I prefer impacts debating showing me how your side effects the world. Make sure you go back and relate your side to the round criteria. If your opponent makes a logical mistake in their debate make sure you point it out specifically. Do not assume I will recognize it or deduce things for you. I am not a big fan of fast talking debate.

I like a traditional, value-centric debate. The clash of value / criterion is critical, and supporting contentions should be clearly linked. I do not mind unique approaches to the topics, but I prefer the focus to reaming on the value clash and ability to show its influence on the contentions and evidence chosen. Extended analysis can include social impact, both pro and con.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

I am a 4 year debater with LD being my primary focus. I am comfortable with any argument you wish to run, but be prepared to defend it. When I look at the round I like to look at the round through the lenses of the value and value criterion and then look at the voters that may be present. Please signpost where you are in the flow, it makes it easier to follow you and if I can’t get it down or get it down in the wrong spot it doesn’t end well for you. I don’t flow crossx but if there is something in there you wish to bring up I will flow it.

im not super big on speed, but I can sorta deal with it. If something is dropped don’t just say oh it’s dropped, impact it and show me the significance of that drop.

CX/Parli:

I did policy for three years in high school and four years in college; I also did 2 years of parli in college -- through 2010. I flow (on paper, with pens!) and can usually follow you as quickly as you want to go. I'll let you know if I can't hear you. I default to offense/defense paradigm, measuring the hypothetical consequences of plan enactment against either the status quo or a counter-plan. If the 1AC gives me a different framework -- including a clear role of the ballot -- I'll default to that framework instead; usually this alternative framework is still judged offense/defense, unless you tell me to do something else. Even though I default to fiat/policy/offense v defense, I'll vote in any framework you tell me to.

1NC Kritiks/projects are much stronger if you have a clear framework, clear alternative, and a clear role-of-the-ballot analysis to buffer yourself against the 2AC's "either links to the status quo overwhelm alt solvency, or perm solves any residual links to the aff because..." arguments. (These 2AC arguments are really compelling in a traditional fiat paradigm -- but they're way less compelling if we're talking about our individual ethics, in the classroom, in a world where the plan won't actually be enacted. Lacking a well-developed framework/RotB in the 1NC, I may give the 2AC way more leeway with their perm than you'd like). Also, its super helpful to everyone if you explicitly flag your framework *as the framework* instead of burying it with the alt solvency ;)

I regularly vote on topicality or other gateway issues, but I have a pretty high threshold for voting on RVI's on T: unless the neg has demonstrably skewed the round, I have a hard time understanding why the neg's "good strategy" is somehow "breaking the rules" or "bad for education", etc. Also, if you flag something as a gateway issue mid-round inside another flow (like "conditionality bad" or even "the apocalyptic rhetoric of their CP NB is bad for debate because..."), please either include a standards/framework debate on that part of the flow, or cross-apply them from your standards/framework/K flow -- otherwise, it becomes a weird floating impact that's hard to weigh, and its probably a poor time trade-off for you.

I don't think its necessarily "breaking the rules" to run multiple, potentially-contradictory counterplans/kritiks in the 1NC -- but too often its a bad strategy because a good 1AR can use your own words against you and effectively coopt a few minutes of your speech time. This destroy's the block's time advantage and leaves the 2NR trying to make new-ish (often very weak) theory claims in addition to their usual impact-analysis; that rarely ends well for the neg. 1NCs: Be tricky at your own risk!

A few last notes:
*I've voted neg on presumption more than once.
*You're all much more knowledgeable about this year's topic, so please help me with topic-specific acronyms and jargon :)
*I've seen teams cut cards short mid-speech "to get them on the flow", but too often they cut every warrant out of their argument -- they're left with only a tag/author/date. This is actually bad time management.
*Tag-team cx is fine, but please don't jump in over your partner -- don't deny them the opportunity to score bonus speaker points!
*Above all else, be kind and have fun. I'm here to help make your round as successful as possible, so please don't hesitate to ask questions before or after the round. I keep my flows for a few days, so feel free to reach out!

LD:

I have less personal experience with LD than CX, but I've still judged maybe 100 rounds or so. I'm struggling to write a coherent "judging philosophy", but here are things I've noticed:

*I love a good value-value clash that goes beyond "My value also achieves their value".

*If you agree with your opponent's definitions, observations, etc. just group them, agree quickly, and move on. I've seen really good debaters waste well over a minute explaining to me that they agree.

*When attacking your opponent's contentions, its great to cross-apply your own case, but its even better to make new, constructive arguments against them! Too often I see both sides say "Cross apply my Contention one here to show why this is wrong" but both team's "contention ones" have been mitigated, so I don't know how much to cross-apply: the full version from your first constructive? Or the reduced version? Overwhelmingly, this is the number one way people get frustrated with my RFD's: They ask some form of "but didn't my Contention One answer that winning argument?" and I'll reply "not after your opponent significantly reduced your C-1 on your flow, and you had no other arguments on their flow beyond this cross-application". I hate having to offer that feedback after the round, so I'm hoping to do it now :)

*I love good evidence/author comparisons if we're investigating an issue of fact/data, but your author's credentials are less important when it comes to philosophy. A well-argued analytic in support for one Value can easily trump an author's generic summary of another Value. Their Phd doesn't make them smarter than you! (For example: If your opponent has some generic evidence about egalitarianism being good, I could be persuaded by a well-constructed analytic that this specific situation is an exception to their rule; if your analysis is more nuanced and on-point, don't fret if you don't have a card).

*Above all else, be kind and have fun. I'm here to help make your round as successful as possible, so please don't hesitate to ask questions before or after the round. I keep my flows for a few days, so feel free to reach out!

I am not a professional judge, but I have been judging events for a while (as you can check from my history). My goal is to be fair and not be biased by my own opinions on the topic, race, gender, location or school name.

My request to you all, please try not to spread. If I can't capture your contentions in my notes, I will not be able to give you points for it (unless your opponent brings it up later, for me to catch up on it). So focus on quality and not on quantity.

Learn from each other and have fun.

Welcome competitors!

LD: I am a previous coach and competitor of LD and PuFo. I am a traditional LD judge that loves V-VC debate and impact calculus. The slower you speak the more I get on my flow which means I can follow your link chains better. If you spread, you MUST slow down for tags, sources, and impacts. If you do not, I will not be able to flow your main points. File sharing is fine, but it is not my job to read your case if I can’t understand you (unless tech issues arise). Don’t be afraid to get down and dirty with evidence preference argumentation. I come from a PuFo background as well so it is a nice voter for me. I also like analysis on why your VC better suits the resolution/debate. I need preference to one side or I will have to judge it myself. I give traditional style hand signals and verbal signals when appropriate. Timing each other is preferred, but I will keep official time in case of disagreements. If you are a progressive debater, you need to let me know before round starts so I can flow correctly. Alts, K’s, CP’s, PIC’s etc welcome, but please don’t have a non interactive K on the aff. Theory can be a big voter for me, but requires a lot of time for you to explain why it should win a debate. I look heavy to On Case and off case dis-ads, and need to be convinced to look for theory debates. Be nice to each other. Spread knowledge and respect, not hate.

PuFo: Impact Calculus is a must. Tell me how to weigh everything so that I do not have to make the assumption myself, it usually ends with upset parties (me included). Make sure that you know your sources, dates, and methodologies because your evidence is not complete without them. Speed is not preferred for me in this format. Public Forum is about speaking to the public, and thus, should be clear, concise, and easy to follow. If you must speak fast, then slow down for tags, numbers, and impact statements.

Good luck and follow your heart.

I've been an assistant coach at Ferris High School for four years now. I've coached and judged for Ferris at the local, state, and national level.

Intro:

Tech over truth. Speed is great, I've never had to clear anyone. I don't want to intervene so please do enough work to justify a vote for you (see below, this isn't a problem in most high level debates but if there is heavy framework argumentation in the debate it will be like a breath of fresh air for me). I've voted on Policy, Theory and Kritikal arguments in the past. I like CX debate. I judge because I enjoy the game. Flashing isn't prep but please don't spend too long doing it, a timer should be running for as much time as possible during a debate to preserve fairness and for the good of the tournament schedule. I try to be as attentive as possible so if you have any questions or concerns please let me know before the round starts.

Paradigm proper:

I know that the paradigm so far has been pretty non-specific and not really that helpful but I try to be as much as a blank slate as possible. When it comes to my actual biases, I'm not overly fond of generic procedurals or any arguments that could be described as gimmicky by someone reasonably acquainted with CX. That doesn't mean I won't vote on a procedural but I would probably be more sympathetic towards arguments made against a procedural so long as there isn't a blatant warrant for the procedural to be read.

I'm not particularly tied to any philosophy when it comes to how I should make my decision or what the ballot signifies. Disturbingly often, I'm frustrated by the lack of framework arguments made in rounds and the general lack of instruction about my role is, what my ballot signifies, and what I should be doing when I make my decision. In those sorts of rounds, I'm usually left to make a decision about what I should value most in the debate which is uncomfortable and leaves room for "judging errors" if the framework I was presumed to have assumed but wasn't told to take wasn't taken. I understand that my paradigm should describe the framework that I bring to a round before any arguments have been made, but I am generally apathetic towards most arguments when presented in the abstract. It isn't my job to come to the debate with a well built schema of what should and shouldn't be valued (that is what impact calc and framework arguments are for). In the absence of framework my decision is based off of what arguments I think would be most easily defended in an rfd.

In the unfortunate absence of any framing:

In the absence of any framing to go off of, I suppose I am usually most swayed by the biggest impacts in the round, as most judges are. Those impacts most usually come from policy arguments but can also stem from kritikal arguments as well. I think that a lot of time in rounds is wasted on the link debate, at least in my debate community, which leads to frankly boring debates with excessive defense. I don't vote on defense, there is no reason to (not linking to the negative is not a reason to vote affirmative, it's at best neutral). I like offense heavy debates with well developed off case positions from the negative and well made affirmatives.

Round operation:

My flow is really dense. I write down as much as I am physically able to in every speech. I think that email chains are nice and I appreciate being sent cases. I keep time and will stop speeches that go over time with some leniency. I still encourage everyone to keep track of time within the debate to ensure that everyone is accountable. You can address me as judge, I don't like being referred to directly in a debate round because it breaks my emersion and is at best a waste of time to try to get my attention/ add emphasis to a point when I am already writing down what you are saying. Outside of the round Kyle is fine.

Preparing for a round where I am judge:

Do not fret over anything I said in the sections above. The biggest concern of mine that I bring to a round before anything has been said is the tournament schedule. Please arrive on time. When considering what to run in front of me please consider what would be the most strategic answers to your opponents case. Be polite and respectful to all parties involved. I want to have a pleasant time.

But most importantly of all,

Follow Your Heart.

I'm a parent judge. I've been judging various tournaments, specifically debates, for many years. I prefer slow, clear, and structured arguments.

As a debate judge, I value a few things:

-Signposting: Please tell me where you are at in the flow to assist in my ability to accurately judge the round. This will also be extra powerful in points of clash -- show me where your cases are in direct contention with one another and why your side should be preferred.

-Cards/Evidence: I get that evidence matters in a debate round. I honestly don't place a lot of value in a lot of a round being focused on when an article was published or when a study was conducted ... like I get that it matters and can be important to a round, but I much so value your wholistic arguments and ideas in your case over niche disputes on sources.

-Impacts: By making your impacts clear and concise, I am better able to understand the most important/essential elements of your argument.

-Voters: By the end of the round, you should be able to tell me why you won the round.

At the end of the day, I am not a very picky judge! I want to see you do what you do best.

ncsoderquist@gmail.com

ALL EVENTS: I WILL NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANY OTHER HATE SPEECH. Please do not use speech and debate as a platform to spread any type of hatred. You will not win my vote.

This is my fifth year judging. Past Asst. Coach at Middle School for Public Forum. I debated in High School. I have one child in LD.

DEBATE:

I like the clash, but keep it polite. My biggest pet peeve is poor sports-person-ship. I do not mind if you take control of your cross-ex. Argue your points, and refute your opponents. Back up with facts, quotes, stats. Use impacts and YOUR VALUE!!! Use your VC as a weighing mechanism. I am a flow judge and follow my flow and arguments made there. I am a tech over truth judge. Lead me through your evidence and tell me how to vote. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. Don't make me guess or make my own conclusions, as they may not match what you are presenting. In other words, impacts and voters.

Slow down on tags and contention tags. If it is critical to your case, slow down for that portion and taglines. Enunciation is key for me to understand your case. If I am trying to figure out what you said, I miss your case. Spreading is an art form that has guidelines, breathing patterns, and rhythm. Don't confuse talking fast with spreading, they are two different things. If I cannot flow it, I do not judge it. If I stop typing, you know I am not getting it.

I do not judge on cross-ex. I will flow it, because I have the memory of a goldfish, and if you bring it back into round, I want to have notes on it. But if you do not bring it into round, it flies away and never comes back again. If it is a good point, don't let that happen.

IEs:

I will count stutters/missteps and crutch words. If a round is close I will rank off who has less. Tone/Infection are important during any speech, use them. Work on not yelling to show all emotions in any speech. Anger/Sadness has many faces, explore these to rank higher. Those who have their presentation memorized will rank higher than those who do not.

Informative: You got to pick your topic. Make it FUN and INTERESTING to me. Show me your passion and excitement about the subject. Be a human in your speech, not a robot. Please do this by making jokes, puns, or using conversational speech to keep me hooked. Pieces with good transitions, hooks, and conclusions rank higher.

Impromptu: I look for a framework. If you set a framework for your piece, I expect you to follow it. You don't have to have 3 points if you have a strong speech with 2.

Have fun and good luck! :-)

Hey there friend,

My experience in debate consists of three years of PF and a few LD tournaments, just for the lolz.

I have been judging largely open LD since 2016.

My PF background means that:

1. Impacts are #1 to me and always will be. Impacts need to be maintained throughout the round. I will buy any impact that is well-warranted and weighed.

2. Contentional debate is very important to me

My LD background means that:

1. I can handle speed but would advice against spreading. Slow DOWN on tags and vital info

2. I love theoretical and critical arguments and will attempt to follow any (well-run) argument that is thrown at me. My limited experience in LD, however, means that I may need further explanation than more experienced LD debaters. I am open to ANY arguments, PF brain just means progressive arguments don't come as easily to me.

Additionally:

I am and will be til death a flow judge- this means that dropped arguments flow through and become conceded in the round. Please don't drop your arguments and try to pick them up later. Please don't assume I will flow an argument through until you tell me to and IMPACT that argument as well! If both sides drop an argument its dead to me :-)

Over all, I value polite and professional debates with lots of clash and thats about it. Ask me in round !!

I have an extensive history in debate. I did LD in high school and CEDA in college. I have coached NPDA, IPDA and BP as well as a full spectrum of speech events. I am currently the Director at the University of Washington Bothell.

I prefer clash debate. I don't mind speed as long as everyone in the competition is happy with that. Debate should not leave anyone out. Make sure to meet criteria. After that, I try to be tab and judge on what the debaters bring into the round.

Savoy High School, Savoy, Texas / Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

DEBATE EXPERIENCE:
I competed in CX Debate, LD Debate, and Informative/Extemporaneous speaking during my four years of high school. I then went on to join the Debate Team during my two years at Florida State University as well. In the years following college graduation, I have both judged and coached students/tournaments on all levels from Elementary School through Collegiate levels.

JUDGING EXPERIENCE:

Experience Judging: CX Debate, Policy Debate, LD Debate, Parli Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congress Debate, Informative/Extemporaneous Speaking, Editorial Commentary, Spontaneous Argumentation Debate (SPAR), Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, and Oratory.

AWARDS/CREDENTIALS:

High School - 9th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 10th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Impromptu Speaking High School - 12th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 12th Grade - 2nd Place (Silver Gavel) Speaker Award - 2nd Best Speaker in State of Texas - 1A Cross-X Debate

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

CROSS-EXAMINATION DEBATE:

Briefly, I am a traditional CX judge, and, as you can see above, the majority of my experience both on a competitive level as well as that of a judge has been on the CX circuits. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules that affirms or negates the resolution. I am always open to hearing plans/counter-plans and find a debate round to be very intriguing if/when I see two teams who know how to present, execute, and defend a quality plan/counter-plan, etc. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. However, at the same time, basics are still very important to me. (i.e., Pay attention to AND provide/present strong, credible, current evidence in support of any contentions/arguments presented. Be quick to point out/counter old, outdated, irrelevant/unreliable evidence given by an opponent. I believe very strongly in backing any/all contentions/arguments with strong evidence from reliable/trustworthy sources.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE:

PARLI DEBATE:

I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. However, again, please refer to my notes above under Cross-Examination Debate regarding my thoughts on evidence, etc. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence. FLOW, FLOW, FLOW a debate in it's ENTIRETY from start to finish. It is almost ALWAYS easily apparent if/when a debater fails to do this as arguments/contentions almost always end up being forgotten/skipped/unresponded to as a result. This could prove catastrophic to a debate. I tend to carry any arguments/contentions presented in the constructives all the way through to the end and, in most cases, will consider them to be fact if/when an argument/contention is skipped over and/or not responded to by each team member.

IN MORE DEPTH:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle speed, having competed myself on a collegiate level, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, I'd go with more focus on creating strong, compelling arguments vs reading your speech faster, etc.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker. Though debates can be/often times are quite contentious, even heated at times, I EXPECT AND DEMAND that ALL DEBATERS treat one another, their teammates, their opponents, coaches, judges, and staff with the utmost respect AT ALL TIMES. I do not like ugly (mean). I can appreciate an aggressive/contentious debate/cross-examination, etc, however, it is imperative that each and every competitor carry themselves with class, dignity, and respect at all times. Remember, we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER at the end of the day!

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give perfect speaker points. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged state champions, and have, personally, been the recipient of a Silver Gavel Speaker Award my Senior Year in High School. However, even then, I did not receive perfect speaker points from my judges. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair. If you are hoping for a lenient judge who gives out speaker points like they're nothing...that's not me. While I will ALWAYS BE FAIR in giving out speaker points, I expect any debater that I give perfect/near perfect points to to REALLY set themselves apart from the rest in some form or fashion and EARN those high points. Again, however, I am not one to be TOO STRINGENT/STINGY with my speaker points and will, always, be fair to all.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.