I am a lay, noninterventionist judge in my 3rd year.

I will be flowing your debates carefully, please do not drop and remember key voters are important.

Throughout our lives we are surrounded by debate and opinion and we are well-served when we seek understanding, enabling us to make better decisions that may impact our lives and the lives of those around us. Learning to debate, is a great skill, as it requires us to listen, to form an opinion, to contemplate an alternative perspective to our natural disposition, and to clearly articulate our perspective. All of these skills are incredibly useful tools that serve us well throughout the course of life.

I am a lay judge, and not overly familiar with the technical aspects of competitive debate, however throughout my career I have been called upon to weigh in on significant policy and regulatory challenges. I'm a fan of creative arguments, and favor those that bring forth unusual perspectives. Particularly when the participant offers a clear, articulate presentation of the perspective they may bring to the debate. I'm not a fan of spreading, and favor quality of argument backed by rational assumptions, rather than volume. I'm excited to be able to listen and to judge these debates, with a hope that the experience will ultimately be a rewarding, enjoyable and learning experience for us all.

I competed in debate throughout high school, have degrees in philosophy and law, previously taught as a philosophy professor, and have judged LD for the past 2 years. Speed wise, I prefer no spreading. I also don't care for "idiotic" progressive, and prefer to see debating the actual resolution.

I am a lay judge who does not understand jargon (e.g. words such as solvency, counterplan, kritik, disad). Treat the debate like a performance. Do not spread or use progressive arguments. I do flow. I prefer truth over tech. I like when you do impact calculus and make my decision easier for me. I do not care what you wear. Please do not run theory. If you have written a storytelling version of your AC or NC, you should read that instead of reading a traditional LD case with all your cards cut. I listen to cross-ex, but I do not pay much attention. You should set up a big picture that is easy for me to follow in your later speeches.

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.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

I am a parent judge. No spreading, speak clearly.

I prefer traditional debate.

Assume that I know nothing about the topic. Your job is to educate me about the topic and share all relevant details etc in order for me to judge properly.

Evidence is big, I try my best to flow.

Don't use too much debate jargon.

When debating, make sure to refer to the impact and key voters to facilitate clear understanding for me, and what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

email for email chains - Kathleen.clark1@gmail.com

I was an intense LD debater in high school during the time when the emphasis was on Value and Criteria debate. I did a small amount of CEDA(college policy) at my university but was very successful in collegiate Parli debate. I am currently a high school Speech and Debate coach. I LOVE an intense and spirited debate that can get aggressive but maintain control and direction of the argumentation.

I am open to all styles and I am prepared for you to throw progressive arguments my way as well as traditional logical philosophy. I understand K's, Counterplans, and Disads. Show me a strong link and stay clear, organized and direct. Speed is fine. Use it wisely. Good luck and I am excited to see your debate skills.

Hey guys, I am Mathew and I am more than likely jazzed about being your judge for the round.

I am a coach for Mountain View High School in Mesa Arizona with my specialties being in Congress and Public Forum.

In terms of LD I am fairly experienced with the debate. I was a competitor in it for my senior year of high school (yay being PF partners with someone a year older than you) I am very familiar with progressive debate.

Admittedly I am partial to Kritiks and Plans if you are going to go for the progressive route in the round. Of course I am willing to listen to theory but honestly there needs to be a real reason for it. Semantic theory shells will annoy me.

I am honestly really laid back, flex prep? Go ahead. Weird stuff you are trying out for the first time? Be my guest I love to be entertained. Reading free form poetry to smooth jazz in the middle of your 2ar? I don't see why, but by all means go ahead.

The only request I will make is in terms of speed. Sure you can speak a little faster than one might. But shy on the side of slow when it comes to the speed. If you are going too fast I will yell "clear" but the third time I say it my pen is going down and twitter memes will occupy my time for the rest of your speech.

Random Musing's

- Pls be nice to each other, I was always the mean debater but I think its a bad practice and I'll be sad if you are.

Best of luck to all of y'all

Traditional judging style: Values debate. Interactive exchange of ideas. Will note which framework was used to determine the winner and why that framework was chosen. The winning framework will be the one that was best defended. The winner will be who best meets the standard through offensive argumentation. Arguments unlinked from a standard will be given less weight.

I competed exclusively in Lincoln Douglas debate in high school and then helped judge and coach high school LD while in college. I returned to judging and coaching in 2021 after twenty years away from the sport.

I believe that debate is part of our everyday life. How you debate and what the outcome is, is dependent on your style, your knowledge and your presentation. I have judged moot court debates for over 15 years and mock trials for over 18. I am open to all styles and presentations, so long as they are done with professionalism and courtesy to everyone.

Speech/LD coach 4 years; Policy debated in HS for 2 years at Brophy. Currently on the ASDCA subcommittee for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Justice.

I will hear any arguments, I enjoy creative/outside-the-box cases when supported well. I can handle spreading, but it must be clear, and tech can often ruin that clarity.

My hope for the round is that it does not become a card-war, but a thoughtful analysis of ideas in said cards. Please offer key voter analysis to conclude your speeches.

LD:

This is my 8th year judging LD; I am a former competitor and a former LD coach. I'm currently working on a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology at Arizona State with a focus on the development of universal vaccines against influenza and enjoy giving back to the speech and debate community.

I prefer traditional argumentation, but that's all it is: a preference. I'm fine with, and welcome, speed and progressive argumentation (K's, DA's, CP's, perf, T, you can run whatever you want). Make sure you make good use of crystallization an key voters in the 2NR/2AR to ensure that I'm not missing whatever you feel is most important for my consideration.

Clear authors and taglines are appreciated, add me to the email chain/use the file share, and (specifically for novices) don't forget to crystallize, impact calc, extend, etc. Haikus are cool.

Policy:

See my LD paradigm but throw out the traditional argumentation thing (though there was one round I judged where the teams agreed to use LD style argumentation which was simultaneously disorienting and awesome). It's been a while since the days when I judged policy regularly. I didn't' do policy when I used to compete, and the activity has evolved so much in the couple of years since I regularly judged it. Bear with me, add me to the email chain, and feel free to ask me before round if you have any specific questions about anything.

I am a certified theatre educator and director with over 15 years of directing experience.

1) Movement - how choreography is incorporated whether it is body language of different characters to make them stronger, or use of a black book creatively.

2) Fluid story - I should know from beginning to end the rising action, climax, falling action, and resolve in your story. If it is a POI, I should see the same thing in the cutting of the pieces.

3) Hidden message - from the teaser to the introduction, all the way to the end of the piece, I want to be able to understand the hidden message of why you picked this piece(s) to support something you are passionate about.

4) Characters - There should be distinguished characters in each of the pieces. If you have multiple characters in one piece, each one should have a different "story", body language and voice to tell them a part.

For LD:

1) Evidence - using evidence sufficiently to support the claims in your argument.

2) Argument - your argument has to make sense, meaning you can't just argue that your opponent is wrong because of everything you already said. In cross I expect a new form of argument that still supports your stance.

3) Claims - I should hear a speech in your debate that clearly states the issues and how you resolve it.

Experience: I debated in PFD and Congress both in-state and on the national circuit from 2008 to 2012. I coached high school and middle school debate from 2012 to 2015. I graduated from ASU with a degree in Political Science in 2015. I worked in political campaigning for 4 years, and now I'm in my third year of law school at ASU.

Preferences: I'll ultimately vote on the issues you tell me to vote on and weigh how you tell me to weigh if you make a persuasive argument as to why I should do that. That is why it's so critically important for you to tell me what to vote on, how to weigh it, and why. I was a progressive PFD debater for the years I debated, but debate evolves quickly and it's been quite a few years. I don't prefer any particular type of arguments, but I do prefer impacts that are grounded in reality and judged against a clear value structure, because I think there's a lot of educational value in that. Explain clearly what you're doing, why you're doing it, and why its impacts outweigh those of your opponent. If you debate so that the flow is clean and there are clear and persuasive justifications for the choices you're making, you'll be in good shape.

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

I will be listening to the debate with an unbiased open mind. I will judge on the content and argumentation not by appearance or presentation. You need to demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic that is explained in an easy to understand format. I will be looking for the underlying issues and the importance of those issues. Whoever debates the most important issues the best and gives me the best reason(s) for a decision will be the winner of the debate.

Pronouns: She/her

Email: mariahjaynhays@gmail.com

Life is short, read whatever makes you happy at whatever speed you would like :) (barring anything grossly unethical)

Take a deep breath, you got this.

I am a former LD debater, and have currently been judging semi-consistently for 3 years. When it comes to style of debate, I am open to almost all types of traditional and progressive forms. I will not accept non-topical critiques or disclosure theory (If you have any questions about this or a certain theory or critique you wanna run, feel free to ask before the start of the round). I also will not allow flux prep part way through the debate, both debaters must agree to flux prep before the round if they would like to do so. regardless of style of debate or speed, fluency should be happening to an understandable level, and I would ask if you are to read at a spreading speed then please slow down to a normal pace for headlines and authors. If you are worried about your mic working consistently either due to its quality or internet connection, please don't. I will ask everyone to send their cases over and I will read and count anything from the highlighted section of your cards even if your mic cuts out for technological reasons. That being said, I will need your case to be properly formatted and highlight (or at the very least done in a way that is understandable to read and listen for me and your opponent). Please don't waste your time explaining debate jargon or the resolution (unless there is a legitimate reason to provide definitional framing in your case) to me, I have debated and judged long enough to understand what you are going for in most cases. I expect and prefer strong line by line arguing and sign posting for me and your opponent throughout your rebuttal speeches. I would also suggest giving key voters at the end of the round in order to neatly crystalize your arguments and framework evaluate the round. If I have missed anything beyond what has been previously stated feel free to ask me before the round has started.

I feel debate is game of arguments. Whoever makes most relevant, thoughtful and respectful argument wins.

Please talk slow and mention your subject in the beginning.

I'm a parent judge who has judged debate for around 2 years.

Few key disclaimers

-Go slow and speak clearly so I can understand your arguments and warrants.

-I don't want to be on the email chain, I prefer you go slow and help me understand your points.

-I prefer a more traditional style of debate, make sure to simplify and explain any complicated arguments to me.

-Keep your own time please.

-Off-time road maps are helpful/Key Voters in 2NR and 2AR please.

-If you speak too quickly I will have difficulty flowing. I will give u a "clear" warning and the second time I won't flow so please GO SLOW.

How to get my vote

-I'm a believer in the fact that Aff should defend the resolution, and the negative should disprove the Aff. Try to stick by this doctrine when giving your speeches.

-I'm not gonna vote on an argument unless you bring it up in your 2NR/2AR because these are arguments that you consider most important. To get me to vote on an argument it must be extended throughout and explained with good warrants.

-I also base my vote majorly on impacts, so doing some impact comparison and weighing on your opponent's arguments really helps me to decide the ballot.

-Finally, I need good warrants/line of reasoning on any points you make otherwise I wont vote on it.

-Please guide me to your ballot by giving me key voters on what you are winning and why.

I am a parent judge

Please talk slowly and no speaking fast as It will be hard for me to understand
Only do traditional debate

Please time yourself

I will pay attention to all arguments

I will try to judge fairly and not based off of speaking

My preference is for clear and enunciated speech at a conversational speed. There is no point in whizzing through facts or quotations faster than I am able to digest the information.

Pragmatic and logical reasoning are more persuasive than semantic and petty arguments. Rebuttals need to be effective, but kept short. The debate will most likely be won in the constructive and summary portions.

Almost all my debate judging has been in PF, so please understand I am not familiar with jargon or terms for other debate disciplines. Also, please speak slowly and clearly enough so that I can understand you. Be kind and civil with your opponents. Thank you!

1. If debating and using references, please fully define your source.

2. Speak slowly and clearly. I am looking for content, not the volume of information.

3. Clearly tie your premise from the beginning throughout your presentation. Wrap up your presentation with your premise and how it is supported.

4. No spreading.

5. I am a lay judge. I have judged for three years, but I am not a journeyman judge yet.

-No spreading

-Relevant evidence and points

-Voice/dynamics

I am a lay judge so I am not very familiar with debate. I will judge based off of who I believe convinced me the most and how well you presented throughout the round. Please tell me why I should vote for you and not your opponent. I like to see clash and I do not handle speed very well so keep it clear and understandable. Do not use debate terminology too heavily unless you explain what it means. Please do not run progressive arguments, as I most likely will not understand them. Just have fun in your round and make it entertaining, enjoyable, and educational for everyone involved.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Hello! My name is Claire Mullings and apparently I am going to be your judge. So I did LD for 3 years in high school so I'm comfortable with the different types of LD debate. I can judge a traditional round all day if you want, but I'm also fine with CP, plans, DAs, and Ks. My biggest thing is making a space to compete so please don't do anything sketchy :) Please be nice to each other. Make sure you are making extensions yourself with the card name and warrant, not just "extend this card..." because tbh it will mean nothing. I want clear voters at the end and remind me constantly how you tie back to framework.

Traditional: No hate to my traditional debaters. I can definitely judge your round and will definitely look to framework and impact weighing.

CP: I like CPs because I think they're interesting, however I am wary with PICs because lets be real... they are abusive. However, I love it when the neg proposes an alternative to solve the harms of the aff.

Plans: I love creative plans but make sure not to spec your opponent out of the room. However, the more creative the better and I'd love to see it.

DA: sure, all good. I don't love the drawn out link chains... but hey! prove that it works :)

K: I love Ks on the aff or neg and ran a couple of identity Ks when I debated so I think its very interesting. I will warn you though my pet peeve is a debater who cannot answer questions about their K due to a lack of background reading. I also don't like it when people weaponize marginalized groups in order to win the ballot so make sure you are being an advocate.

Framework: Whether the round is progressive or traditional framework is a really big deal for me. I enjoy seeing an actual clash and weighing. However if the frameworks are low key the same don't waste your time and just concede framework since I will probably not differentiate between them and you will just have wasted time.

Phil: I like philosophy cases and think they can be super cool however I am not familiar with everything. So I'm down for you to run it just make sure you break it down nice for me so I can understand the philosophy. I also hate it when people run high Phil just to talk their opponent out of the room.

Non-T: I don't love non-T but that doesn't mean I won't listen to it. I definitely believe that sometimes we need to be non-T and as long as you can defend yourself against what your opponent runs for T without shutting them entirely out of the debate for lack of offense in your case.... it works for me.

Theory/Topicality: I hate frivolous theory. I will say it again. I hate frivolous theory. That being said if there is an abuse I will definitely listen and take it into account. Honestly I have a high threshold for running it, but once a legitimate abuse has been proven, I am pretty likely to lean towards the T.

I will never, ever allow any form of discriminatory language in round towards competitors or anyone else. Please be polite and respectful.

If you have any questions or need to add me to the email chain my email is cmullings@cox.net. Thanks!!

Tran Nguyen

trannguyen0002@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

- I have some competitive experience in LD and prefer more traditional, substantive debate. Thorough debates over stock issues are more appealing to me than other strategies which may sidestep the resolution. I'm most comfortable with Plan v. Counterplan debate - weighing the consequences of hypothetical implementation.

- I am okay with Kritiks but am probably not familiar with the topic literature. If you decide to pursue a kritik, please explain the concepts fully and avoid buzzwords. I also prefer concrete, implementable alternatives.

- I am not very amenable to theory. I am willing to vote for theory if real, round-altering abuse occurs but I do not have a lot of experience with the intricacies of theory (like standards/counter-interps/RVIs, etc).

- Please do not speak too quickly. You may talk faster than a conversational pace, but nothing close to spreading. I will let you know if you are going to fast, but please respect my boundaries after I establish them.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about anything else you would like to know!

I am a traditional judge who is pretty comfortable with a lot of what you could run including a lot of progressive arguments( ie. disads, kritiks, and counterplans) but I am not that comfortable with spreading. If you decide to spread I might miss something and won't consider it. The one progressive argument that I am not that familar with is theory so you can run it but you need to explain it really well. Overall though if you can explain and defend your argument well I can follow it.

i am a lay judge. I am ok with moderate speed but do not spread. I generally default to util. Just make sure to stress your solvency and impact and why you outweigh.

Hello! I am a parent lay judge, please do not spread. I don't super love nuclear extinction arguments unless you have a very very very clear reason why it imminent.

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.

Parent lay judge.

Don't spread. Speak clearly. If I cant understand your argument I cant vote on it/weight it.

I need clear reasons (warrants) to vote on. Make sure that your arguments are logical and easy to follow. A dropped argument isn't going to be a reason for my decision if the the argument is not warranted properly.

Links must be reasonable/logical. From the rounds I've judged, I've found extinction impacts extremely hard to vote on.

Make sure your rebuttals are organized and logical. Off-time roadmaps help fulfil this. Make sure to signpost.

Lastly, be nice. Don't be snarky or roll your eyes at your opponent while they are speaking. Also, debate is meant to be fun and educational and if I find you are abusive in any way I will dock speaker points or possibly drop you.

-- General --

I did 4 years of PF and mock trial, and now compete in college mock trial. I'm studying econ and physics if that interests you.

I'm good with reasonable speed. I will not read along while you spread. I have yet to meet any top debater who relies on speed to win. If the only way you win is speed, you should probably re-evaluate what you're trying to get out of debate.

***Quality of argument >>> Quantity of argument***

A large part of the round is cross. Wasting cross wastes a large part of the round. I will listen to, but not flow, cross. Cross is an excellent place for speaks and to make great points to bring up in a speech. Cross is not an excellent place to make a speech. If your questions or answers are speeches your speaks will suffer greatly.

I will trust evidence unless it is challenged. If you think their evidence doesn't say what they're saying, tell me in speech and I will read the card after round. In the interest of time and my interest, please don't make me read many cards.

I give a 10 second grace period on speeches. Grace is for finishing a point, not starting a new one. After the grace period, I will no longer flow.

+0.25 Speaker points for every good pun in speeches.

I will drop you for being demeaning. Debate is an educational environment. If you aren't contributing to that then you won't contribute to a round I'm judging.

Feel free to ask me about my preferences.

-- PF --

I think PF is too rigid sometimes, so I give some leeway as to what either side interprets as their world. However, you assume the burden of explaining why your interpretation is the one that will happen and then why yours is better than theirs.

If I don't hear some sort of weighing I will take 5 points off everyone. Ask yourself why does the nuanced point I'm arguing matter? If you can't answer that you should probably just drop the point.

I stray on the side of tech>truth mostly because there's rarely a balanced topic. However, if something is true then the evidence saying it's true tends to be better, and better evidence leads to me voting on an argument.

2R must frontline. Summaries should introduce weighing. I will not consider evidence introduced after 1S.

-- LD --

I watched one varsity final in high school and decided that I would save the philosophy for college. That being said, I think theory is cool, BUT you will run the risk that it is interpreted by someone who doesn't know a lot about it. I will do my best, but just keep that in mind that ya'll know way more about what you're saying than I do. At the end of the day, if I don't understand it I can't really vote on it.

You're welcome to spread, but there is an extremely high chance you will lose me as I try to understand LD.

I am a parent judge, and I have very basic understanding of debate jargon, so please do not use excessive jargon. I don't do well with speed, and I don't have experience in debate. So if you are unsure of your speed, then please slow down and speak at a conversational speed. Debaters, try to keep your points clear and convince me of your view points. Happy Debating!

What I look for:

- Timing: being able to time yourself and make sure you record how much you used your prep-time

- Speed: speak SLOWLY and CLEARLY, I need to be able to understand what you are saying and keep up with the flow

- Etiquette: be respectful to your opponents, don't yell at them and don't insult them

- Sign-posting: when responding to your opponents case or talking about your case, indicate where you intend to talk about it (ex: "On my opponents Contention 1 where they talked about... blah blah blah" or "On my Contention 3, Sub-point A i had explained ... blah blah blah")

- Crossfire: I don't flow through crossfire so if there is a point that you make that is important to your case, you must address it in your other speeches if you want me to flow it

- Consolidation/Summary: Make sure to address all you points and rebuttals so I know what I need to flow through in the debate

- Consolidation/Final Focus: If you bring up a point that you did not flow through in your rebuttal or summary I will count it as new evidence and I will not flow it because it is unfair to your opponents to bring up new arguments when they cannot respond to it. Make sure to WEIGH IMPACTS and tell me EXACTLY why I should vote for you, don't just say "The aff/neg wins the debate because we flowed through all our contentions", explain your points and be as concise as possible. Finally, I prefer you weigh based on contentions rather than key voters because it's easier for me to flow through the contentions rather than finding the contentions that relates to you key voter.

General things:

- If your argument just doesn't make sense (for example you say: the earth is flat), the opposing side does not need to spend time explaining why its wrong just simply state "its wrong because of common sense" and then I will drop it

- Make sure you spend time talking about your own case instead of just rebutting all the time because when you tell me I should not believe the other side's case, I don't have reasons to believe your case

- Lastly, be confident and have fun!!

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.

email chain: cammiesoderquist@gmail.com

History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.

Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.

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

Specifics:

Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.

Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.

***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***

Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).

DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)

Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)

Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.

Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.

Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.

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

Things that make me happy:

• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.

• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")

• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)

Things that make me sad:

• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.

• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).

• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")

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

Random:

• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.

• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)

• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.

• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh

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).

Speak slow

I want clear link chains with good impacts. Signpost and off time roadmaps please!

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

While I have not participated in speech and debate myself, I have been judging Lincoln Douglas debate for several years now and am trained in traditional forms of debate. If you want to use progressive argumentation, that is fine as long as you are clearly explaining your argument and defining any rare terms you use. It helps to tell me why you're winning the framework debate and why that matters in the round. Also, please roadmap, do key voters, etc. Impact calc and extensions will help you immensely. I'm not comfortable with spreading (very high rates of speech); if I cannot understand you, I can't flow you, and that's not good for anyone. I'll say "clear" as a heads-up if I can't keep up with you.

It's important to me that everyone is considerate to one another and has fun!

As a college instructor for ten years, I have a great respect for education.

Debates give a great opportunity, with fairness, to present an argument.

Respect is an absolute must while effectlively presenting, and eventually, winning the argument.

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.