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

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

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

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

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

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

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

general:

I dont flow or count cross X thats for yall not me

if a question goes over time i will allow a quick and concise response

and as a heads up im a bit hard of hearing so if im looking away im pointing my ear to hear better im not ignoring you i promise

LD:

value: the upholding of your value over your appoint

Value criteria: a connecting theme between your point value and value criteria

as LD debater who wants to see the style grow if I see any unsportsmanly conduct I will stop flow and adjudicate the round the same moment excessive speed and use of "info bombing" ect. are considered as unsportsmanly conduct

Congress:

Congress is just as much about your research as your presentation ham it up be confident you are taking the role of a Congressmen embrace that energy also call out someone who if they said something that’s just especially if you can explain how wrong they were also if you have already heard your points said don’t just restate them expand on them

PF: tbd

BQ: tbd

LRCH 2024

he/him

jdowb2005@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain with the address above.

I'll judge any argument, assuming they are not racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or transphobic. I read the K on both sides, but I am well-versed in policy debate, too.

At the end of the day, read arguments that you understand. I value truth more than other judges. I'll freely admit that I'm not very experienced, though, especially in LD or PF debate, so make sure to slow down and prioritize clarity. Online debate makes this even more important. Walk me through the debate, and give me good impact framing at the end of the round!

John Block: block.john.b@gmail.com please add me to email chain, thanks

LRCH ’09

Missouri state State ‘12

Last Updated: March 2024

General:

I am currently completing my final year of pediatrics residency so I have been out of the judging game to some extent so be aware that acronyms/the latest K lit I may not be up to date with. That being said I assist LRCH and judge practice debates/listen to practices. I believe that my job is to be a reactionary presence in the room. I do have my own opinions which I’ll get to in a bit but I should be receptive to basically anything you are doing. Being nice goes a long way. Make my job easy. If you can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR I would be happy for you to do so. Even if statements are phenomenal, no one will win 100% of the arguments, recognize and embrace that.

Digital debate will be an adjustment to all. I have watched some debates but they were conducted over Zoom so I will be new to this software interface so please be patient if and when glitches arise.

You don’t need evidence for an argument, although it helps.

Specifics: T/Framework-I am not exclusively a policymaker. I’m just a person evaluating a discussion of ideas. That being said I went for Framework quite regularly in college and have voted on it multiple times. Be interactive with the other side, don’t just read blocks at each other. TVA’s are important and so are aff visions of the topic that are navigable to the negative team.

Theory: bad theory arguments are just that, bad. If you want to go for theory great but I am pretty easily swayed by reject the argument not the team. If you want to read consult/conditions style arguments I can get on board pretty easily. If you want to read multiple CPs without solvency advocates to simply skew the 2AC’s time I’m less on your side.

Case Debates-crucial to a good round. You can make my threshold to vote negative significantly lower if you have good case args, these don’t have to be supported by evidence but again it helps. Ev analysis has gotten somewhat lost in my opinion over the years. Read the text/read who this person is, discuss why one piece of evidence should be prioritized (does it assume the other team’s ev? Is it newer? Is it better analysis etc?)

DA’s-PTX is fun, elections is an exciting time to be reading it. Otherwise topic DA’s are great too. Don’t forget to have specific links to the aff and a good internal link. Similarly, don’t forget to identify flaws in the internal link chain or why your aff is different than what the link evidence assumes/why it would be perceived differently.

CP’s: having a solvency advocate is good but not necessary. I read a lot of hyperspecific CP’s in my day but also think a lot of it can become esoteric. If you have a great counterplan to read go for it, if you have a generic CP, go for it. Delay is questionable from a theory level but I’ll certainly listen to it.

K’s-Guide me through the K and what it means for the hypothetical world of the aff vs the hypothetical world of the alternative. Explain what specifically the aff does, specifically what the 1AC said or the assumptions that went into it. I may not be hip to the latest high theory K’s but I hear of some of them by proximity to debate even if I haven’t sat in the back of rounds in recent times.

K Affs: Most of what I wrote in the K area applies here. I think I am slightly K leaning as far as my threshold for voting on T or F/W so keep that in mind. What is the ballot and why does it matter for whatever the aff is. I am a bigger fan of embracing the K side of the aff and not as crazy about “soft-left” affs as I have been in the past.

CX-don’t just use it for prep. A good CX can end a debate round early on. This may be difficult with virtual debate and people just trying to talk over each other.

Cheating: If I suspect it I will report it. I will often read along and will likely do this even more because hearing specifics of spreading may be more difficult virtually.

Hey dudes I'm Jillian

I did debate for three years, 1 year was novice policy at Bentonville HS, and two years were at Bentonville West doing LD. I have won local tournaments, competed at national ones, and was 1st Alt for Nationals last year in LD. Also, I understand all formats so please don't try to trick me because I will know lol.

In terms of LD and PF, I am pretty laid back because I expect you to do the work for me. (aka a flow judge) I would like all arguments to be as flushed out as possible, and I will try my very hardest not to make assumptions or fill in any blanks in someones argument because I see that as unfair. However, you cannot just make unseemly claims and expect me to buy them, especially if they are in any way racist or sexist. (I will for sure vote you down if you are being intentional.)

On the flow, if you drop something, and the other person points out that a) you dropped it and b)why that matters, you will lose that argument. However, if they do not point it out and it goes uncontested, the last argument is the one I will consider at the end. Framework is important because for LD- it is based on values, and PF, it is critical in order to evaluate impacts, but honestly I like case debates so much better. That being said, you cannot win the round if you lose framework.

People should not get below 25 speaker points with me, unless you are extremely triggering or if you concede the round. Also, speed is cool with me because I definitely spoke too fast for most judges but just be as clear as possible, and if I need to I will just ask for evidence or clarification after the speech.

Good luck and have fun!!!!!

Add me to the email chain jenniferleebuckner@gmail.com.

I debated policy in high school and college. But to give you a clue how long it's been, I went to the library, used a pair of scissors to cut physical cards & hauled large Rubbermaid totes full of evidence around :-)

I have three kids in debate (two competing and one coaching in college).

Some speed is okay but be clear.

Types of arguments are up to the debaters in the round.

Have fun!

Preferences:

Clash - actually arguing against an opponent's evidence/analysis instead of just reading your own positions while substantively ignoring your opponent's positions.

Evidence analysis - not every card is as good as its tag; not every card is equal, etc. Be sure to analyze the evidence offered in the round.

Dislikes:

Rude/unkind/disrespectful behavior

Debaters reading arguments they don't understand.

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

TL;DR

Speed is good just be clear and emphasize key arguments

Add me on the email chain adrianesau523@gmail.com

Be respectful

Quality of arguments over quantity of arguments

Cross important for speaks; make sure to utilize it well

Slightly truth over tech

O/V

I have did debate for four years at Cabot, and have experience in every type of event besides congress. My preferable event, however, is LD There are sections in this paradigm that go over my opinions about PF along with sections about certain types of LD debate strategies that are used often. Also, there's a really brief congress paradigm at the bottom.

Public Forum

It doesn’t really matter to me what you run. Follow basic public forum rules. If you spread or talk exceedingly fast I’ll most likely vote you down since that’s considered abusive unless the opponent just goes with it. At that point it’s fair game. In the rebuttals, make sure to be organized , and I prefer line-by-line with numbered responses if you have more than 1 response. Final focus should be strictly weighing and voters. No new args should be brought up in the summary and should be used for extending your own case.

LD

I don't really care what style you debate in as I have done both traditional and progressive LD. A major thing for me is that if you are to run a progressive case, you need to clarify your major impacts and make sure I catch on within the jumble of arguments you're spreading. Other than that, follow basic guidelines for spreading such as slowing down on taglines and etc. The following things are my viewpoints on the progressive arguments that could be used and just my basic viewpoints on clash and case arguments.

Topicality

If you can convince me that the opponent isn’t topical then that gives you some leverage. However, I don’t think that running just topicality and not touching any of the opponent's case is acceptable. If their arguments aren’t topical, explain why. Don’t just claim that they aren’t topical and not give any reasoning for why that is because at that point I’m not considering that as a legitimate argument. Topicality provides a way for good clash in a debate, but it shouldn’t be the only thing argued throughout. There should be other arguments ran so it’s not the only clash within the debate.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

I really enjoy this strategy, and I think it provides a fun, creative spin to a debate. Disads should be relevant and not built with out-of-date empirical evidence. Their needs to be a clear link of why taking the action of the resolution is bad, and have a clear impact of why the argument is even prevalent or important. Counter-plans are fun to run, but should be realistic. It should be able to sell it’s point of why the plan should be preferred, and should have evidence backing the plan. I would like to see how the plan would be enforced also that way I don’t have to interpret it for myself.

Case

I think a good case debate is important. I like case turns and outweighing impacts better than last minute arguments against the opponent's case being brought up because you were too busy trying to sell your own points. Defense is good, but their needs to be some sort of offense. Otherwise I have sat through a debate listening to two different sides of the topic without any clear turns or rebuttals, and I don’t think that makes for a good debate whatsoever. What ends up happening is entire contentions being dropped, and nothing for me to vote on other then who was a better speaker. I think debates should be more than that so make sure there is a genuine clash between the two cases, and not just you reading off your case and a bunch of backfiles of evidence just building already made arguments.

Kritiks

You should have a well developed Kritik shell when running this strategy. You should provide a general analysis of how it is related to the round, and have a clear link to how the argument is topical with the resolution. You should give a clear reason why I should vote for your K and how it should be weighed in the round. An alternative provided after the K would be preferable, especially if the implications of the K are applicable to the pre-plan world. If you are to go against a debater running a K, it’s important that you attack the framework of the debate as the kritik your opponent runs sets up the standard of the debate. I think it’s important that the opposing debater tries to control framework as it is a major part of any LD debate.

Theory

I don’t have much experience when it comes to this particular debate strategy. I’ll vote for whatever as long as the theory is constructed well and clear as to what it is advocating. The theory should have the four parts of a basic theory shell (interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). The standard the theory sets up should be realistic, and be able to clearly show why the interpretation is good for the debate. The warrant should clearly give a reason for why I should consider your theory. The usual voter is fairness and education, but feel free to read any voter you think of as long as you can warrant why it is important for the debate.

Congress

I don't care what perspective you take when speaking on a bill. The more unique the takes, the better. I just ask that you don't be homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or racist. It should go without saying but be respectful and have fun!

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

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

I was a policy debater in West Texas in the late 90's. Competing and doing well in both UIL and TFA. Afterwards, I spent four years competing in two forms of limited prep debate at the collegiate level (IPDA and Parliamentary)

TWO DIAMOND COACH:

In 17 years of coaching, we have competed and won in Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, World Schools and Big Question. We are the only small-school ,from Arkansas, that has been consistent at qualifying for Nationals.

In the past 17 years, we have attended TOC 4 times and NSDA Nats 8 times. We have made it to nationals in everything from Oratory, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions and World Schools debate.

I have judged; 2020 NSDA PF FINALS, 2023 NSDA WSD FINALS, NSDA finals rounds of Individual events, NSDA Nats World Schools Debate, Big Questions Nationals Semi-Finals Round, Lincoln-Douglas.

TOC PF and everything that you can think of on our local circuit.

This activity and its associated community give me life. It has led me from a life of poverty into a prosperous one that allows for a completely different world than I was raised in. I am honored to be judging debaters of your caliber and degree.

My View on debate:

It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.

I ,therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation , words used and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their own social or political commentary.

If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.

In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."

Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass.

This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced based argumentation. I prefer a well warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence. [this is not to say qualification don't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased] Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter.

Paradigms:

• Speed is fine. "Spreading" is not. Your breathing shouldn't become markedly different and noticeable because of your rate increase. The pitch of your voice shouldn't also change dramatically because of your delivery. If you are clean, clear and articulate then you are free to go as fast as you wish.
• Don't just extend cards with Author name. "Extend Samson '09". You need to explain why that argument is a good answer to whatever you are extending. For me, debate is more than just lines on a page. Your words matter. Your arguments matter.
• I feel that the first two speeches are solely for setting up the case in favor or opposition to the resolution. If an answer happens to cross-apply as a good answer to their case that is fine. But, I don't expect PF teams to divide their time in the first speeches to offer counter-arguments.
• No new in the 2. Core arguments should be flowing out of the first two constructive speeches. If it isn't covered by your partner in the second constructive or by you in the summary speech then it is dropped. Too little, too late. This isn't football and a Hail Mary will not occur.
• While I view debate as a game....it is more like Quidditch and less like muggle games. (*just because you win the most points doesn't make you the winner. If you catch that golden snitch....you can pull out the win! Don't be afraid to argue impacts as opposed to number of points)
• The affirmative has the burden of proof. It is their job to prove the resolution true. If the debate is a wash this means the default win will go to the negative. (low speak wins included)
• Framework: I will assume CBA unless otherwise stated. You can win framework and then lose the debate under that framework. That should be obvious. Make sure that you explain how and why you win under the framework of the debate.
• PF Plans/ CPs: Simply put. These are against the rule. You are allowed to give a general recommendation but this often delves right into plan territory.
• ATTITUDE: Humor is welcome. Sarcasm and rudeness are not.
• Evidence: Don't miscut evidence. I will call for evidence if (A) a team tells me to do so or (B) I suspect it is miscut.
• Round Evaluation: I am a flow judge. I will judge based on what happens in-round. It is your job to impact out your arguments. Don't just say 'this leads to racism'...TELL ME WHY RACISM IS BAD and what the actual impact is. Don't make me do the work for you. Make sure to weigh the arguments out under the frameworks.
• Shoo fly, you bug me:
• Don't tell me that something is dropped when it isn't. If they simply repeat their assertion in response, that is a different story. But if they have a clear answer and you tell me that they dropped that isn't going to end well for you. Don't extend through ink.
• Rudeness: This isn't a street fight. This is an intellectual exchange and thus should not be a showcase of rude behavior such as: Ad Hominem attacks on your competition, derision of your opponents argument or strategy, Domination of Cross by shouting/ cutting off / talking over your opponents.
• Arguing with me after disclosure. It wont change the ballot.
• Packing your things while I am giving you a critique.

Overall, do your best and have a fantastic time. That is why we are all here. If you have any questions about a ballot feel free to e-mail me at mrgambledhs@gmail.com

As a judge, I am looking first and foremost at speaking skill. A well planned and spoken speech ranks high on my radar. I also place value on evidence based speeches. Your evidence should be current and relevant. Confidence, kindness, and professionalism are key, as well.

My only real paradigm is that you answer the question. I will be judging on how you use the tools of debate to strengthen your argument, whether affirmative or negative. 

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

This is my third year as a parent judge. I have judged LD, PF, IPDA, EXT, Declamation, and Congress both at local tournaments and at Nationals . I try to focus on the speaker and only take key notes during the round. I like to see the speaker talk to the judges and not the podium (scanning all the judges, try not to focus on one judge). Be passionate about your topics. I am not to concerned with time. If you run over a few seconds I would rather you finish the sentence than stop talking abruptly. I cannot keep up with spreading.

Lisa Haddock

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

Experience

- 4 years of varsity/national level policy debate

- High school and now undergraduate mock trial

Preferences

- I would rather you have two arguments the whole round that you genuinely develop and defend than fifteen underdeveloped arguments which you drop in the end anyways

- Ks, CPs, DAs, etc - I like them all (especially a good K :)) I know enough to keep up, but you still need to put in the work and develop the argument

- If you want and can spread then go for it, but if it is not clear it isn't worth it with me

- Speaks - be respectful to me and your competition or it will be reflected, other than that you'll only get a low score if I just can not understand you (all of which I will let you know and give you a chance to correct in the round)

- I love and adore good line by line

General

- If no one has objections, I would love to be on the email chain or get passed the flash drive

- If you have questions before the round PLEASE DO NOT BE SCARED TO ASK

- If you have questions after the round... caitlynhager@gmail.com

I'm a former high school debater with three years of experience in both the state and national circuit. I spent most of my time doing Public Forum but have judged other styles as well. I don’t mind speed as long as I can understand you; if you see me put my pen down, that means I am not flowing and therefore not considering your argument. If it’s not on the flow, I will not vote on it. Don’t expect me to make assumptions about any sort of rhetoric; it is your job to convince me why it matters or ties into your case. I will vote you down if you are racist, sexist or homophobic. Have fun! Learn lots!

Public Forum

• I don’t mind aggressiveness in cross-examination if it helps you make a point. But always make sure to be assertive AND polite.

• Speak clearly, if I can’t understand you/hear you I can’t flow it.

• I don’t mind speed, but if it's borderline spreading I will tell you to slow down, this is not policy.

• Make sure to clearly tie your contentions to your framework if you have one.

• Framework is important but don't spend your entire speech only talking about it.

• Voters are key.

• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make sure to use your warrants. If you cannot clearly articulate why what you’re saying is true/will happen I won’t be able to actually evaluate it.

I am super passionate about debate and I am extremely excited to be your judge. I hope this is a great learning experience for you guys!

Leslie Harden Greer Judging Disclosure:

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

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

Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Affirmatives

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

Kritikal Affirmatives

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

Framework

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

Off

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

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

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

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

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

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

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

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

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

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

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

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

Arkansas Debate

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

adi (he/him)

then: little rock central

adithyakom@gmail.com

i have zero familiarity with anything and everything. please explain acronyms and assume I have zero topicality knowledge (no idea what qualifies as topical, aff/neg bias, etc.)

I: Background

If it matters to you, I read critical strategies both affirmative and negative and debated them in a technical manner. This has influenced the way I judge and evaluate arguments, but not my argumentative preferences. I hated judge intervention as a competitor and hate it even more as a judge, so don't make me do it. Tabula rasa is not a thing- I'll evaluate what you put on the table to the absolute best of my ability. Judge instruction, contextualization, and impact calculus delivered in a clear, concise manner will win my ballot.

Section II. Miscellaneous

If you are problematic, I will do some combination of the following: leave, kill your speaks, hand you an L, and/or contact your coaches.

Finesse/confidence is distinct from disrespect/degradation.

Embedded Clash- I love K Tricks and 2NC overviews with offense but these arguments need structure by the 2NR for me to vote on them.

Section III. Critical Affirmatives

Pref me as a 1 or a 2.

I really don't care how in the direction of the topic you are but explain your method clearly and concisely. I don't think that aff teams need to win that the ballot is key for their method.

For aff teams:

Against framework: I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good.

I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important here as these debates can become muddled extremely quickly. I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than a flurry of meaningless k tricks designed to bog down the other team.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

Section IV: Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates. For the immigration topic: I agree with the general consensus that topical affs must provide legal permanent residence.

Section V: Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my thing. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

I AM NOT JUDGE KICKING YOUR CP UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY TELL ME I SHOULD DO SO.

Section VI: Theory

If you read vague alts, I'm not evaluating it. I'm serious. Until someone can tell me what makes vague alts less vague than the actual alternative being read, I refuse to evaluate it. If you want to waste your time trying to convince me to evaluate it, and successfully do so, I will give you a 30.

Condo is the only reason to reject the team other than ethics violations. Other stuff = reject the argument. I find theory to be rather subjective, so impacting it out with some type of warrant is your best chance to win me over. Reading your blocks will not save you. Taking your analysis beyond your blockscan save you.

Section VII: Parting Thoughts

Be nice to your partner/opponents. Enjoy yourself. Don't worry so much about the numbers.

EMAIL: richard.liudebate@gmail.com

LRCH '22

UPenn '26

Top Level:

I do not have strong ideological preferences on content or form. I am more familiar with critical debate than traditional policy arguments. I am probably best at judging clash debates, then K v. K, then Policy v. Policy.

Be kind and respectful. I will reward your speaks if you are and punish them if you are not.

Background

I am a sophomore studying finance at Wharton. I debated for Little Rock Central for four years and read almost exclusively critical identity-based affirmatives.

Planless Affirmatives/FW

Aff teams should consolidate offense and leverage the method/1AC. Neg teams should engage the case page. I am more persuaded by arguments focused on the quality of debates and the importance of rejoinder for the negative than arguments about procedural fairness.

Ks

The most valuable thing neg teams can do is good link debating. To me, framework is a filter that lowers the link quality threshold necessary for the neg to win. Even if you win “you link you lose”, the neg still has to prove a link.

Aff teams should debate framework in a way that says “lowering the link quality threshold necessary for the neg to win is BAD”.

Theory

Unless completely dropped in every speech including the final rebuttal, I will probably never vote on any theory argument besides condo. I am probably sympathetic to condo bad but have not judged many debates that hinged on this.

DAs/CPs

I am fine with these, but am inexperienced in judging debates that come down to counterplan competition or perm theory. If you make this the focal point of the 2NR/2AR you will probably be more frustrated with the RFD than I am.

jackson.n.mills@gmail.com

they/them

Little Rock Central '24

Do what do you best, and have fun. I don't have any ideological preferences on content or form and try to adjudicate debates as strictly off the flow as possible. The only exception to this is problematic/violent arguments (racism good, genocide good, endorsements of self-harm, etc.) which will result in an L and the lowest speaks possible. I don't consider arguments such as wipeout or the death K to be in the same vein of argumentation described above, assuming they are not run in a way that would make anyone feel unsafe.

My debate background is largely critical, so I have a much more intuitive understanding of how Clash and K v K debates work. This is not to say I hold any animosity towards traditional policy arguments, but rather to say that extra explaining would be appreciated in these debates. I think I have a pretty good understanding of topicality versus policy affs, as well as the more common counterplans and DAs, but complicated counterplan competition debates and other things with that vibe will be where explanation is especially important. I think judgekick is fine but please say the words if you want me to do it.

Tech generally outweighs truth (see the above exceptions), but I must flow a claim, warrant, and implication for something to be evaluated as an argument. I default to being flow-centric as a means to evaluate all debates, but am willing to evaluate them through an alternative manner if presented and won. Debates should be about what the debaters say, so my defaults/predispositions/whatever are easily overcome by good debating. Judge instruction is by far the most important thing you should be doing, as it helps me to evaluate the debate through the lens you want me to rather than leave me to my own devices.

Misc. Things:

--speed is fine, but don't sacrifice clarity! the chance of me clearing you is extremely low (awkward) so just prioritize it

--don't be a bad person to your opponents – I understand some pettiness, standing on business, etc. but am not okay with you just being disrespectful for the sake of it.

--i tend to look somewhat tired/apathetic during debates, so please don't take this as a sign I am not engaged. i appreciate the effort and time debaters put into the activity and will do my best when adjudicating all debates.

--please call me jackson, not judge

--feel free to ask any/all questions after a decision - I know how much I have benefited from the advice given in RFDs and want to do whatever I can to help make your time in this activity more valuable

Current Debate Coach at Bentonville High School. Forensics competitor in high school 2008-2012. Debate (mostly IPDA) competitor in college 2014-2016.

Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.

Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.

Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches

Spreading is fine! I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow.

Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominate speaking ability, emotion, stronger clash, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots. Definition debates are my least favorite thing ever! Clash with the content of your cases!

I judge primarily as tech over truth. If you say something that is outright NOT true, I cannot overlook that, but I leave my bias/knowledge at the door as much as is appropriate & will judge simply on what happens in-round.

Don't be afraid to make me laugh!! Bachelorette/Survivor references are always appreciated.

Hello! I am a first-time parent judge, so please be patient with me.

I will determine rounds based on overall persuasiveness. For me, a persuasive case will meet the following criteria:

1. Strength of argument. Use authority and analysis to support your argument. Show me that you understand your source material. Not all sources are created equal.

2. Speaking style. Please do not spread. Fast talking detracts from your overall argument and, for me, is less persuasive. Keep it reasonably paced. Don't overuse jargon. Be respectful to your opponent. Make eye contact with me.

3. Organization. Be concise. Explain your sources. Provide veracity of your evidence.

4. No funny business.

Looking forward to this opportunity!

Akshay Padala, LRCH '22, Emory '26

(he/him) email chain- akshaypadala13@gmail.com

General Debate Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A word about style within the round:

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

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

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Tabroom:

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

Students:

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

Are you new to debate?

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

Are you an experienced Debater?

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

Are you nervous?

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

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

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

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

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

How important is professionalism?

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

What about Debate Ethics and Equality?

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

Does nonverbal communication matter?

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

Do I have pet peeves?

Of course.

Talking too fast, debate jargon, lack of humility.

Cardinal sins?

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

Speech and Interpretation

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

New to Speech and Interp

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

Finally

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

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

LD-

Speed- Medium to medium-fast (If speed gets in the way of speaking style, I'm not a fan. I don't like fast for the sake of fast). I will judge progressive style arguments if that's what's presented, but it's not my favorite.

Framework- May possibly be a voting factor depending on its use in the round, but not always. Voting issues- fine to use, but I'll only vote on them if I agree debater won the argument.

Speaking style/evidence/argumentation- all important!!

Policy- Speed- Medium to medium-fast. I will listen to spreading and it doesn't bother me as long as it's clear. I can handle K and Theory.

Policy Maker/ Stock Issues

Only vote on Topicality if Aff is highly off-topic or a squirrel case.

Ben Saddler

Cabot High School 2021 Alumni

I was in the Cabot Debate program for three years. I competed in PF mainly. I no longer compete so I will be coming into rounds with little to no background research, so treat me as a lay judge in that regard.

I would consider myself truth>tech because I like to know why your impacts will win the round. I prefer fleshed-out arguments, so make sure that you explain exactly what will happen and why it will happen for me.

PF- It's public forum, so don’t spread. Other than spreading, speed is fine if it is clear. Anything I can’t understand won’t flow, so make sure you articulate well. In summary you should streamline the debate instead of responding to 20 different cards read through the round. Summary should also begin the weighing for the final voters so that I know where to vote in the round. If both summary and final focus do their job, I will know exactly where to vote and why.

LD- Speed is fine if it is clear. I would like good debate on the value for the round. Let me know which framework is better and why. I'm not a very experienced LD judge, but I will try to judge based on the impacts presented in your arguments and the weighing given for them.

Congress- I am looking for good speeches as well as questioning. Try to participate as much as possible. Be ready to debate both sides, it is an important part of debate.

Cross is a good place to bump your speaks, but for anything brought up in cross to be weighed, you MUST mention it in your speech.

I am a newer parent judge who has enjoyed this responsibility over the last year. I will listen to both arguments and make a fair and unbiased opinion based on the facts, and who seems to have the better argument. I expect participants to be respectful to one another while expressing their opinion and being passionate about it. I expect that you will be prepared for the debate and not fumble through the presentation. Bonus points for those that show evidence to their argument and can prove it relates to the topic at hand. If a participant makes a false statement, I expect the other side to argue and point it out in cross examination. If you speak to fast that i can't understand you, then you will lose the round. Please stay within the time allow, and if you go over excessively each time, I will count it against you.

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

I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.

I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.

With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:

*I am a flow judge.

*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.

*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.

**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.

*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.

*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.

*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.

*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.

*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution. I prefer clearly labeled contentions and subpoints. It is just easier to flow.

**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!

**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.

*In Congressional Debate

**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.

*In Big Question

**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!

*In Lincoln/Douglas

**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.

I am a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.

Last updated 2/19/2023

2026 / University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Debated at Little Rock Central (AR), Policy and Congress

Put me on the email chain @ ellewalters2@gmail.com

tl;dr– Keep it interesting and don't be problematic

Congress

I am not here to listen to you play devil's advocate

There's a difference between taking unpopular ground (necessary) and saying things that are racist/classist/ableist/sexist/etc... (you're getting dropped). The marks of a good competitor are a) the ability to find creative argumentsfor an unpopular side and b) the ability to steer the chamber away from debating a bill that demands problematic speech on one side.

If you're planning to say something offensive/problematic just to get a speech in, you would probably be better off staying silent. In other words, check yourself.

That being said,

I like- clearly defined impacts and framework, unique intros, funny comments

I do not like- rehash, platitudes, stupid questions

I'm most concerned with hearing how your argument fits in the context of the round and the arguments of the speaker before you- my highest ranks go to speakers that give good refutation and weigh the round's impacts.Congress is only interesting and educational if you actually engage in debate,so that will always be most important when scoring and ranking.

Clarity, vocal variation, and engagement are also important. Blippy speakers are ok, but monotonous, incoherent or clearly scripted speakers are not

I don't flow questions, but I do take activity into account

Decorum is less important, proper parliamentary procedure is more important

Deductions–

If you're reading a speech straight/verbatim from paper or a computer for the majority of your speaking time, that's an automatic 2 pt. deduction.

If y'all say something silly like "I begin on my first word" it's an automatic 1 pt deduction

General (policy, ld, etc...)

I'm a much better judge for a K round than 6 off.

If the aff can prove they're reasonably topical, that's enough for me– I have high bar for voting the aff down on topicality alone. I'm much more interested in FW on the K than T or theory debates on the CP. (It's not like I have to be interested in your arguments to judge them, but I have a very short attention span. If I'm super into it, my decision will probably be a lot better.)

Fairness is a mid impact. Education almost always outweighs and I lean truth over tech.

At this point assume zero topic knowledge

Former k policy and congressional debater from Little Rock Central High School. I attend the University of Arkansas- Fayetteville and do not actively debate.

email me for questions: abbywalton28@gmail.com

Note: please don't call me ma'am- I won't call you out if you do, but I prefer not being called that. I use they/she pronouns & prefer they.

Spreading is OK for me.

In high school, I was the kind of debater that constantly had Framework debates and hated the subject. Now, especially judging formats like Big Questions and LD, I appreciate Framework a lot more and give that argument priority. Please tell me how to vote and what to vote for!

I also never read a capitalism or hegemony good argument, although I will vote for it if it's the more substantiated and better debated claim.

To get good speaker points, have a well structured speech, speak clearly, and use lots of good well thought out evidence. I think a well organized speech is what I look for and appreciate the most.