I am a debater from Arkansas who has competed in the majority of NSDA events, especially within debate. I now do a little bit of college Policy Debate. I'm majoring in Psychology and Educational Studies at Macalester College.

email chain for speech docs: davida9202@gmail.com

Here are the big things, down below is more organization stuff:

***Love K debate. Love it. don't read the K solely for the purpose of being strategic. I can tell when you don't actually know the basis upon which you're critiquing the other side, and it's not cute. That is to say, if you do run a K, I will weigh epistemic impacts so long as you give me a CLEAR solvency advocate + alt, and tell me HOW the K changes how i'm weighing the other side's impacts

***My role as a judge is to be an educator. Don't read stuff that you know your opponent won't understand for the sake of winning. Try to make matches fair (fairness is an impact!)

BIG NO-NO'S THAT WILL LIKELY GET YOU A FAT L:

***rudeness or any attitude that kills the sportsmanship of debate. the stakes are never that high

***violating any rules in the NSDA unified manual (please call your opponent out for breaking rules, i will listen!)

***going over on speech times or prep time. More than a few seconds and you will start to lose speaker points.

***a lack of structure. i must hear clear signposting that i can write your arguments down on my flow. if you can't tell me where to put your argument, i might not be able to evaluate it (this is more for styles heavy on line-by-line, like PF). however, you CAN be creative with your case construction so long as it is easy to flow. just no meme cases. please don't waste my time, i'm not being paid to judge you.

***referring back to evidence by citation but not reminding me of the content, especially if I don't have a speech doc

Things I Am Okay With That Could Actually Help You Win:

***Using sound logic to warrant your arguments (if nuclear bombs drop on a populated area, people will probably die. duh. you dont need evidence for that. you do need evidence that the bomb will drop in the first place, however)

***Getting into the debate of ethics, morality, or any other philosophical concepts. Usually that stuff is reserved for LD and BQ but i think it is paramount in all forms of debate.

***i also love framework/definition debate. i think it's really fascinating in its ability to frame the reality of which your arguments are applied. get into it!

yeah just have fun. i weigh most heavily what is brought up in final speeches when you are offering me reasons for voting, consolidations, etc.

Hey guys, I'm Alayna, I'm a Senior at Cabot High School. I am very professional and I know what I am doing when it comes to debating and I will do my best when I judge.

RESPECT: If I see that you are disrespecting your opponent, it will be an automatic L. This is one of the key components of debate. I DO NOT TOLERATE disrespect.

ALL STYLES OF DEBATE----Time keeping: MAKE SURE YOU USE ALL OF YOUR TIME!!!! Using all of your time is very important, when the timer goes off STOP it's ok, just make sure that you get majority of the things in that you want to get in.

Spreading: I'm okay with it.

Framework- This is important so use it, depending on the style of debate. If you want me to vote on your side because of your framework explain to me why.

Definitions- These are very important in all styles of debate so use them.

Line by line: This is very important in every style of debate, without this it is harder for the judge to know what you are rebutting against. This makes it easier for me and for you as well.

Road Maps: This is very important in every rebuttal speech, giving this will help me and your opponent writing in the flow.

I will not listen during cross ex, this is strictly for the debaters. This is where you clarify any questions that you may have and this is also to make trap questions. This part in this debate will be judged. THIS IS STRICTLY FOR YOU GUYS!!!

IPDA:

This is practically the same as LD but the topic varies obviously.

Use all of your time also keep your time!

Use all of your prep time before the round because it is the most important part of your case.

Spreading is fine if you know how to do it correctly, If you don't know how to then don't spread.

If you have any questions about anything this is my email:

adinealayn24@cps.k12.ar.us

I like to flow every debate I watch to make sure the burden of rejoinder is clearly identifiable, but I will not flow a dropped argument without being told. You should be flowing as well. If it is not CX, then I don't want you to spread. I don't mind speaking fast but I want to really hear your arguments and have time for you to persuade me.

Kindness and tone go a long way. If you are belittling someone else it does not help to prove your point. There is a difference between being assertive and flat-out demeaning.

In Congress, I am not a fan of rehash - I want to hear rebuttals and debate, not a new speech that doesn't address what the aff and neg speakers have brought to the chamber. I think it is completely appropriate to respond in your speeches to arguments by referencing the name of the representative/senator as long as you are tasteful. It helps me keep up with the round.

How you treat your PO and your attitude towards them also go into judging you as a competitor. If you have problems, you have every right to call a point of order, but being snide and hostile makes you look weak.

In IPDA, the resolution is paramount. You must show, using the weighing mechanism, how your case and arguments outweigh your opponents. In questioning, please refrain from dismissing each other or being overtly aggressive. Remember I am flowing but you have to direct my attention and give me a road map.

I have not judged CX in ages. But many moons ago, I was a CXer and I can flow. I don't perceive that I will be judging CX at any point.

As for Forensics events go - I was also a Forensics kid and have been a Theatre Director, Dancer and Interper for over 29 years. I am looking for solid real performances where the intent is routed in thought. I do not like when emotion is faked or pushed. Please perform from a place of honesty. All movement should be motivated and character driven. Variety and the ability to demonstrate clear distinct characters is essential. In OO, Extemp or Info - These are Speech events. Sometimes performers add more interp friendly content into their performances. This is where I am quite stern. There is a fine line between performing and speaking, please remember I enjoy the fact that these are SPEECH events. You are actually speaking to the audience, not performing for us. Remember that.

LRCH 2024

he/him

jdowb2005@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain with the address above.

I'll judge any argument, assuming they are not racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or transphobic. I read the K on both sides, but I am well-versed in policy debate, too.

At the end of the day, read arguments that you understand. I value truth more than other judges. I'll freely admit that I'm not very experienced, though, especially in LD or PF debate, so make sure to slow down and prioritize clarity. Online debate makes this even more important. Walk me through the debate, and give me good impact framing at the end of the round!

Congress:

To be ranked(and win) you will need to present warranted, evidenced, and relevant arguments while incorporating refutations of other arguments.

1) Warranted Arguments

Make arguments that are warranted(justified) and relevant to the bill/debate.

2) Evidence

Evidence is the backbone of all debate. If an argument is not evidenced, I will drop it. If you knowingly fake, misconstrue, or exaggerate evidence, you will loose. Cite your evidence with the author, publisher, and date. Scholarly articles, journals, think tanks, and reputable publications are intrinsically better than a random or less credible source. If you do cite someone or something random, you will need to tell me why they are credible. Also keep in mind bias when sourcing evidence. I don't want anything from Buzzfeed or Mother Jones the same way I don't want anything from Brietbart or OAN.

3) Refutation

Refutation is necessary for any speech after the first aff and neg. Make sure to be kind and courteous, but do not be scared to be aggressive in your analysis/refutation. During my time in debate I was a more aggressive speaker/questioner, so I can tell and understand the difference between being rude and aggressive.

5) Questioning

This should be used to tear down your opponents arguments and set up your own. This is also a good time to question the credibility of your opponents evidence. Make sure not to talk over each other - the virtual format makes you both inaudible when you do. When in the single question format, be sure to avoid two-part or prefaced questions. Do note that that questioning is also an opportunity for the speaker to further their arguments; but be careful to not turn questioning into a second speech.

6) Presiding

Presiding Officers start as a 1 on my ballot. Every major mistake will loose the PO a rank. An excellent PO will have complete control over the chamber while doing do with a light touch. A PO should have an exceptional knowledge of parliamentary procedure and be able to respond to and motion that is made. They should keep precedence and recency (so will I) and use it effectively; if you make a mistake here, I prefer you quickly(before anyone has started speaking) correct it rather than not speak up and allow the wrong person to speak.

7) Parliamentary Procedure

Outside of tournaments that rank competitors on parli pro, your use of it will not have a major impact on how you rank the room. That being said, parli pro is a part of your overall round involvement and participation, so I will reflect the effort of competitors who can use parli pro to keep the round fair, moving, and efficient in my rankings. Do not misinterpret this as if you make three unnecessary motions to look active I will rank you. Only make motions when they are appropriate and necessary.

IPDA:

To win the debate you will need to not only make warranted arguments with evidence, but also effectively refute your opponents arguments in your speeches and questioning/Cross Examination.

1) Warranted Arguments

Make arguments that are warranted(justified) and plausible. Make sure you are arguing in lieu of the provided weighing mechanism.

2) Evidence

Evidence is the backbone of all debate. If an argument is not evidenced, I will drop it. If you knowingly fake, misconstrue, or exaggerate evidence, you will loose. Cite your evidence with the author, publisher, and date. Scholarly articles, journals, think tanks, and reputable publications are intrinsically better than a random or less credible source. If you do cite someone or something random, you will need to tell me why they are credible. Also keep in mind bias when sourcing evidence. I don't want anything from Buzzfeed or Mother Jones the same way I don't want anything from Brietbart or OAN.

3) Refutation

Refute each and every contention your opponent makes. Your refutation needs to make sense, hopefully tie into one or more of your arguments, and get at the resolution and weighing mechanism.

5) Questioning/Cross Examination

This should be used to tear down your opponents arguments and set up your own. This is also a good time to question the credibility of your opponents evidence. Make sure not to talk over each other - the virtual format makes you both inaudible when you do.

Notes:

Aff: Make sure to provide definitions and a weighing mechanism. If you forget to do either of these, you will be fighting an uphill battle to win.

General: Be kind. If you are rude (insults, ad hominen attacks, nasty comments, etc.) you will be dropped. Do not, however, be afraid to be aggressive; I can tell the difference.

Remember that debate is supposed to be fun, so enjoy it.

Im okay with everything spreading and all I like impact calc and want you to be able to explain whatever you're running dont just read a card and not be able to explain it

Joelle Buckner

Put me on email chain: bucknjoell24@cps.k12.ar.us

Cabot High School

LD debater

Tech > Truth

LD

This is my main event, so I prefer to see a lot of clash plenty of warrants, and make sure not to drop your framework. As long as you extend and give me decent analysis on framework it will be weighed in your favor. Watch topicality, I am perfectly fine with progressive arguments I especially like good DAs and solid CPs.. sign post so it's easy for me to flow. Speaks are pretty easy, speak confidently and clear, I personally don't care about speed as long as I can understand you.

Congress

I took congress as an event for about a year, make sure you are aware of the P.O. and what is going on in the room. Be respectful and make sure not to be passing notes or making noise while a delegate is giving a speech. I base a lot of points on speech formatting and if it's easy to follow.

IPDA

I judge this kind of like I do LD, as long as you extend your arguments and speak confidently you are most likely going to win the round. The topics are not typically ones I enjoy so make it engaging.

Hey! Add me to the email chain at alexismchilds@gmail.com

Congress - updated for Last Chance :)

I believe that Congress focuses on speaking clearly and well more than any other type of debate. Because of this, the better you speak, the better I will rank you. In addition, we all know that Congress is long and, yes, sometimes boring. Don't be afraid to spice things up (in a polite, respectful, appropriate manner). Make a joke, be sassy, slip a Taylor Swift reference in there - have fun!!

Have sources in your speech! You saying something does not make it credible/true. Please be polite during questioning but that doesn't mean you have to be timid.

LD

I was traditional/mid-level progressive debater. That being said, I'm not the judge to run your super progressive case in front of.

1. Speed - I'm not a huge fan of spreading so please take your speed down a few levels in front of me. If you must spread, do so at your own risk and read the room before you do - if it's late at night, don't yell/spread at me. Send me the speech doc

2. Ks - I don't understand/I'm not a fan of most of these. I run cap K and that's about it. If you have a question about an argument, feel free to ask before the round!

3. Theory - I don't understand most theory and think the majority of the time people read unnecessary/frivolous theory. Unless there is clear abuse happening in the round, don't read theory. Topicality is good and if argued well and when necessary, I'll vote on it. I'll vote for disclosure but probably not disclosure by itself.

4. CPs/Disads - I enjoy these and think they're a good strategy. If you're going to run them, defend them.

5. Framework - this is what makes LD different from other types of debate and I expect you to use it. In your last speech, give me voters/weighing/framework and make it clear why I should vote for you.

6. CX - I really enjoy cross and definitely pay attention. That being said, I don't flow it so bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow. I will hold you to what you said in cross. Please be courteous to your opponent but as long as you're not being offensive, I'm pretty lenient on cross. Don't be afraid to push them to explain their case/get the answer your looking for.

Read my facial expression - I'm a pretty expressive person. If I look confused, please clear up your point. Nodding/smiling means I like/am following your point.

PF

Evidence is important, don't make baseless claims. I appreciate organized, line by line rebuttals with signposting. If nothing else, this will get you good speaks. Weighing is super important, particularly in your last speeches. I should know exactly why I'm voting for you in order to get my ballot.

Final Focus should have impact weighing! Please be respectful of your opponents during cross. Cross is for asking questions, not personally attacking opponents or making statements.

Overall, I enjoy good clash, speaking, and cross. Please be kind to your opponents!

IPDA

I evaluate this like LD, have good offense and defense, speak well, and you'll be fine :)

Tabula Rasa Judge- Will listen to any and all arguments on the criteria the debater is able to defend it or is able to explain it's significance or relevance to the debate.

Will default to Impact Calc (Substantiality, Magnitude, Timeframe, Severity) if debater's do not tell me otherwise.

Spreading is acceptable if the speaker can maintain clarity.

I did 4 years of debate at Mansfield Lake Ridge in Mansfield, TX from 2012-2016 Attended debate camps at Gonzaga, UNT and UT.

Debate success doesn't matter! Have fun and do what you love! Be a good person!

Hello! My name is Anna Dean (she/her). I will default to (they/them) if I don't know you.

Bentonville West High School '21 (AR) | Harvard '25

I currently debate at Harvard. In High School, I did: Policy (Bentonville West DR FOREVER.), Extemp, World Schools, a little bit of Congress/ LD.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc I will vote you down, end of story. Your rhetoric and how you treat your opponents matter.

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain: annadean13@gmail.com

Time yourself.

Do what you do & do it well.

Speed is fine (in CX/LD) (slow down a bit online & emphasize clarity)

Truth over Tech

If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism

I love a good cross-ex :)

Win an impact.

Number your args... please.

You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact.

Don't clip cards.

If you're unclear I won't yell "clear" I just won't flow well...

Updated 2023: DO NOT GO FOR THEORY. Don't read tricks. I don't buy the bs. Win your arguments without tricking your opponents.

I do not like disclosure. I won't vote for it. You should be able to win without knowing exactly what your opponents are going to say(can't believe I have to even write this)

Policy:

KvK:

I like them if they're well done. I should say, I don't have immense knowledge of theory. I ran Fem, Fem Killjoy<3, Queer, Set Col, Cap in high school. In college, I've done Afropess, SetCol, and Fem stuff. I evaluate method v. method.

*I study Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. I have knowledge about gender/ feminism/ race critical theory and loveeeeee these arguments!

Plans:

Yes! I love a soft left AFF. My ideal round is a soft left aff and 3-6 off.

T:

I love T. Go for it. I think it's underutilized. I like procedural fairness impacts (when it's clearly an impact). If you want to win my ballot, paint a picture of what your vision of the topic is and what happens in debates on it, which matters much more to me than conceded generic blips and buzzwords.

Framework:

I lean more neg (60/40). IMPACTS.

DAs:

Yes, but they can get boring and overdone. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's cloooooseeee!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. Uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness and the link controls the direction of the link.

CPs:

I tend to think condo bad (55/45). Some teams try to get away with murder. Yes, I will vote on 'condo bad'. I lean neg when the CP is based in the literature and there's a reasonable solvency advocate. I lean aff when the CP meets neither of those conditions.

Ks:

Focus on arg development & application rather than reading backfiles.

If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course, you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate policies & practices, but you should also recognize that the "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated 7+ years of her life to it and tries to make it better.

Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.

LD:

I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate.

I don't love theory/meta-theory/tricks. I find a lot of Philo debates have tricks. Please just win your arguments and do not trick your opponents. It is extremely rare I vote on it.

I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

See above for more specifics.

PF:

Send your docs and create an email chain from the get-go! Every other debate style has managed to learn this. Stop asking for evd without taking prep, just send everything and be fair.

I'm not flowing off the doc and probably won't look at it unless I have to.

Act as if I don't know the topic

I'm good for speed/ more policy like args BUT I do think that PF is changing in a negative way, if you want to do policy why are you in PF...

Congress:

Speak well. You are role-playing a policymaker... act like it.

Be prepared to speak on both sides of the bill.

I value evidence and credible sources.

DO NOT re-hash args.

Extemp:

I love good intros and transitions! I love to laugh a lil in an extemp round!

Organization is key!

I value evidence and credible sources.

I stay very up to date on current events... I will know what you're talking about... take that as you wish:)

Best of luck to you! If you have questions feel free to ask me before a round or email me!

Please include me on the chain: ryandickerson1991@gmail.com

LD--

I take a tabula rasa approach to judging —

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, progressive or traditional. I am willing to judge both styles, kritiks, CPs, DAs, and traditional cases and contentions. Explain it well and if you’re winning the debate you win my ballot. I will come in with a clean slate each round.

Threshold note--If you read a kritik, aff or neg, I will have a higher threshold for explanation for the theory debate, meaning you should clearly walk me through why your model solves. I don't necessarily have a higher threshold for voting for these arguments, I would just prefer more explanation here.

***I am a former policy debater and congressional debater. Speed is fine. Flex prep is fine. Email me with any questions.

Hi there! I'm so glad to be with you here today, and I am looking forward to learning a lot from your arguments.

A little about my background: I am a corporate professional with over 20 years experience in various areas of education, business, and community service. I hold a Master's degree in Education and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology and Anthropology with a minor in Political Science. I'm also a high school parent.

During my high school career, I participated in Policy Debate, Model United Nations, and Forensics categories including Extemporaneous Speaking and Dramatic Duet Acting. I judged various forensics tournaments during my college years, and this is my first time back in this arena for some time.

As I am relatively new to this, I can't speak much to nuances at this time. I can tell you this:

- I listen carefully for bias - both unconscious (that which you may not be aware you bring to your arguments, but which may cloud your ability to be objective and true to facts) and conscious (which you may choose to exert as a way to manipulate your opponent or win favor with me). In other words, be mindful of your rhetoric.

- I like to connect dots in a logical and linear way - don't take me to New York, if we're going to San Francisco. Go the shortest, straightest route. I may take notes during your arguments - don't worry, it's not a negative or a positive.

- I appreciate respectful discourse. It's good practice for getting along in real life. Please demonstrate good manners.

- When you have the opportunity to restate your opponents point, before responding, do so. It helps me understand what you heard them say and better understand the context of your arguments. "Your perception is your reality."

- Be well researched, to the best of your time and capacity.

- Stay within the time limits.

Most of all, enjoy the spirit of what you're doing. We are incredibly fortunate to have open forum for debate and discussion, within the parameters of procedure, and you are exercising a tremendous gift of time and talent in what you do here.

For congress and other forms of debate I want to see evidence backed arguments, good clash, passion, and good impacting. I want your speeches to show that you really care about what you are talking about.

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

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

General things:

I vote Truth over Tech

Always be nice and respectful to your opponents. Never use any insults or derogatory language towards your opponent. Don't stress too much about debate and be sure to have fun.

I'm mostly LD-centered, so if I'm not judging you for that, I'm probably not going to be the best judge.

Be sure not to be racist or discriminatory at all.

Lincoln Douglas Traditional:

I'd personally say I prefer traditional rounds over progressive, since I feel like those have more clash. In a regular traditional round, I don't value framework too much, but in return clash is incredibly important. I'll still end up voting on FW some times but losing the framework debate isn't a loss for the overall debate, it's just an additional reason for me to vote on way. Clash is the most important thing to me in a debate, because debate's meant to be an argument and not a meeting where people disagree on one tiny part of grammar - they're really unenjoyable to watch and debate and will make me voting for you harder. Burden's are always accepted, feel free to run any wild observations as long as they're not abusive. Overall, just make sure to have good case and framework debate, and to have good clash with your opponent.

Lincoln Douglas Progressive:

I'm not the greatest supporter of progressive arguments, but I'm totally fine if you run them as long as you make sure that your progressive argument has a clear link and isn't something kind of out of nowhere. I should always know how this relates to the topic, and it should relate in a clear way. If I can't understand it or it's too vague, I'm not flowing it

On the topic of counterplans, I think they're fun and good if done well. The counterplan should be a fairly different approach to solving the problem the affirmative is trying to solve. Your counterplan should clearly have benefits and less risks than are present in the affirmative's. If you end up agreeing with the affirmative with your CP I may flow that against you since those arguments restrict clash and education within debate. I wouldn't be too worried about this if you're running a CP, and if I end up flowing your CP against you it likely won't be the round decider, just be sure your counterplans are good and well made, and that they don't restrict argumentation.

Overall with progressive, just try try to make your links clear and have clash with your counterplans. Even though I'm more traditional, don't be afraid to try new progressive args.

hey, i'm michelle (little rock central 23'-wake 27')

I'm chill with any pronouns, don't misgender your opponents

start the email chain before the round please: gongm23@wfu.edu

I only evaluate and vote on arguments where I can comfortably identify the claim, warrant and impact - if these components are not present in your extension, I will not evaluate it. I did LD but I evaluate arguments like a policy debater which means I have a slightly higher bar for explanation and a lower tolerance for foolishness (ie. friv theory/ a prioris).

Content-wise, i'm cool with anything. The negative always has the burden of rejoinder regardless of whether or not the affirmative defends a hypothetical implementation of the resolution.

Please don't overly adjust to me or be scared off by your opponent's preempts. I find teams that stick to their guns and do what they are best at usually get my ballot regardless of our argumentative/ideological differences. The predispositions I have from my own experience with debate aren't strong enough to trump voting for the better debater.

Edit for LD: I'm admittedly not the best judge for theory debates that aren't found in policy debate (great for condo, disclosure, spec, etc. but terrible for things like TJFs, shoe-theory, indexicals, don't eval after "x" speech and the lot).

typically went 1 off kritik every neg round and read kritikal arguments on the affirmative however, this tends to mean I vote against the kritik more often than I vote for it because I have a high standard for what these debates should look like. i'm not lying when I say I geniunely enjoy adjudicating policy-style arguments just as much as kritikal ones.

I quite like overviews but only when they are concise and serve a UNIQUE function that cannot be accomplished by the LBL (ie. introducing a global impact turn, explaining the mechanism of the alternative, generating overarching framing arguments). If you want your overview on a separate flow, totally fine by me but just let me know in the roadmap.

For k affs/fwk debates: I love these debates and evenly vote both ways. I'm more persuaded by clash and tend to think fairness is more of an internal link than an impact.

Edit for k affs: I find I've been voting framework a lot because the 2AR does one of three things: 1) straight up concedes an important internal link/or piece of defense (ie. SSD/TVA) 2) fails to articulate how exactly their impact turn/DA outweighs and subsumes the negative's impacts 3) does too much ticky-tacky LBL work that should have been accomplished in the constructives which leave me thoroughly confused about the advantages of the affirmative model by the end of the round. Framing is great but is insufficient in these debates. I need you to implicate their standards directly if you want me to make the decision to vote for you, which means put away your backfiles and debate on the flow!

I want my decision to not only make sense to you but ensure your next debates are better. feel free to ask questions about my rfd for feedback.

speaks are determined by clarity (good god some of y'all need speaking drillz), the riskiness/execution of your strategy and how happy I am with your side of the flow

remember my decision doesn't adjudicate your worthiness, your intelligence or your aptitude to be successful (t-"successful") in the activity.

gluck/have fun!

Lisa Haddock

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

adi (he/him)

then: little rock central

adithyakom@gmail.com

i have zero familiarity with anything and everything. please explain acronyms and assume I have zero topicality knowledge (no idea what qualifies as topical, aff/neg bias, etc.)

I: Background

If it matters to you, I read critical strategies both affirmative and negative and debated them in a technical manner. This has influenced the way I judge and evaluate arguments, but not my argumentative preferences. I hated judge intervention as a competitor and hate it even more as a judge, so don't make me do it. Tabula rasa is not a thing- I'll evaluate what you put on the table to the absolute best of my ability. Judge instruction, contextualization, and impact calculus delivered in a clear, concise manner will win my ballot.

Section II. Miscellaneous

If you are problematic, I will do some combination of the following: leave, kill your speaks, hand you an L, and/or contact your coaches.

Finesse/confidence is distinct from disrespect/degradation.

Embedded Clash- I love K Tricks and 2NC overviews with offense but these arguments need structure by the 2NR for me to vote on them.

Section III. Critical Affirmatives

Pref me as a 1 or a 2.

I really don't care how in the direction of the topic you are but explain your method clearly and concisely. I don't think that aff teams need to win that the ballot is key for their method.

For aff teams:

Against framework: I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good.

I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important here as these debates can become muddled extremely quickly. I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than a flurry of meaningless k tricks designed to bog down the other team.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

Section IV: Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates. For the immigration topic: I agree with the general consensus that topical affs must provide legal permanent residence.

Section V: Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my thing. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

I AM NOT JUDGE KICKING YOUR CP UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY TELL ME I SHOULD DO SO.

Section VI: Theory

If you read vague alts, I'm not evaluating it. I'm serious. Until someone can tell me what makes vague alts less vague than the actual alternative being read, I refuse to evaluate it. If you want to waste your time trying to convince me to evaluate it, and successfully do so, I will give you a 30.

Condo is the only reason to reject the team other than ethics violations. Other stuff = reject the argument. I find theory to be rather subjective, so impacting it out with some type of warrant is your best chance to win me over. Reading your blocks will not save you. Taking your analysis beyond your blockscan save you.

Section VII: Parting Thoughts

Be nice to your partner/opponents. Enjoy yourself. Don't worry so much about the numbers.

Cabot High School Debate

I am a third year competitor in Debate, I am a Debate Captain at Cabot High School, and compete in Congressional Debate:

Congressional Debate:

Make sure to use parli pro correctly and make sure to speak on Bill correctly

If you are asking a question, make sure that it has relevance to the legislation.

When you are speaking, it has to be topical and within the time limit that is given.

Make sure that there is clash on the speeches.

Public Forum & LD:

Make sure that you give a Roadmap or Signpost

Rebuttals need to be topical and use a good balance of evidence and logic

Arguments should have a clear link to the topic

With definitions don't make them the most important part of the debate

Framework debate can be crucial to win the round.

Clash is also one of the most important things to make the winning points.

Overall: Make sure to respect the opponents and the judge when debating.

Hello!
Thank you for competing!

I judge under the notion that you debate as the best debater you are, and I will evaluate you on that metric. Please engage with each other's arguments, and be intentional in both cross and speeches.

Don't overcomplicate points that should be simple, and don't drop arguments, and have refutations that logically link. As a congress debater and competitor I do value a good presentation and speaking, if that helps.

Please don't go too fast as in spreading if it harms your delivery. I appreciate a good framework and roadmaps.

Have fun! Be nice!

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

jackson.n.mills@gmail.com

they/them

Little Rock Central '24

Do what do you best, and have fun. I don't have any ideological preferences on content or form and try to adjudicate debates as strictly off the flow as possible. The only exception to this is problematic/violent arguments (racism good, genocide good, endorsements of self-harm, etc.) which will result in an L and the lowest speaks possible. I don't consider arguments such as wipeout or the death K to be in the same vein of argumentation described above, assuming they are not run in a way that would make anyone feel unsafe.

My debate background is largely critical, so I have a much more intuitive understanding of how Clash and K v K debates work. This is not to say I hold any animosity towards traditional policy arguments, but rather to say that extra explaining would be appreciated in these debates. I think I have a pretty good understanding of topicality versus policy affs, as well as the more common counterplans and DAs, but complicated counterplan competition debates and other things with that vibe will be where explanation is especially important. I think judgekick is fine but please say the words if you want me to do it.

Tech generally outweighs truth (see the above exceptions), but I must flow a claim, warrant, and implication for something to be evaluated as an argument. I default to being flow-centric as a means to evaluate all debates, but am willing to evaluate them through an alternative manner if presented and won. Debates should be about what the debaters say, so my defaults/predispositions/whatever are easily overcome by good debating. Judge instruction is by far the most important thing you should be doing, as it helps me to evaluate the debate through the lens you want me to rather than leave me to my own devices.

Misc. Things:

--speed is fine, but don't sacrifice clarity! the chance of me clearing you is extremely low (awkward) so just prioritize it

--don't be a bad person to your opponents – I understand some pettiness, standing on business, etc. but am not okay with you just being disrespectful for the sake of it.

--i tend to look somewhat tired/apathetic during debates, so please don't take this as a sign I am not engaged. i appreciate the effort and time debaters put into the activity and will do my best when adjudicating all debates.

--please call me jackson, not judge

--feel free to ask any/all questions after a decision - I know how much I have benefited from the advice given in RFDs and want to do whatever I can to help make your time in this activity more valuable

I have a simple judging philosophy: forensics and debate are educational opportunities aimed at providing students the chance to develop their argumentation and speaking skills. Earnestness, attention to the integrity of evidence, and authenticity of one's convictions within the context of their position are my priorities. Obnoxiousness, bullying behavior, and pretentiousness are automatic disqualifiers.

References to Star Wars are not required but always appreciated.

Email: mordenannabelle@gmail.com

Personal attacks on your opponent will result in an immediate loss. Any discriminatory language, racism, sexism, ableism or other forms of hate will not be tolerated.

Do not misgender your opponent…it is just like, rude?

LD-

Theory is meh but I'm willing to hear it out

Almost always tech>truth

K affs can be good

Disclosure good

LD-

CX: Just don’t be a jerk, it’s unprofessional and unflattering. I respect debaters who utilize CX rather than just asking shallow questions. Sarcasm is good (just don't over do it)

Speaking-

I'm cool with spreading, just don't spread unless you are experienced in that field. I will drop points for incoherent, jumbled speaking.
-Speak with intent, if you don’t understand or mean the words being read, then you have the disadvantage in the debate. Keep me intrigued, you have a better chance of winning if you are passionate about your case.

Styles-

I respect that there are many styles of debate, however I prefer progressive. I am persuaded by logical and warranted arguments, I love Ks, especially Ts if done right. If you’re going traditional, it is imperative that you provide voting issues or at least a clear reasoning behind why I should vote for you, I think it just spices up the round. Going progressive, make sure your k’s have links. Lack of link takes away from your case drastically.

No topicality arguments unless you truly and utterly believe it is essential to the debate. Otherwise, I believe topicality is abusive of your rights as neg/aff

Fw- I’ll hear anything out; even TVAs as long as it has a solid relation to the topic. Fw is about LBL and explaining why your topic mode is good. The fw debate is very important to me, drop it and I will struggle to vote on your side.

Link turns are good, impact turns to education are great when explained right

If you aren’t going to at least try and maintain clash in 1nr/2ar, don’t bother speaking at all. Clash is essential to the structure of LD, please do not disregard this

IPDA-

Speaker points-

I understand it's not easy to formulate an entire case in 30 minutes, however please try and keep things organized. A messy case will result in lower speaks. Make sure you aren't just speaking to speak, if you aren't sure what to talk about, reiterate previously made points and tell me why they matter. Speak with intent, convince me that I should vote for you; don't simply read off of a script, I could do that myself, it's your job to give meaning to those words.

Clash. If you do not respond to your opponents arguments with either logical or warranted claims, then don't expect me to flow what you said. Clash is very important, if you can provide adequate defense/offense then I'll be sure to weigh that when making my decision

Affirmative- please do not abuse your right to define, debate requires a certain extent of fairness.

Contact me if you have any further concerns, I will gladly answer any questions you may have

Cabot High School Senior Captain

TL;DR

I’m good with all arguments

Tech over truth

Make sure to not drop points

Don't give fake evidence, instant loss if you cannot provide the cards if asked.

Attack the case not the person, I will deduct a large amount of speaker points if you're attacking the person.

Have fun with the debate

I have started debating at Cabot since 8th grade. I am okay with all arguments. Use whatever you want as long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone. Make sure that you properly explain all arguments and don't just throw out buzzwords and jargon.

BQ

I generally prefer the standard of morality in BQ but if you can give me a reason not to, then that's great. You don't need to have a lot of statistics for BQ. I personally prefer well spoken arguments and slower speaking in BQ, but I will evaluate anything. Make sure you explain how your arguments and cards connect. I'm fine with all arguments as long as they are relevant.

PF

Make sure to take advantage of any definitions you can. Impact is very important policy wise so make sure to flesh it out throughout the entire debate. Fake evidence equals instant loss. If I cannot trust one piece of evidence I can't trust any of your evidence. Just argue well, If I am not given a weighing mechanism I will default to cost benefit analysis. Just debate and do it well, like I already said up above, I will evaluate any argument as long as it is explained well.

LD

I prefer that you link in your arguments and give me a reason to vote for you. Make sure to expand on your points and impact if you have one. These are important parts of the debate and give me a clear reason to vote. Make sure you expand on your framework and show me why I should consider your value/criterion over your opponents if the framework makes a difference. If the framework doesn't matter, then don't extend it.

Although your argument may hold truth I prefer the technical parts of the debate (i.e. you drop what they say about your point, and it is false if they are right). One thing I don’t like is trying to discredit sources just because they are from the past or not within the past 4 years; yes, it is important to have up to date sources, but at the same time it is not necessary if it is an analytical argument. If you do make an argument on the credibility of sources don't just say it's not credible, you also need to explain why I can't vote on it because of the lack of credibility. I know the connection is obvious, but unless you make it that connection, it won't be on the flow. If an opponent asks for a card provide the card or you lose credibility.

Congress

Just don't discriminate against anyone. Answer questions effectively. I don't do congress very much so I'll be frank and just say you're unlucky to have me.

IPDA

Same stuff for LD basically. Just make sure you explain your points well, I think IPDA is a great opportunity to show off the fundamentals of debate.

My name is Logan and I think debate is cool.

I don't really care what kind of arguments you read.

Typically, the team that makes the smarter decisions wins.

If you are unclear, I will say "clear."

If you are too fast, I will say "speed."

The former is more likely to be an issue than the latter.

Hello, Debaters, Speakers, and Interpreters! I'm Tonya Reck, and I'm a debate coach at Arkansas School for Math, Science, and the Arts in Hot Springs, AR. I've taught Theatre, Communication, Speech, and Debate in public school for nine years (plus a lot more) in Texas and Arkansas.

For Tabroom:

I have experience judging most events, and I'm willing to judge any debate, congress, or forensics event style. I'm glad to hear all students and support their progress and achievements.

Students:

First, let me say how glad I am that you are participating in a Speech and Debate tournament. I am here to help you advance in life and public speaking. I am also here to celebrate your accomplishments! Win or lose your round, there is so much to gain by participating in debate, and I hope I can help to move you forward.

Are you new to debate?

If you are a novice debater- have no fear! I hope I can help you recognize your strengths and help you get to the next level. EVERYONE starts somewhere. Huge props for stepping into debate! Pretty much everyone starts learning from zero. All that is expected of you is to be the best you can be here today, right, now, just as you are. You don't have to be like anyone else. Just bring your best and do that. And then don't stop. Keep learning and don't give up. You will get better every time.

Are you an experienced Debater?

If you are experienced and ready to try new things- OK. I want to support students who are trying new things, taking intellectual risks, and learning new ways of doing things. Stay intellectually humble and gracious to all your opponents. Learn something new from every judge and every competitor. Keep growing. Keep it fresh. Listen to yourself- are you repeating debate clichés? Using jargon? Would the average person in Wal-Mart on Saturday night understand you? Are you persuading and compelling the judge9s)? Is this an info dump? Are you making the most of every round? What are your debate goals? What do you need to do to get there? Are you doing it?

Are you nervous?

Be prepared. Be rehearsed. Be well-researched. Be organized. Put your energy into your debate.

What do I like to see from you in a round?

Give me the best you've got. This round is for you to shine and grow. Follow the rules, but otherwise, go for it.

I think we are all here to learn. I'm still learning, too! So, seek first to understand. Then be understood.

I like to think that this is a marketplace of ideas. So, if you are reading this a few days ahead- take this debate topic to the dinner table; to people who see life a little differently from you. Talk to children. Have honest conversations with real people. Find out how they think. How do they see your ideas? If it doesn't work on the street-- it might not fly in the round either.

How important is professionalism?

Very. Sportsmanship, kindness, humility, integrity, understanding. All of these will get you a long way in life and in debate. Ask yourself some questions. Who have I enjoyed debating against the most? Who has treated me the best as an opponent? What do I expect of myself? How can I raise the level of the round and the tournament?

What about Debate Ethics and Equality?

How you treat others says a lot about you. Experienced debaters and congressional debaters, please note. Even small behaviors that might mean to diminish another will actually diminish yourself. Be mindful of your humility. Be mindful of the humanity of others. Realize that you come into every round as equals with equal chances.

Does nonverbal communication matter?

Absolutely. So often, it's not what we say but how we say it. True in life and debate.

Do I have pet peeves?

Of course.

Talking too fast, debate jargon, lack of humility.

Cardinal sins?

Yes. Play by the book. Don't falsely accuse your opponent of breaking the rules. It's OK to be on the offense and be forward. But don't get out of bounds or run over people to get to the top of the heap. This applies to life as well as debate. I often quote from the rules and official ballots in the comments.

Speech and Interpretation

Give us the very best that you've got. If you are reading this well in advance of the tournament, start quality pieces of literature for interpretation. Then be true to what is going on in the piece, and above all, be true to yourself. The best pieces create the illusion of the first time. Something that seems effortless, genuine, and sincere. Well-rehearsed in a way that doesn't seem like something that was ever rehearsed. These pieces will always take the 1 on the ballot. Likewise, pieces that still are shaky on the memory work, awkward in blocking, unclear in characterization, etc., will not pull out a miracle. Hard work ahead of time - investing in yourself and your work- will pay off.

New to Speech and Interp

The very best thing you can do is just to get in there and start doing it. Of course, no one is perfect the first time(s) they try something. We just keep working and getting better and better. The best have learned from the best. Make a note of what people are doing and how that is working for them. Find things - every time- that you can do. There is so much to matching the piece to the performer. Every minute you spend finding and cutting a piece for your talents is well invested. Keep growing. Don't let the initial bumps discourage you. It's not where you start that matters.

Finally

In short, do all the good things your teacher taught you. Bring the very best you can, and I will do my best for you to walk away with some solid advice to move forward as a debater.

I'm pulling for each of you and wish you the best in the tournament and life! Good luck!

experience: cx, pf, ld, bq, congress, world schools

cx

include me on the email chain. it's pretty rare that i will vote on t, that would be a very special circumstance. tell my how many off case positions you're running please. i'm fine with any type of argument as long as you articulate it well. i feel like there isn't really anything unique to put here, if you have specific question you can feel free to ask me. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

public forum

i'm fine with any kind of argument. my decision is more often than not based off the line by line debate. be sure to have real impacts that you carry across the flow and weigh against your opponents. if there is a weighing mech make sure it's actually one worth while and that you continue relating back to it and explaining how you win under it. take full advantage of cross- don't just start rambling off an argument during that time, ask questions and move on, alsoif you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech. arguments need to have warrants and links. i'm fine with speed, but not if you're sacrificing clarity- also speed doesn't equate to spreading.

lincoln douglas

speed is okay, but not at the cost of clarity. no need to spread but if you absolutely must then you should warn me/ your opponent and probably send out the doc. please do not turn the whole round into a framework debate. if you want to debate frameworks the whole time, don't allow it to dominate your speech time. be sure to actually be relating your arguments/ impacts back to the framework you've chosen to run. i am big on line by line, that's what makes the decision. i am fine with any type of arguments, as long as you have a link/ warrant to the case you're making. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

any homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc will result in an L. respect your opponents.

If you do an email chain, include me simsmikay24@cps.k12.ar.us

No disrespect will be tolerated.

No discriminatory comments.

Best if you kept your own time.

Lincoln Douglas

tech vs. truth

link all arguments to value

IPDA

tech vs. truth

Speech:

use all of speech and prep time

if you speak fast send opponent and I your case

go down flow when refuting

don't make up new points in your last speech

CP:

run them

Flow:

road maps are appreciated

let me know your order so I know how to flow

Christina Smith

Arkansas State University

Mainly an IPDA Debater but has PF and Congress experience

General

When looking at debates, I love clash. I believe that one of the main focuses of debate is a good clash, that way you see an actual debate going on. This can go for both Congress and PF.

When debating, always make sure that your arguments are clear and go down line by line, that way I can flow easier which will help me judge your round better. If your impacts are major to your case, make them seem important. If the number of cards is major to your case, make them seem important. I’d hate to look past them.

When looking at speaks, if you can speak loud and proud and add emphasis to your speaking, then you're almost guaranteed good speaks. I am not a fan of robotic, blunt-speaking because I will zone out real fast.

I also have zero tolerance for disrespect. In some instances, you can be aggressive to your opponent, however, if you step over the line and insult or show disrespect to them in any way, it will reflect on your speaks. While I know debate can get loud, it also needs to be civil.

IPDA

On the collegiate level, I mostly focus on IPDA, so IPDA is an expertise of mine. My paradigm for IPDA really reflects what I look for in both Congress and PF. So just read below.

PF

If Congress was eradicated from existence, then my go-to would be PF. I enjoy PF a lot, mainly because it makes us discuss topics that you wouldn’t usually talk about. That being said, please be sure to provide definitions and frameworks within your case. Not only does it inform me and others about the topic, but your framework helps me decide on who I should vote for, depending on which side shows that they fit the framework better. That means that you should always emphasize your impacts within the debate. I can agree that framework is in no way the most important, and please do not have a framework debate, but it’d be nice to have it included. In summary, you should always weigh out your impacts and go over the arguments that were spoken throughout the debate. The final Focus should be mainly on voters, that way I can vote more effectively.

When it comes to cx, as I have said before, the clash is key. That being said, I mainly prefer open cross, that way there’s more possibility of the clash. You don’t have to do an open clash, but it’s preferable.

Please do not spread either. Not only is that disrespectful to your opponents, but I can’t flow, meaning I can’t judge.

Congress

There are not many paradigms for Congress I have, as my paradigms most closely follow PF, but all I ask for congress is to have clear points within your speech and be sure to speak well. And please, for the love of anything religious, don't repeat arguments. I don't want to fall asleep during your session.

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

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

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

*I am a flow judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

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

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

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

*In Congressional Debate

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

*In Big Question

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

*In Lincoln/Douglas

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

Affiliation and Big Picture:

I debated three years for Bentonville HS, then debated policy, parli, and collegiate LD for Oklahoma. Currently a master's student at NYU and a Mock Trial/Model UN assistant coach in Albany, NY.

I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too.

Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such.

Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors.

I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t.

K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated.

DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly.

Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it.

Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable.

Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is gswall97@gmail.com if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.

Hello lil baby debaters !!!!

heres the gist of it... I did policy debate at Bentonville High School for 3yrs..

I will easily be able to follow your arguments and your speed... but if your spreading is UNCLEAR then it won't make it onto my flow.

-- ORGANIZATION IS KEY!!!! If you don't sign post I won't know where arguments go. I'm a flow judge and if I don't know where your argument goes then it will probably hinder how I evaluate the round at the end

-- if you want outstanding speaker points you have to work for it... just because you can spread isn't enough for me, you have to be able to show me that you can speak PERSUASIVELY!! Slow down, emphasize words, repetition, hand gestures, analogies, eye contact. I should be completely moved to tears/ action by your speech.

-- NEVER END A SPEECH BEFORE THE TIMER GOES OFF. you should always have something to say

-- don't ask if you can sit during your speech the answer is no-- **THIS WAS PRECOVID U CAN SIT**

______________________

-- I will flow any argument but you better KNOW it and be able to explain it well. If you are going to read something that you just found a few hrs before... be careful

-- if it comes down to a specific card I will comb through it so this is a WARNING to make sure your card says EXACTLY what you are arguing .... I would rather you have incredibly strong analytics than mediocre evidence

-- if you have strong evidence/ can argue something crazy really well, then go for it. my outside biases/ opinions do not affect my view. You have good evidence that says Atlantis the lost city has been found then it's a valid argument that must be adequately addressed by your opponent. Argue that your team is actually pirates idc

____________________

-- rebuttals need impact calc.

-- I like rebuttals to consist of analysis of the round, less cards & more explaining WHY your team is winning

-- TOPICALITY IS A PRIORI (I don't care what the new fad is, but to me that is one of the most important things in the round) --> that also means, don't run dumb ones and make sure your technique is correct

_______________________

-- NEG try not to bring up new arguments in the 2nc... it annoys me when rebuttals turn into the aff whining/ a debate over the rules of policy. If you DO bring up a new argument it better be the strongest thing you have, don't just waste time.

-- NEG I want to see a good use of the negblock... don't say the exact same thing for 13 mins

-- I WANT CLASH. Case debate is so often swept under the rug !!!! even if you don't have specific cards against their case I will flow analytics. Strong analytics !!!!!!! This holds true for all forms of debate.

________________________

-- don't be rude to your opponents during cross ex

-- don't run sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. arguments. If I think that the round has become offensive I will stop you and force you to take YOUR prep time to re evaluate. Don't be insensitive.

-- if you flash files I will not count it as prep

-- have a phone or timer for your speech... I will not be your judge AND timekeeper.

-- open cross ex is fine in my book BUT if your partner is answering all the questions for you I will take that to mean that you don't understand what you just read

-- do NOT start off cross ex with 'how are you' or lame filler questions. Just end cross ex or ask for more details... but don't waste my time. CROSS EX SHOULD BE INTENTIONAL.

______________________

-- K affs are fun, go for it !!!

-- do not forget to extend your case in every speech.

--AFF if you are going to have framework in your plan I better hear it until the very end. Don't say read it in the 1ac and then not mention it again until rebuttals.. I will consider it dropped

______________________

FOR PF and LD...

-- I've judged enough rounds that I understand and can follow the arguments you make

-- I'm okay with K's being run in an LD round but no CPs; progressive or traditional whatever your preference is go for it

-- I know that PF and LD are supposed to focus more heavily on slow, well spoken, persuasive speeches, that being said, I am okay with speed but DO NOT SPREAD.

-- look you don't get a lot of time in these speeches, I get that, but I also need to see that you are adequately responding to every argument on the flow !!! (This is part of being organized)

-- impact calc is still relevant, I wanna hear some hella persuasive speaking in those summary speeches

-- also you CAN debate the weighing criteron... I expect you to extend. Don't just define your criteron, you better put it into the context of the resolution.

-- no 'open cx' in pf, don't ask. You have grand crossfire/ you should know your case well enough to answer questions on your own.

_______________________

Big Questions

-- have fun... good luck... I better hear some enticing, impressive, creative, and logical arguments !!!! Claaaaaassssshhhhhh! Do your research.

- don't just repeat your case over and over...

________________________

Congress

- i don’t remember reading or even thinking about paradigms the few times I participated in Congress back in the old day BUT in case you are reading this… most of what i said for PF/LD apply to you. I would say be more cautious with speed because other judges aren’t gonna like that even though i don’t mind as long as you can talk fast and still be persuasive and include tone fluctuation

- when disagreeing (or agreeing) with an argument if u mention someone refer to them as a fellow delegate.

——————————————————-

-- if you decide to flash or have some sort of email chain during round I want to be included. whitemadisonj@gmail.com

-- I try not to disclose in round because I want you guys motivated and encouraged for your next round so PLEASE don't ask me who won

-- I expect you to come to the round having already read my paradigm... you may ask me questions about what I have said or anything I didn't specify but I will not repeat all of what I have typed

-- be unique and creative !!! Have fun with this !!!!! Can't wait to see how hard you have all worked !!