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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

Tayo (She/Her)

Hi, my name is Ibitayo but everyone calls me Tayo (pronounced Thai-yo), only my parents say Ibitayo. I did Forensics and Debate for four years at Bentonville West High School (2016-2020) and I’m currently a freshman in Academy of Art University. I was extemp co captain my junior year and Speaking captain my senior year in high school.I did a wide array of events from HI to Extemp to BQ to Congressional Debate. My favorite event however is definitely Congressional Debate (I’m that kid that brings their own gavel *smh) I strive for everyone to be comfortable and have fun.

Congressional Debate I love-

-When you have evidence for every single point and citing them correctly

-Addressing the other representatives appropriately (don’t be calling people by they first name in round)

-Extensive knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure

-Actually using the knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure to help the round move along

-Speaking clearly

-Make points that are realistic to the current political situation. If you are going to talk about immagration you better not act like covid-19 doesn’t exist rn.

I really dislike-

-Disrespect. I expect everyone to act more like adults than the actual senate okay.

-Spreading this is congress

-Wasting time. Pointless motions, going way over time, making points on a bill/resolution and not adding any more points or evidence to the subject matter. Wasting time is not a good look for me

-Softball questions, asking questions that are not constructive and are not going to challenge anything. Not answering the question is also very annoying

Debate(PF/BQ/LD) I love-

• Clash. Really utilizing the CX time to make the points stronger

• Arguments that are constructive and flow really well

• Being able to speak in rebuttals really confidently and really explaining why the opponents points are inferior

I really dislike-

• When competitors don’t use up all of the time they have. If you have four minutes to speak, use it.

• Disrespect

THE WORST THING YOU COULD DO IN ANY DEBATE STYLE:

If you are speaking on the behalf of another group of people (another race, religion, gender, ect.)and you don't have evidence supporting that, my respect drops immediately. I would rather the evidence be from someone that is actually of that group as well. There have been so many instances where people just make stuff up about another religion or something with nothing to back up their statement. If you do this in congress, you'll get the lowest speech score from me. In any other debate style, its going to be very hard to gain my respect as a judge back.

If you ever have any questions let me know here: Ibitayo.L.Babatunde@gmail.com

Frequent Congressional Judge. Be unique with your content instead of repeating over and over again. Use crystallization in your speeches near the end of the bill.

Relatively straightforward:

Keep the debate interesting with new evidence and argumentation

Speak clearly

Be polite! Of course keep a bite but never step into the realm of rude.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR

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

Time yourself.

Do what you do & do it well.

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

Truth over Tech

If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism

I love a good cross-ex :)

Win an impact.

Number your args... please.

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

Don't clip cards.

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

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

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

Policy:

KvK:

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

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

Plans:

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

T:

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

Framework:

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

DAs:

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

CPs:

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

Ks:

Focus on arg development & application rather than reading backfiles.

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

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

LD:

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

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

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

See above for more specifics.

PF:

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

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

Act as if I don't know the topic

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

Congress:

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

Be prepared to speak on both sides of the bill.

I value evidence and credible sources.

DO NOT re-hash args.

Extemp:

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

Organization is key!

I value evidence and credible sources.

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

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

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

LD--

I take a tabula rasa approach to judging —

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

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

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

Hi everyone! My name's Andrea Dorantes, and I'm an alumnus of Bentonville High School in Bentonville, Arkansas. Currently, I am a senior at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. Before college, I competed in both Speech and Debate for 5 years. I am the 2017 State Champion in USX, a National Qualifier in Informative Speaking, and a Semi-Finalist in Informative Speaking at the National Tournament of Champions. I have also competed in Congressional Debate at a high level. Although most of my performance experience lies in the public speaking realm, I am confident in my ability to assess other performances with skill and consistency. Thank you for your patience and perseverance in this unconventional time, and I am glad your skills and hard work will be able to be showcased.

I'm really looking forward to watching your performances :)

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

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

Max Green (He/Him)

Hi, I'm Max Green. I'm a former debater now in college. I spent 8 years doing team policy debate and various speech categories.

Things I like in Congress debate:

-Clear and Concise: A great way to show me you know what you're talking about is to be able to address an issue with a short response that still covers all the nuances of it.

-Productive Parliamentary Procedure: Use parliamentary procedure to make the round more productive, not to show off your knowledge of it.

-Enunciation: I have the ears of someone 40 years older than I am, if you don't enunciate, I will not understand you.

Things I like in Big Questions

-Clear Clash: Tell me what you're responding to and how your evidence/argument refutes it.

-Enunciation: I have the ears of someone 40 years older than I am, if you don't enunciate, I will not understand you.

Hi!! I primarily competed in LD in high school at Cabot High School and then in Parliamentary Debate at Arkansas State. I no longer debate but now judge periodically. I have many specific viewpoints on debate but do not desire you to be confined to me. Too many times in competition did I intentionally run (or in most cases not run) cases that were catered to who my judge was. Speech and Debate is supposed to be a safe educational activity to express yourself. So have fun. I want you to enjoy the round and not resent having a specific judge. Of course, I do have viewpoints based on my own experience but at the end of the day, it's not right for you to have to fit my box. Run what you want, as long as it's not harmful to others, and enjoy.

Arkansas Debaters- I am not "traditional." Do not fear, I will give you a sizable RFD as a method to improve your craft. You do not have to dumb it down, change the wording, or anything else odd like that. You can run positions others might not allow (CP, T, K, Disads.) Just know what you're talking about. Don't run something just to do it, understand the material you are about to tell me. Be creative and engaging with both sides of the flow. But, do not desensitize yourself to very real things in this world just to win the ballot.

Clarity over speed always. Quality outweighs quantity always. Analysis and explanation are more important than many small cards. Please tell me where you are on the flow. I live for a good line-by-line.

Please be cautious of discussing extremely sensitive material and think of how it could affect those in the room. This is not one of the cases where forgiveness is easier to give than permission.

Respect peoples identities

I want to be on the email chain: briana13griffin@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them/she/her

Note: Due to my busy lifestyle, I do not have a ton of background knowledge on these topics. So please do not assume I know all of your literature immediately.

Decorum is of utmost importance - both verbal and nonverbal.

This should be a civil discourse between competitors.

Do NOT attack your opponent personally - attack the resolution and the claims.

Debate is a speaking activity, so, no, I do not want you to share/email/drop, etc. your case to me. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speaking style is also critical. Do not spread or even talk fast - if I can't understand or if I struggle to keep up with what you're saying two things happen: (1) I will miss key information and (2) I will get frustrated and not be able to judge you. If I miss an argument because you are speaking too fast and are not clear, then you didn't make it.

Do not be monotone in your delivery and look up during speeches. KNOW YOUR CASE!!!

You should not have so much information that it requires you to speak faster than normal conversation pace/speed. Be efficient with your words.

I want to know how to judge the round, so supply and use your MW or V/VC or Framework!

I want to see clear links between your claims and your WM, V/VC, Framework.

I want clear CWI's.

You need to clearly and effectively refute all of your opponent's claims. Debate requires CLASH - if there is no clash, then you have not debated. It is the responsibility of each debater to add to and create clash throughout the round.

I flow the round, so I am well aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - don't claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't!!! This can cost you the ballot!

Debate the resolution you have been given and nothing else!

Do not have a side debate about who has the best evidence - present the evidence and I'll decide as the judge, I don't need you to try and persuade me - or any other issues not related to the given resolution.

I don't need a road map - you should be clear enough in your round that I can clearly follow you.

Have fun!!! The world will not come to an end if you do not win this round! Always be looking for what you can learn from each round you debate.

Win. Lose. Learn!

On a lighter note, my favorite K-pop bands are The Rose, EXO, BTS, Seventeen, NCT 127 & NCT Dream -- if you work K-pop lyrics into your case/refutation, you won't receive any extra points, but it'll make me smile ????!

Leslie Harden Greer Judging Disclosure:

I take the responsibility of judging seriously and believe in rendering fair decisions based on a neutral perspective. I share this commitment with most experienced judges. I approach each round with an open mind, eliminating bias and holding no preconceived ideas about the outcome. I can lean affirmative or negative with equal propensity, and teams should strive to persuade me with their arguments.

I bring 23 years of experience as an English, drama, debate, and communication teacher, and have also coached speech and forensics, directed theatre, and coached mock trial and student congress. My approach to judging is influenced by these years of involvement in the education and forensics community.

Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Communication is Key: I prioritize clear communication over rapid delivery. (It’s as if I can hear the quiet sobbing of the policy debaters reading this.) Effective communication is vital for conveying arguments successfully. I prefer a clear and eloquent presentation of issues in the round. Effective communication is crucial in persuading me of the merits of your arguments.

2. Play Professional: I place a high value on sportsmanship and decorum in debate. Respectful conduct is essential for a productive debate.

3. Affirmative Burden: The affirmative plan should fulfill all of their burdens. If the negative demonstrates that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected.

4. Quality Evidence: I appreciate well-articulated arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Well-researched and substantiated arguments are more persuasive in my evaluation.

5. Focus on Disadvantages and Counter-Plans: I often give weight to disadvantages and counter-plans. While I may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments, I assess the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages.

6. Respect for Judges: I expect debaters to recognize that judges are reasonably intelligent, well-informed members of society. Debaters should present their case comprehensively and avoid assuming that judges lack the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments.

In summary, my judging philosophy centers on fairness, clear communication, and rigorous argument evaluation. I encourage debaters to present their cases effectively and persuasively, regardless of their positions, and I assess each round impartially. Good luck, and I look forward to a productive and engaging debate.

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

LD should remain value based. Although some recent LD resolutions cry out for the debaters to present a plan, please don't neglect the value framework tradition.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score. I strongly dislike rehashed arguments. Clash is important, but it needs to have actual refutation and not just mentioning the names of previous speakers. I object to the recent trend toward doing all prep work in-round and the abuse of in-house recesses to allow this.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Experience:

I am an experienced debater and I have performed in multiple speech individual events. I am currently competing in Varsity IPDA debate at Arkansas Tech University.

Paradigm:

I don't care if debaters spread, however, I feel like content needs to be stated clearly. I vote based on strength of arguments as opposed to quantity. I will vote based on courtesy so please remember that in order to promote civil discourse you must treat your opponents like the human beings that they are. If you cannot present an appropriate attitude in the round, then you will see that reflected on your ballot.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

About Me

In the 2000s, I was a TOC-qualified Congressional debater from Arkansas and fiddled around with policy but am not good enough to judge varsity in that event. During college, I started an undergraduate Congressional Debate and Model Congress circuit (which is now defunct). Today, I am a Chicago-based real estate finance and investment management executive. Feel free to look me up on social media / LinkedIn. I'll always explain my paradigm verbally in the round(s) but here are a few highlights:

Congressional Debate Paradigm

~ For authorship / affirmation speeches, I look for a well laid out, outlined summary of the key points of legislation and why the legislation needs to be passed on this particular issue. The best speeches will reference lines of legislation and explain what the legislation does / enforces / regulates rather than why to vote in your favor. For example, if you want to legalize unicorn hunting, you will not only explain why the unicorn population is plentiful to sustain with legalized hunting, but also what the legislation does in its text to regulate effectively such as the number of horns one can bag, color of rainbows allowed, etc.

~ Likewise, for negation speeches, I look for refutation and an outline of not only why the topic should not be regulated in the way the bill specifies, but also why the bill itself should not pass. Is it a poor enforcement mechanism, too broad, or overbearing? What specific line(s) say this and why are these lines bad? Talking about the topic broadly in an eloquent way will get your points, but specificity to the bill itself will give you a better rank.

~Specific references to text in the legislation will get you a higher score and rank if the rest of your speech is solid. Remember - the specific bill is being debated, not the topic itself. Some bills are too broad and others go too far. You can agree with the premise of the bill itself but not the way it is written.

~ CD is a form of debate. That means that there must be refutation, argumentation, and summation of the points which move fellow legislators to vote on your side. Do not rehash the same points or introduce new points further along in debate (after the 3rd speech on your side). This is repetitive and doesn't move the argument along. Instead, focus on clashing with the opposite side and reaffirming / summarizing the strongest points on your side. There is no need for a 2-3 point speech after the 4th speech on the aff / neg side. Summarize!

~Outlining / roadmapping your speech in the first 10-20 seconds is critical for me and your peers to follow along the speech. A clear transition between points is appreciated.

~ Timing of your points needs to be even. Too many CD competitors spend the first two minutes on their first point and scramble to finish. Do not be finishing up your 2nd point at 2:40 and rush through the third point, then go over 3:05. Conclusions are just as important as introductions. If you go over 3:10, your speech score and rank will be degraded.

~ Persuasion is key. You must compel your supporters in the room (and the constituents you are hypothetically representing) to be more firm in their beliefs and your opponents to waver to your side. You don't need a punny attention grabber, but I appreciate clever rhetoric and a well articulated speaker who doesn't go overbearing in "debate voice." The best US senators and representatives don't use a different tone when speaking at the lectern being nationally broadcast on C-SPAN versus having a 1:1 conversation with their voters.

~ Evidence is appreciated but I'm not a stickler for specific explanations, dates, and authors (e.g. you do not have to say "According to Ryan Reynolds of The Brookings Institute, a think tank on international affairs, dated January 1, XXXX"; just say "The Brookings Institute published a study earlier this year..."). Don't introduce new evidence to support the same point that's been reiterated in a past speech if it's beyond the 3rd speech on one side. Strong bonus points if you can point out inconsistencies or flaws in previous competitors' evidence.

~ For presiding officers, I look for efficiency, consistency, and control of the room. Keeping order is essential, but having a more effective way of moving along debate, Q&A, and voting will give you higher ranks. If you've done something innovative to make precedence, keeping time, or Q&A more effective, I will rank you among the best speakers in the room. I have ranked POs first and will continue to do so if they are truly outstanding.

CX/POLICY/PF PARADIGM:

I'm pretty lax, so just read whatever you're best at. Don't read some half-baked argument to try to please me. I like Ks better than regular policy, but I'll vote for the argument that wins in the round. To win me over, you need to have solid argumentation and to carry that solid argumentation through each flow, not simply through each speech you work on. Work together with your partner. As a debater, I was coached for Ks, so I tend to lean more towards those, but I'll still vote for a policy team. The link debate needs to be fleshed out and solid, as does impact calc. Without either of those things, your arguments are irrelevant. Despite being lax, do show me respect, as I am taking time out of my day and weekend to judge y'all.

Also please don't pref me.

If you say something that I find problematic, I will do something about it. I am not above a lecture, lowered speaks, and/or a downvote if the other team uses that against you.

If you don't take notes during my RFD, I will get up and leave.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

Like for CX/Policy, I'm lax, so don't worry about trying to please me with anything extra except by being a good speaker and being yourself. Remember links and impact calc are incredibly important, as is structuring your speeches if you can manage it. If not, just be sure to signpost for me. The arguments I tend to go for are structural-violence and inequality rather than nuclear war and recessions, but if you make a logical argument backed up by solid evidence,I will evaluate it regardless of the content or my personal preferences.

If you say something that I find problematic, I will do something about it. I am not above an after-round lecture or lowered placement, and it would go in my RFD and after-round comments.

Trey Roark

She/Her/They/Them

If you have any questions about the round or anything in general, don't hesitate to email me at trey.roark3@gmail.com (Also add me to the email chain)

Just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean it's just my face

TL;DR:

Go off on whatever you want

Truth Over Tech (Tech is obviously amazing, but don’t go reading racism/homophobia good args or something like that because that ain't the truth, and arguments that are just not true are not persuasive)

Love speed especially when clear

Also, cross-ex is something I pay attention to a lot.

Top Level:

I think that debate is based on the contextualization of the round. Whatever comes out of your mouth is what I evaluate (which on paper sounds really weird but you get the point).

Don't be rude, but that doesn't mean you can't be bold, if fact I encourage it, if you know a claim is ridiculous call it out, clown on them, and CX is a perfect place to do this.

IMO CX is CX because of CX so I evaluate Cross-Ex ALWAYS. It's my favorite part, so y'all better know whatchu talking about because CX can be pretty damning for a lot of teams

Arguments:

KvK: I'm all for them, especially if it's done well. I love talking about specific theories and reading various literature on them. I do a lot of QT and Sex Worker research so if you're planning on running with that I'd have a pretty good background on it before reading it in front of me. Anything else is totally fine, but I evaluate this in terms of a method v. method, not in terms of which method I think is better but which is better framed, linked, and described materially throughout the round. So tech helps you a lot here.

Plans: Sure! I read soft left affs in high school, so I have a soft spot for em........ If you're not reading one, topic analysis is obviously almost necessary, but even then if it says "screw the res" that's cool too, C/I can help you with this as well. I read k affs, but I love clash debates.

Framework: I read both K affs and Policy affs, so I've voted on FW before. I will say there better be a lot of impact framing on this, especially in the context of the round, cause I believe that the aff in itself is scholarship so that's already a plus for in-round analysis.

TvPlans: You can go for T in the 2NR, but there needs to be quite a bit of articulation, mostly just because I don't really understand it and I didn't do much of it in high school. I've never gone for T before, so if that gives you any information. Affs that are obviously untopical sway my vote in this case. Grammar T's are pretty strong tho to ;)

DAs: I like these, but at some point, I think they not only get repetitive but also boring. In this case, quality over quantity, because if not, it's a waste, so if you're running it into the block, there needs to be a lot of contexts and in-round descriptions.

CPs: I like these, condo is definitely good in this case. I think theory on CPs can be strategic, I also like the creativity of CPs, but I think Fiat in all cases needs to be explained to me in the context of what we fiating and why we should be able to. I don't just buy a "we get fiat" argument, I need to know why you do.

Theory: Perm debate is good, but it isn't just about specific theories and why you deserve perms or not, it's also what can the perm do for each side, or why it's unfair for the affirmative to have one, I love out of the box answers to perms and play on words. Other theories are fine but there needs to be more than a 1 line description and a fairness impact though.

KvPlan (K's in general): I like these kinds of debates, especially if there's a good link not just to the topic/overarching usfg, but specifically the plan itself and why voting aff causes specific disadvantages. Tell me why the perm can't work, and why the K and K alone is specific to solving the plan. I also live for how plan debaters respond to this, if done well can make for really good debates.

Also, I love putting DA names on links and examples, creative naming goes a long way for me.

Things I hate

- Blippy Disclosure (Unless breaking new or specific reason)

- Stealing Prep

- Clipping

- Homophobia/Racism/Sexism/Transphobia, etc.

Debate is supposed to be fun and an awesome activity where we all get to hear each other's opinions, voices, and scholarship; don't ruin that. It makes debate inherently harmful and unfun, and I don't think engaging in such an intellectual activity should be either of those things.

If you got this far lol:

+.25 speaking points for each GOOD RuPaul's Drag Race reference ;)

Hello everyone!

My name is Ardyn Townzen and I am a graduate of Bentonville High school. I am currently a Senior at Creighton University pursuing my bachelors of Science in Nursing degree and medical anthropology. I was the 2018 National Qualifier of Domestic Extemporaneous speaking and I competed at a high level in Congressional Debate for three years.

I am looking for well prepared and thought out arguments. I expect everyone to be respectful of each other and professional. I value plenty of reliable sources for your position and when you are able to come up with original arguments.

I am so excited to be judging this weekend! I am ready to see how you demonstrate your talents! :)