I will probably not like you if you are a typical debate kid. I want to see well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments, not a firehouse worthy of a horse auction.

- Best debater in Utah for 5 years straight

- Spreading is required

- I do not know what the EU is and I am not willing to learn

- Climate change outweighs. Paper flows are an automatic loss

- “Pre-Med” is a trigger word and a voting issue

- Cross-ex is the only thing I flow

- Everyone starts with 0 speaks and gets +1 every time they say, “brief off-time road map"

- If the other team finishes a CX sentence you’re doing something wrong.

- If it’s not extinction is it even an impact?

.

.

jkjkjkjkjk....unless...?

.

.

Here's my actual paradigm lol

- I competed in public forum debate for 3 years.

- I can handle some speed, but I'm not a big fan of spreading.

- I enjoy both traditional and progressive arguments, but keep in mind that public forum is an event that should be accessible to all people.

- Be respectful of the other team!

- Use clear link chains.

- Don't bring up new arguments in final focus. I won't weigh them¯\_(ツ)_/¯

explain. please :)

2nd time judge.

My experience is pretty vast. I competed in all the standard debate events, along with Extemp in speech. Competed at NSDA’s in Congress, PF, and Extemp. (Broke in PF) Competed at NCFL’s and went to Semi’s in Congress. Competed at TOC in Congress.

I’m from a pretty small debate team originally that had no access to high end resources such as specific coaching, camps, briefs, etc. Because of this I’m mostly a traditional judge. While progressive arguments are fine, comprehension is sometimes difficult for myself.

I’m primarily a tech judge. While I wouldn’t believe the sky is red, claims that go uncontested and not clashed against, that get brought up in final speeches will be weighed.

K/T can be brought up, but for the most part goes way over my head. I’m fine listening to these arguments.

Signposting and roadmaps are really appreciated. Grouping together specific args, I.e. three turns on contention 1, would be more useful than reading 1 turn, then a disad, then attack the warrant, then bring up another turn.

Evidence quality matters, empirics and peer reviewed evidence is weighed more than simple news evidence.

I’m pretty much fine with students deciding how the round should go, just communicate it with me if you want to do anything outside the norm

I personally hate speaks, I think they are a bad tie breaker, and I never want to be the reason that students don’t break when they win debates, because of this, I give the highest points I can. The exception to this, is courtesy in cross. If you are being rude, I will give lower speaks. There’s no reason to be insulting for someone misunderstanding questions, arguments, etc.

I don’t flow cross, please bring up what’s said in cross in your speech, if you want it to be flowed

Speed is fine, although if I can't understand it I will say clear, this will only happen once. High pace conversation pace is best for me.

Have fun! I know that debate is highly competitive, but it should more fun than stress.

She/Her

MA in English '98 University of Utah

BA in English '93 North Carolina State University

Parent judge and this is my first time judging a policy round.

I will always vote for who gives the best argument and comprehensive debate.

Organization is key - everyone needs to be able to follow where you are in your speech. Always give off-time road maps before each speech, and if your latter speeches are analytical, then make sure you sign-post.

I would prefer a summary/brief description of your case before or after you read it - it just makes it easier for everyone involved. Also always make sure to state when you are cutting a card if you end it early.

My email is alicepmoe@gmail.com, please always include me in the email chain.

Quality over speed!! Since I am new to policy, I would very much like it if you didn't spread unless it's absolutely necessary.

K's - Kritiks are fine, but be sure to explain them well and link their meaning to the aff. You should have a clear idea of what your K is, and how it relates to your opponent's case.

T - Only run topicality if you can clearly link it to your opponent's case, don't just run it to fill up time.

CP's - I will be most comfortable with these, however it doesn't mean you have to run it. As long as you fully explain your case in a way that will be easy to follow, then Ks won't be an issue.

K-affs - I strongly recommend you don't run a K aff. If you really feel the need to, then, as I said, just explain it well and make sure it is comprehensive.

Never run a black K if you're not black, or anything regarding race if you are not specifically of that race. The same goes for any feminism/ableism/queer. You will immediately lose the round if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or derogatory in any way.

Watch your language. Be courteous and respectful to your opponents and me.

Above all, have fun. Education is very important in debate, and walk away with something new you've learned from the round.

I am first and foremost an LD judge, and haven't had much experience in other debate formats like Policy or PF. As a result, I will be disclosing my paradigm for LD exclusively here.

LD: I prefer you to err on the side of traditional debate, as I don't have much experience with Policy or concepts that originate from there, nor do I have much experience with things such as Ks. However, I do quite like counterplans and would encourage running them if you have them available.

I value well-research contentions and framework above all else -- providing evidence is great. I would suggest you avoid trying to appeal to my emotions; LD is a morality-based debate, but I will vote based primarily on if your evidence is strongest regardless of my moral leanings.

Signposting is highly encouraged! I do like a very clear-structured debate and am not very partial to chaos. Please try to avoid spreading - speak clearly so I can understand you. I will let you know one time throughout the debate if I cannot understand you, but will not flow if you continue to speak at a level I can't understand.

I am relatively generous in terms of speaker points, but I will not hesitate to dock you if I find you to be disrespectful towards your opponent.

What I like:

- Cool frameworks and different kinds of weighing mechanisms

- Well-timed wit

- Explaining what your evidence means in the context of the round

- Signposting

- Being unique

- Being kind

What I don't like:

- Unclear link chains/not talking about your link chain and just saying stuff will happen

- Unproductive cross x. If neither of you have questions that's okay, just call it early.

- Yelling/being mean

Speed:

- Slow down a little for tags

- If I can't understand you, I'll put my pen down - or if it's online I'll use the raise hand feature.

How I vote:

- The only work that I should be doing is flowing and keeping track of what is dropped and what isn't.

- Tell me why your arguments are more important.

Feel free to talk to me after the round.