledge that you are significantly more thoroughly read on the topic than I am and likely will ever be. Use that knowledge responsibly and teach me. I should leave the round feeling like I as the judge learned something new about the world (or I should think about something in a new way), because you slowly taught it to the audience. Make it obvious your side is winning.

Policy Debate: If a tournament is in dire straits and desperate enough that I am judging a round of policy debate, then God rest all of our souls. Firstly, consider what I've said above about Congress, PF, and LD. If judging policy debate, I will basically adopt a "policy maker" paradigm, and your job is to (slowly, like a real policymaker would) convince me that the policy plan put forward is or isn't the better option. If I can't understand you, then I don't write it down and it didn't happen. You will have more success with stock arguments: topicality, advantages/disadvantages, maybe counterplans. If you're willing to meet me where I'm at, I'll give you a fair listening. I understand the need for progressive/kritikal arguments to exist in this form of academic debate, but they will most likely not help you win my vote.

For all forms of debate, I am basically a flow judge. That being said if you spread too fast I will not be able to get parts of your case on to my flow. In the end, be logical, make good cases and be respectful.

I don't time off time road maps as long as they are quick and efficient.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Email: christian.cooper@altavistahs.com

I am a graduate from the University of Arizona (2020) for purposes of assignment I am a lay judge who prefers traditional forms of debate and values clarity over speed of delivery.

What I am looking for:
- Arguments that are responsive, and make an actual attempt to answer or reflect understanding of an opponent's point.

- Clarity in delivery. Part of developing your ethos as a speaker is by ensuring the quality of execution matches the quality of your cards etc. Speaking fast in order to fit in a vast amount of information is inherently less convincing than delivering your strongest points clearly. (Footnote, this does not apply for obvious exemptions like speech disabilities etc. I also understand many students do get nervous, and am forgiving in this aspect).

- For arguments based around the perspective of marginalized groups, someone with direct experience should be present to discuss or add to the discussion. Needless erasure of people's experiences by having a discussion about their plight without their input is inherently antithetical to arguments centered around those experiences. (If running a progressive argument on identity, you should have direct experience with that identity)

What I am not looking for:

- Needlessly aggressive responses or treatment of other debaters. Your argument should stand on it's own merits, not your opponent's faults.

- The value of your argument is not solely formed by the facts and quantitative elements of the argument itself, but also by the ability to inform and be discussed with. Excessive use of jargon where not necessary or helpful is frowned upon. Know your audience.

- Needlessly pedantic arguments (definition battles -- Establish your definitions early and continually and come to a consensus) and clarifications where an opponent's argument is explicitly clear.

Have fun, learn something, and remember that you are playing an important role by addressing some of the most pressing issues our world faces today.

PS i am a math teacher, so any math related puns you can make in your speeches will bump your speaker points.

I'm a second-year student at ASU with three years of high school speech and debate experience, specifically in LD. I coached at Southwest Speech and Debate Institute and am currently an assistant coach at Brophy College Prep in Phoenix. In terms of how to win my ballot, I will vote on pretty much any argument so long as it is well-developed and warranted throughout the round. My debate philosophy is that debaters should impact their arguments out to a framework and evaluate the round through a comparative worlds approach; that being said, don't let that limit the scope of the debate. While I was not a progressive debater, I have always been interested in progressive argumentation and enjoy watching these rounds. I prefer structural Ks above most forms of progressive debate and I place more value on that than I do policy style cases. I have a higher threshold for theory, but if there is abuse, I will consider voting for it. I'm fine with any speed (just put me on the email chain) but be sure that your opponent can understand you in order to have a productive round.

email: hanna.griffin88@gmail.com

PF

PLEASE SIGNPOST - tell me where you are during your speech

Extend the full argument and explain it - don't just tell me to "extend [card name]" or "extend [contention]"

Please weigh - tell me which impact is more important and why

BE NICE - I'll drop you if you're rude/disrespectful to your opponents

let me know if you have questions.

LD

I have gotten very dumb in my old age (22) so please take it easy on me and debate slowly and as clearly as possible. I am very familiar with PF but am new to judging LD.

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

Hey guys! I'm Sebastian Javadpoor, and I competed on the circuit for 4 years in Public Forum, Congressional Debate, Duet Acting, Duo Interp, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Impromptu Speaking. As for qualifications so you don't try to trick me (O_O), I've won state championships in three different events, was nationally ranked in four, and qualified to nationals in four (Extemp TOC, NIETOC, and NSDA). Currently, I am a Public Forum debate coach in NYC while studying Political Science/Psychology at Columbia, so I am still keeping up to date with what is going on in the PF scene.

PF Paradigms:

1. Do. Not. Spread. Please. I've done debate for a while, and it's still annoying, and it doesn't really help the debate space. You can speak quickly, but once I say clear, do not go back to that speed.

2. S I G N P O S T ! It's a really ez way to make the judges luv u!

3. I won't time checking cards for the first 30 seconds, after that it comes out of prep. Also please reference the name of the card in your case so I can flow it more easily. And if you want me to check an opponent's card personally, lemme know and I will do so while forming my decision.

4. I don't flow cross fire but if it gets a bit too heated I will probably give ya a dirty look and may drop your speaks a bit. Please be nice. Being a meanie but winning on your args still will result in a drop.

5. I am pretty strict on the flow, and I want to see some good clash and weighing. What isn't extended throughout the round to the end will not be used as a reason for my decision. So please coordinate and flow through what you want to collapse on!

6. Time yourselves please.

7. Debater math is insta-dropped. Have evidence for your calculations!

8. If you spot misrepresenting in an opponent's card, call it out and I will specifically ask for it. If I find that you are right in contesting the card, it is dropped. Don't clip, powertag, splice, make up your own news source, etc. It also would make me drop your speaks.

9. I really really really don't like theory in PF (especially disclosure theory in local tournaments). However, if you argue it well, I won't let my bias prevent you from winning off of it.

10. Speaks start off at a baseline of 26. 30s are rare but I will be favorable to those that incorporate rhyme into their speeches.

11. If you ask if I favor tech>truth, the answer is a "mostly yes"

Policy Paradigms!

Not much policy experience but I'm a flow judge so it'll be fineeeee.

BQ Paradigms!

I also do not have much experience in BQ, but considering its similarity to PF in terms of structure, most of those points still apply. Again, I'm flow, so take that into consideration when forming arguments.

also - email for speech docs (if necessary) - sebastianjavadpooracp@gmail.com

Public Forum

Experience:

Coached PF and LD for the past 5 years at Phoenix Country Day School in Arizona where I also teach economics. PF and LD competitor in 2003. I have judged Public Forum and LD at all levels over the past 15 years.

Bias:

I do believe that Public Forum should be accessible to all levels of judge experience, and I am less inclined to see arguments that serve to exclude the general public amicably. That being said, I hate intervening in rounds, so it is your opponents' job to explain why those arguments do not meet the spirit of public forum, are antithetical to the educational purpose of the event, and/or create levels of abuse that tip the balance towards one side or the other.

General Philosophy:

Tabula Rasa - I'll only intervene if something egregious or offensive occurs that an educator needs to step in and correct. Otherwise, I'll vote on the arguments in the round and weigh the impacts through the frameworks that are presented. If there are competing frameworks in the round, show me why you win through both of them.

I judged speech last year - but did Lincoln-Douglas debate eons ago in college and am an expert in negotiation. I know a bit about speaking as I speak professionally on negotiation, ranging from conference keynotes to multi-day training programs (at least I did pre-pandemic). Now I largely speak to a camera lens - not nearly as fun! Hopefully in person conferences will start up again soon!

You have only one round today, and this is that round. Give it all you've got, and I'll do the same for you.

I competed in all interp events in HS, and have coached and judged all interp and platform events.

In interp, I look for distinctions of characters, use of space, and overall understanding of the piece and your interpretation of it. Enunciation and diction are also important.

For speech events, clarity of argument, enunciation, and diction are my primary focus when commenting, although I do look at the overall presentation when making a final decision.

Debate: Please remember I don't have the preparation you do, so talk slow and be understandable. I most likely won't let you know you're going too fast in a round, only after in my comments. I'm not knowledgeable of debate jargon/abbreviations, so please clarify and assume I have no previous knowledge of what you're talking about. I will time you if I remember, but to be safe, time yourself and your opponents (if you don't want them taking extra time). Otherwise, just be respectful and have fun.

• I am open to all styles of respectful debate.

• I think you should show that you enjoy debate and have fun while debating.

• I believe a debate should have a balance of offensive and defensive arguments.

• It is important to me that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate.

• This is the first time that I've judged this event.

My name is Kimberly Markle, and I am a parent judge. This is my first time judging debate, and I’m not familiar with all the jargon. Please speak clearly and at a slow conversational pace. I will take notes on main points and do my best to offer valuable feedback.

I am a lay parent judge. This is my first time judging debate. I will be flowing but please speak slowly and clearly and explain all of your arguments thoroughly.

LD:

I am unfamiliar with debate jargon so please present a well organized, logical argument with a clear narrative. I am also unfamiliar with the topic so it is your job to convince me about your side and why I should vote for you over your opponent. Signposting is appreciated.

Please speak at a reasonable pace. No spreading whatsoever. I will only weigh on arguments that I can understand.

Please stick to traditional LD but if you are going to run anything progressive clear warranting is key.

Make my ballot easy for me! Present clear impact weighing and key voters in the 2AR/2NR. The points brought up in the second half of these speeches should be similar if not identical to my reason for decision on my ballot.

Most importantly be respectful and have fun!

Speak slowly and clearly.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life-changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent.

No spreading! Speak clearly! If I don't understand something, I will ignore it. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well-supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts.

If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.

Signpost! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I will vote for you.

If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up.

Since debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are mean to each other. So let's have fun and enjoy the round!

I prefer to hear a few well developed arguments, delivered with clarity, rather than a mass of contentions delivered at an unintelligible rate. Debate the topic and refrain from Plans as they often tend to skirt the issue. Please avoid speaking over your opponent during Cross. I tend to weigh impacts rather heavily and I will consider the flow, however it will not be the sole factor in determining the round.

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

I am the Speech and Debate advisor at BASIS Chandler. I have some experience with debate, but I'm mainly looking at communication.

I look for organization, analysis (supported by evidence), cross, and clash. Also, I prefer debates that clearly link the value and criterion directly to the contentions and throughout the debate or clearly highlight what the key issue is and consistently connect this through the round.

I prefer quality over quantity.

Hello! My name is Mackenzie Spencer, I am a retired Lincoln Douglas Debater and competed in many other events: including congress, policy, and impromptu. I don’t have many paradigms. i can handle speed or any other strategy you might have- my only request is that you be your own character. show me you through your performance, and don’t be monotone! this is all about showcasing your talents and having fun!

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

My only paradigm is to speak and enunciate especially during debate rounds when you're trying to fit as much information in as possible.

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

My paradigm is long, but I will break it down by category to hopefully save you some time. TLDR version is: I love forensics. It is intended to change, not stay the same. So show me something that makes me believe in the future of the activity just a little more, and I will do what I can to ensure it gets the recognition it deserves.

My Background

My background ranges across debate, speech, and congress. I completed for 8 years, with four years in High School mostly focused on debate and interp, and then four years in college mainly focused on limited prep, interp, and public address. I've won two state championships in Arizona (Public Forum Debate in 2013 and Duo in 2014) and I'm a three time AFA-NIET finalist on the college circuit (Informative in 2016, with Informative and Persuasion in 2018). I coached for UT Austin's speech team after finishing out my competition years, and I'm currently the head coach at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix where I've been serving since the fall of 2019. At this point in my career, I have either coached or done every event but Policy. Nothing against Policy, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Individual Events Paradigms

Drama

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Presentation of a consistent and grounded environment

3. Control of movement to blocking in your environment

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Duo

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Articulation of a clear relationship which develops across the performance

2. Clarity of subtextual meaning

3. Showcase of coordinated blocking that helps suspend disbelief

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Extemp

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive answer to the question

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your answer

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Humor, Prose, & Storytelling

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of differentiation between characters through voice, gestures, and facial expressions

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the story

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Impromptu

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive thesis to the prompt

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your thesis

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Informative

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Presence of structure couched in significance and relevance of the topic

2. Clearly defined topic scope

3. Analysis that continually punctuates the urgency of the argument

4. Engaging visuals to showcase significant details within the speech

5. Conversational, poised, and confident delivery

Original Oratory

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of urgency behind the solutions presented

2. Quality of consistent structure

3. Uniqueness of the topic

4. Tangibility of solutions

5. Showcase of controlled, poised, confident delivery

Poetry & POI

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of a clear build and climax within the performance

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the text

4. Clear differentiation of characters (Poetry specific: if multi-voice program)

5. Organization of the narrative to create a dramatic arc

Pro/Con Challenge

In this round, I ranked you according to the following qualities in rank order of significance:

1. Adherence to the Resolution in Argumentation

2. Balance between Affirmative and Negative Sides (i.e. not Straw-manning yourself)

3. Organizational Structure of Cases

4. Sophistication of Rhetoric

5. Showcase of Confident, Conversational Delivery

Debate Paradigms

Debate General

Biggest items for me in debate are that I'm a flow judge who will make very few value judgements without you asking me to within the scope of the round, and I have a few admittedly petty grievances around time. So...

• Be sure to signpost
• Weigh and identify clearly your weighing mechanisms
• I'll say "clear" twice, and then I'm dropping my pen if I still can't tell what you're saying.
• Good debate requires good diction. Do a pen drill. Take prep and do it in the middle of the round if you have to. But please speak with the intention to be understood.
• I control the clock, so: 1) The time starts when you start talking and 2) When that time is up, I'm putting down my pen.
• I think off-time roadmaps are kinda a waste of time. I get why they happen and that I'm on the losing side of this argument. But if you're reading this and would like me to appreciate your style of debate slightly more, don't do off-time roadmaps.
• If you call for many cards in a debate, I do expect that you are going to use that for something in the round. Please do not call for cards frivolously, as I would like to keep the schedule running on time.

Auto-drops for me are pretty limited, but mostly pertain to saying or doing anything particularly derogatory towards your opponent. Forensics in general should be a space where everyone feels comfortable, and is not limited from feeling so because of their identity. It therefore really doesn't much matter to me if you just clearly won the round. If you are rude to your opponent, I will drop you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Specific

• Tech. Though I come predominantly from a PF background, I'm perfectly fine with you running more technical arguments. You just need to give me 1) The educational purpose of the ballot backed by a warrant and 2) The ability to take large portions of the debate outside the scope of the round without ignoring your opponents arguments or straw manning them. A K isn't a cop-out to repeat the same argument over and over again. You need to prove to us why your Kritik of the resolution is worth more than the resolution itself.
• Framework. If you concede framework, you need to own it and carry it to the end of the debate. I would advise against switching gears midway through and deciding you'd like the round to value a new framework right when you start weighing.

Public Forum Debate Specific

• Impacts. Vital in this event is your ability to properly link (and that does mean really warranting them, don't just read off 8 cards and call it a day) your impacts and terminalize them as early as possible within the round. It's very difficult to be on the winning side of a PF round with any ambiguity around your impacts and how you access them.
• Weighing. Actually do this. Summary and FF to me are not best used for additional front lining. Summary should be no more than 50% front lining, and FF shouldn't include much at all. 2 Worlds is probably my favorite to listen to in order to best crystalize the round, but feel free to show me something cooler and I will probably like it.

Congressional Debate Specific

• Repetitive Debate. My favorite part of this event is actually watching a debate advance over the course of the session. So rather than repeating after each other, do summaries, respond directly to others, and build on prior arguments, especially if you're the one keeping us on this piece of legislation by asking others to vote against moving the previous question.

Pronouns: They/She

Email: patriciayango@arizona.edu

I am a 2020 graduate of Perry High School (AZ) and a 4 year competitor in a variety of speech and debate events at both the local and national levels. I am competing for the University of Arizona. I'm the Arizona District Assistant Coach of the Year (2021).

tldr; signpost always. run whatever you want (no trix tho pls). check your privilege.

you are responsible for the weighing, extensions, and impact calc (and explaining unfamiliar lit).regardless of if you debate trad or progressive, good comparative impact calc will prob win you my ballot. if i don't understand ur contention, i probably wont vote on it. if i don't understand ur k/t/phil/da/cp/whatever else i probably wont vote on it.

i am a lazy judge. in an ideal world, you are filling out my ballot for me. tell me what i need to vote on EARLY IN THE ROUND and why. if you leave that up to me, you probably wont be happy with my RFD. pretty much any argument goes as long as you have a warrant and can explain it well.

I am a parent judge and have judged more than thirty rounds in several tournaments since October, 2021.

I favor clear structure, comprehensibility, and the quality of arguments over quantity and complexity. I am not a subject matter expert on the topics you are debating. So I will listen to you very intently, take notes, and do my best to render a fair and balanced decision.

Please number your contentions so that I can keep better track of them, as well as using your opponent's numbers in your rebuttal. In judging, I will consider the clarity and organization of your case, whether and/or how well you respond to your opponent's case, the impact of your case vs. the impact of your opponent's case as well as your professionalism, clarity of speech and sportsmanship.

I really care about final summary and final focus which can give you another chance to convince me to vote for you. I am not a native English speaker, so please speak clearly and slowly. If I can not understand you, I cannot vote for you. I am not a professional judge which means that I don't know the detailed technique debate skills. I only vote for the team who can make me understand and convince me by their well organized and thorough arguments. 

By the way, I don't like the very aggressive attitude. Please be polite and respectful to your opponents. 

Have fun and good luck!