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 am the Head Coach of Millburn High School in New Jersey. In high school, I competed in Congressional Debate, Expository Speaking (now Informative), and Duo Interpretation (Congress was my main event). While in college, I competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Parliamentary Debate. I have a bachelor's degree in Economics and Political Science and a master's degree in International Relations with a focus on International Law and Institutions. Professionally, I work in politics and government affairs, and own my own political consulting and corporate social responsibility consulting businesses in Nevada!

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

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

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship, 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 giving 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, one of the things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments is having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds). You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate.

- 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.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

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

- I am really open to hearing most any type of argument. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round.

- 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 the in the round. Sign posting 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. It's your show, not mine!

- I don't require front-lining in the summary, but if you feel as though it is necessary, do it.

- 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!

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 tournaments over the past 2 years. 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.)

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

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD 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

So with this in mind, speed and flow, I can flow very quickly, however if it sounds like you are hyperventilating then well, breathe, breathe 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 tape and put on youtube so we can watch the other person's reaction. =)

For your K - well we all know some may try to use, not the biggest fan, especially when the debater does not fully understand what they arguing or at least the premise of their K and or using a generic K that could be used anywhere in the world!!! What would be fun to hear is that the impact and alternative brought about puppies and rainbows =)

So with that in mind, life is simple, right? 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 not policy !

Hi everyone- I'm a lay judge but I'm a high school junior who specializes in Parliamentary debate. I've also done a few rounds of exempt and duo speech events, and I've recently added PF judging and LD judging to my repertoire but treat me like I'm someone's mom so I can make sure I have a handle on what's going on.

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 those who go the ~extra mile~, here are a few things I judge on more in-depth:

-Respect! Speaker points will be docked if there are any racist/homophobic/ableist or otherwise offensive interactions during my rounds. Please respect your opponents and your judge, do not speak over them, invalidate their argument without reason, do not misgender anyone in your room or disregard any pronouns, and so on and so forth.

-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.

How to get a thirty? Do all of these, do them well, and either make me laugh or keep me interested.

Good luck!

• 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.

IF YOU EVER NEED PRIVATE COACHING, I CAN HELP. CONTACT ME AT mga4edu@gmail.com FOR FURTHER DETAILS. 

*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 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 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. 

Therefore, specificity is key. 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 claims with 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

American Heritage Broward '22

University of Miami '26

Email: pl206972@ahschool.com

Email me if you have questions

I competed in LD for four years (for policy and PF people I've done a decent number of tournaments in my latter three years). Don't adapt, just do whatever you want as long as you are clear and make sense. 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 :)

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 - know most lit read on the circuit, but I also really enjoy random obscure literature so don't be afraid to try something new! 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 - familiar with most fwks read on the circuit right now. Cool phil strats are skep triggers/contingent standards, hijacks, and NC AC.

Theory

I will default to competing interps, yes RVIs. If DTA/DTD or voters aren't read I'll prob just look to substance. Go a little slower than you would reading the text of a card. Fine with any shells if you win them 

LARP

Don't mind it but I didn't do it a lot. My LARP topic knowledge is usually limited so just explain your positions and you'll be fine. Cool LARP strats are impact turns, unique PICs, and case dumps.

Tricks

Go for it but slow down. When responding, calling it silly isn't sufficient, prove it.

Ev Ethics

Please spare me. Make an in round arg instead. If you do challenge, it should be based on NSDA/tournament rules

Trad Debaters

Circuit debater debating a trad debater - if you are affirming do what you want (because you can't technically know until 1NC) but reading a substance phil or LARP aff would be good for engagement. If you are negating against a lay aff, I recommend going a little slower and reading substantive positions. That can be NC AC, DA/CP/turns, or whatever you think will allow them to engage.

Trad debaters - I don't mind lay debate, 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.

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 former speech team coach. My background is in theatre and speech, so presentation matters to me. I would like you to speak at a slow rate, so I can make sure to catch all of your arguments and evidence. I also need your speeches to be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but again, if I can’t understand it, I can’t vote for it. 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. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

*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.

Caveat: All this is how I think I judge debates. People who have had me in the back of the room may disagree with elements of this.

The "TL;DR" version

1) The AFF's advocacy should endorse the resolution -- if you do that, I'll give you some room on method. If you're dodging the resolution, NEG's got a pretty low bar to get over to win (though I have seen NEGs find a way to foul it up, too).

2) I default policymaker but will consider other approaches if well-articulated and explained in terms of why that approach is appropriate for this round.

3) I want in on any file sharing (maierd@gosaints.org), but I'm only going to flow what you intelligibly articulate in the round. I only go to the speech doc if I lost focus or the like, otherwise if it's not on my flow, you didn't say it.

4) I lean truth over tech, reasonability over competing interpretations, substance over procedure, and usually find reciprocity to be a good starting point for evaluating theory, but these are all defaults and can be overcome.

5) I have no moral qualms with saying "I didn't vote for you because I didn't understand your argument." Producing a cogent argument from your evidence and thought process is your job. My job is to as best as possible fairly evaluate the debate that takes place in front of me in the particular round I'm asked to judge.

6) Don't be rude, don't falsify evidence, don't clip cards, and don't do other shady things. If you're doing "ins and outs", you'd be well-advised to notify everyone before the round begins (I have voted against a team who didn't because 2NR ran a theory objection). If it's shady enough, I may sign the ballot against you without the other team telling me to.

The “Actual Text” Version – but still trying to be somewhat succinct.

· The resolution – Full Disclosure: I have attended the Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 and will be chairing the Topic Wording Committee for the 2020 meeting, so I am keen on how much work goes into drafting the resolution. Advocate for or against the resolution, and I’ll give you some leeway on exactly how you’re doing that (e.g. using your personal narrative as a DREAMer for immigration reform is a valid strategy, saying I should vote for you because you didn’t get Cocoa Puffs as a kid is not, and if you insist on doing the latter, you’d probably prefer striking me over taking that L).

· If you’re running electronic file sharing, I want to be in on the fun, but my flow will only reflect what you say in the round. Speed is generally okay but be clear – the third time I have to yell “clear”, I stop flowing. If it’s not on my flow, you didn’t say it and if it’s because you were unclear, I’m not going to the speech doc to bail you out. I’m about the content of what you say, but you have to say it in a way that is intelligible.

· Substance > procedure is the default, but if your opponent is being particularly egregious or shady and you explain why I have to use the ballot to take a stand, I have no problem checking in for topicality or theory.

· Your job is to make me understand the argument and why it matters in this debate so that if I vote against the other team, I can explain to them why they lost. Complicated arguments require thorough explanations. “Read our evidence, it’s on fire” is lazy debate, not a thorough explanation. While I am literate enough to understand kritiks like capitalism, feminism, intersectionality, anti-blackness and the like, if your kritik is based on some French dude whose name ends in four consecutive vowels who says a failure to adopt their method kills all value to life, you’d better have a good story.

· I try to decide the debate in the least interventionist way possible, unless some bad behavior is taking place. I’ll read cards if I must, but only those I need. If you ask me to read evidence, you’re giving me a tacit invitation to intervene.

· Whether it’s performance versus counter-performance, a policy AFF that claims the right to weigh itself against a K, a well-structured and developed T debate, or an old school AFF versus case arguments and a DA, good debate is good debate. If you’re giving me defensible reasons why the resolution should be endorsed or rejected, I’m pretty likely to be down with that.

· Because I judge on a few different circuits, I don't list a point scale, but try to adapt to whatever the particular tournament I am at is using.

· Things that will cost you speaker points or the round:

a. Rudeness – it will definitely hurt your speaks, enough rudeness makes me either actively look for a way to give you the L or just decide that you’re getting the L because I like to make rude people mad at me.

b. Gratuitous profanity – if a “damn” or “hell” slips out during a frantic 1AR or you’re including a curse word that is essential to the context of evidence you’re reading, that’s okay. Six f-bombs in a 40 second span is something else.

c. Racist/homophobic/sexist language or behavior -- if I'm sure about what I saw or heard, I have no problem acting on this one unilaterally

d. Falsifying evidence – if I’m pretty sure it’s been done, I will act on this one unilaterally

e. Clipping cards – if I’m pretty sure it’s being done intentionally, I will act on this one unilaterally.

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 appreciate debaters who speak clearly, not too quickly, and follow the proper flow for an LD debate, without letting any threads of the arguments go unaddressed. I prefer well reasoned responses rather than stock replies.

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 humour. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

Village High School 23'

Email: jay.natarajan1[at]gmail[dot]com - Put me on the chain if possible.

Hey, I'm Jay and I'm a current junior at Village High School. I've competed for a bit in LD and as a result, don't have any particular qualms with any arguments. However, I'll note the fact that arguments should have at the very minimum a general claim-warrant-impact structure for me to vote off of them.

Prefs Shortcut (in how comfortable I am judging them):

LARP/Trad - 1

Theory/T - 1/2

K/Phil - 2/3

Tricks - 4

General Overview:

- I will try to be as neutral as possible, tech > truth (offense vs. persuasiveness)

- Feel free to go as fast as you want, but make sure to slow down on tags and be relatively clear

- Speaks will be based on overall round strategy & start at a 28 and go up/down from there.

- Any arguments that are morally repugnant should not be run at all - I will drop you if you do.

- If you have any questions before the round - feel free to ask!

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 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 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!

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 four 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 for me. 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: One integral aspect of Public Forum debate is that it is topical debate. That is a stance that I'm pretty firm on, as such, if you are reliant on frivolous theory, just strike me now. Other than that, feel free to run whatever arguments you like... I don't find that there is ample time to really dive into too much for Kritiks or for theory in general, but if you want to give it a try, go for it... I guess. I just would rather focus on topical debate.

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. No calling each other racists or anything like that, it's a learning event, and it's a safe academic space for everyone.

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.

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.

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)   

Hello, I am Will from Wyoming and I am experienced in Congressional Debate.

Experience:

3 Years High School Congressional Debate

1 Year British Parliamentary Debate

Debate:

I enjoy the technical side of debate but better speakers will often win my vote should the speaker's clash and arguments be equal. I really enjoy watching clash, especially lively ones, but I severely punish Ad Hominem arguments and general disrespect. If you give me a K argument I will give you an L.

Congress: I expect chairs to be efficient, know parliamentary procedure, be fair, and to take good precedence.

Speech:

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

Contact:

willward2002@gmail.com or text at 307-921-0711 for additional feedback or questions about your ballot.

Should you be exceptional I might add Emojis to your ballot, enjoy.

Long time coach with tons of judging experience.

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 say 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.

email - pl242651@ahschool.com

american heritage ‘22 (3 years pf, 1 year extemp)

extemp

idk if people check these but here’s my take: a good speech should combine clarity/entertainment with good analysis. however, good analysis is always impossible without clarity. also don’t egregiously can things; i can’t tell but just don’t

pf

i flow, but please 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

- go up to “pf spread”

- defense is not sticky, and no new weighing in final

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