I really focus on making sure that I can understand what you are saying. Clear and intentional speaking points are something I look for. Off time road maps are always a plus, and I love well thought through voters.

I really watch for follow through on arguments. I like to see defense on your end as well as attacks on your opponents arguments.

Respect is key for me. Please make sure during the debate you treat your opponent with the respect that they deserve.

I am a lay judge. I have judged speech and debate 2 other times. In speeches I appreciate clear points and like to hear your main point repeated in your conclusion. Best of luck!!!

Hello!

This will be my 7th year competing in Speech and Debate. I did Policy Debate and World Schools in High School. I am currently doing IPDA, NPDA, and Public Forum in College. If you have any specific questions, just ask before the round starts. 

I will say... it never hurts you to be nice :) 

I'm told by many that I'm a coms judge, but I try to look for Impacts, Framework, Flow

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method 

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it. 

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's. 

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

Organization, logical, professionalism, articulate, ability to show original ideas, don't speak too fast. Be clear, concise. I need to be able to follow your thoughts.

General- Lets explain everything you are doing. I will flow and if something is dropped then you are most likely going to loose. ROAD MAPS. Explaining and over explaining is better then assuming I know what you are talking about.

At the end of the day its your job to convince me on why and how you won. If you want me to remember something then tell me and explain why.

Subject to change.

Policy----------- As I am a policy judge now I request no Theories unless its your best theory and you explain it SUPER WELL. EXPLAIN EVERYTHING as I am a very comms judge but I will also flow. The better you make me understand what you are arguing the better chance of you winning. Reading Evidence then explaining will help your chances. Just reading Evidence is will most likely hinder you.

First and foremost, I still consider myself to be a new judge. I have been judging since November 2021. I didn't do debate or speech in high school but my son does Policy and that's why I'm here.

I always ask that you speak clearly and at a speed that I am able to hear and note all your arguments. You DO NOT have to go slow but if you are going so fast I cannot understand you, then I am not hearing your side. I do enjoy a good argument as long as you have the evidence to back it up. Tag teaming is ok, as long as it's done respectfully and is not a distraction.

I do flow the rounds, sometimes on paper, sometimes on my laptop. All I ask for is quality arguments and if you bring something up, you better be ready to defend it. Don't go evidence dumping just to do it, remember we do have time limits.

Please have respect towards your opponent(s) and show professionalism throughout the debate. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful to each other, your opponent or to me or the judges.

I look forward to hearing all your speeches and debates. Remember to have fun and never stop being an inspiration!

I primarily value logic over emotional arguments. An ad hominem attack, even slight will strongly bias me against the offender even if I agree. Additionally, a consistent rapidity of speech and intensity of tone is a strong indication of lack of proper preparation for debates and will be judged accordingly.

I am more swayed by logical arguments rather than emotional ones. I focus on clarity of issues, language and speech.

Hullo! I'm excited to meet you and hope you're feeling okay as you come into round.

My paradigm is pretty simplistic - I am looking for good communication, strong cases, and for you to have fun! Depending on the format, my feedback will be a little more specific. I have experience either competing or judging all of the formats here.

For policy:

Don’t get too abstract; all your arguments need to have strong links. Arguments need to tie together and that be understandable. Your speed needs to be understandable with mild to no spreading/speed. Tag teaming is fine, no k’s, but topicality is cool. When evaluating impacts don’t pull Kish arguments such as controversial social issues into it. Don’t bring race or gender into it, and shy away from social issues that feel manipulative. Don’t play on my emotions, give me a great, straight debate. You can run technical things but it won't prioritize as well. I am looking for stock issues, mostly. Strong foundation, lots of meat in the middle, strong ethics in your interactions (respect for each other), and may the best argument win.

I’m big on respect between partners and teams. Impacts should be more logic-based then emotions, as there’s a difference between science and emotional guilt/engineering.

Voters should include the heights of why your team is winning. If you don’t bring something up in voters, and I don’t have it on my flow, it may not be counted.

In all events:

Ethics and etiquette are high stakes in all events.

I'm a lay judge with a little personal experience in formal debate. I do have extensive experience with teaching and public speaking, including courtroom testimony and presentation of evidence and opinion.

I don't believe strong arguments are based in emotion, but rather in facts. Have strong reasons and evidence to back your opinions and views. Prove your point.

Stay on point and factual. Attacking your opponent doesn't build your case. Debate with respect and confidence.

#1

As a judge, respect, decency, and courtesy are very important to me. Catty comments and interruptions will have me docking points.

#2

Make sure you are on top of your flows. If a contention is dropped or missed I will notice and make note of it.

#3

Evidence, evidence, evidence. You don't need to cite your sources throughout your speaking points, but you need to be able to cite your sources if asked.

#4

Tell me your voters. I won't judge entirely off of them, but they will impact the way I vote.

#5

Speak slowly enough that I can understand you. If you are speaking so fast that I can't understand what you are saying, then I cannot accurately judge your arguments, causing you to lose points.

Summarized Paradigm: I like competitive yet polite debate. When looking at the constructive speech a few well developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Furthermore, constructive speeches should have ample evidence (with citations) and be easily understood. Moreover, when a speech is delivered too quickly, evidence can be lost and therefore can leave the argument unsupported. I appreciate eye contact, extemporaneous presentations, and welcome body language.

Lincoln Douglas debates: The value and criterion are the foundation of the debate. Emphasize them and make them relatable, the criterion should not be overly technical.

Policy: Evidence, Evidence, Evidence! Do not just quote your evidence, know and understand every piece of you bring forward.

Congress: Well written speeches are wonderful, but they should be delivered extemporaneously and be authentic to the conversation being had. Also, any speeches given, should add depth to the argument; please avoid repeating main points that have already been presented.

Public Forum: Polite and well informed debate is a must, respect your opponents time. Talking during the other teams prep time is frowned upon, discuss needed material during your own time as to not interrupt their case planning.

Final thoughts: Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are just as important as graceful losers. Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge. I want you all to enjoy the competition and make great memories. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have any preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy too.

I have quite a bit of experience with forensics, so no need to worry about that! I competed in Policy and PF in high school for 3 years, and I am currently competing in collegiate forensics.

I am comfortable with just about any kind of argument as long as you can demonstrate you know what you're talking about. I am also comfortable with speed, but signposting needs to be clear otherwise I won't get your argument down on my flow, I do appreciate quality over quantity of arguments. Essentially, I am generally a communications judge, meaning that good communication, clear signposting, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me.

For PF, I am a policy maker judge, meaning I like to view the round as if it is a policy proposal and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution. For LD, I am a tabula rasa judge, so I will focus on and whatever argument is key in the round. For Policy, I am a stock issues judge, so I do value harms, the plan, solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, and the like. I am also comfortable with Kritiks and will take them into consideration, but I do not prefer them.

I debated in High school, a year in college, and worked as an assistant coach for a short time. That being said I have been out of the community for a good chunk of time and am still a bit rusty.

I am okay with speed but my rusty-ness means I am not going to be the fastest pen. If i dont hear your argument then it cant make it on my flow, if it cant make it on my flow it becomes harder to let that weigh in on my decision. If something is important, make sure you emphasize it. That doesnt mean saying the same thing over and over, it means saying it once in a clear and concise way. I am okay with you moving a bit faster through evidence, if its truly important there is a decent chance I will be asking to see it after the round anyway. I think speed can be a good tool, but if you are simply going to rely on it to outspread your opponent then I start to take issue with it.

I am pretty intentional about leaving my own feelings about anything at the door. You get to tell me whats important, you get to tell me why, and you get to tell me what matters in the debate. Absent any provided framework I default to policy maker, but only cause its the easiest way to evaluate for most debates.

I am okay with alternative frameworks for approaching debate, but it must be clear what the framework is, why it is valuable, and what makes that framework a preferable approach to our time in round. I have no issue with traditional policy making style debate, but I do think that we should be held to account for the positions we defend, and I am okay with the introduction of ethical or moral questions as a legitimate attack on a position. By and large I think you get to decide what the debate is about, You get to tell me what is important and why that is the case. I can vote on just about any impact given the right framing and the right arguments about the way we weigh impacts, but dont think I will vote just because you throw out some grand scale impact with no context or story connecting it to the debate.

I prefer depth to breadth as a general rule. I would rather see a well developed negative position with some built in flexibility to allow for some jetisoning of arguments rather than three or four different positions (counterplans, K's). You can win that having more positions is better in the theory debate, but it will be an uphill battle. Same goes for the affirmative, I would rather see 2-3 advantages with good development and strong links than 5-6 advantages that you just narrow down to 2-3 by the end of the round.

I do love a good K debate, emphasis being good. Dont read it if you arent comfortable with it, or if you feel like you cant defend it or the alternative framework necessary to evaluate it. But I am perfectly okay with bringing into the debate space the questions about how we as individuals need to relate to these larger questions of policy, action and consequence.

I hate shallow T debates. If you think you can win it I want to see extrapolation for why your definition provides the best potential debates and education, not just questions of potential abuse. My partner in high school won T 4 out of 5 rounds and it has given me an appreciation for well debated topicality.

I also place a high value on being civil to each other. You are gonna have to deal with people you dont like and disagree with for the rest of your life, learning how to do so without letting your tone of voice become all angry and confrontational is one of the most important things debate can teach us. There is a distinct difference between calling someone out for being morally or ethically problematic however, in these instances a bit of venom may be called for. But by and large in the debate space there is no reason for us not to be kind to each other, competition is good, being rude is not. I dont want to see people intentionally talking over each other to avoid real questions or conversation.

Also in my judge training they made a big deal about evidence violations. If you feel like there is a real violation occuring let me know, but by and large if evidence is truly important to the round I will be calling to see it afterwards any way. That being said if you feel like a particular bit of evidence is important to the round, whether in regards to impact calculus or framing or what have you, please flag it for me and be clear on the authors name and date so I know what to ask for after the round.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

LD

Im less experienced in this style of debate, but a lot of what I said above will apply here. I have no problem with alternative frameworks and I know that has become a lot more common since my time in the community. That being said you need to tell me what that alternate framework is, what it means for how I as a judge evaluate the debate and the topic and why it is preferable to the framework you opponent provides.

Again I don't have any real issues with speed, If i cant understand you I will let you know. But dont just turn it into a spewing contest, LD has less evidence and more argumentation then Policy and spewing through those arguments means I might lose some of the details that will be important in evaluating the debate.

PF

Not much to add here. I have more respect now for PF then I did in high school since it seems to mirror the conversations we actually have about politics and the world. I flow it a bit different then the other styles of debate, so I am less worried about the line-by-line argumentation, and more about the cohesive narrative that you are defending.

I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguements and communicate effectivly. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your arguement and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. Keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!

Good communication, with arguments based on evidence, logic, and persuasion. Reasonable arguments and impacts. Extreme harms such as mass extinction, nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, zombies, etc. require extreme real-world evidence. Not recommended.

Logical fallacies make for weak debate. I watch for logical fallacies, but also expect the opposing team to point out if their opponent is relying on a logical fallacy as part of their case.

I expect the following during debate rounds:

1. Debaters should provide their own timekeeping. Judges should be observers and not controlling the round.
2. Tag-teaming protects a weak debater by hiding in the shadow of a strong debater and consequently slows their growth. I do not allow tag-teaming in rounds.
3. Debate should be focus on discussion of the topic. No ad hominem attacks.

I've been judging for more than 12 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

LD paradigm: I am generally a flow judge; however, I use the value/criterion debate as a weighting mechanism for my flow. that means I want to see clash on the value and criterion, convince me why your value and criterion are better for the round than your opponent. I know it isn't always possible, so if you find yourself against an opponent running the same value or criterion turning is fine. When it comes to progressive LD I am not super familiar with it so you'll have to walk me through a lot of it if you want to run a progressive case. speed isn't going to blow me away so keep your speed to at most, above average. make sure that your opponent can keep up and there won't be any problems. Finally in your rebuttals I want to see you linking back to cards, and your case if you don't then I will drop your arguments from my flow.

PF paradigm: I am not super familiar with PF so try to keep it traditional for the time being. I will primarily be a communications judge, but I will also be flowing for the sake of keeping up with your arguments. This means I want clear arguments, with sign posting when you are attacking and defending. Watch your speed. I prefer quality to quantity, but if your opponents can keep up there won't be any problems. One last thing is I want to see framework clash if there is any, I will use the framework when looking back on my flow.

CX: I have very little experience in policy debate, in fact it's hard to follow sometimes. that being said I am a communications judge, that means no spreading, no excessive speed, and being clear when you are attacking. you'll have to explain your attacks thoroughly, and ultimately whoever is best at convincing me they are right will win.

I like good strong evidence that backs up your claims.

Be respectful

Okay with speed but make sure you are understandable.

Just make sure to follow the rules according to your debate topic and we will be good.

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

2x Nats Attendee in Policy

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

tech > truth as long as you support with reasoning, do the leg work. (default to truth)

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

Remember Debate is a game you play with your friends, Have Fun!

Hi, my name’s Sunny Nelson, this is my third year as an assistant coach and my fourth year judging debate. I did public forum and congress, and I also did theater in high school. It’s very difficult for me to describe my paradigm because there is no ONE surefire way to win the round in my eyes. I will be flowing, and I will be paying attention to your communication skills (delivery, body language, etc). Below are some FAQs to help guide you.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS even when there is not a pandemic. Air high fives are my preferred alternative.

Kritiks: Acceptable, though I’d prefer you debate the topic.

Counterplans: Good, great even. I like seeing a good counterplan, but I hate condo. If you’re just gonna kick the CP in the 1NR then don’t run a CP.

Topicality: I like topicality when it’s done well, but I think everyone runs T the same, so I’ve grown bored with it.

Theory: Okay with theory, I think it stimulates discussion and furthers the progress of debate, but same with Ks, I would prefer you debate the topic.

Time: You may finish the sentence you are on when time is complete. I will verbally cut you off if you continue to speak past that. Self-timing is okay.

Masks: Off while speaking, if that applies to you.

Speed: I’m comfortable with it but I have no problem telling you to clear your diction up if I can’t understand you

Tag-teaming: Acceptable in policy, but overstepping will cause a loss in speaker points for the current speaker if I feel that they’re relying too hard on their partner.

Strategic dropping: I appreciate strategically dropping arguments as long as you explain why you’re dropping. Do this with caution because if you drop an argument that I really liked, then you might lose.

Evidence exchanges: Finding evidence is off time. Looking at evidence is on time. Discussing evidence is prohibited outside of cross-examination.

Impacts: If you’re bringing up impacts, use impact calc.

Extinction impacts: If you’ve had me as a judge before, you should already know this. I do not weigh extinction impacts. If your opponent brings up extinction, I still want you to address it for flowing purposes, but please do not impact calc it out and use extinction as a voter. The reason why is because I think that extinction is too heavy of an impact to weigh fairly in a debate, and I try to not have "instant wins" in any of my rounds.

Value-criterion and framework debates: I use the VC/FW debate as a way to develop a lens for the rest of the debate. A VC/FW should never be used as a voter. Instead, you should tell me which VC/FW to prefer and why your case meets the VC/FW better. I typically prefer the debater that can tell me why their case meets both value-criterions/frameworks, but if you outright disagree with your opponents VC/FW, don’t concede just because you think it’ll make me happy.

Decorum: Please remain professional during rounds. Some light joking can be appropriate but points will be docked if it gets out of hand. Rude/disrespectful behavior will result in an immediate loss regardless of how good I think your arguments are.

General/ For all Debate

I am a flow communications judge. That is not to say I will be judging you by how well you speak, but by how effectively you do it. No speed! My decision are primarily derived from the flow. I like clash, I do not want cases to be two ships passing in the night, I want them to crash. Do not simply present your case and defend the whole time, you need to interact with your opponent. If you want something to be remembered on my flow- slow down on the tag or make it obvious that you want me to believe it is important. Do impact analysis whether that is using impact calculation or a simple comparison I do not care. Debatewise, I am an inherently lazy person and I hate guessing. So the more weighing you do for me the better- it eliminates all the guess work that could potentially harm your side of the debate. Moreover, we have different perspectives and beliefs so something that you think is important could become missed if you do not tell me it is important in some fashion. Do not be overtly rude to your opponents- basically I do not wish for ad hominems to come into action. No speed, I think it is inherently bad for debate.

LD

In voting issues do more than note you win on Value Criterion. VC is a weighing mechanism not something that wins the debate simply because yours is better- frankly I do not care which VC is better if one person upholds both better.

Policy

In-n-outs are fine, tag teaming keep to a minimal if one partner does all the work it looks bad on you. I prefer lay over prog in terms of theory and Kritics, but if you can contextualize them and flush them out I can keep up.

I am an experienced LD debater and judge. I'm also most of the way through my philosophy and economics majors, so odds are I will understand the majority of arguments you are trying to run. I dislike progressive debate (mostly its speed and exclusionary language), largely for its impacts on debate and its accessibility, and will almost always prefer traditional debate on the ballot (especially in LD). I encourage you to ask for my paradigm in round if you have more questions or need clarifications.

General Debate:

I am an experienced debater who specialized in LD, but I have judged long enough that I can follow other events just fine. There are 3 main things I look at in a debate round.

The first of these is accessibility. Just because you have a well written case and can speed read it does not mean you are a good debater. The mark of a good debater is smooth communications, which means speaking clearly, and often not using speed. I can usually follow speed plenty well, but if it is used like a weapon by preventing your opponent from catching all of your case, you will be penalized for it. If both opponents agree that speed is fine beforehand, then go for it. Also, if you have any accessibility needs (eg. difficulty hearing, etc), feel free to let me know before the round so we can make the round as accessible as possible. Another important aspect of accessibility is abuse. If your arguments are abusive, you will be penalized, regardless of whether your opponent points it out. Run strong arguments, not abusive ones. Still feel free to point out abusive arguments if your opponent makes any, though, to make sure I catch them.

The second thing I look for is clash. Regardless of how well either side debates, if there is no clash, it's difficult to determine which debater won the arguments. Attack each other's cases, and try to avoid dropping points unless it is strategic to do so (don't do this unless you know how to strategically drop points though). Although I'm looking for clash, I'm also looking for civility. Don't be rude to your opponent, it's unnecessary and unprofessional.

Thirdly, I vote off of framework and flow. Provide a solid framework, and tie your arguments to that framework throughout the entirety of the debate. Your framework exists for the purpose of telling me how to vote. If you don't carry your framework throughout the round, you aren't really supporting the issues you initially told me I should vote on. Additionally, follow the flow in your speeches. This ensures I know what you are attacking or rebuilding when you speak, and better organization usually equals a better speech. Provide voters and remind me why you deserve to win.

LD Specific:

Personally, I prefer more of a traditional style LD round. I'm a huge sucker for value and criterion, so don't neglect them as they are fundamental to the debate style. Don't run a value for your criterion, or a criterion for your value. As I mentioned above in the framework section, tie your framework (In LD this is your value and criterion) to the rest of your case to support why you should win the round. A well-thought out and developed value and criterion do wonders for improving your case. If you prefer a more progressive style, I can follow along if you must. Additionally, LD already allows for the use of philosophy, so most Kritiks do not need to be called a Kritik in LD. If you want to run philosophy, you can just do that without calling it a K. If it is something external to the round that you are critiquing, then a K may be appropriate if you really desire so.

Congressional Debate: I've dealt in congress for the majority of my career; I know what I'm doing and looking for in competitors, as well as the rules of the round and common practice (Robert's Rules, etc).

The three main things I focus on are clarity, presentation, and clash.

You must present yourself professionally and succinctly, while also building a comprehensive case. This doesn't mean you have to dumb things down (I actually really love high-vocab and intellectual comprehension/interpretation of rules/congressional legal lingo), just don't try to elaborate unnecessarily on previously made points or talk a point to death once it has been introduced into the debate. It is also great to acknowledge previously made speeches, especially if you are citing work from a fellow house/senate member. I have a very high regard for civility, particularly in questioning period. Don't be rude, in short.

I know whether or not you actually know what you're talking about, as well, so unless you're capable of making a good on-the-spot extemporaneous speech or point, don't bother. Along with that point, you should be getting through as many questions in QP as possible: this is another dead giveaway as to whether or not you really know your stuff and gives you the opportunity to elaborate more upon previously made statements and really get your idea and presence out there. I may be biased, but I find Congress to be one of if not the most powerful and graceful forms of debate, and when done well, it is nothing shy of dazzling; live to your fullest potential in this regard! Personal style and the development of such is one of congressional debate's strong suits.

Finally, there should be solid clash and new points being presented AT LEAST every three speeches (both aff and neg). Unless there is actual debate going on on the same point for several consecutive speeches, don't drag out an argument for longer than it needs to be- no it doesn't make you look smart or edgy.

LD: Extensive background in this as well. Once again, I can see right through you.

Main focuses are clarity, clash, strong and assertive cross ex, and related value/criterion pairings- make sure to really reinforce and affirm exactly why it is that they go together, and continually reference and tie them into your speeches throughout the round

Off-time roadmaps are also much appreciated!

POFO: This should NOT look like an LD round, and should operate much more like policy. Do NOT tell me anything about a value or morality set. Automatic red flag.

I love to see effective tag-teaming that shows whether or not your team is in-sync and mentally present during debate. There is a difference between carrying them and working WITH them. Make sure all your questions reflect such as well. Always go over VOTERS!!

Policy: Essentially the same things as POFO. I want clarity, efficacy, and voters. Do not set up your speech/give your speech during a QP.

It is my sincere honour and pleasure to work with you all. Good luck!! :))

I did policy for all 4 years of high school although I have debated once or twice in every debate type.

I am a tabs judge although I will not buy that racism is good. You can read whatever you want and I will vote on it as long as it is explained. I like impact calc as a way to boil down the round, along with voters. I am fine with tag teaming and flex prep. I am ok with speed, but I will say clear if I can't hear you or understand you. If you are going to run shells and arguments like theory, T and framework please include all parts, I will still vote on it but it will decrease its value when voting. Please be respectful of all pronouns within the round and respect your opponents.

I am a communications judge. I focus on clarity, evidence and good speaking skills. Stay respectful and professional and have good clash. I did debate/speech all through high-school and am a experienced judge and Asst.Coach.

I'm a coms judge mainly, so I appreciate a steady talking pace because I'm not conditioned yet to listen and process all of what the speaker says at faster paces. Other than that, I expect good volume, eye contact, body language, etc. When it comes to the arguments I dislike, I am not a fan of end of the world scenario arguments/extreme escalation arguments. I understand that some things could lead to that given the situation in the world today, so if those arguments are reasonably made, I expect a good link to that extreme escalation happening.

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change. 

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument. 

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically. 

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit. 

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why). 

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate. 

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them. 

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote. If no framework is provided, I'll default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Theory I love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down.

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked. However, I will give verifiable birthday points and last senior tournament bumps at invitationals ONLY

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. If you don't, I default to cost-benefit (And that's boring as heck. So please give me something better). Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

Richard Wolff - Debate Paradigm

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions (6 years Judging Experience)

I consider myself a communication (comms) judge but I flow everything. If the flow is not backing you up you will not do well.

Well-developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak clearly with an emphasis on communication delivery! Speed is not beneficial to your cause if it is too fast to be understood. (Info dumps are not beneficial to your cause) Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

Please follow the state/national rules and guidelines for evidence. You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer that you write things down or pass the evidence to your partner on a device.

I put a lot of emphasis on a well-developed case. Use criteria and arguments to support a value position. Reference evidence/support throughout the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

Please use empirical and philosophical arguments that make sense! Please explain your views on critical arguments. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I enjoy hearing a well-structured plan and how it will solve the issue being debated.

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link it to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose my vote. Do not go off-topic.

The focus should be on winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a person’s style, flaws, or methods. Please respect your opponent and show professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave. I am less likely to vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

I am a Stock/Comm judge with a particular emphasis on Communications. While I do use the stock issues to guide my voting I give primary consideration to the side that most clearly explains their argument. I do not draw conclusions or inference for you, please, take me by the hand and lead me to your argument's conclusion.

Speed is the root of all evil. As a Communications judge I am looking for the combination of good argumentation that is presented in a way that I can understand. I consider my flow to be the paramount flow in the round. If you are moving so fast that I can not flow your case those arguments does not make it to my flow and will not be considered in my decision.

I also prefer respectful clash during Cross Examination. Please use the time ask questions that advance your position not just review cards presented in the previous presentation.

When it comes to LD my major concern is that there is a strong understanding of how V&C interact. This means more than mentioning your V&C. Please show me how your criterion validates your value. As with policy, communicating your argument clearly is very important.

The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.

-Mark Twain

young.broox@gmail.com - shoot me an email if you have any questions or concerns, or if you want specific feedback post-tourney.

I’m Broox, an undergraduate student in English and philosophy. I Have been a Finals Panelist Judge in Congress at the annual Nationals Tournament and have judged Congressional Debate and other events for 5+ years.

My most important rule is to keep decorum and be respectful.

In terms of my general debate paradigm;

Go ahead and read whatever case you want—even theory if you think you can.

I like to think that I'm generally well informed but treat me as if I’m an idiot(I am.)

Absolutely do your best to write my ballot for me in the last few speeches, I will evaluate the arguments you tell me to. Unless that is, what you're telling me to evaluate is stupid, which I will probably tell you on your ballot(respectfully we hope.) If you don't tell me how to evaluate your—and/or your interlocutors'—arguments, I will not know how you want me to weigh them.

I try not to call cards often unless opposite things are being said about the same piece of evidence. Or if you tell me to call a card.

Please don’t spread I’ll probably cry, I can flow at any speed at this point, but spreading will reflect poorly on your speaks.

pleaSE signpost. I neither need nor want your off-time roadmap if you signpost effectively.

Probably most importantly; Good luck, have fun.