In judging IE, I am looking for connection. Do you connect with the piece, the characters, your judge, and yourself as a competitor?  I look for the basics: clear articulation, body movement (if relevant), facials, vocal variety, etc.  However, on a deeper level, I look for what you are doing with the piece. Does your DI fit you? Are you moving me emotionally?  Is your HI age appropriate?  Are you using your physicality?  Does your POI work for you? Are you shocking just to shock or is the shock crucial to the piece?  

For all IE events,  I am looking mostly for how you embodied the piece. Were you superficially presenting it or was that piece coming from your core?  Was it near impossible for me to type comments because you were so engaging, professional, and technically competent?  

I've spent 25 plus years judging, teaching, directing, and writing theatre and film. What makes you different? What shows me you have worked your piece and have it beyond set?

I'm wanting to engage with you as a speech competitor. Bring the piece to me and make it come alive and everything else falls into place.

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

Hi! I’m really excited to be your judge today!

A few notes:

1. Sign posting is an absolute must. If I cannot follow you, that’s a problem.

2. No spreading, this isn’t policy debate.

3. I will reward you for being clear and impacting all of your claims. Tell me why this argument matters!

4. Be civil! I will give you low speaks if you are rude and talk over the top of one another.

5. Be clear on why you believe you have won the round. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence!

About Me: Hi! I'm a parent judge who's judged a number of LD and Speech tournaments over the past several years.

Speech

I understand that each speech event is a bit different, but generally, I will judge your speech based on topic/piece selection, your technical speaking skills (enunciation, projection, etc.), your ability to engage me in the topic or piece, your ability to inhabit the characters and world of the story (Interp), and the flow and persuasiveness of your speech (OO). I view speech activities from the perspective of a former courtroom lawyer as well as a former theater kid.

LD

I was not a debater in school but I'm a (former) litigator whose instinct is to view LD as analogous to some of the hardest fought cases I argued in court.

Framework/Standards Debate: Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, I want to hear about the resolution.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts, and link back to the standards to provide a well-researched, well-reasoned case position. I will be listening for case positions that are supported by research and evidence.

I strongly prefer argument-focused rounds over technicality- or definition-focused rounds. I won't be able to follow the intricacies of a technicality-focused round, so it will not help you anyway.

I will flow anything that I can of what you run, and evaluate based on my flow. I am not familiar with the K or with theory. If you're running either I expect you to slow down on taglines, provide clear links and impacts (and a well defined alternative for the K). If I can't understand it, I can't evaluate it.

If running abstract Ks, complex theory with few links, or blippy philosophy with no clear in round and out of round applications, I am not the judge for you. I'm looking for something better developed and more understandable.

Speed: I take detailed notes throughout a round (don't worry; I'm a fast typer). Speaking too quickly -- especially spreading! -- likely just means I will miss a key point. Please speak slowly enough to ensure I catch every contention, piece of evidence, and rebuttal.

Time: Feel free to time yourself, but I will also track time. When time finishes, I will let you finish a word or phrase, but then I will cut you off.

RFD and Speaker Points: My decision will be in favor of, and I will award the most speaker points to, the debater who best provides analytically sound arguments that tie directly to the resolution, effectively rebuts their opponent's arguments, establishes points in a logical, cogent manner, speaks clearly and confidently, holds my attention, particularly through (appropriate) humor and/or interesting but not convoluted or overly technical language, and maintains standards for decorum.

Good luck!

Thanks for checking out my paradigm, here it is:

(Updated June 4, 2022)

DEBATE

Public speaking is an art and few learn choose to learn it early on, so for that I commend you. Our voice is our most powerful tool, and in time we all learn to master it. Few realize the power of their words in the moment that they say things, but it should remain as a critical imperative to be deliberate and informed in our expressions. Ignorance is truly the enemy of grace in this activity and ignorance can happen at any moment we've said something we know nothing about or we've handicapped our opposition through the manner in which we've chosen to express ourselves.

The debate events used to be powerful learning tools that prepared students for a well-lived life, full of lasting friendships, and an advanced understanding of rhetoric that would prepare them for not only college but any task or event that makes their way to their door. The culture of debate has profoundly changed since the inception of spreading, which is an activity that a debater performs to fine tune his speech and for the purposes of memorization. For some reason, students began using this technique during official debate rounds for strategic purposes. In their consideration, the students believed that delivering their arguments with greater speed resulted in a more efficacious debate - hammering out all the details that could possibly be considered on both sides of the argument.

The spreading style forever changed the debate events and created a culture of spreading, which detracted from our natural ability to speak publicly to all those who would listen to us. As a reminder, debate was meant to prepare the student to engage in meaningful dialogue with anyone in our proximity, but the spreading culture caused students to become handicapped from this ability by warping their ideas of what constitutes substantial dialogue. The problem is that spreading caused the competitors to adapt their entire presentation to the logos, instead of balancing the logos with ethos and the pathos (the three cannons of rhetoric). The purpose of true debate is to understand that there's one truth being conveyed through two (or more) interpretations. The winning debater is able to articulate their interpretation in such a way that it includes the other interpretation all while balancing the canons of rhetoric. 

The best debaters that I've ever seen have mastered the art of deliberate speech. Deliberate speech is not spoken fast, its spoken to the pace of a golden mean. Deliberate speech has an air of gravitas and is presented with bravado so as to create a lasting impression. Deliberate speech is golden, its harmonic, it never betrays the notion that every person in the room is involved in the presentation you're presenting. Deliberate speech balances the three canons of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos) to a fine tune of perfection and effectively includes the three types of evidence accessible to the debater (assertion - which is based off of a priori reasoning; philosophical in nature; professional opinion, which is based off of expert testimony that has been published through some means; scientific in nature; and empirical, which is based off of observable data beset and embedded in the framework of our reality; mathematical in nature).

Your voice is the most powerful tool in your arsenal - of all the skills you'll come to learn in debate its the manner in which you deliver speeches that matter most because delivery will always include content if its done deliberately. Discovering your voice is half the work, once you've found it you'll be able to develop your own style and through some practice you'll be able to champion tournaments. Debate transforms your ability to consider and evaluate information, and most importantly equips you with the skills you'll need for the rest of your life when it comes to responding to the information you're presented. These debate events when done right are a means of accessing grace and natural talent - allow the activity to be as enriching as it was designed to be and keep spreading out of it. 

LD

LD invites us to consider the ethical, moral, and philosophical implications of a resolution. A strong and functional framework that contains a strong philosophical analysis of the resolution and implores us to consider inherent values or core doctrines in our evaluation of the debate is foundational. Furthermore, our claims must be supported by warrants (evidence), which must lead to demonstrable (and measurable) impacts. We must never make any claim in the round that isn’t officiated by evidence that allows us to prove our claims, and we must never make assert impacts that we cannot properly measure. 

As all debate events implore us to do, we must be willing to substantially engage with our opponent's notions - with their values and the subsequent arguments that follow form. Discover the nuances in debate and bring them to light, lead by example, and remember to always respond to what has been asked of you to address. Stay organized and signpost to make sure your opponent and I are able to follow your reasoning. Don't leave unanswered questions and remember to provide compelling reasons to either support or reject a notion. All of what we have to say in the debate are notions regarding the truth until there is agreement on the notion at which point our notions become the truth. Use cross examination to do just that and find aspects that we can agree upon - this will set you up a paradigm for which to evaluate the round in your voter's later on. Remember that points that aren't addressed are conceded points. (That's not an excuse to spread).

Stay away from abusive argumentation, which is anything that handicaps your opponent in such a way that they cannot properly recover. Examples include spreading, making new arguments late in the round, responding to points you already conceded, or anything that follows that suit. Never allow yourself to be aggressive or derogatory towards your opponent - remember that no one is better than anyone else in this activity, its about finding out what we believe in. Convince your opponent as much as you're convincing your judge, don't become frustrated with them if their arguments are misleading or there is an insensibility in what is being said; point out the defects and clarify the situation eloquently. Remember that there's one truth you're both channeling through two different interpretations - no matter what the truth will remain. So, its only sensible to interpret the truth to the best of your ability.

Please summarize, crystallize, and weigh the arguments before the round ends - I'm interested in understanding your own evaluation of the round and will be weighing that in to my own decision. Don't lie during this part of the debate and say something you never said before or say you proved something you never proved (doing such would be abusive and the chances are high that I'll catch on). Demonstrate your victory to me through clearly delineated reasons, and don't forget to signpost that last speech should make it crystal clear which team was victorious.   

Please call me Judge Bravo during the round if you have a need to address me directly during your presentation, however, I'd prefer it if you kept my name out of the debate round. 

Perfect scores are attainable, but rarely given. 

PF

PF invites us to consider the practical applications of a resolution on a global scale. A strong and functional framework that contains a strong situational analysis of the resolution and implores us to consider the inherent conditions of the resolution through a convincing lens - one that allows us to strategically explore the context of the round; a weighing mechanism of sorts doctrines in our evaluation of the debate is foundational. Furthermore, our claims must be supported by warrants (evidence), which must lead to demonstrable (and measurable) impacts. We must never make any claim in the round that isn’t officiated by evidence that allows us to prove our claims, and we must never make assert impacts that we cannot properly measure. 

As all debate events implore us to do, we must be willing to substantially engage with our opponent's notions - with their framework and the subsequent arguments that follow form. Discover the nuances in debate and bring them to light, lead by example, and remember to always respond to what has been asked of you to address. Stay organized and signpost to make sure your opponent and I are able to follow your reasoning. Don't leave unanswered questions and remember to provide compelling reasons to either support or reject a notion. All of what we have to say in the debate are notions regarding the truth until there is agreement on the notion at which point our notions become the truth. Use cross examination to do just that and find aspects that we can agree upon - this will set you up a paradigm for which to evaluate the round in your voter's later on. Remember that points that aren't addressed are conceded points. (That's not an excuse to spread).

Stay away from abusive argumentation, which is anything that handicaps your opponent in such a way that they cannot properly recover. Examples include spreading, making new arguments late in the round, responding to points you already conceded, or anything that follows that suit. Never allow yourself to be aggressive or derogatory towards your opponent - remember that no one is better than anyone else in this activity, its about finding out what we believe in. Convince your opponent as much as you're convincing your judge, don't become frustrated with them if their arguments are misleading or there is an insensibility in what is being said; point out the defects and clarify the situation eloquently. Remember that there's one truth you're both channeling through two different interpretations - no matter what the truth will remain. So, its only sensible to interpret the truth to the best of your ability.

Please summarize, crystallize, and weigh the arguments before the round ends - I'm interested in understanding your own evaluation of the round and will be weighing that in to my own decision. Don't lie during this part of the debate and say something you never said before or say you proved something you never proved (doing such would be abusive and the chances are high that I'll catch on). Demonstrate your victory to me through clearly delineated reasons, and don't forget to signpost that last speech should make it crystal clear which team was victorious.   

Please call me Judge Bravo during the round if you have a need to address me directly during your presentation, however, I'd prefer it if you kept my name out of the debate round. 

Perfect scores are attainable, but rarely given. 

SPEECH

Dakota Breen has been the head speech coach of West Fargo High School since 2013.

For interpretation events, she looks for the performer(s) ability to bring their characters to life through voice, movement, and emotion brought to delivery.

For public address, she looks for the speaker's ability to craft a meaningful message that is relevant, relatable, and original. Language and structure are important.

For extemporaneous, she looks for the speaker's ability to answer the question clearly for an audience who may not know much on the topic they have chosen. Delivery is equally important.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD and PF so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD and PF not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen , voted on , for a reason.

Repeat: Debate the resolution

One more time: Debate the resolution

Content Warning, I can be sarcastic, below was written with seriousness and some fun in mind =)

So with this in mind, speed and flow, I can flow very quickly, however if it sounds like you are hyperventilating, stop, breathe, take another breath, and slow down, you will need to since you just dropped those points or contentions - you may even see me put my pen or pencil down as an indicator. Have you ever wondered what those breathing exercises got you? Do they help with a college or job interview? If you ever do speak that quickly during an interview can you please record and put on youtube so we can watch the other person's reaction. =)

If using a K in LD or PF - well at this point you can assume I am not the biggest fan unless I am judging a policy round. The biggest concern, besides taking you off the resolution, is that most debaters do not fully understand what they arguing or at least the premise of their K and or using a generic K that side steps the resolution, please see above. I may be amiss on this aspect, but are there any positive K's, like one that shows why picnics and puppies are amazing!

So with that in mind, life is simple, right? Impact, road maps, in LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is LD or PF, not policy !

Hi everyone- I'm a high school senior who specializes in Parliamentary and Congressional debate. I've also done a few rounds of exempt, duo, Poetry, POI and World Schools debate, and I've recently added PF judging and LD judging to my repertoire so don't change your presentation or anything to accomodate me- I'll be fine.

For those of you who don't want to read the full thing, here's the gist: Weigh and provide voters, don't be a generally bad person, and show the facts and reasoning.

For the sake of writing a paradigm, here are some more in-depth things I consider (Debate-specific)

Speaker points will be docked if there are any racist/homophobic/ableist or otherwise offensive interactions during my rounds, which is to be expected. Something to consider: if you think an argument might be questionable, maybe don't run it (especially in Congress- we've seen enough devil's advocates)

-Clarity of speech and presentation. I'm not looking for speed, as I am a flow judge and I'd rather you have a slow, well-constructed speech than a fast speech that I'm not able to follow. You get one warning and if you continue to speak at 2.5 speed during the debate, I will put down my pen. I'm not flowing points I can't even hear in full. I also do speech events, so I'm a sucker for good pronunciation and vocal fluctuation. Remember, you're making an argument, not just reading it back to me. Convince me.

-Well-backed arguments and impacts. I'm a fan of evidence, logical arguments, and real arguments that apply to everyday life. For example, a speech about green energy that simply focuses on "green energy is good" will lose to a speech on the opposing side if the opposition provides the real-world impact and implications of green energy, as well as reasonable and logical evidence. ALWAYS give me voters and impacts, as long as they're not too far-fetched. I don't want to hear about how GMO food will lead to a world where cannibalism is favored, I want to hear real and probable arguments and reasons to vote.

-Clash. Please address everything your opponent says in a debate. It will work in your favor.

I'm totally okay with off-time roadmaps and POIs but tend to not give much weight to a topicality argument unless it's well-presented and easy to follow. If I believe your points could've stood strong without a topicality argument, speaker points will be removed. After all, this is a debate of fact, logic, evidence, and occasionally morals. Not a debate about the difference between "should" and "ought" in a resolution. I enjoy voters, humor, and taglines. If you mess up a few lines or a few words, don't worry and don't overthink it, it happens with everyone, I will not dock points. Just do your best.

• Speed: I am a traditionalist. I understand that in order for LD to be effective it requires a certain speed, however this is not a circuit debate (aka single-person policy). If I (and your opponent!) cannot clearly hear your cards and your evidence, it is as if you did not say it! If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you DROP those contentions and evidence.
• Jargon: I'm not a fan of it. Just use the terminology you are addressing (e.g. solvency or topicality),
• Argumentation: Remember that LD is a theoretical debate. You're not solving for anything (that's policy). Because it's a theoretical debate, you establishing your value is far more important than any hypothetical problem you create and for which you attempt to solve. Although a "K" may come up, remember I am a traditionalist.

Rising Junior in High School, avg PF Debater + Speech Competitor.

If I'm judging speech, I care a lot about diction and your ability to convey information effectively to me.

I also write a lot in rfds so uhh yeah.

I am a former competitor and long-time speech and theater coach and have assisted with WS debate in our district.

I prefer persuasion over gamesmanship, moderate speed, and a focus on cross-x that is clarified in rebuttal.

I flow, but will not supply the argument for you - it must be made.

Civility is a must.  Subtleties of LD/PF will be lost on me. But intelligent, data-backed claims with a clear warrant will find success.

For VBI:

• First time judging LD.
• Signpost!

About Me:

Stanford ‘26

Debated PF at American Heritage Broward for 3 Years

Anything fine if explained well!

Have fun, be nice.

DOPE STUFF (Speaker Point Boost):

1. Playing Hype Music Before Your Speech

My Picks:

• Top Off by Gunna
• Can't Tell Me Nothing by Kanye West
• Jimmy Cooks by Drake
• These are suggestions, creativity is encouraged.
• Topical song choice is encouraged.

2. Funny Contention Names

I appreciate a well-structured speech that delivers logical and persuasive points. I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with astute and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, able to think on their feet. I will judge your value, criterion, and contentions. It is important that you do not go off topic.

Standards:

State your value, criterion and contentions. In addition make sure you have a clear claim with a warrant and an impact.

Case Analysis

Debater must show a clear understanding of topic. Directly address topic and justify your claims. Make sure you can cite your points if requested.

Cross examination

Debaters should be confident and persistent, but should not become hostile or rude during the cross-examination

Rebuttals

Make sure you counter attack every point made by opponent. Failing to do so shows agreement with opponent.

Presentation

Be confident in your delivery. Do not spread (I need to be able to listen to your case). Use your persuasive skills to present a logical case.

*PLEASE READ FOLLOWING NOTICE: I have specific judging philosophies for the different styles of debate (Policy, ld, pofo, parli) For a full record of my judging history, please look for my other account by searching my full name, Mariela Garcia. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on this judge's page. I apologize for the inconvenience.*

General Information About Me

My speech and debate background:

I am currently an senior director for Advantage Communications, a leading speech and debate company that in 2023, had 60% of our students in out rounds at the NSDA championship. I have dedicated the past few years developing district programs in California and Illinois for affluent and Title 1 communities of various backgrounds. I train and advise staff, students, and families, while also creating curriculum with our team of experts. My students and teams are usually in the finals, if not champions. As a coach, I want students to challenge themselves to read material that they wouldn't otherwise read if they were not in this activity. My goal is to ensure all students feel empowered enough to use the stage to say something they truly care about OR that they feel is urgent. I also encourage my students to do at least one event in each category every year if their schedule allows so they stay well-rounded. I train coaches to ensure they bring out the best in students by engaging a growth mindset that keeps them both busy with goals rather than busy work. I work with students from all backgrounds, ethnicities, economic brackets, orientations, races, genders, etc. and it is my goal to ensure all my students feel that there is someone in their corner that is rooting for their success.

My Experience in Debate:

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history, given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments.

My Educational Experience:

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculum. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will lose the round.

My Debate Motto:

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below.

My Speech Motto:

Practice does not make perfect, only perfect practices makes progress. This means that you have to bring 100% of yourself OR communicate to your coach if you cannot do that at a practice because without full commitment, we cannot grow and improve at a steady pace. I believe that students are keenly aware of the world around them and they have a lot that they want to say to adults, so I encourage my students to read articles that will help them better express a message, argument, or idea because it is my job to ensure they sound astute on stage. As for acting, it is one of my passions that I am constantly working on improving so I can better teach my students. Impromptu and extemp are difficult events if you don't respect formulas, but if you take it as a coding project, you can create neuropathways that will easily help you during your prep time. I love to coach and I love to teach others how to coach students.

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD:

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take, especially if you aren't doing TOC or CA style debating. Remember that LD started off as a debate about morality, and not so much policy. If there is a plan, I expect you to provide solvency and the neg can counter with a CP. I will respect the type of debate category you enter and I will also respect arguments about the importance of keeping a distinction between LD and Policy. After all, I do believe that while many teams that experienced cuts to their budget have moved to LD to carry on their policy habits, it is also hurting the policy debate community and their budget when we bleed the two together. This doesn't mean we can't have a K in LD, I mean the criterion/value portion of LD welcomes the K, but it does mean that people DON'T have to have a plan but if they do, then you have the burden to prove it's probability and solvency.

Specificity is key. Don't put your judge in a position where they may need to intervene with their own thoughts or emotions, just prove your point thoroughly and make sure you do it in a way that can easily be flowed and explained. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence:

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.

Diplomacy:

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations(say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

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

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary:

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claimswith evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another.I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences:

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

If it matters to you, I used to make critical and performance based arguments. I have coached all types. I generally like all arguments, especially ones that come with claims, warrants, impacts, and are supported by evidence.

Do you (literally, WHATEVER you do). Be great. Say smart things. Give solid speeches and perform effectively in CX. Win and go as hard as it takes (but you dont have to be exessively rude or mean to do this part). Enjoy yourself. Give me examples and material applications to better understand your position. Hear me out when the decision is in. I saw what I saw. Dassit.

Add me to the email chain- lgreenymt@gmail.com

My "high" speaker points typically cap out around 28.9 (in open debate). If you earn that, you have delivered a solid and confident constructive, asked and answered questions persuasively, and effectively narrowed the debate to the most compelling reasons you are winning the debate in the rebuttals. If you get higher than that, you did all of those things AND THEN SOME. What many coaches would call, "the intangibles".

Speaking of speaker points, debate is too fast and not enough emphasis is put on speaking persuasively. This is true of all styles of debate. I flow on paper and you should heavily consider that when you debate in front of me. I am a quick and solid flow and pride myself in capturing the most nuanced arguments, but some of what I judge is unintelligible to me and its getting worse. Card voice vs tag voice is important, you cannot read analytics at the same rate you are reading the text of the card and be persuasive to me, and not sending analytics means I need that much more pen time. Fix it. It will help us all. Higher speaker points are easier to give.

Thank you, in advance, for allowing me to observe and participate in your debate.

TG

General: Hi I'm Prateek! I debated LD at American Heritage Broward. I am pretty comfortable with most things so don't adapt, just do whatever you want as long as you are clear. I will try to intervene as little as possible so everything below is merely a slight preference. People who influenced how I see debate are Stephen Scopa and Spencer Orlowski. Be nice and if there are any accommodations I can make to help you let me know :) My email is:

prateekdebate@gmail.com

Cheat sheet:

1 - Ks/Topical K affs/Substantive Phil Affs or NCs

2 - Theory/Tricks/Non-T K affs

2/3 - LARP

3/4 - Traditional debate

Ks

Love K debates - I love hearing new lit so read whatever you want! Cool k strats are going for links as DA or floating PIKs

Non-T affs: Go for it! Be creative and engage as much as possible (whether you're reading it or debating against it)

Phil

Also love phil debates. Cool phil strats are skep triggers/contingent standards, hijacks, and NC AC

T/Theory

I think these are entertaining. I did more theory than T but both are fun to watch. I will default to competing interps, yes RVIs. If DTA/DTD or voters aren't read I'll prob just look to substance. Just go slower than you would reading the text of a card

LARP

I enjoy it but I just didn't do it a lot. Explain and you'll be good :) Cool LARP strats are impact turns, unique PICs, and case dumps.

Tricks

Go for it but slow down

Trad Debaters

I like trad debate as well, do what you do!

For Policy

Everything above applies EXCEPT theory stuff. I understand that policy paradigm issues are different so I will default competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater but impacting out fairness and education would be appreciated.

For PF

Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want to be in final in summary

I think progressive arguments are cool but if you're not comfy with them you don't have to read them, I can evaluate substance too and if you have questions about anything else lmk before round. Same things for theory as policy

Rounds are meant to be fun and you should go for any argument you feel comfortable defending, that being said it is your job to tell me the link at every level. Don't assume that I'll make the link, show me your work and tell me how you access your impacts. Be kind to your opponents, you can be assertive and strong in cross, but it doesn't mean you have to be rude. Jargon is ok but you better understand what you are saying and how it applies to a case, don't just say weighing or scope if you can't show me what those things actually mean. I can be fairly expressive in rounds, don't read into my non-verbal reactions!

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

Hi! My name is Caroline Hsu and I've participated in speech and debate for 3 years now. I'm a junior in high school and compete in interpretation and public address events. I've dabbled in debate (BQ and have judged LD + PF) and have way too many congress friends, so I do understand those in an extremely flay judge manner!

Introductions for IE's: Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story. Be influential.

Interpretation Events: Blocking is always an important addition to your work, but don't compromise the story with extra blocking if it's not necessary. Make me laugh or cry and make me remember your piece.

Public Address Events: Topics are the most important thing. Make sure they pertain to the general public and affect many people while being a niche idea. Really enunciate but don't yell at me. Have fun with your topic: humor goes a long way, and remember to really advocate for what your speech is about. If you believe it, convince me I should too.

Lip Sync/Vocal Events: Read the rules and be dramatic! Make sure to lip-sync and sing to the best of your abilities! As a theatre kid and someone who won a tournament in vocal solo, I believe you all have the talent :)

Extemp: Be creative with your intro! Be funny, smart, or impactful! Give me good points and substantiate them clearly. Make sure to have a clear link chain. Use rhetoric as well!

Congress: Speakers - With content, I expect to see good arguments with strong links (strong warrants and impacts). Don't repeat arguments others have brought up before, aka no rehash. I expect to see refutation and clash. With delivery, please don't yell at me or the chamber. Be passionate, have tonal variation, and use pauses to your benefit. Use rhetoric to make your arguments stronger and make sure your questioning is clear and attacks specific arguments or flawed link chains.

POs - Please keep the round running smoothly while adhering to parliamentary procedure. Due to online, time cards are preferred. Your job is to moderate debate seamlessly, while still being the leader of the chamber. Likewise, if you know the answer to a question posed by the chamber, try to answer it yourself before involving the judge. They should not have to get involved in the round unless absolutely necessary.

LD/PF/Policy: For all intents and purposes, consider me a flay judge. I understand argumentation to a good extent and I try my best to flow your arguments!!! Overall, I want you to explain everything clearly and walk through everything clearly. The clearer you make the reason to vote AFF/NEG the clearer my ballot will be. I should not have to do the work for you to cross-apply your contentions and refutations to your opponent's case. Please do not try to run theory, tricks, or K's, I don't understand them.

Speed: We are online. Adjust accordingly. I can tolerate fast speaking but remember your computer microphone may not be able to. At the start of the round, please ask me for my email and add me to your email chain with your case. This will make the round clearer.

CX: This is the only time you get to directly interact with your opponent. Make the most of it. Don't spend the entire time clarifying something they said.

Prep time: Prep time starts when you start prepping. I don't count emailing docs as prep time.

Novices: Please don't be afraid to ask me any questions about debate or my paradigm before the round starts! I promise I don't bite. I'm a firm believer that while speech and debate is a competition, it should still be an educational experience for everyone.

Lastly, speech and debate should be a safe space for everyone. Respect pronouns, be kind, and be conscious of social and economic positions. Don't be rude or disrespectful. I take this very seriously. If the tournament does not provide this, ask your opponent before round.

Overall, I know you all can do your best! Good luck in rounds!

Speaking ease and flow that takes the audience along a journey.

Gestures that appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

A presentation that flows naturally and is easy to get lost in the story.

Points that are clear with good supporting material

Ease of speaking as if it were a discussion with a friend or small group of friends.

An emotional context that feels genuine and organic.

Make me laugh, make me wonder, make me cry - I enjoy it all. But most of all, make me believe.

I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.

LD-

It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.

Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.

Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.

Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.

Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.

Oral Comments- I don't give them.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.

Flow: I flow.

Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.

I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

I judge and rate based on comparative rating of the following elements of the presentation - quality of content, timing and flow of speech, confidence in arguments and defense, body language, references/examples used to support the topic. Good luck!

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 6 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*

I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.

Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.

You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.

Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

I value

1. a fluent delivery style with good eye contact.

2. good speech structure

3. all sources cited with source name and date

4. clash

5. depth of ideas and analysis

6. richness of language

7. smooth handling of questions

8. consistently active in the chamber

9. change agents--students who are not following a "herd" mentality, but who look for opportunities to make things happen and change things up a bit.

FOR FIRST YEAR WOODWARD: The purpose of this tournament is for all the first years to walk away with a lot of lessons & good practice. So, if you have questions after round or would like me to listen to redoes, please reach out! I'd love to make this as educational as it can be for you :)

Hi! Call me emi or emilin :)

Please add me to the chain - pl237812@ahschool.com

I’m a junior at American Heritage and have debated on the national (3 yrs) and local circuit (4 yrs) so I’m familiar with everything.

People who’ve influenced me/whose paradigms I have similar opinions about: Stephen Scopa, Perry Beckett, and Spencer Orlowski.

I will vote on anything with a warrant (tech >>> truth): I don’t like dogmatic judges and will do my best to not intervene and evaluate the flow objectively. Only condition is make sure your warrant actually justifies your claim.

Be accessible: Give content warnings and don’t be violent. If you’re mean and spread out less experienced speakers, I will eviscerate your speaks.

I’ve pretty much read everything (Ks, lots of phil, lots of theory, tricks, and some larp) and am comfortable with all types of debate. Below are just my preferences, but my motto is you do you and I’ll evaluate the flow:

Note: I don’t like spammy 1Ns- If you read more than 4 offs, your arguments are probably under-developed and I would prefer good case engagement.

Ks: Love them and familiar with most lit, but make sure you explain. I reward specific links to the aff and smart line-by-line debate. If you kick the alt in the 2n and go for links, make it clear why the links are still unique or linear DAs so that the aff can’t just say its non-unique. If alt solvency is contested, make sure the 2N handles it well because your alt prob can’t solve and a decent 2AR will be sufficient on winning it doesn’t. I’ve read psychoanalysis, Edelman, cap, set col, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Foucault, etc. Familiar with Berardi, pess, Heidegger, anthro, and reps.

If it’s a non-T aff, you must be ready to answer cap and T-framework. You’d be surprised how many K affs don’t explain a coherent thesis in the 1AR for why they should get the ballot so make sure you defend your model of debate in the 1AR and 2AR and we’ll be good :) If you’re negating v a Non-T aff, please actually engage with the aff.

Phil: I love good phil frameworks with warranted syllogisms instead of just one sentence justifications. Layer your framework with contingent standards, skep triggers, permissibility outs, and TJFs. Familiar with jaeggi, kant/korsgaard, contracts, virtue ethics, plato, levinas, skep, ethics of care, locke, pettit, prag, rule util, and I love nibs.

• NC/AC debates should make a comeback

• I love meta-ethics!

• Don’t pretend fwk debate is hiding tricks.

• Don’t read consequentialist offense and act like consequentialist turns don’t apply.

• Don’t be afraid of the usual larp 1n (t, long util fwk, da/cp, “turns” to your aff)- I’m fine with you going for your framework or 1AR restarts. Be smart and decide which is more strategic!

Theory: Love smart, nuanced theory debates (especially disclosure and t-framework). Default competing interps, no rvis, dtd but make sure you read them. I don’t care how frivolous the shell is, but the better it is, the easier it will be for you to win it and the higher your speaks will be. However, I would much rather prefer a good substantive debate. Don’t rely on theory.

LARP: Util often lets debaters get away with the top of the framework debate, but if you’re sloppy at winning your framework and weighing at the impact level, I will be very sad. I framework debate so you saying “Extinction comes first under every framework” will probably not be sufficient if your opponent wins why that doesn’t make sense/misunderstands their framework. Your consequentialist “turns” are not turns to phil affs. I can evaluate these debates fine but would probably err away from very dense larp v larp rounds.

• I don’t think saying “judge kick if you think i lose x” is an argument. If you give me a theoretical warrant for why that should be the case, sure but you saying "judge kick" is 100% not sufficient. Also I think it’s better for this to be in the 1N.

• Weigh - not just preclusive weighing, but comparative.

Get high speaks:

• Good NC, AC debate

• If you actually answer the aff when you go 1 off K

• Clear collapse

• Good CX

• You sound like you've done a lot of reading and actually know your positions.

Things that make me sad and will hurt your speaks:

• Being mean to novices and lay debaters

• Bad tricks

• Evidence Ethics that are meant for pure strategy instead of an actual violation: If you’re asking what counts as an “Actual” violation, don’t stake the round on it. A) It seems too interventionist so I’d prefer it as a theory argument in round. B) If it seems frivolous, your speaks will be capped at 27. I won’t reward people who trade off real preparation for checking cards for evidence ethics violations before round.

I am a former LD coach and camp instructor who is now assisting with the Charlotte Latin School (NC) team. Though I will listen to kritiks, plans/counterplans, disads, etc., I prefer a good standards debate. If you choose to offer theoretical approaches, just be sure to explain and impact them clearly. NEG, avoid trying to win the round by spreading; instead, give substantive responses to the AFF case in addition to your case.

I do flow carefully and will make my decision largely based on coverage, argument quality, clash, and impacting. When you address standards, you should actually explain your argument rather than simply cross-applying arguments that don't necessarily fit your point. I can handle speed as long as you signpost and enunciate; if I cannot understand what you are saying, then your point won't be on my flow, and I won't vote on it. Please make CX count by asking substantive questions. Remain civil. You will not impress me by being arrogant, condescending or rude to your opponent. When tournaments allow, I am happy to offer a critique at the end though I generally do not disclose.

If you are a novice, please know that I am a friendly and accessible judge. I work with primarily with novice LDers and really enjoy that process. Feel free to ask me questions if you are confused during the round. I will write specific and constructive comments that you can later use in practice, and please don't hesitate to speak with me outside of the round about your performance. Above all, remember that your round should be a learning experience! It's NOT all about the "win." You should take something valuable from the round regardless of a win or loss.

Professionalism and respect are what champions are made of; words of wisdom always win! Apply the principles of good sportsmanship-hold yourself to a higher standard.

Plan and stick to your position. Prep time is crucial.

Communicate clarity in your stance, topic, rebuttal, and explanations; add to the impact of your statements.

Countering arguments need to be expressive, factual, and worthy of a solution if needed. Think your ideas through.

Convince me. Why do YOU rank first? Persuasion is the big picture.

Talking fast? Lots of information? Can I justify all your points if you rush? Maybe not. Don't take that chance.

Adding fillers and hypotheticals to stretch time? Don’t. Be meaningful with our time.

Evidence? Yes, please! Explain how your evidence justifies your topic's stance. If you have my attention, give it your all!

I am a relatively experienced parent judge. For LD debate, I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, not too quickly (no spreading), and follow the proper flow for an LD round, without letting any threads of the arguments go unaddressed. I will be flowing the round. I prefer well reasoned responses rather than stock replies. And I very much appreciate when debaters clearly lay out voters issues.

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge but did not compete myself.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

I will be judging Speech.  I am certified in K-12 Speech and Debate. I have been a Debate Coach for 7 years.

Thank you,

Linda Pierre

Did Policy Debate in the late 90s & coached Policy and then later LD in the 00s. In the past 12 years, I've almost exclusively coached Speech events at Lakeville North High School. I taught at Gustavus speech and PF camps when those were still around and have been teaching Extemp Speaking at ISD the past six summers.

If I'm judging you in a Debate round, please know that the time I've spent away from Debate means I'm not necessarily familiar with how practices for each of the events have evolved. If fast and technical are your preferred style, I'll try to keep up but no promises that I can entirely. Podcasts at 2.5x aren't quite the same so you may need to watch and adjust. Chances are I'm unfamiliar with topic-specific lit or whatever critical lit is currently in style so you may need to do more connecting of the dots in order to keep me on the same page as you. For familiarity and thresholds for types of arguments, ask before the round.

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

I am a parent judge, and lack a little bit of the technical lingo that goes along with the event. I do have a good record at being a fair open-minded judge who is able to discern a good argument. I do understand that limited spreading needs to happen in LD but I do not like excessive spreading. I will give you a verbal warning if you start to spread but if it continues and if I cannot understand you I cannot effectively judge your argument against your opponent.

I believe that an argument should be well thought out, well structured, and cogent. I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with crafty and well-timed rebuttals.

I'm a judge who likes to go with the flow. I take copious notes when needed, and when I give my decision, I explain in detail why I picked the winner. I expect debaters to have original arguments and a solid framework. I do not like debaters repeating the same argument multiple times to just finish up their time slot.

Background:

• I teach English 11, Journalism, and College Writing at Moorhead High School. This is my 10th year at MHS.
• I have coached speech for the past 10 seasons, primarily PA events (Discussion, Ex. Speaking, GS, Info, OO).
• I have been the Head Debate Coach at MHS since 2017 when we revived the program. Over the past seven years, I have coached PF and Congress. Our team also competes in LD.
• I regularly judge PF and Congress during the regular season and have judged Congress and PF at State for the past four years. I've also judged PF at national circuit tournaments and NSDA Nationals. In speech, I've judged all events at the local, regional, and national level since 2015.

A more detailed paradigm is below but, regardless of the event, please know that respect, integrity, and decorum are paramount. Offensive language, condescension, and aggression at any point in the round will ensure a loss/lowest possible rank. In short, be kind.

Public Forum:

• Speed is fine so long as it doesn't come at the cost of clarity. Quality over quantity usually prevails. Clear signposting and extending voters goes a long way toward winning the round. Take the time to ensure that 'dropped' contentions are fully explained.
• Please do not bombard us with cards. Evidence (directly and appropriately quoted) is important but I am far more interested in your analysis and deeper explanation. Demonstrate your understanding and show us how that evidence functions with regard to your opponent's claims and the case you are building.
• Stay cool and composed, especially during cross. Shouting matches serve little purpose. When you ask a question, I expect that you actually want to hear the answer.
• Timing - While I expect debaters to honor time restrictions and keep record, I will also keep track and will hold you to those parameters. Please don't abuse it.

Congress:

• Much like PF, it's quality over quantity for me. Two, or maybe three, sub points defending or negating a piece of legislation with sound, clear analysis is more important than a lengthy list of reasons with little time to explain. Long intros that meander before reaching the thesis, to me, are not the best use of time (I know, I sound like a curmudgeon. Have fun with it but not at the expense of dropping or rushing a point previewed in the intro).
• Demonstrate your understanding of the bill/resolution and its language. Reference specifics within the legislation (section and/or line numbers are helpful). I think it can be easy to find small, grammatical or typographical errors and point solely to that as a reason for negating (and in some cases, those issues should be noted), but please take the time to debate the merits of the legislation as well.
• Active listening - Above all, this one stands out to me the most and usually becomes my tiebreaker when ranks are super close. This can be as small as directly referencing -- by name -- previous speakers and their points or even making occasional eye contact while others are speaking . . . Active listening also means building upon established claims/reasons in your speeches and in questioning. If there's nothing new or insightful to add, it's best to move to previous Q to retain your spot in line. On a related note, please make an effort to correctly pronounce the names of your fellow competitors (and if yours is mispronounced, please correct them...and correct me too).
• POs - I tend to start POs in the top 5-6 of my rankings and adjust based on the overall organization, order, and smoothness of the round. I try to track P/R when scoring and definitely do as a Parli. Small errors can be forgiven (we're all human) if recognized but, especially late in the season, running for PO tells me that you are comfortable with the job. As such, I will hold POs to that standard much like the standards set for Reps/Sens in the round.

I competed for several years and was recognized at both the state and national level. I am currently a student in the BFA Acting program at The University of Texas at Austin, and am excited to see honest acting, a clear storyline, and a clear understanding of relationships and the characters point of view on the world. As for speech events, I am looking for clear points, confidence, and a new perspective on the topic at hand.

Paradigm: LD

Traditional parent judge, was not a debater as a student but I work in policy communications and advocacy so I know a thing or two about how to put together a persuasive argument and appreciate well-crafted messaging.

Good:

Clear statement of contentions and clean construction of argument.

Crystallization points.

Moderate speaking pace and tightly-written arguments: pick your best evidence and state it clearly, rather than drowning me with irrelevant information just to pile on the cards.

Courtesy to your opponent and respectful demeanor.

Bad:

Spreading: if you need to speak too quickly it shows me you have poor command of the material and cannot choose your best points. More isn't necessary better, as long as you've been careful not to drop issues.

Absurdity: I appreciate cleverness and wit in debate, but don't appreciate you throwing out red herrings or engaging in gimmickry just to send your opponent off in an irrelevant direction. Try to win without doing things that are technically fine but actually ridiculous.

Good luck!

Hi debaters,

I look forward to working with you and feel privileged that I get to be the judge of your hard work that I know you put into preparing your debates and speeches. 

As a judge, I would like you to speak clearly and at a normal pace. 'Spreading' is hard to understand and follow, opening you up to the risk that I won't catch the nuances of your arguments. 

I love it when debaters make their own arguments in their own words rather than read word by word their cards. Obviously, that depends on your level and I understand if novices rely on cards more, but try to say things such that I get the feeling you believe what you say and you are making a coherent, well-thought out argument with introduction, main part and conclusion.

I am impressed as a judge if you can support your arguments with evidence -- ideally that isn't just someone else in a paper or the like having echoed your point (or you echoing theirs), but you using numbers, anecdotes, examples and linking them in a logical sense to your point.

Thanks for paying attention to these points and good luck with your debates. I look forward to meeting you!

Hannfried von Hindenburg (he/him)   

I look for rational, linear argumentation. Please do not advance contentions/make arguments without providing adequate warrant/evidence. Please avoid negating your own argument(s) with circular or incomplete warrants/reasoning. Please do not abuse your opponent. Civility will gain much more than overly agressive pursuit. Spreading is perhaps fine, but it had better consist of completed arguments (claim AND warrant) rather than scatter gun approaches designed as insurmountable "gotcha" gimmicks to merely trap your opponents into "dropping" arguments. If your claims and warrants don't actually WORK, then I'm highly unlikely to count them as actual arguments, and your opponent cannot drop arguments that weren't completed on your part. Also, if your speed is so rapid that I cannot flow it, then those are arguments you didn't successfully make, and which your opponent cannot actually "drop." Please do not present me with "theater of the absurd" contentions that are off topic or so bizzarely twisted that they are abusive to your opponent. Such tactics will not be rewarded as voters. Off time road mapping is, to me, highly suspect, as it can quickly appear to be an attempt to abuse the time constraints and thus abuse one's opponent, and leaves an overall bad taste in my mouth (not to mention in the mouth/mouths of your opponent/opponents). If you just MUST off time road map, then, of course, you will want to keep it to a minimum, .... but be aware that really ANY of it appears to me to be suspect/abusive. Please contain your claims and warrants to terms and phrases whose definitions you FULLY understand, and with which you are comfortable and fluent in pronouncing. Just because it is on the card doesn't mean it can't seriously break up your flow if you mis pronounce it or wholly or partially misunderstand all the implications it has. DO flow your opponents' arguments carefully, and feel free to turn claims that aren't warranted, or that are poorly warranted. Being able to so do with terms used by an opponent who clearly doesn't understand ALL implications, without being a wiseacre about it are often rewarded in voting.

Howdy, I am William Wayne Ward from Wyoming.

Experience:

3 Years High School Congressional Debate

1 Year British Parliamentary Debate

1.5 years College Public Forum Debate (current competitor)

Currently Learning College Speech (at large)

President of UW Speech

Debate:

I enjoy the technical side of debate but better speakers will often win my vote should the speaker's clash and arguments be roughly equal. I really enjoy watching clash, especially lively ones, but I severely punish Ad Hominem arguments and general disrespect. I prefer on the clock roadmaps but I do not care much. I shouldn't have to read y'all's case to understand, it is lame if I do. If you give me a K argument that is not on case, I will likely give you an L. Spreading makes me Sad. I believe that ridiculous arguments require minimal responses, the bar for a substantive response is lower. Please do not force me to listen to a definition debate where the two terms are not meaningfully different.

Congress: I expect chairs to be efficient, know parliamentary procedure, be fair, and to take good precedence. Newbies are more forgiven. I have a ton of experience here, I can smell procedural BS a mile away so do not cross any major ethical boundaries.

Chair, I detest question precedence and RNG speaker selection. That is not in Roberts Rules of Order.

Speakers, you are in congressional debate, not congressional oratory. The later half of the debate needs to have clash or I will have an excellent nap. Don't tempt me.

LD: Please explain why a value or criterion clash matters, what arguments I should drop or if I should entirely ignore your opponent's case. You are in a moral debate, not PF Lite™, explain why morals matter.

PF: If I cannot explain your case and it's logic in 1-2 sentences, I probably will not vote for you. Simplify your case for me into easy logic if possible. I am sadly, a pea brain.

CX: Pray I am not your CX judge. If you have the misfortune of seeing me as a CX judge, K arguments that are off case are annoying and spreading is lame. Treat me like a lay judge.

Debate differences: I will try not force my preferred lay and PF view points on you, I detest how CX judges decide PF, but I cannot reward something I do not understand just because it is the norm.

Speech:

I judge heavy on energy and blocking (when applicable) as well as speaking ability. I would much rather judge a room full of the same subject with great performance than unique topics with poor performance.

In my view, you are in Speech, not Debate, which means that the best subject, topic, or argument does not always win. It's all about how you can present it, but an interesting topic certainly helps.

Ballots:

I like to flow what happens in your feedback on Tabroom for most events, especially debate so you can see everything I hear/consider. That said, I flow faster on paper so in elimination rounds I will likely not flow on the ballot.

↑ Effective Judge Understanding > Flow Transparency. ↑

I might add emojis to most ballots. ???? ← Might look like this. If I do not have much under your feedback or RFD, it is because I forgot to fill it out like a dingus.

Contact:

for additional feedback or questions about your ballot:

email: willward2002@gmail.com

text at 307-921-0711

Just don't dox me, thats not coolio.

Long time coach with tons of judging experience across most events. California doesn't have OI, Prose, or Poetry so those would be exceptions.

Policy, PF, LD, and Parli you can run any argument you wish. However, you'll need to go slow and explain the position. "Politics Disad" means nothing to me....explain the argument. The default is probably for a debater to think I'm a slow judge or a traditionalist, and on some level that is true, but I'm willing to listen to most any argument if it's explained and warranted.

american heritage ‘22 extemp/pf

i flow, but i've been uninvolved in debate so treat me like a flay judge and make the debate understandable and accessible. thus,

- weigh, preferably comparatively, and only on arguments you are winning

- extend at least the warrant and impact of each argument. otherwise i will not flow/not understand enough to vote off it. something you want to bring up in final must also be in summary and rebuttal.

- no spreading

- defense is not sticky

- be nice. i won’t hesitate to deduct speaker points if you are rude/arrogant in cross or speech.