I am a debater from Arkansas who has competed in the majority of NSDA events, especially within debate. I now do a little bit of college Policy Debate. I'm majoring in Psychology and Educational Studies at Macalester College.

email chain for speech docs: davida9202@gmail.com

Here are the big things, down below is more organization stuff:

***Love K debate. Love it. don't read the K solely for the purpose of being strategic. I can tell when you don't actually know the basis upon which you're critiquing the other side, and it's not cute. That is to say, if you do run a K, I will weigh epistemic impacts so long as you give me a CLEAR solvency advocate + alt, and tell me HOW the K changes how i'm weighing the other side's impacts

***My role as a judge is to be an educator. Don't read stuff that you know your opponent won't understand for the sake of winning. Try to make matches fair (fairness is an impact!)

BIG NO-NO'S THAT WILL LIKELY GET YOU A FAT L:

***rudeness or any attitude that kills the sportsmanship of debate. the stakes are never that high

***violating any rules in the NSDA unified manual (please call your opponent out for breaking rules, i will listen!)

***going over on speech times or prep time. More than a few seconds and you will start to lose speaker points.

***a lack of structure. i must hear clear signposting that i can write your arguments down on my flow. if you can't tell me where to put your argument, i might not be able to evaluate it (this is more for styles heavy on line-by-line, like PF). however, you CAN be creative with your case construction so long as it is easy to flow. just no meme cases. please don't waste my time, i'm not being paid to judge you.

***referring back to evidence by citation but not reminding me of the content, especially if I don't have a speech doc

Things I Am Okay With That Could Actually Help You Win:

***Using sound logic to warrant your arguments (if nuclear bombs drop on a populated area, people will probably die. duh. you dont need evidence for that. you do need evidence that the bomb will drop in the first place, however)

***Getting into the debate of ethics, morality, or any other philosophical concepts. Usually that stuff is reserved for LD and BQ but i think it is paramount in all forms of debate.

***i also love framework/definition debate. i think it's really fascinating in its ability to frame the reality of which your arguments are applied. get into it!

yeah just have fun. i weigh most heavily what is brought up in final speeches when you are offering me reasons for voting, consolidations, etc.

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

Hosea Born

Neosho '14, UARK '18, HSU '20

Coach: Yerger Middle School, Hope

I debated CX in MO on a traditional circuit, hence I end up judging Public Forum and Student Congress more than anything else. In any event I judge, I look for quality over quantity in arguments. Don't just read cards, be able to explain how the evidence supports your position. Use common sense, analysis, and solid logic. I don't mind spreading as long as it is clear and the arguments are good. You'll rarely win the flow if your response is just that you have a more recent source of evidence, tell me what your evidence proves over your opponent. I'll disclose if both teams agree that it is okay. Ask if you have any questions, I am usually more than happy to answer questions about the round after it is over. As always, take my comments as you wish and listen to your coach.

StuCo- Definitely qualify your sources and embody the delegate you are supposed to be. IMO there is no place for spreading in StuCo, I believe that it is quality focused form of debate in both argumentation and persuasion which means your logic has to be sound and you need to show persuasive qualities in your style. Don't abuse personal privileges, only use in emergencies or double entered. Be active in questioning and attentive through the session. Decorum definitely plays into my perception of you as a delegate when ranking. PO is ranked based on order of the session and not showing bias towards any other delegate.

PF: My pet peeve in PF are roadmaps. There is one flow. Unless it gets wild, don't waste time telling me you are going to cover your opponents points then rebuild your case. Go with quality over quantity and don't drop key points or try bringing up new arguments after GCF. I will roll with the flow of the round. If you bring up framework or burdens make sure you know what you are talking about and don't get trapped in just debating the framework. Default burden is pro must prove the resolution brings about an advantage not seen in SQUO, con must show that the squo is better than affirming the resolution. Default framework is cost/ben analysis. Speed is okay as long as you are clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it. If you have questions ask me before the round starts.

CX: I doubt you'll get me judging this that much, though I prefer the traditional style with case debate and disads/T/CP. Speed is fine as long as you are clear. Go with your normal style in the round, just make any off case arguments specific to the aff, if there is not a strong link you will lose the impact.

World Schools: This is a fairly new field that I am judging. Refer to PF paradigm for stylistics/defaults and if you have any specific questions ask before the start of the round. Default to quality debate and argumentation, have solid logic and watch your fallacies. Do not make the entire debate into a definition debate, too many times I have sat through a debate about the definition of "this house" and it doesn't even matter to the debate. Don't get caught in that trap.

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.

Welcome to my paradigm page, I am very glad to see you here. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A JUDGE THAT YOU READ THE THINGS THAT I SAY HERE IF YOU WANT TO WIN MY BALLOT:

To start, my credentials are as follows:

-Nationally ranked 7th in Big Question Debate

-The furthest a debater from Arkansas has ever advanced at the NSDA national tournament

-Arkansas State Champion for collegiate debate.

-Various first place trophies in the debate forms Big Question, Public Forum, IPDA, and Congress

With all of these in mind it is safe to say that I am well versed in all debate forms, though I never competed in policy or Lincoln Douglass debate I do have an great understanding of them.

Now, what does it take to win my ballot?

I am a simple guy, I like solid argumentation that is straight up with the topic and I don't want to see poorly thought out, squirrely argumentation. One would think that would be enough said on the issue, but I will outline what that means.

Public Forum:

-I am traditionalist in debate forms. That is to say that in Public Forum, for example, I do not want to see people running Ks, plans, or especially spreading (brisk speaking is not spreading, spreading is marked by the sharp inhale of breath along with a massive amount of speed! Do not do this if you have any hope of winning my ballot, while I can keep up with you, I am a traditionalist and I know what the format calls for. Don't do it!)

-If you want to win my ballot, make logical arguments and impact them out for me. If you use a weighing mech, then keep using it if you want me to vote on it.

Policy:

-Here I expect to see well thought out plans and argumentation. The restrictions that we have on other debate formats is lifted here, so speed, Ks, and plans are all encouraged. Ultimately do what you're supposed to do as a debater you'll have access to my ballot.

LD:

-*See Public Forum in regards to the rules on speaking*

-This is value debate, please do not lose your value.

IPDA:

-This is meant to be friendly and cordial and you will be judged on that. Don't try to bulldoze one another like you would see in another debate format.

Congress:

-Debaters must further debate at all times to gain the latter half of their points. This is to say that what you need to do (after the authorship/sponsorship speech) is not just give me information, but also refute the other side.

-If I see you just giving me the same information as other debaters you will get no more than a 2 in regards to speech quality

BQ:

-This debate is near and dear to my heart, I competed in it at nationals twice and my senior year it is the debate form that I placed 7th in the nation in. Suffice it to say that I know the ins and outs of this debate especially, and that includes the purposes of each speech. If you violate any of the Big Question principles either in speech purpose or via incorrect argumentation I will vote you down without hesitation.

Public Forum, Big Question, IPDA, and Congress debaters: Do not use a slippery slope argument, a plan, or a K on the resolution or I will drop you.

Beyond that, make sure your arguments are topical and impact them out for you, I am a flow judge and I do not shadow extend your arguments for you. You are not Aaron Rodgers and I am not Davante Adams, there will be no Hail Mary arguments caught by me for you to snatch the dub. Other than that, have fun and go catch some Dubs.

They/Them

I am a debater at the University of Arkansas. I did HS Forensics and Debate at Fayetteville High School and graduated in 2021. I mostly did Big Questions, Congress, and Public Forum.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out! greenlee.m.crow@gmail.com (add me to any email chains please)

Run whatever you want, as long as it's explained well and links.

Saying or running anything that's racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. will result in being voted down immediately.

Please don't be rude. It's okay to be aggressive, but there is a line.

Speaking quickly is fine, but please don’t spread.

Most of my debate experience is in WSD but I do have background in LD, PF, (and now collegiate level Parliamentary debate and IPDA)

In debate I look forward to well-constructed arguments/Speeches, I like organization!! The more sign posting the better, I also appreciate roadmaps, (OFF/ON CLOCK is fine) the more organized you are the better I can flow what you are trying to say. I need a good blend of offense/defense, please make sure to extend your points and build upon them, this will weigh big with me! It is important to engage with your opponent's case material, but you will not win on offense alone. I look for big level impacts and weighing of worlds, I need you to tell me directly who fairs better in "your" world. I will vote how you tell me to; does it boil down to timeframe, magnitude, scope, some sort of combination of factors? You got to be clear with me, I can only weigh what's on the flow. I don't like to infer!

I like quality speeches, refrain from spreading, take your time, and ask for clarifications if you need them from your opponent. This makes for a constructive debate!

Keep in mind, that we attack arguments, NOT people! I will NOT tolerate any mudslinging, so please keep it respectful and kind :)

If you need any clarifications from me, as a judge, during the round please don't hesitate to ask :)

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.

I will update this throughout the day. My old paradigm was deleted when I created a new account. Here's the basics for now:

Speed is okay, but do not sacrifice clarity just to go faster. I really don't like listening to garbled speeches full of ums, uhs, oh-yeahs, and the like. I can listen to it, but I don't like it at all and I think you're better than that. Besides, I've done wpm research on disfluent spreading and the truth is you're not going faster when you double-clutch breathe and run over your own words.

Clash is what debate is all about. Make it happen. Answer every important argument your opponent makes. If you're not going to answer some arguments, you still have to tell me why they're not important enough to answer or I'm going to assume you're avoiding them because you don't have good answers. That's not good. Practice grouping, too. I really appreciate the efficiency of grouping arguments and answering them with single responses.

Impact analysis should always refer back to the weighing mech for the round. It's great that something has high probability and magnitude, but what does that have to do with the way you've told me to evaluate the argument? Explain.

I also like end-of-speech summaries. This isn't going to win or lose you the round, but it's very nice. I like them way more than I like overviews. Give me a good "at the end of the day, judge..." something before the timer goes off and it'll go a long way in helping me understand the core momentum of your position.

Oh... and please please don't ramble on after your time expires. End your speech before your timer goes off. I'd appreciate it.

Okay. Check back for updates between rounds. Sorry I had to write this so quickly.

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.

Clayton Kincade

Cabot High School 2021 Alumni

Hello! My name is Clayton, and I did Speech and Debate for 6 years while in high school. While I primarily did speech, my junior year onward, I did debate on the side. I qualified twice for Nationals in WSD, as well as winning best overall delegate at ACTAA Congress in 2019! This experience is where I will be basing most of my judging.

Congress:

I prefer speeches that are clearly organized with a teaser, conclusion, and roadmap. When speaking, provide credible sources (don't make claims or statements without backing it up). Try and provide new arguments not provided in the round when speaking, if possible; this helps keep the debate fresh for everyone involved. Make sure that during the questioning period, you adequately respond to questions and don't circle around what's being asked. Be kind to your fellow delegates and don't speak over them or patronize them. Overall, I value fluid speeches that are well-spoken and easy to follow.

WSD:

1. For speaking points, I value a good "public speaking" voice. Do not spread or rush through the content. Make sure speeches are well organized, follow a template, and flow from each speaker to the next. Sign-posting is ideal for organization, but treat these segments nonetheless as you're speaking a normal sentence--AKA don't fall into a policy style of speaking. Enunciate all words and have tonal inflection that helps keep me engaged.

2. For content points, I highly regard the "world" aspect of world schools. Arguments that are international, unless specifically regarded as a U.S-centric topic, will always be preferred. Respond to each point the opposing side brings up, but don't fall into the "list" trap of going through all the specific issues over having clear organization. Having a debate about framing is okay, but making it a large issue during the round ends up giving everyone involved a headache (and means I can't judge well)!. Organization is key for having a great argument, so find a structure that works well for your team and stick to it! Ultimately, remain friendly and cordial with one another. Being disrespectful or rude to your opponents during questioning or during speaks is unacceptable, and will most likely result in a loss.

If given the option, I will always disclose my decision and provide reasons why. I'm not the best at flowing, so I will mainly look for how each team responds to the broad arguments of one another and provides the most convincing argument for overall arg/content points (though I will still flow).

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.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading alone but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here. Don't try to run Progressive theory before the resolution or run Disclosure Theory, won't hold water with me.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

Hello, Debaters, Speakers, and Interpreters! I'm Tonya Reck, and I'm a debate coach at Arkansas School for Math, Science, and the Arts in Hot Springs, AR. I've taught Theatre, Communication, Speech, and Debate in public school for nine years (plus a lot more) in Texas and Arkansas.

For Tabroom:

I have experience judging most events, and I'm willing to judge any debate, congress, or forensics event style. I'm glad to hear all students and support their progress and achievements.

Students:

First, let me say how glad I am that you are participating in a Speech and Debate tournament. I am here to help you advance in life and public speaking. I am also here to celebrate your accomplishments! Win or lose your round, there is so much to gain by participating in debate, and I hope I can help to move you forward.

Are you new to debate?

If you are a novice debater- have no fear! I hope I can help you recognize your strengths and help you get to the next level. EVERYONE starts somewhere. Huge props for stepping into debate! Pretty much everyone starts learning from zero. All that is expected of you is to be the best you can be here today, right, now, just as you are. You don't have to be like anyone else. Just bring your best and do that. And then don't stop. Keep learning and don't give up. You will get better every time.

Are you an experienced Debater?

If you are experienced and ready to try new things- OK. I want to support students who are trying new things, taking intellectual risks, and learning new ways of doing things. Stay intellectually humble and gracious to all your opponents. Learn something new from every judge and every competitor. Keep growing. Keep it fresh. Listen to yourself- are you repeating debate clichés? Using jargon? Would the average person in Wal-Mart on Saturday night understand you? Are you persuading and compelling the judge9s)? Is this an info dump? Are you making the most of every round? What are your debate goals? What do you need to do to get there? Are you doing it?

Are you nervous?

Be prepared. Be rehearsed. Be well-researched. Be organized. Put your energy into your debate.

What do I like to see from you in a round?

Give me the best you've got. This round is for you to shine and grow. Follow the rules, but otherwise, go for it.

I think we are all here to learn. I'm still learning, too! So, seek first to understand. Then be understood.

I like to think that this is a marketplace of ideas. So, if you are reading this a few days ahead- take this debate topic to the dinner table; to people who see life a little differently from you. Talk to children. Have honest conversations with real people. Find out how they think. How do they see your ideas? If it doesn't work on the street-- it might not fly in the round either.

How important is professionalism?

Very. Sportsmanship, kindness, humility, integrity, understanding. All of these will get you a long way in life and in debate. Ask yourself some questions. Who have I enjoyed debating against the most? Who has treated me the best as an opponent? What do I expect of myself? How can I raise the level of the round and the tournament?

What about Debate Ethics and Equality?

How you treat others says a lot about you. Experienced debaters and congressional debaters, please note. Even small behaviors that might mean to diminish another will actually diminish yourself. Be mindful of your humility. Be mindful of the humanity of others. Realize that you come into every round as equals with equal chances.

Does nonverbal communication matter?

Absolutely. So often, it's not what we say but how we say it. True in life and debate.

Do I have pet peeves?

Of course.

Talking too fast, debate jargon, lack of humility.

Cardinal sins?

Yes. Play by the book. Don't falsely accuse your opponent of breaking the rules. It's OK to be on the offense and be forward. But don't get out of bounds or run over people to get to the top of the heap. This applies to life as well as debate. I often quote from the rules and official ballots in the comments.

Speech and Interpretation

Give us the very best that you've got. If you are reading this well in advance of the tournament, start quality pieces of literature for interpretation. Then be true to what is going on in the piece, and above all, be true to yourself. The best pieces create the illusion of the first time. Something that seems effortless, genuine, and sincere. Well-rehearsed in a way that doesn't seem like something that was ever rehearsed. These pieces will always take the 1 on the ballot. Likewise, pieces that still are shaky on the memory work, awkward in blocking, unclear in characterization, etc., will not pull out a miracle. Hard work ahead of time - investing in yourself and your work- will pay off.

New to Speech and Interp

The very best thing you can do is just to get in there and start doing it. Of course, no one is perfect the first time(s) they try something. We just keep working and getting better and better. The best have learned from the best. Make a note of what people are doing and how that is working for them. Find things - every time- that you can do. There is so much to matching the piece to the performer. Every minute you spend finding and cutting a piece for your talents is well invested. Keep growing. Don't let the initial bumps discourage you. It's not where you start that matters.

Finally

In short, do all the good things your teacher taught you. Bring the very best you can, and I will do my best for you to walk away with some solid advice to move forward as a debater.

I'm pulling for each of you and wish you the best in the tournament and life! Good luck!

Trey Roark

She/Her/They/Them - Radically Thotty

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

If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism (sorry bout it)

Also, cross-ex is like... the most important part to me...

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 bitchy, 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 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 fvck the res that's totally fine 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 definitely 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 too ;)

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 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 on 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 I guess 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 the ways in which 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, etc.

Debates 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 ;) (This doesn't mean dancing btw - Asya told me I had to clarify that)

experience: cx, pf, ld, bq, congress, world schools

cx

include me on the email chain. it's pretty rare that i will vote on t, that would be a very special circumstance. tell my how many off case positions you're running please. i'm fine with any type of argument as long as you articulate it well. i feel like there isn't really anything unique to put here, if you have specific question you can feel free to ask me. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

public forum

i'm fine with any kind of argument. my decision is more often than not based off the line by line debate. be sure to have real impacts that you carry across the flow and weigh against your opponents. if there is a weighing mech make sure it's actually one worth while and that you continue relating back to it and explaining how you win under it. take full advantage of cross- don't just start rambling off an argument during that time, ask questions and move on, alsoif you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech. arguments need to have warrants and links. i'm fine with speed, but not if you're sacrificing clarity- also speed doesn't equate to spreading.

lincoln douglas

speed is okay, but not at the cost of clarity. no need to spread but if you absolutely must then you should warn me/ your opponent and probably send out the doc. please do not turn the whole round into a framework debate. if you want to debate frameworks the whole time, don't allow it to dominate your speech time. be sure to actually be relating your arguments/ impacts back to the framework you've chosen to run. i am big on line by line, that's what makes the decision. i am fine with any type of arguments, as long as you have a link/ warrant to the case you're making. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

any homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc will result in an L. respect your opponents.

I participated in Speech and Debate all 4 years of High School. I competed in local tournaments in Arkansas and Missouri as well as competing at tournaments around the country. I am a two time National Qualifier once in LD the second time in WSD. I have competed in nearly every NSDA event. As a result, I appreciate things that differentiate them. I am not against any form of argumentation as long as you do the link work to make it make sense. I debate collegiately for Morehouse College and do Parli and BP Debate, so I have no issue with spreading. I am the current National Champion for the Social Justice Debates (SJD Style), so engaging your evidence rather than just throwing the last name of a card out is preferable.

NOTE: While I can flow high speeds, if you are unintelligible I will set my pen down and refuse to flow your speech. I do not accept having a case be sent to me, Debate is at its basis about oration and the ability to convince, it is not a writing contest.

I am not a fan of personal attacks or statements that generalize entire communities, while Debate is a forum for all ideas and those discussions can become heated, being civil is what differentiates debaters from politicians.

In terms of argumentation, I don't have a problem with niche discussions, but being squirrely and running from debates will not earn you any brownie points. Make sure your arguments always link back to the resolution at hand.

Last thing, have fun and be respectful it takes a lot of work to speak publically and we don't want to have anyone feeling as if they don't belong in this activity.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round begins.

I believe deabters are entitled to an RFD from judges, if you find the feedback on your ballot to be insufficient or want more clarity feel free to email me at caleb.strickland@morehouse.edu

I judge majorly based on the flow. This means that I primarily look at argumentation and refutation. Are your arguments well supported, is there a clear warrant and impacts, do your refutations directly apply to and negate your opponents points, did you drop any points, etc.? In order to ensure a good flow, so that I can better judge the round, competitors should not spread and should use signposts during speeches. I do not tolerate ad hominem fallacies (personal attacks to the opponent) within debate rounds. Debate should remain respectful to all parties involved, this includes groups of people being debated about or mentioned within the debate, not just the competitors and judges.

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! :)