Parent judge with experience judging humorous interpretation, impromptu, original oratory, public forum and Lincoln Douglas. I am ok with fast speakers, as long as you are clear and articulate in your argument.

I value confidence, respect for your opponent, and a clear speaking voice.

I volunteer to judge these events because I respect and value the time and dedication each student puts into their arguments.

Good Luck and have fun!

Hi there! My name is Vicki Childs and I am the mom of two LD debaters - one novice and one JV.

I have judged novice LD for a year. I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, and also, please don't spread - I'm not quite ready for that yet! Please keep debate jargon and theory to a minimum, and finally please be respectful to everyone in the room.

Adrian Duran Rey

1 Year out from Central Florida (Dr. Phillips High School), Currently '27 at Swarthmore College (Pennsylvania)

Mostly competed local/trad circuit plus trad nats (nsda + ncfl) cause of finances, but learned prog through other people, free camps, and some competing

Overall stuff:

To me LD is two parts, 1. how do I evaluate the round? 2. Who is best reaching that evaluation? This is how I'm going to look at everything, trad, phil, theory, Ks, etc

Layering is really important when there's a lot at play and I need to figure out how I evaluate the round, so if you're reading theory, you need to do some work on this.

I don't use speech doc, if it's not cohesive/understandable in speech i'm not flowing it. i can understand spreading well, but if you're getting to the point were it's non-stop double breaths or falling over every word, please slow down

please use running prep instead of a specific amount

For Novice or Trad LD:

If you don't know what all the stuff below means, don't worry, it's not for you.

Whatever you read in front of me I should be able to understand as long as you make it make sense.

I'm fine with spreading (talking very quickly) as long as both competitors are fine with it (if it's in a novice division or overwhelmingly trad/local circuit).

yes email chain:

adrianaaron0119@gmail.com

prefs

1. Phil (kant and hobbes personal favorites) + topical trix (unique to topic) + tech trad debate

2. theory + funny tricks (a-z theory etc)

3. utill/larp + generic trix (resolved a prior, etc.)

4. k stuff (be very clear on thesis, theory of power, etc.)

5. non-tech trad debate (incoherent frameworks, no organization)

Strike: non-T stuff

Important Misc Notes

- Extend warrants!

I don't want to hear "we have evidence proving x" or "our evidence proves y claim and they don't have carded ev" Extend WHY your evidence proves x or y point and weigh it against your opponent's args

-Analytics

I love analytics, not everything needs or should be carded, just get into the warrant debate.

I'm doing parli (kinda) in college which is straight-up no evidence all analytics. Obviously, that's not how I'm judging LD, but well-warranted and explained analytics, especially for rebuttals, are great imo

-Organization

PLS NUMBER RESPONSES. Overview arguments are great, do them.

Phil

absolutely love it, my personal favorite and what I love running. ask me before round if u want to read me something more fringe and I'll tell u how much I know it so u can explain in round accordingly. Love metaethics debate and I have experience with it so go crazy, just show how ur metaethic model includes ur standard and excludes ur opp's.

Trix

Honestly they can be really fun, I like them more topical (i.e. actually being in-depth on the topic). I'll vote on abusive tricks if they're definitely winning but doesn't make round very interesting imo

Trad

Love trad debate so much when it's done well. Have a framework debate or concede opp's framework and win better offense under theirs. I will drop a speak if u tell me ur framework is a voter, tell me offense as a voter and why that offense outweighs under the framework.

Theory

I'm chill with it. Equity within the debate community is very important to me, so if you're from an established program and/or private school and read disclosure theory or something of the sort on a student who isn't, I'm not going to give any leeway at all whatsoever and your speaks will not make you happy.

Outside of that I'm down for most/all theory. I've read T a lot and it's good imo so just read it well. Also if ur justifying something that is def anti-small school/underprivileged debaters (util) by saying it helps small school debaters, I'm going to be critical on it (I'll still evaluate it fairly but my threshold on it will be low).

Util/Larp

I can evaluate it fairly and properly and will to the best of my abilities. Not my ideal round cause I don't really read or like reading util. Just make sure to do weighing and be direct on how ur winning access to impacts and it's totally fine. If it goes util v phil, I except the work done on it in terms of quality to be equal to any other phil debate so be ready to justify it well.

Note: I actually love heavy phil debates with util on one side but when they're done well. (Agency is defined by natural senses, the two brain stuff util ppl read against kant, etc)

K stuff

I've never read it in tournament round, I can evaluate it but honestly would not suggest it. Just do a lot of work on explanation. Also, I get irritated by K debaters ignoring everything on the flow by saying they're "higher layer".

Non-tech trad

I'll evaluate it as much as I can but expect it to be a coinflip cause these rounds are messy, try to work on making what ur framework is clear and how it weighs offense. Also work on weighing your impact as well as giving me a clear link chain as to how you win them.

Looking for good argument, not technical wins. I.e. I don’t care about dropped contentions if the dropped contention was weak and other, stronger contentions were addressed well. Intellectual, evidentiary, and logical domination wins over tit-for-tat flow.

Technical losses are stupid. You’ll never see my ballot say “You didn’t frontline, therefore you lose.” Debate is still about persuasion. Don’t get me wrong; frontlining, collapsing, etc., are all good persuasive techniques to be used in debate. But the failure to use them won’t necessarily or automatically lose you the round… it just might affect the persuasive effect of your argument. If you can still persuade that your side wins without using all the specific techniques, even against a team that does use them, you’ll still get my ballot.

Cross should be for either a) establishing a framework (e.g. "Can we agree that [term from the topic] means [definition]?"), b) make a point, or c) set up a point you get to make later. I'm not scoring cross per-se, but if you run a tight cross and either make a good point or use an answer later to good effect, it'll go to speaks. Being a jerk in cross will *also affect speaks.

Yes, I want to be on an evidence thread if you start one. (tampalaw@gmail.com) Yes, you can speak fast but don't policy spread me. Kritiks and mathematical annihilation arguments (e.g. "Even if it's only a 0.001% chance, nuclear war means extinction therefore we outweigh") should be used sparingly and only if *truly warranted and supported.

PS I am perfectly fine with paraphrasing. Heaven help you if it's not fair, of course... but if it is I prefer not to have a ridiculous block quote from some article. Be persuasive... not technical.

LD- know your VC. Understand how, e.g., utilitarianism works or what social contract means in the context of your argument before hanging your entire argument on it. Do the actual analysis using your VC. Also do the analysis using the opponent’s VC if you can. Cross is good for discovery, but also for points.

Experience: High school ELA teacher and debate coach (2nd year) - LD/PF/SC

Education: B.A. History, English Minor. Assume that I have prior knowledge on content; I will ask for clarification if I do not. I enjoy connections you make to your learning in history/gov/econ classes.

- If you are reading this, tell me! I appreciate when students take time to read paradigms.

- If I look stoic or disgruntled, it's only my poker face. I am enjoying the round, and I will break character on occasion if something that I find funny/odd is said... : )

Debate (Judge/Coach)

General: I flow on paper and leave detailed comments on the ballot based on my flows. Anything I don't catch on the flow is on you, so slow down and ID anything you want to make sure I get. I also take time to think through decisions, which is why I do not disclose verbally (except on the very rare occasion that I do/must).

• The stronger argument is the one which presents a clear framework, supports it logically through an objective criterion, and adequately addresses the opponent's position. The best arguments may use a combination of philosophy and real-world/evidential application. Contentions should always be numbered, and voters with weighing should be done at the end.
• Some rounds can get very technical. I don't love when rounds devolve into aggressive spreading and theory wars, but I understand that is part of the sport. If it's after breaks, send me your case. The most "spreading" I follow/appreciate should sound like an excited friend telling a story; you don't have to be the fastest reader in the world.

CASES: I will evaluate all cases but do prefer traditional discussion of topic and impacts. However (LD), I am comfortable with phil (if you explain slowly and clearly), "soft-left" Ks and other common Ks (such as: cap, set col, antropocentrism), and CPs. No issues if you run those. Anything beyond that you want to run that's "progressive" I will struggle to adjudicate effectively. Running theory when merited is legitimate but do it respectfully and help me significantly on ROB/ROJ to vote in those rounds, as I have a hard time evaluating. I do want to learn, so please adjust or ease me into any heavy progressive stuff pre- or post-round so that I can improve judging it in the future.

Type: Policymaker, but flexible; I judge trad rounds in a techy fashion / I judge tech rounds in a lay fashion (due to my current abilities and experience). "Flay" sounds demeaning to me for some reason, so I wouldn't label myself that, and it means slightly different things to different competitors.

Likes: Unusual frameworks and contentions ("variety is the spice of life"); clear weighing; analyzing your or the opponent's evidence (i.e., that you actually know the cards beyond the tagline or stats and can explain its relevance in-round); good clash (not talking past or beyond opponent); consistent extensions; clean rounds.

Dislikes: Running cases you are clearly unfamiliar with; saying "turn X" when it is not evidently a turn; relying too much on a single "trump card" without contextualizing it in-round; not using the full allotted time or going over time (I will not count anything you attempt to say after time); "giving up" when you feel outclassed (and its inverse: steamrolling less-prepared opponents).

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

Speech (Judge if necessary)

All categories: Presentation is key. Even the best prepared speeches will not resonate with the audience if the delivery is lacking. I will be looking for PVLEGS and a confident demeanor. Follow the rhetorical triangle and incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos as necessary for your purpose. At the same time, your speech should be equally developed, with an organization, vocabulary, and evidence appropriate to your event.

Background

I never competed in debates either in high school or college. I graduated from Park University with a degree in Computer Information Management after four years in the United States Marine Corps. After the military, I became an entrepreneur for the past twenty plus years. Although I’m a parent judge, I’m not new to argumentation.

Debate Preferences

I would consider myself a flay judge. While I will flow both sides of the debate, I don’t want to have to intervene in order to come to a decision. Always warrant your arguments. If you use logic and rhetoric to explain something, be sure to warrant it. Always weigh your arguments starting in summary if you want me to vote for your ballot. I’m going to expect frontlines starting in second rebuttal. If you are unable to quantify your impact, I won’t be able to weigh your arguments effectively. Ideally, I shouldn’t need to put in additional work off the flow to vote one team over another.

Speed

I am okay if you spread as long as I can understand and you can articulate the words.

Pet Peeves

-Don’t use foul language. This has never been a problem, but it needs to be mentioned.

-If this is the first round of a tournament, it’s likely I don’t know the topic as well as you will. Please explain your acronyms if it’s the first round, even if it means having to do it off the clock.

-I won’t keep track of your prep time. That’s not my problem unless a team accuses the other of abusing prep.

Evidence

Pretty simple, follow the NSDA rules and read the last name and year of publication. No need to list the authors credentials, I don’t care unless the source is disreputable. It is up to the opposition to point out if evidence is misconstrued. If the evidence is misconstrued, depending on the severity I will either cross it off the flow or vote down the team using the evidence. I won’t look at evidence unless both teams cite cards that contradict each other, at which point I will decide which team wins the card.

Please remember to have fun! Debate is all about learning, and if you’re not having fun there’s no point in debating.

Thank you for all the work and effort you are doing. It is a joy to watch.

Melissa Wenenn