- good with speed

- fine with progressive (low tolerance for frivolous theory)

- fine with disclosure

- flow judge (former LD debator)

- give verbal feedback and fine with questions

- can be harsh (sorry, not intentional)

I am a limited experience judge.

1. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, I want to be able to follow along with your argument clearly.

2. Persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponent's.

3. Be respectful to each-other and have fun!

Looking for Opening Remarks to be at a pace that can be understood and pauses and tone changes are made when a point or idea needs emphasis. Logical organization is is used along with a summary of points.

Looking for questions used in Cross examination to be incorporated in Rebuttal. Evolve your case as the round progresses.

Summarize your arguments in rebuttal in organized manner. If extra time, restate your main points so judge clearly understands your overall argument.

Be respectful of your opponent and treat them with dignity.

I'm in college and debated novice LD at a couple of tournaments in high school, so I know the basics, but I'm definitely inexperienced with judging, so please speak slowly and if you need to use advanced debate terms, make sure you briefly explain it. Additionally, I'm familiar with critical topics like capitalism so I am receptive to more progressive argumentations.

I am a lay judge who does not understand jargon (e.g. words such as solvency, counterplan, kritik, disad). Treat the debate like a performance. Do not spread or use progressive arguments. I do flow. I prefer truth over tech. I like when you do impact calculus and make my decision easier for me. I do not care what you wear. Please do not run theory. If you have written a storytelling version of your AC or NC, you should read that instead of reading a traditional LD case with all your cards cut. I listen to cross-ex, but I do not pay much attention. You should set up a big picture that is easy for me to follow in your later speeches.

I competed in LD throughout High School and I am currently doing Policy in college.

I will be more familiar with an LD topic than any other form of debate so if I am judging you in PF or CX so if you have very technical things in the topic you will need to explain those more in your case.

Clash is my favorite thing in a round - Don't be two ships passing in the night say something and do a debate. That being said don't just say things to say things an incoherent argument is worse than no argument at all. Evaluate what your opponent is saying and respond to it in a way that makes sense. Respect your opponent and their arguments.

I will drop you without a second thought if you run a joke argument. During a college debate round I watched someone ran a coloring performance if you run anything like this getting me to vote for you will be very difficult. I love flair, critical, and performative arguments but it needs to be based in either theory or I need a reason why what your saying matters. I try to limit my intervention as a judge so don't expect me to do any work for you.

LD

LD is a theory and morality-based debate so I expect a focus on the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The debtors need to tell me why I should care about their V-C and why their V-C is better than their opponents and should be preferred for the round. I will not do any work for any side you have the responsibility of stating the impacts of your arguments and why these impacts are better than your opponents. You also have to extend your own arguments throughout the debate for them to matter. I'm fine with CP's, Theory, and K's you just need to explain it well and make sure the impacts and analysis are clear.

I will say I think traditional LD tends to be more successful than critical forms of debate just because of the time constraints. If you're confident that you can get out what you need to with the time you're given then go for it. But the 4 and 3-minute aff speeches do make it difficult to get out what you need to.

I have zero patience for being rude to your opponent. Especially if your opponent is not as versed in critical arguments as you are. This is an educational activity, not an opportunity for you to pretend to be cooler than you are.

CX

I'm fine with any type of argument as long as it makes sense and you explicitly state the impacts.

Topicality

You need to be explicit about what the violation that the other team has committed is. I tend not to care about fairness as an impact especially when you just make this claim in a vacuum. However, if you can tie it to a structural claim I'll be more likely to buy the argument. Make sure you're extending this throughout the entire round. I also need to know what ground you've lost as a result of the Aff being non-topical. Don't run topicality in front of me if the violation is small it will not be hard for the other team to convince me that they are topical.

K

I like K's I think critical arguments are important to increasing education in debate and I think that they bring a type of education that doesn't typically exist in the debate space. That being said do not run a K if the only link you have is a link of omission. Language is super important for K's so make sure you're being explicit with what you're saying. I think K's certainly can win against topical cases you just have to show why the impacts on par with nuclear extinction. I tend to find structure claims to be the most persuasive.

Performative Things

I think performances can be good but you need to have a way that your opponent can actually engage with your argument. I don't particular enjoy it when performance teams get overly angry or hostile to try to prevent their opponents from arguing.

Framework

My hot takes here are basically the same as topicality. I do think the framework is generally more true than topicality.

My paradigm is generally the same for CX as it is for LD you need to extend your stuff and make the impacts clear.

Listening is not an impact.

PF

I did PF I think twice? My same general rules for other debates apply - don't spread your event is not made for it and I'm more inclined to believe that it's unfair for your opponent. I will call cards so they better say what you tell me that you say. Also generally don't take racism and blow it into some insane impact because you want to win an argument. Impacts and links should make sense.

General

I'm fine with speed just let me know at the beginning of the round if you're going to be spreading.

Flashing/Email Chains should not take forever if it becomes excessive I will make you use Prep.

I'm fine with flex prep

Read analytics slower if you want me to flow them

Keep in mind this is digital for the time being I expect you to understand your own technological constraints and adjust accordingly especially in regard to speed.

If you need to use a graphic description of SA to win you don't deserve to win.

I am a 5th year LD coach for BASIS Phoenix in Arizona.

I did LD in high school (2009 - 2013) primarily in the Oklahoma local circuit attending a small private Christian school that no longer exists (American Christian School in Bartlesville, OK if you're curious).

Add me to e-mail chains: chisumdebate@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

- Don't spread.

- Traditional LD good. Policy good. K’s good. Philosophy good. All of these have the caveat that if I don’t understand the argument and its warrants, I won’t vote on it.

- I have and will vote for non-topical cases, but I have a high threshold for doing so. My prior is that topicality is good for debate, and that debate itself is good. You are free to try to convince me otherwise in-round.

- Frivolous Theory bad (“I know it when I see it”). Tricks bad.

- Give voters; be clear how you want me to evaluate the round.

- Warrants, warrants, warrants. I need clear and developed reasons to believe your argument.

- Be respectful.

EXTENDED VERSION

Presentation

As said above, do not spread. That goes double in an online format where clarity is already impacted. I'm concerned about the quality, not the quantity of arguments presented, so excessive speed is both unnecessary and harmful. If you are going too fast for my taste, I will say "Clear!" After saying "clear" twice, I will simply stop flowing if you are still going too fast.

A lot of people ask me "How fast is too fast?" Here's my answer: Speak to me as you would speak to the most intelligent person you know who is not at all involved in debate.

Argumentation

I'm willing to vote on basically any argument that is well-warranted, clearly explained, and persuasively argued.

I have limited familiarity with most K and phil literature, so do not assume I will understand your arguments beforehand. If you do not believe you can explain the literature within the round in a way I can understand, probably don't run that K.

Policy Stuff

In terms of impact weighing, I tend to be more friendly to weighing on probability over magnitude (especially on extinction scenarios that are poorly warranted and obviously false). Instead of thinking solely of doomsday scenarios, risk evaluation is a much more practical way of thinking about impacts (and is much closer to how policy-makers in the real world make decisions).

For counter-plans, be careful that you are actually competitive to the Aff. I'm iffy on some of the more "tricky" CPs (Condo CPs, certain PICs, Agent CPs etc.), and I find perms or theory args against them to be fairly persuasive, so be careful about that.

Theory and Topicality

I have a high threshold for theory. In my view, theory ought to be a check on actual abuse, so if you're intending to run frivolous theory (I know it when I see it; you know you're running it), striking me is probably a good idea.

There are two questions that I will be willing to outright answer in the middle of a round:
1. “Judge, do you consider my theory (or my opponent’s theory) argument ‘frivolous’ theory.”
2. “Judge, do you consider my case (or my opponent’s case) topical.”

If I consider a theory arg frivolous, it will not be evaluated on my ballot, and it does not need to be addressed in rebuttals. If I do not consider a theory argument frivolous, it will be evaluated on my ballot and can be won by either side.

If I consider a case topical, I will not evaluate any topicality arguments on my ballot. If I do not consider a case topical, then I will be evaluating topicality arguments on my ballot, and either side may win that portion of the debate.

Other

I am a stickler on warrants. I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow, the only way I'll vote on it is if your opponent drops it entirely (and you extend it). Note: just because you have a card that makes a claim does not mean you have a warrant for why that claim is true.

If your opponent drops an argument, don't assume you automatically win the debate, or even that portion of the debate. You must extend that argument and tell me why it's important that it goes through.

Give voters. Tell me exactly why you should win the round. If you do your job as a debater, my RFD should sound extremely similar to the end of your last rebuttal.

As a last point, debaters should be respectful to each other and have fun. There's no reason to ever be disrespectful to an opponent or engage in any behavior that makes debate a less accessible and enjoyable activity.

I am more versed in traditional debate, but if you want to run complex cases then just explain it well. If you talk fast, please send your case at the beginning of the round.

I am a parent judge. No spreading, speak clearly.

I prefer traditional debate.

Assume that I know nothing about the topic. Your job is to educate me about the topic and share all relevant details etc in order for me to judge properly.

Evidence is big, I try my best to flow.

Don't use too much debate jargon.

When debating, make sure to refer to the impact and key voters to facilitate clear understanding for me, and what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

email for email chains - Kathleen.clark1@gmail.com

New to the game so I don't have many rules. Please no excessive spreading and speak at a reasonable speed. If I can't understand what you're saying I can't grade you on it. I would like to see an emphasis on impact if possible and a justification for why your argument matters in the real world beyond the debate framework. Other than that hit me with your best shot! :)

I am a relatively experienced judge and have competed in LD. I need to be able to hear and understand your case so please do not spread. I value a strong framework, relevant and well-used evidence, and good blocks.

Traditional judging style: Values debate. Interactive exchange of ideas. Will note which framework was used to determine the winner and why that framework was chosen. The winning framework will be the one that was best defended. The winner will be who best meets the standard through offensive argumentation. Arguments unlinked from a standard will be given less weight.

I competed exclusively in Lincoln Douglas debate in high school and then helped judge and coach high school LD while in college. I returned to judging and coaching in 2021 after twenty years away from the sport.

I am a certified theatre educator and director with over 15 years of directing experience.

1) Movement - how choreography is incorporated whether it is body language of different characters to make them stronger, or use of a black book creatively.

2) Fluid story - I should know from beginning to end the rising action, climax, falling action, and resolve in your story. If it is a POI, I should see the same thing in the cutting of the pieces.

3) Hidden message - from the teaser to the introduction, all the way to the end of the piece, I want to be able to understand the hidden message of why you picked this piece(s) to support something you are passionate about.

4) Characters - There should be distinguished characters in each of the pieces. If you have multiple characters in one piece, each one should have a different "story", body language and voice to tell them a part.

For LD:

1) Evidence - using evidence sufficiently to support the claims in your argument.

2) Argument - your argument has to make sense, meaning you can't just argue that your opponent is wrong because of everything you already said. In cross I expect a new form of argument that still supports your stance.

3) Claims - I should hear a speech in your debate that clearly states the issues and how you resolve it.

1. I do not judge very often, so please be thorough in your explanations

2. No spreading, I will drop you if I cannot understand what you are saying

3. I do not flow

4. I do not disclose under any circumstance

5. Do not be aggressive in your rebuttals, be respectful to one another

6. Speak loudly and clearly ( please remove mask if comfortable when talking)

7. Time Yourself

8. No progressives

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

Hello! I'm a coach who didn't do speech and debate in high school because my school was too small to have a team. I love a good debate, though, and I currently coach LD, BQ, Impromptu, DI, OO, Info, Poetry Interp and OSW.

I'm a high school English teacher, and I read the news and studies for fun. Yes, really. I'm that person.

How to win my vote:

- BQ: Please no Policy jargon/setup in your case. I don't love burdens, and if I hear "solvency" I will count it against you HARD. Those are CX jargon words and neither of them fit the point of BQ. Burdens CAN be done well, but basically every other CX term should stay in policy.

- Congress:I want REAL, off the cuff rebuttals. No AI. I will ALWAYS give more points to people who further the debate by addressing the points someone just made in a shaky but REAL way and not something that's been practiced or generated using AI.

- Don't spread. Seriously - I want the time to digest what you're saying, so you need to speak at a reasonable pace. I'll tell you to slow down by saying "Slower!" if it's an issue, but unless you're flying through your case you'll be fine.

- I'm ok with Ks, but your links need to be meticulously logical. Your link chain needs to be reasonable between individual links so that each OBVIOUSLY leads to the next; if you start at the resolution and end at global destruction, make sure each link makes this overall leap seem like it could actually happen. Prove to me that Point A automatically leads to Point B and that there's no other alternatives that can happen EXCEPT Point B.

During the round:

- I'm looking for framework clash. Why is your framework the one we need to look at this resolution through? What makes yours more favorable?

- I'm very interested in the impacts. If it doesn't touch our current reality, what's the point of debating the resolution? I want you to go through why it matters to us, in this world, right now. This is what I'd deem the most important part of the debate!

- I don't mind if you finish your sentence after time is called, but don't prolong this too much. I'll give you about a 5 second grace period.

- Please stand while giving speeches, but you can sit for cross-ex.

- Be respectful and have fun :)

Hi, I competed in speech for all four years of high school. I've now judged/coached for about 5 years! :) Here's what I have (in terms of my rules) to say about speech and debate:

For everyone: please don't try to shake my hand (it wont affect your score, i get its for being nice and thanking me for judging your round) but idk where your hands have been.

SPEECH: Have fun, don't be nervous, and do you best. I judge fully based off the performance. If you go over the grace period of your performance, cool, but like, know you can't be ranked the 1. I love topics of public health, healthcare, child/maternal health, and health equity.

DEBATE: I am a lay judge, however I've now been judging traditional debate for 3 years (mostly PF and LD, BQ, but I know it's not traditional debate lol). Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. If you want me to disclose, I can. However, I will not disclose during elimination/outrounds!

Please make sure you can take your own times! I will be taking my time from now on to make sure the round runs as fairly and efficiently.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I can understand your sources (Name, Date) plzzz

Have your cards ready and set to go, in case I want to see them!

Checking and reading cards is not a part of prep time, but if you go over like 2 1/2 min or more, I'll start counting it towards your prep time.

Have fun, be cool, make me laugh, you could get extra pts, idk (life is short, yolo). Also, no sexism, racism, or any kind of hatred because it will lead you into an auto-drop. ALSO, yes to the email chain! abhern12@asu.edu

CONGRESS: I love clash! Speak eloquently and loudly please! Answer all of your questions succinctly as you can during CX! If you make me laugh in the round, that could possibly help lol. Please keep the debate as creative and interesting towards the bills you want to pass. Repeating arguments are irrelevant, please always add a new/interesting point during your speeches :) Have fun too! :) (if u talk about public health, delivery of healthcare systems, access/utilization of healthcare, child/maternal health, or health inequity and disparities, maybe you might catch my eye and get ranked idk) ((public health is cool))

Hello! Good luck and I look forward to watching you debate!

One of my huge paradigm is that I am pretty anti-spreading. I can listen and keepup - but I don't like it. I think a talented debater can make their case, in an articulate way, without needing to rapid fire information. Please make sure to speak loudly and clearly, so I can follow along with your debate case and can hear the impact of your arguments. Other than that - have fun! Be kind! Fight hard! Enjoy! :)

Style:

• Speed: Speak clearly regardless of your speed. Don’t use speed as a tool of exclusion. You should make sure your opponent is okay with spreading in order to have a productive debate. If you need to speak quickly to make all of your arguments slow down on the important points, I will only evaluate arguments that make it to my flow.
• Flex Prep: I have no problem if debaters choose to use some of their prep time for additional clarification questions.
• Be respectful and professional! This is supposed to be fun and educational, don’t be rude.

Content:

• Theory: Demonstrable, round-specific abuse is necessary for me to vote on theory arguments. I would rather hear arguments that address the substantive issues of the round so please consider the legitimacy of the argument on the discourse of the round before running Theory.
• Kritik: I love a good, thorough K argument! (with strong links and impacts)
• Of course counterplans and similar arguments are fine provided they are topical.
• Theory shells aren't my favorite, but I'll listen.
• I will entertain most arguments as long as you are deliberate about your choices and provide significant and high-quality impacts. If you can't explain to me how this argument weighs out in evaluation of the round, I am not likely to vote on that argument. If nobody does a good job providing me with a quality impact calculus, then I am likely to start looking for my own reasons to prefer one side over the other instead of remaining tabula rasa. Do your work so I don’t have to do it for you!

Hello! My name is Kay Karlin and my pronouns are they/them. In high school I did four years of LD debate and two of congress. I've judged policy, PF and LD for five years. It is most important to me that competitions understand their own arguments and are able to convince me.

For all debate: email for email chains is kaykarlin6@gmail.com I understand technology issues but I set a timer for 5 minutes for any wifi/email/google doc confusion. Anything past 5 minutes comes out of prep time!

Extentions should include Year, Author, Tagline, idc what order, but you must include all these!

Arguments against people's identities, basic human rights, or that are aligned with racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry will not be tolerated and will get you dropped and reported to your coach.

I am open to speed, but I will say clear if I can't understand you. However, as a coach and in general I am anti-spreading. I think that spreading is bad for debate, because it encourages us to make the space more inaccessible in order to win arguments. Again, I am fine with speed, you can spread in front of me, but I think that we should make a shift as a community away from spreading.

LD Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues but I'm open to Ks/CPs/Theory so long as you can sustain your argument. If you NEED to run seven off cases to solve inequity in the debate space, I want to give you the space to do that. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated. (Do not run disclosure theory with me. It's bad for debate/small school accessibility and I will drop you.)

Definition debate is boring!!! Have a productive discourse!

For Ks-- my threshold is a bit higher but I never want to prevent you from making arguments you're passionate about. Just be prepared to highlight/defend/extend your link, impact, and alt. (Fine with K-affs, Identity Ks, etc)

I will drop speaker points for prefacing. (Using your time to question your opponent to frontload your case with arguments that haven't yet been presented in round)

DO NOT DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE-- all of your impacts should be evaluated (and will be evaluated by me) under the framework. I do like to see competing ideas of frameworks, but I understand that timing makes that difficult, but I want to see debate about which world creates more benefit.

If you plan to debate in LD like it's Policy-lite I am not the judge for you. Framework is one of the most important things to me.

Policy Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues, and I'm not a huge fan of theory, but debate is your world and I'm just living in it while we're in round and I'm open to whatever you can justify. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated.

I love to see speeches explicitly comparing the Aff and Neg plans and impact calculations based off that. Prove to me why your argument is better.

Tag Teaming for CX is fine, but I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space, but I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

PF Paradigm:

PF is the area of debate in which I have the least experience, but I like to see a healthy clash.

I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space.

I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

- Explain thoroughly. You know your arguments very well, but they will be new to me so please explain them clearly. Your claims should be logically sound. If you are throwing out a crazy claim or card that seems contrary to logic, you're going to have to explain it very well.

- Try not to spread.

Please do not spread.

If I feel like you are talking too fast, I will ask you to be clear twice. After that, if I can't understand you I will simply stop flowing your arguments. I believe that spreading is poison to the debate community. That is my single most important rule, and as for the rest, if you want to consider me as a stock traditional judge that's probably the easiest way to think about my philosophy. To wit:

I do not want to be added to your email chain, as I should not have to read your case in order to understand it. If there is an evidence dispute or I feel like there is any other reason I need to see a card, I will ask.

I value topicality above all else. Debate should be an educational experience focused on the resolution. Regarding Ks, your arguments should not simply be ones that you could repeat ad-nauseam for any topic and a lot of Ks don't pass that test. In fairness, a Neg Kcan be topical and I will evaluate it accordingly if so. However, K Affs by their very nature generally do not meet the burden of defending the resolution and are there is a high probability of me just dropping you if you run one.

With regards to theory, I'll be particularly receptive to any theory as to why most forms of progressive debate devalue the debate space if your opponents choose to go down that route. This includes Condo. I don't mind a CP (singular) from Neg as long as it's topical and can't be easily permed.

For weighing, I prefer probability over other mechanisms and I am receptive to timeframe as well. I'm fine with reasonable magnitude weighing too. However, we live in a reality in which extinction has not yet occurred despite the countless number of dire warnings given by debaters over the years. I feel like debaters are intelligent enough to understand the distinction of something that could arguably be true vs. an impact that is just included in your case as a magnitude bomb.

Finally, I also recognize that there are some things that are objectively true. If you have a card telling me the sky is green, that does not mean I have to accept it as the truth, even if your opponent does not have a specific card refuting that (because why would they?). Tabula Rasa I am not, but for any arguments that are not straight-up factually incorrect and flow through, I will absolutely find them credible regardless of any previous opinions I have on a given topic.

The bottom line is that if you're being intellectually honest and recognize that a debate round exists within the confines the real world, that will maximize your chances of picking up my ballot.

I expect that each debater will present their case. There will be no attempt to talk past or ignore your opponents case, it is a debate after all, you must attempt to argue against your opponent. My vote will be based on the positive and negative points offered by both sides.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. This means I am comfortable at 70-80% of spreading for top debaters. If you spread full speed, you will lose me. So far I have been fine with prelim rounds, but not out rounds with a 2-tech-judge panels.

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-LARP: My favorite arguments. Warrant well.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair to make sure your opponent does not get educated with your argument per your value. I default to education first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon.

-Trix: Not a fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you run trix even when your opponent drops/concedes it. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

I’m an oldie with gray hair, but when it comes to debate, I am pretty open to new ideas.

There are no arguments that you can’t run.

I don’t believe debate has “rules”, that said society does, so stay profesh.

I want to see:

Good, well thought out arguments

MPX - make it count

Debaters to know which arguments they are winning and to choose wisely

Clear reasons why I ought to vote for you

Debaters who do not give up, and give their best to the activity.

I don’t believe that debate is about winning or losing. I believe that it is about sharpening your mind and learning how to listen. But hey, winning is fun, so give it a go.

General

I competed in VLD for Brophy in High School for four years. I did some national circuit debate, and I broke at Harvard once. I did British Parliamentary Debate at USC. In general, I'm fine with anything as long as it's justified.

Speed

I can handle some speed. Clarity is key, but there is a certain point at which no level of clarity can make your speed comprehensible. I'll shout speed if necessary.

Theory

I default to drop the arg, competing interps, and no rvis. Feel free to define and warrant your own parameters.

Kritiks

Go for it. I tend to think the links are weak and the alts easily permed though. Also, philosophy jargon is not a warrant.

Weighing

Do it.

Extension

Can be short, but I need a link, warrant, and impact.

Speaks

I evaluate based on persuasive/rhetorical ability.

25 is a terrible/problematic speaker

27.5 is an average speaker

30 is a perfect speaker

Hello! My name is Claire Mullings and apparently I am going to be your judge. So I did LD for 3 years in high school so I'm comfortable with the different types of LD debate. I can judge a traditional round all day if you want, but I'm also fine with CP, plans, DAs, and Ks. My biggest thing is making a space to compete so please don't do anything sketchy :) Please be nice to each other. Make sure you are making extensions yourself with the card name and warrant, not just "extend this card..." because tbh it will mean nothing. I want clear voters at the end and remind me constantly how you tie back to framework.

Traditional: No hate to my traditional debaters. I can definitely judge your round and will definitely look to framework and impact weighing.

CP: I like CPs because I think they're interesting, however I am wary with PICs because lets be real... they are abusive. However, I love it when the neg proposes an alternative to solve the harms of the aff.

Plans: I love creative plans but make sure not to spec your opponent out of the room. However, the more creative the better and I'd love to see it.

DA: sure, all good. I don't love the drawn out link chains... but hey! prove that it works :)

K: I love Ks on the aff or neg and ran a couple of identity Ks when I debated so I think its very interesting. I will warn you though my pet peeve is a debater who cannot answer questions about their K due to a lack of background reading. I also don't like it when people weaponize marginalized groups in order to win the ballot so make sure you are being an advocate.

Framework: Whether the round is progressive or traditional framework is a really big deal for me. I enjoy seeing an actual clash and weighing. However if the frameworks are low key the same don't waste your time and just concede framework since I will probably not differentiate between them and you will just have wasted time.

Phil: I like philosophy cases and think they can be super cool however I am not familiar with everything. So I'm down for you to run it just make sure you break it down nice for me so I can understand the philosophy. I also hate it when people run high Phil just to talk their opponent out of the room.

Non-T: I don't love non-T but that doesn't mean I won't listen to it. I definitely believe that sometimes we need to be non-T and as long as you can defend yourself against what your opponent runs for T without shutting them entirely out of the debate for lack of offense in your case.... it works for me.

Theory/Topicality: I hate frivolous theory. I will say it again. I hate frivolous theory. That being said if there is an abuse I will definitely listen and take it into account. Honestly I have a high threshold for running it, but once a legitimate abuse has been proven, I am pretty likely to lean towards the T.

I will never, ever allow any form of discriminatory language in round towards competitors or anyone else. Please be polite and respectful.

If you have any questions or need to add me to the email chain my email is cmullings@cox.net. Thanks!!

I am a lay parent judge. This is my first time judging debate. I will be flowing but please speak slowly and clearly and explain all of your arguments thoroughly.

LD:

I am unfamiliar with debate jargon so please present a well organized, logical argument with a clear narrative. I am also unfamiliar with the topic so it is your job to convince me about your side and why I should vote for you over your opponent. Signposting is appreciated.

Please speak at a reasonable pace. No spreading whatsoever. I will only weigh on arguments that I can understand.

Please stick to traditional LD but if you are going to run anything progressive clear warranting is key.

Make my ballot easy for me! Present clear impact weighing and key voters in the 2AR/2NR. The points brought up in the second half of these speeches should be similar if not identical to my reason for decision on my ballot.

Most importantly be respectful and have fun!

I flow when judging LD debate, on paper, with pens. I do this because before coming to a decision about which side has won the debate, I carefully review those notes. Debaters should present to me in a way which will allow that flow to represent their points - speaking at a pace and meter that are easily followed, emphasizing key points, signaling change in topic clearly.

Because I spend time reviewing my notes before reaching a decision, I do not disclose at the end of the rounds.

I focus on how clearly and completely each side has laid out their argument, followed through consistently, and responded to their opponent knowledgeably. I am not impressed by theatrics, and expect both participants to be respectful to one another at all times.

He/Him/His. Hi I'm Nik. I was LD captain at Arizona College Prep for 3 years, and now I’m a data engineer. It's really hard to get a 30 from me, but if you do you're probably my new best friend. Would I like to be on the email chain? Why, I thought you'd never ask! nikpearce1@gmail.com

TLDR: Tech > Truth, Pref me if you read Bostrom

Speed: Slow down if I'm not familiar with what you're reading. I'm fine with almost any speed, but if you start slurring or becoming incomprehensible in some manner, I will say clear. The more times I say clear, the more speaker points you'll probably lose.

Order: Theory/T > K > all else, unless you tell me otherwise.

Framing: I need to know how to weigh the round. Therefore, I need a good framework debate with a clear winner by the end of the 2AR in order for me to make a decision. You really don't want me to make this decision for you, as one of you probably won't be happy. This doesn't mean the framing debate needs to take forever (if it does, I probably won't be happy), but, 15-30 seconds at the top of the rebuttal wouldn't hurt.

Ks: I'll have an easier time understanding lit I'm familiar with, which includes Boudrillard, Foucault, Cap, Anthro, Citizenship, Militarism, Set Col. That doesn't mean you shouldn't run other lit in front of me, but if you do, make sure you lay out your links and impacts clearly so I can understand why your topic matters more than what your opponent is discussing.

Theory: I ran theory when I was a debater and I'm open to hearing theory in round, just make sure your definitions are very clear. I default to Theory > K, but it's easy to convince me otherwise.

Speaks: If you care about speaker points, pay attention, as my system for achieving good speaks is somewhat unorthodox.

30: Be the best debater I've ever seen, or sing to me the entire first verse of Lose Yourself, by Eminem.

29: Be an all around solid debater who I legitimately think can win the tournament, or make half of your case Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

28: Be a solid debater who I definitely think should break, or make a quarter of your case Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

27: Be a good debater with lot's of potential, I may have had to say clear a few times, or at least mention Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

26: I probably had to say clear multiple times, but your case was alright.

25: You screwed up somewhere, switched sides, stumbled, sat down with 1 minute left to speak, etc.

20: You were objectively bigoted in some way shape or form to your opponent, myself, or really anyone.

Best of luck!

”Do I need to be liked? Absolutely not. I like to be liked. I enjoy being liked. I have to be liked, but it's not like this compulsive need to be liked, like my need to be praised.” -Michael Scott

I am a teacher who is judging debate for the first time. Hit me with your best shots. Dazzle and impress.

I am a 7th year coach who did not compete in Speech and Debate as a student. I am more experienced in speech events than debate events, though I have coached the basics in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Big Questions. While I understand the conventions and some theory of debate, I judge as an educated member of the public. I want to hear a good story that proves to me why your side of the case makes the most sense. I listen first to understand, then to decide. Therefore, it is crucial that you speak clearly and naturally. I do not appreciate spreading. I am listening for the links between evidence and claim and decide based on which side presents and maintains the strongest arguments. I do not disclose, but am happy to give objective feedback if you ask.

For platform speaking events, I am interested more in structure than in style. A well-organized, well-supported performance will win my vote over a flashy presentation style. That being said, an overall effect in interpretation and platform events that brings me on an emotional or intellectual journey will always rank highest.

Hello! I am a parent lay judge, please do not spread. I don't super love nuclear extinction arguments unless you have a very very very clear reason why it imminent.

Run whatever you want, just send me the case if you are gonna spread. Weigh your arguments.

Debaters please do not spread.

Updated 1/20/25 for Seattle U HS Tournament

IE Click here - I aspire to the standard outlined in Welty Wisdom.

Both PF and LD - scroll down for specific preferences for each type of debate

I am an experienced lay judge and I am very appreciative of the opportunity to share a room with you and I can't wait to hear you. My experience at the last tournament (Scorpion in AZ) was transformational as many of the debaters adapted fully to my paradigm and sadly in out round one did not. I always ballot for the debater who speaks the slowest. Always. Always.

Congress - scroll to the end of this long paradigm BUT - please PO, never read a speech, do not break cycle.

Warranting > evidence

Truth > tech,

Simple > complex

Less > more

Advice if arguing before a panel. (This played out 3 times at ASU HDHCS and twice at Scorpion)

• Delivery: conversational in both pace and tone, connected directly to me through eye contact and a sense of concern with my comprehension, simple rather than complex with no jargon particularly debate jargon and minimal use of evidence. Debaters who choose an alternative delivery lose all credibility and I will be skeptical of all analysis presented by debaters who reject this delivery preference. Ted Kim paradigm (scroll to the bottom says it best.

• Resolution Analysis: Clear, concise, well-supported analysis of the resolution. You can assume your judge has basic knowledge of Africa, the history of Somaliland, contemporary reactions pro and con regarding Independence movements with an existing countries in the continent.

• Argumentation: Simplicity, clarity, and effective are preferred in the comparison/contrast or weighing of competing arguments. I am hostile to extinction impacts and debater math use of which negatively impacts my assessment of the credibility of the team making use of these techniques.

• Evidence: Quality of reasoning and argumentation over quantity or complexity. Evidence plays a minimal part in my decision and debaters who read cards particularly in rebuttal will be challenged to earn my ballot.

Click on Frederick Changho paradigm for a clear set of expectations I support and share with the exception of the truth

Click on Scott Wood's paradigm for another paradigm that reflects my expectations, particularly good v bad form.

Public Form

THE GOLD STANDARD: most intelligible category in debate

"A decade and a half after its inception, P.F. is still by far the most intelligible category in debate. However, in recent years its speed has increased markedly, as have the mountains of evidence. The emphasis on logic and critical thinking has waned." McCordick 2017

If you adapt to the two preferences below and your opponent fails to adapt you will earn my ballot. To be clear, if you collapse to a single issue (summary) and weigh (ff) and your opponent runs the flow you will prevail in the round and my ballot will be signed and uploaded while your opponent runs the flow.,

1. Please collapse in summary and weigh in final focus.

2. Do not run the flow in summary or ff. - Rather present the key voting issue in the round, your warranted rationale for that issue and weigh against your opponent.

Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery.

From McCordick, 2017

As L.D. descended further and further into absurdity, Ted Turner, the billionaire founder of CNN, came along and attempted to turn the ship again. Like the Philips executive several decades earlier, he pushed the National Forensic League in 2002 to establish a new debate format that would be plainspoken and jargon-free. The resulting format, which immediately drew comparisons to CNN’s “Crossfire,” was called Public Forum. Its title was an expression of Mr. Turner’s hope that any reasonably informed member of the public could walk into a Public Forum round and be able to pick a winner.

A decade and a half after its inception, P.F. is still by far the most intelligible category in debate.

(BUT)

However, in recent years its speed has increased markedly, as have the mountains of evidence. The emphasis on logic and critical thinking has waned."

LD - I do not vote on solvency - this is values debate. Should we act, not how do we act.

Super short form - click https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=3556

Quick summary - T W W

Traditional Framework Judge -I base my ballot on value

Warrant your argument (evidence is secondary)

Weigh - if you don't I will and you may not like the result

DO NOT SPREAD - I vote for the slowest speaking debater. Always. Yes, its true.

1. Don't spread. And if you normally spread and decide not to spread in a round because its a lay judge, you are probably still spreading from the perspective of the judge. Slow it WAY down.
   
   

2. Lay judges don't flow, they take notes. You win them over via persuasion, not technical tech>truth stuff. That means simple, clear arguments, delivered TO them, not read at them. This is important, talk with the judge do not read case or rebuttal.
   
   

3. Make your argument to them the same way you would to your friends or relatives. IK, this is point 2 repeated but is it critical.
   
   

4. In fact, a good model for debating successfully in front of a lay judge is to imagine the debate was being conducted in a darkened auditorium talking to general audience that is interested in the topic, doesn't know much and wants to learn more. You would never talk to that audience they way you talk in a debate. The lay judge is a member of the public sitting in that darkened audience. That means presentation, organization, clarity and connection are critical.

Lincoln Douglas - long form

LD - the 2024 National final is worth reviewing. Note speed of debate, clarity in argument and delivery to the audience. Both finalists qualified via the Last Chance Tournament!

Adapt to speed, please. At a late December 2024 tournament 3 of my 4 ballots were default ballots as one debater failed to adapt, spread their case and lost. I despise this type of ballot as I really am interested in your analysis so don't exclude me from the round.

This topic is - should - so I value philosophical reasoning related directly to your value as you advocate. See below for my view of efficacy and implementation as arguments that I tend to dismiss.

Summary LD Expectations - Next to advice #1 below this is your most important piece of advice: In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your single most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.

2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on value. Clarity in defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.

3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolution analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation. I tend to dismiss all solvency arguments in LD.

4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate or critique.

5. Counter plans - these must be directly tied to the resolution and utilize argumentation, evidence and data that would be a part of the research considered by a well prepared AFF. If any of these elements are absent, I will reject the counter plan and ballot accordingly.

6. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.

7. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. If Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.

8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.

9. Simple is preferred to complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over the many arguments that are complex.

10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.

11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE no cards or debater math.

BTW If you say it and I don't hear it or I don't understand it *(remember I am very old and not so smart) it will not be a part of my decision. It is impossible to be too simple or basic with me, impossible. So, the simpler (and slower) the better. Also, time permitting scroll down and read Scott Wood's paradigm - I wish it was mine so I incorporate it into this paradigm. Now it is mine. Thank you Scott.

Quickly reflect on how you integrate framework into case construction and rebuttal AND if the debate does not collapse on this essential element of ballot be prepared to, simply summarize, compare and weigh your value to your opponent's and in the simplest (*well warranted) manner explain why I prefer your value. This will be where I begin and end by ballot.

Concerns I share about debate

Congress

PO valued and ranked so PO.

Follow Zoe Soderquist Advice

(Scroll to the bottom of her paradigm for Congress)

DO NOT BREAK CYCLE!! EVER!!! I MEAN EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scroll to the bottom to see NSDA speech scoring metrics

Congress - If you are still reading - OMG Read Richard Cui excellent, in depth paradigm https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=140574

1. Congressional debate - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Taurasiesque or Clarkesque. So, I ballot accordingly. I can only think of one time in the past 10 years that the PO failed to make my top 6 in rank. So, PO and do it well.

2. First AFF/NEG - easiest speeches to prepare and delivery. Delivery should be polished, organization and transitions would be clear, all analysis should be well warranted.

3. Mid round speeches (2nd AFF/NEG to 4th AFF/NEG) are more challenging than First AFF/NEG and potentially will earn higher rankings. These speeches should be extempted, not read and should interact in a clear and meaningful manner with prior speeches.

4. End of round (summary/crystallization) most important and potentially highest ranked speeches if you meet the burden.

5. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. This will result in a rank reduction to last in the chamber. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHl2Ri-Sh4sA7NvU_ap9CcvsPoH1dAxuxjdVooP-_Q0/edit?usp=drivesdk

BONUS INFO

1. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

2. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:
   A. Presiding officer cheat sheet . B. Congressional Debate Presiding Officer Guide

Congress Scoring for Speaking and Presiding

From - see page 51 https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Guide.pdf

6 – Exemplary: may have slight, nuanced
room for improvement (recommend if
necessary)

5 – Accomplished: could use a few improvements (suggest tactics)

4 – Competent: meets expectations, but
should develop more depth/knowledge
(offer specifics)

3 – Developing: barely meets minimum standards, and requires more growth (explain
in detail)

2 – Emerging: underdeveloped skills [short
arguments; lack of evidence] (describe
what is needed)

1 – Unacceptable: offensive mockery or
attach of peers, or (for speeches) spoke
on wrong side

Going over time: When speakers extend
beyond 3 minutes, their score should be
lowered, and they should be downranked
for monopolizing time by decreasing
opportunities for others to speak.

As frequent parli I don't get to rate speeches but pet peeves - if a judge gives you a 1 or 2 they are a moron uninformed and should have their teaching credential revoked or if they are a one out get over whatever trauma they think they suffered in HS Congress. So disregard their ranking and comments. In 20 years I have never seen a student in congress who earned 1 or 2. Never! Ever! 6 ratings are reserved for the Jordanesque or Taurasiesque or Clarkesque. Therefore 3 is good start, needs improvement, 4 is average, and 5 is good to very good. Unfortunately there is a tad rating inflation, but its everywhere now.

What lay judges vote on.

Why I love speech and debate

Concerns I share about debate

Parent lay judge.

Don't spread. Speak clearly. If I cant understand your argument I cant vote on it/weight it.

I need clear reasons (warrants) to vote on. Make sure that your arguments are logical and easy to follow. A dropped argument isn't going to be a reason for my decision if the the argument is not warranted properly.

Links must be reasonable/logical. From the rounds I've judged, I've found extinction impacts extremely hard to vote on.

Make sure your rebuttals are organized and logical. Off-time roadmaps help fulfil this. Make sure to signpost.

Lastly, be nice. Don't be snarky or roll your eyes at your opponent while they are speaking. Also, debate is meant to be fun and educational and if I find you are abusive in any way I will dock speaker points or possibly drop you.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I have been judging debate for around 1 year.

In a round, I am looking for clear argumentation. Use well-researched arguments and have specific sources to back the evidence up. Speak at a conversational pace. There has to be good communication and a fair debate. Please be respectful to your opponent. I will be looking forward to an interesting round.

LD:

You need to convince me about your contentions, your framework and weighing in order to win the round. At the end of your final speech, it should be clear on why you should win. I will only flow your speeches and will not flow cross examination. Please refrain from speaking quickly.

Speaker Points:

I will award between 25 to 30 speaker points based on the skill and quality of speaking.

IF YOU ARE READING THIS, THAT MEANS I AM (PROBABLY) YOUR JUDGE. YIPEE!!

*:・ﾟ ₍ᐢ•ﻌ•ᐢ₎*:・ﾟ

HE/SHE/HIM/HER

D.K.SEEP@GMAIL.COM

BACKGROUND: Debated for four years for Horizon High School in Arizona, graduated 2019 and now I judge for Collegiate Academy in New York. I mostly ran performance/queer rage Ks in high school, if that matters to anybody reading.

CRASH COURSE: The floor is truly yours, run whatever you like I want to hear it!! Please explain your complicated lit, I really hate having to read a bunch of fine print in order to judge the round.Oh my gosh please please please use speechdrop.net I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE EMAIL CHAINS THEY TAKE SO STINKIN' LONG. STOP. I am fine with spreading, but please pause and emphasize important bits of your speeches. Card tags/authors, impacts, links, anything that you think NEEDS to be on my flow, take .5 seconds to pause and emphasize. Even raising your voice helps if you dont have the time to pause, it really helps me out on my flow. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, IMPACT ANALYSIS IS KEEEEYYY to winning my ballot! Also please extend, otherwise I will LITERALLY drop anything you did not extend by the end of the round.

PF: I never really was a PF person, so it's hard to say what I like to see in a PF debate. My big thing is impact analysis, I don't really care for "my evidence is better than YOUR evidence" debates. I feel like a lot of PF debates focus too much on things that don't really affect /my/ ballot (how recent your evidence is, statistics, etc.) which I personally don't like, but I also know thats just part of the event.

FRAMEWORK: I love me some good framework debate. If you're running traditional I think you should REALLY focus in on framework.Please, add some extra meat to your framework beyond "value: [BLANK], criterion: [blank],"I want to know why you chose your framework and how it fits into the round before you even get into contentions.

LINKS: To me, anything is a link. And Imean anything.You tell me it links, and I'll believe you.That is not the same for delinking, please tell me why a link is BS and I will believe you.Too many debaters have simply tried to tell me "this doesn't link, drop the argument," without telling mewhyit doesn't link.

IMPACTS: You need to really hammer in why your impacts win the round!! EVEN WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS, TELL MEWHY IT MATTERS.YOU CANNOT JUST GIVE ME EXTINCTION IMPACTS AND EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR YOU WITHOUT DOING THE PROPER WEIGHING!! Magnitude, scope, whatever,weigh. all. of. the. impacts. in. round.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS: I'm lukewarm on plans, I think if you're gonna run a plan it should be very fleshed out otherwise why not just run a trad aff lol? Counterplans are cool too, but please just let me know when you ARE running a counterplan. Obviously plans and counterplans can be run as trad, but it's just to help me flow and keep track of what is being said, thank you!

KRITIKS: My faaaavooritteeeeee!!! I love em all!However, I have not competed in almost 5 years(ohgeezthatscrazyimgettingold)and I am NOT college edumacated. Please explain your lit!Add some extra analytics after cards, something, anything like that. I have a pretty good understanding of a lot of phil, but I just need my hand held a little bit.Also if your opponent clearly is confused, PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THEM MORE BY NOT EXPLAINING THINGS.That is really, really mean and I do not like it ONE BIT.This is why I encourage flex prep, let your opponent ask clarification questions and answer themHONESTLY.Oh and also please LABEL each section of the K!! Makes it a lot easier for me as a judge.

THEORY: Personally, I am not super big on theory. I like that debate doesn't have any rules, why argue about made up rules? Either way, I encourage theory, but please make the violation very very clear to me. AND PLEASE MAKE IT A WELL FLESHED OUT THEORY SHELL. IF I HAVE TO MAKE AN ENTIRE NEW FLOW FOR THEORY JUST FOR YOU TO SPEND 15 SECONDS ON IT I WILL BE SO MADD!!! Basically, if you are trying to win my ballot, do not think that a theory shell will do it.

TOPICALITY: I personally don't see why ANYBODY has to be topical in LD, so please please give me some clear impacts. Again, I'm willing to listen to it, but you really need some good impacts for me to vote on it.

DISCLOSURE: Same for above, I NEED a valid violation for disclosure especially. I think a lot of disclosure theory is very frivolous, so please flesh out your shell if you're going to run it in front of me.

PERFORMANCE: I love performance in debate. I come from a theatre background, so if you've always wanted to run performance and you've never done it before, I am the perfect judge to do it front of.Please do not drop your performance after your first speech because I will be so sad):

SPEAKER POINTS: Much to tabroom's dismay, I am not a fan of speaker points. It is my least favorite part of judging I hate having to give a number value to your speaking ability I think it is kind of dumb and doesn't make any sense in a debate setting. I'll almost always give pretty high speaks, unless you're like crazy offensive or something.

Well, that is basically everything I can think of. I encourage all debaters to have fun, debate is a really stressful activity and you all need to remember to prioritize yourselves and your own mental wellbeing. Please feel free to email me with ANY questions that you have before AND after the round! I am always happy to answer any questions and provide extra feedback as needed.

If you are still reading, pet this cat!

＿＿
　　　　　✿＞　　フ
　　　　　| 　_　 _ l
　 　　　／` ミ＿xノ
　　 　 /　　　 　 |
　　　 /　 ヽ　　 ﾉ
　 　 │　　|　|　|
　／￣|　　 |　|　|
　| (￣ヽ＿_ヽ_)__)
　＼二つ

My debate experience is '80's and early '90's policy (fast and lots of post-fiat impx; this was before the Kritik days, the only pre-fiat debates were on topicality and conditionality). I do like kritical debate, though and mention the policy experience so you know I'm up for just about anything - debaters create debate. There's no special category of arguments labeled "THEORY" with a bunch of skulls and crossbones warning debaters away - if you're in a debate talking about debate, you're in a theory debate. If you're going to do it, please make sense and consider the impacts outside of the room we're in. )

LD has the advantage of a well-established expectation of impact calculus that revolves around framework debates - I like that. Don't bother debating identical frameworks, though, because I get enough of that in local politics.

My pet peeve is the unbelievable amount of time wasted "flashing" or creating e-mail chains for evidence sharing. It should not take an additional 5 minutes to flash after 1 minute prep. If you can't figure it out, debate on paper. (The strategy is usually for both debaters to be so slow that I can't hold it against anyone in particular. This strategy results in an extremely cranky judge reticent to hand out speaker points to anyone.)

Finally, I have a lot of respect for this activity and I believe the way we respect it is to show respect to one another. I have little to no tolerance for rudeness, condescension, or derisiveness. Be nice. Be kind.

email chain: cammiesoderquist@gmail.com

History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.

Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.

-----------------------------------

Specifics:

Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.

Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.

***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***

Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).

DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)

Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)

Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.

Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.

Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.

-----------------------------------

Things that make me happy:

• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.

• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")

• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)

Things that make me sad:

• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.

• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).

• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")

-----------------------------------

Random:

• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.

• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)

• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.

• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh

I debated quite a bit in High School and coached for Mountain View in college. I major in Philosophy and debate policy and ethics collegiately.

IMPORTANT:

1. Lay is cool.

2. Theory is cool.

(only use strategically if your opponent is familiar with theory debate/competing interpretations/RVIs, otherwise I'll give extra weight to reasonability)

3. Kritiks are cool.

If you have any specific questions regarding my judging paradigm please reach out before the round or email me at samstoffer@gmail.com

Short short version - don't suck.

Somewhat longer versions (by debate type)

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Speed - if it's clear OK, otherwise I'll say "clear" once then zone out. I do value good speaking skills and will factor that into my overall decision.

In all fairness, I do not walk into the round with a blank slate. I do assume both sides have an equal burden. I do assume the resolution was worded in such a way to provide equal grounds for debate. Feel free to argue that it's not so, but you're really going to have to be convincing. All that means I rarely, if ever, buy a kritik in LD.

I lean towards the traditional when it comes to LD. I like to hear debates that cover the big picture of the topic then use multiple supports to bolster that argument. I don't like to hear 20 blips then the debater proclaiming with glee "he dropped contention 17, I win!". I will use what both debaters have told me to weigh the specific arguments and decide how much a specific drop harms your side. So, a good thing to do is weigh your (and your opponents) arguments and tell me which are the important ones in the debate and why. That gives me something to go on. I also expect impacts from your arguments. Why is it important and how does it affect the validity of the resolution. I expect CX to be more than just asking for contentions you didn't hear. I listen to CX and it can factor into my decision, however you should always mention things you thought were important during CX in a later speech.

I do not stop the prep time clock for dealing with thumb drives, computer glitches, etc.  If you want to run "flex-prep" or anything considered outside traditional LD, let's talk before the round.

Things you might want to know:

I have "real" job as an software engineer. I don't spend endless days in Starbucks reading the latest philosophy rags. I'm not going to know the stuff you're running and thus not vote for it. I'm a man of science, not letters. I have a tendency to like facts, figures, stats and evidence over philosophical poofiness. Break things down for me and show me how you answer the resolution correctly.

I expect civility in the round. Ad Hominem attacks, spreading as a tactic, and just generally being mean I frown upon.

The world already has enough jerks, don't be another one.

I normally will not ask for cards after a round unless a competitor asks me to on suspicion of an ethics violation. If your card wasn't clear the first time, well I guess I didn't get it. Like I said at the top, I still value good speaking skills.

Public Forum

I have absolutely no tolerance for what I'll call "unsportsmanlike conduct" in a round. I've seen too much of this in PFD. I will drop you for being a jerk.  You don't care about low speaks, but a drop gets your attention.

I also really, really like it when teams use studies and examples that are not the same dang 3 examples everyone and their dog is also running. Do some digging, give me something unique, fresh and different and you'll be rewarded. Work on making this a decent debate event and not add fuel to the fire for the detractors of PFD.

Congress

Unless you are the first speaker, please, please advance the debate by offering something new or clarifying something that's been said, or countering something already said.  Don't repeat, rehash and recycle.  This is a debate event.  I expect a clash of ideas.  If you are the PO, I'm OK with a little levity in the chamber, but don't go off the deep end.  I expect the PO to run the house and know what they are doing.  If I'm the Parli - I'm there to help you if you ask and to keep things from getting out of hand.  Other than that - it's your house, have fun.  I very much frown on "unsportsmanlike" shenanigans in the house, like intentionally blocking people from speaking as a team tactic.  My frown extends to my chamber rankings.

Policy

I don't do drugs.

Speech

You want me as your Extemp judge.  I love this event.