I have judged a handful of tournaments since leaving full-time coaching in 2015. I was able to maintain the same flowing abilities and understanding of arguments. If there are new styles of arguments, acronyms, etc., you may need to clarify those. Aside from that, the below remains the same.

- I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discoursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like facr/value debate and have a low threshhold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments.
- I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line!
The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK!
- I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine.
- I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order).
- You cannot perm a DA….period!
- I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”).
- Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy
- If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round.
- I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and
banter are fine, but there are limits.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical
arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions.
The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good;
make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions.
- I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances).
- I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions.
Performance based arguments…
I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing
interpretations?
I require you to win the argument and have a voter….
I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual
competition ok? functional competition?
The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP.
I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will
use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede costbenefit
analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are
diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts
(i.e. "one million deaths")?
I love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these.
One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority.
I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

Experience: Policy debate - 4 years of high school 1 year of college

Paradigm: I'm open to most arguments. Debate in the style you're comfortable with. I can handle a bit of speed but I've been away from the activity a while so it might be safer for you to not go as fast as you can. If I can't understand you, I won't flow your arguments. For policy debates, I will default to reasonability on topicality if given no other frameworks.

Feel free to ask any specific questions not covered here before the round.

Former Forensics coach - I've judged many debate rounds before. I prefer medium speed speaking. Organization of speeches and clarity moving point to point is very important to me.

1. Experience with LD debate: Community Judge

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

B. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? No

C.Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? No

3. How important is the criterion in making your decision? It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

A. Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes

4. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

A. Final rebuttals should include: Voting issues

B. Voting issues should be given: at the end of the final speech, or .

C. Voting issues are: not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is: acceptable

5. How do you decide the winner of the round? I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

6. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? Always necessary

7. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round: I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

1. Your experience with policy debate: Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate: 0-10 years

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate: stock issues

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY: 7

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS: 4

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES: 6

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: 3

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS : 2

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS: 5

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS: 3

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

Philosophy major, former Forensics coach and AP English teacher, current writer for a marketing startup in Kansas City. I've judged quite a few debate rounds before, but you can almost consider me a 'lay' judge. I don't like jargon. I prefer medium speed speaking. Organization of speeches and clarity moving point to point is important to me. This is all about being convincing and confident. Reading something robotically, really quickly, filling your speech with little data points that even you don't understand, does not convince anyone.

I love it when you are able to say, "Ok, here is basically what happened so far in the round. You may have heard this and this, and this and this, but THIS is what you really should focus on, and here is why." I love the clarity and authority that such a move brings.

This is all about having fun, being respectful of your opponent, and being reasonable!

I am Amanda, a former Lincoln-Douglas debater and National Qualifier. I have about 6 years experience in judging all forms of debate and will maintain a rigorous flow regardless of the type of debate. Below, I have included my judge philosophy cards for Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. In short, I will vote on key issues in the round (whatever they may be!) and the substance of the arguments made. I absolutely prefer few, very well-developed arguments rather than a ton of arguments. I will put personal beliefs and biases aside and vote on what you tell me are the most important issues in the round. Communication skills are important, but I will never make a decision based on them alone. I do not have a preference on speed of delivery, though I prefer that true speed-reading is kept to a minimum for the sake of everyone in the round.

NFL POLICY DEBATE JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

1. Your experience with policy debate:

Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged (6) years of policy debate. I have judged (0-10) varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

My attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY - Anywhere from 1 - 7

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS - I prefer a few, well developed arguments

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES - 6, issues are more important, though communication skills are weighed heavily

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: 5 (If it is a key issue, sure!)

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS : 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS: 1 (acceptable and always appreciated)

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

Former LD competitor, Experienced LD judge

L. I have judged LD debate for (6) years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season?

Fewer than twenty

2. My attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? 4

Slow, conversational style--- Typical conversational speed---Rapid conversational speed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization

1. Final rebuttals should include voting issues

2. Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow or at the end of the final speech

3. Voting issues are

absolutely necessary

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable

D. How do you decide the winner of the round?

I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? Often necessary

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

I keep a rigorous flow