Hi! Just a few things about me, I did debate for 5 years, started in 8th grade. My main debate event was Public Forum, but I have also competed in IPDA, congress, and BQ as well. My main speech/forensics events were prose and DI, but I can have experience in every style there is. Any questions about my paradigm is welcomed in round and I can't wait to judge your round!

Debate
My paradigm for a debate event is pretty universal for all events. I ask that everyone stays very respectful. Debating should be fun! We should always be respectful and friendly to each other.
I'm a firm believer in having analysis, evidence, and impacts. I want to know what is important, why, and how. Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches. I will not make any assumptions or draw a conclusion to any loose ends. I want to be told, everything should wrap up like a pretty present.

I ask that you respect the rules of your style of debate and run it the way it is supposed to be run. I am familiar with every rulebook, I will be judging with that understanding in mind.

For LD& PF, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I want to see them clash.

I do not love spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing. I want to hear the argumentation clearly.

The ability to persuade will win you the round. If I am convinced, I have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this. Clear speeches, sign posting, and confidence are all big factors to a win. Although, anything can happen in a round and I will leave both competitors plenty of notes about my decision.

Speaker points ARE important so everything stated above WILL have a major factor in my decision. Another factor is the pace of your speech. If you are talking so fast I cannot comprehend what you are saying, I will not be able to flow your speeches to get the content written down. Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will not aide in your points. I won't vote a debater down for spreading but in any style other than policy, I feel it only keeps the debate from hitting full potential. Use your time wisely and insure that each word you say is heavy hitting.

Debate jargon is mostly acceptable for me... I say this with a few exceptions. I know my fallacies and biases, feel free to throw those out in a round. I do stand by the idea you need to explain the concept so EVERYONE knows what page we're on. As long as there's analysis to every claim you make in a round, jargon should never be a problem in round.

Most importantly, this is a fun activity you get to do. I'm excited to see all of the super amazing work everyone has put in and wishing the best of luck!

Speech/Forensics
When it comes to speech and forensics events, I expect everyone to be attentive to their fellow competitors pieces. I do look at performances based on the generalized standards per the event. Don't over stress it, do your best, I'll respect you owning your piece more than anything. Hi to any forensics kids reading this!

Overall:

I'm pretty chill just don't be rude, homophobic, sexist, etc. Be kind to others ;)

Debate;

- - - Overall - - -

I'm not too picky but I am a firm believer in burdens and what the defined manuals state. meaning if you are running LD keep it in LD camp and try to avoid going over the rails with potential policy args. Stick to simple ideas and I always prefer value or framework debate over actual casework. Also...... I don't do Theory very much so if you run it just make every single logical link possible, same with K's.

- - LD - -

Value debate is the best form of debate within LD. Overall this is how I prefer Debate, V>VC>CaseWork>T>K.

- - BQ - -

I like just about anything just understand that I DO NOT ALLOW PROGRESSIVE BQ! I'll immediately vote you down, BQ is not made to be stylistic like that..... You've been warned.

- - PF/Policy - -

I don't mind anything too serious here just make sure your signposting is always up to par. Especially if you're going to be speaking quickly or spreading.

Forensics;

Stick to the rules guys..... Don't argue for more time or do anything unnecessary, just make sure your blocking is good and you're alright with me.

I just have a few things:

- I flow on paper, so don't spread. I don't want to flow it. I don't want to hear it. Please just don't. If I think you're spreading, I'll put my pen down and any arguments made while spreading won't be on my flow.

- Tech over truth. If something is said in-round and isn't refuted, it carries. Even if your opponent says the moon is made of cheese, you have to refute it.

- Make sure to weigh your arguments in your closing speeches if you want me to weigh it in the round. Don't just slip something in and forget about it if you want me to consider it.

That's all. Good luck.

My name is Isaiah and I will be your Judge today. I’m a freshman in high school in my second year of Debate, but don’t let that discredit me. Here is everything that will help me cast my ballot in your round. I mainly do LD, but I have done IPDA, PF, and BQ as well. You probably have a few minutes until your round starts so I have a list of the topics I will be talking about:

• Burdens

• Values/Weighing Mech/Framework

• Debate Styles

• Spreading

• Logical Fallacies

• Time Extensions

• Last Speech

• Disclosure

Burdens:

I will shape my decision around the burdens of Debate the most out of anything. They are present in any style of Debate for a reason and should be your main focus. Whoever has filled out their Burden the most will win the round. For the Aff/Pro, you have the Burden of Proof. This means you need to put out your case and protect it as much as you can. For the Neg/Con, you have the Burden of Clash. This means you need to take down your opponent's case with precision as much as you can. Aff/Pro, always make sure to rebuild your own case before you attack. For Neg/Con, the opposite. If both cases are still standing with no attacks, both sides have “proven” their side, and since Aff/Pro has the Burden of Proof, they win. If both cases have been attacked with no solid ground to stand on, both sides have “clashed” the other side, and since Neg/Con has the Burden of Clash, they win. Aff/Pro, you could have absolutely destroyed the other side but have a terrible case yourself and still lose, and Neg/Con, you could have an amazing case but fail to attack and still lose.

Values/Weighing Mech/Framework (VWF):

Whenever you are attacking/rebuilding, your first and most important objective is the VWF. You are supposed to shape your case around this, so theoretically, your VWF should greatly reflect the case. It is the glue of your case and holds your case together, intertwines throughout the points and contentions, and overall strengthens your side of the Debate. On the other hand, if you take away the glue, (by your opponent attacking), the entire structure fails. I will be keeping your VWF’s stance noted and will be key to my decision.

Debate Styles:

Every Style is different, and it is important to run them in their own way. LD focuses on morality and the importance of how justified the resolution is. Make sure to connect with me your impacts and how they will affect people’s morals and values. PF focuses on evidence and what is happening in the world. There is no such thing as too much evidence. Just hammer it in for me, and make sure to explain why this evidence affects your impacts. For BQ, it is about theory and philosophy. You don’t necessarily need much evidence to support the topic. Of course, you still need a little of everything, just some styles lean more towards certain aspects than others. IPDA doesn’t really fall into any category. With only 30 minutes to prep, I don’t expect as much as the other styles like LD and PF with a few months to prepare, and BQ with a year. This extends only to casework, as for attacks and rebuttals all the same is expected.

Spreading:

This is greatly looked down by me. Spreading is where you talk as fast as possible, either to cram as much information in your speech as possible or to speak too fast for your opponent to understand you. Regardless, it discourages the educational aspect of educational Debate. If I can still understand you, I will still be involved in the round. If you are too fast to understand, I am no longer involved and will find it very difficult to vote for you, but I will never vote for the opposite side for only this.

Fallacies:

I love Fallacies, but these don’t completely discredit your opponent’s case. These are to help assist your attacks, not make up your attacks entirely. Also, whenever calling a Fallacy, make sure to clearly explain what the Fallacy is, how your opponent is at fault, and what this means to their case. If you don’t work out how they committed the Fallacy, you are committing the Fallacy Fallacy yourself. They can look very good to call, but if used wrongly, they will count against you. You can find a helpful site for the most common Fallacies at yourlogicalfallacyis.com, but there are hundreds that can be used for multiple situations.

Time Extensions:

Whenever you come to the end of your time, you are allowed to go over your time to finish your sentence. If you keep talking and talking, around 10 seconds overtime, I will cut you off. I will be keeping time, but I strongly encourage you too as well. Turning the sound on for your timer would be helpful to me as I cannot start mine at the exact time you start yours, and I would rather cut you off with you being aware of your time. If it isn’t your speech, you don’t have to keep time and I don’t see any reason to, but if you want to, then make sure to keep sound off to not go off when your opponent is talking.

Last Speech:

The Aff/Pro usually has the last speech (with the exception of occasionally PF) meaning Neg/Con cannot respond to this. In this, the Aff/Pro has a lot of power to say whatever they want without fear of being attacked. For this, it is important not to bring up any new arguments or evidence. This is for explaining what you have already done and said, not for bringing in new tactics and angles. I will discredit anything new for this reason.

Disclosure:

At the end of the round, I would prefer to tell you who won in the comments instead of right then. Of course, this is your Debate, so if both sides want me to disclose I will, but if not I will give the pros and cons of each Debater to help you in your next round.

There you have it. I will try to judge as fairly as possible and will forget everything I know about the topic prior.

Good luck, and may the style be ever in your favor.

Background:

3-year competitor

attended nationals in 2022

attended nationals in 2023

Likes:

Clash

Claim/Warrant/impact

Dislikes:

Spreading

Bigotry or racism

Theories and K's

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.

He/him

I'm a former debate student from last year, and I have experience in everything except LD. I focus on both your arguments as well as your speech/tone. My only real issues are if you're impolite to your opponent or if you personally attack them instead of their argument. My general specialty is informative. That's about it, have fun :)