I look for a traditional debate that stays on the topic and hits stock issues such as harms and solvency. Whoever does the best job backing up their reasoning with evidence and refuting the other teams points will win. 

Keep your arguments or speech courteous and respectful. Support each statement well and speak clearly.

For Debate events: Do your best to flow the arguments and address them in order. I do not score kritiks or theory and would likely be classified as a stock issues judge and appreciate a line by line approach.

For Speech events: Spreading will not earn speaker points unless everything you say has value. I value substance over speed when speaking. It is quite possible to speak quickly and steadily and say nothing of any impact. It is more important to fill your words with well-supported arguments or persuasive evidence than to fill your time with words.

Present yourself professionally in how you dress and interact with others.

Feel free to email with questions after the event. Scarpenterlaw@gmail.com

I am a 'tab' judge. Teams/speakers must show me why their arguments should be voted on as opposed to assuming I will vote on them based on my own beliefs. I am a former TOC circuit policy debater and current head coach of a high school debate program. I am fine with all types of arguments, and very familiar with debate jargon and procedures.

I am typically fine with speed as well.

Please give clear voting issues a the end of the round.

Please signpost clearly.

Please give a brief off time road map prior to all speeches with the acceptation of the first affirmative.

General- Lets explain everything you are doing. I will flow and if something is dropped then you are most likely going to loose. ROAD MAPS. Explaining and over explaining is better then assuming I know what you are talking about.

At the end of the day its your job to convince me on why and how you won. If you want me to remember something then tell me and explain why.

Subject to change.

Policy----------- As I am a policy judge now I request no Theories unless its your best theory and you explain it SUPER WELL. EXPLAIN EVERYTHING as I am a very comms judge but I will also flow. The better you make me understand what you are arguing the better chance of you winning. Reading Evidence then explaining will help your chances. Just reading Evidence is will most likely hinder you.

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I need to be able to understand every word of the speech — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love lots of clash.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

Be respectful of each other.

Please do not talk excessively fast. Your rate of speaking should be the same as in a normal conversation. If you talk so fast that I cannot follow what you are saying it will be very difficult for me to give you a score. If you talk "100 mph" it will negatively affect your score.

Try to utilize the majority of your available time.

ALL DEBATE TYPES:

What I mainly look for in a debate round is clear speaking [1], good arguments (WITH SOURCES)[2], and also good sportsmanship[3]. I would prefer if no one spreads, but I can allow it if its necessary for you to do so instead of cutting out arguments (this only applies on debate types that have spreading).

[1] You speak at a good volume, I can understand you clearly. (Don't worry about this too much I know you all are still getting used to things)

[2] Please do not make claims without a source. If you have a claim, make sure to give your source.

[3] Please be kind and considerate to your opponents and don't be toxic.

FOR CONGRESS ONLY:

I HIGHLY suggest always keeping frequency and recency, even if you aren't PO. Although I will also do this, I am human and can make mistakes.

If you are PO do not think that just being PO will let you break, you have to actually do your job. POs should always check their chart before choosing someone to speak. If I see you choose someone and they don't have precedency, I will mark you down. It would also be nice if you encouraged people who haven't spoken much to speak.

IDAHO/TRAD/NSDA PARADIGM

Hey y'all! I'm Taylor (she/her/hers). I'm currently a junior at BSU. I was an LD debater but I usually competed on the national circuit towards the end of my HS career so I'm suuuper progressive- if you debate progressively WELL in front of me you're in a good place. I also did Congress for 2 years, I'm state champion in that, and I've been to NSDA nationals 3 times.

SEND ME THE SPEECH DOC taylorjepson@u.boisestate.edu

If you do not send me the speech doc, I'll flow what I hear but I guarantee I'm going to miss quite a bit and that's on you.

I expect respect for everybody. Debate is a game but it's also a real place and what you say and do has real impacts, so be kind, respect pronouns, don't be sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc. or I will drop you and then report you both to your coach and tabs :)

I generally disclose and prefer to give verbal feedback so unless the tournament has a specific policy against it that's what I'm going to do.

Also if you have any questions pre/post round feel free to reach out.

GENERAL STUFF

LD Paradigm

That being said! Things I like:

- Progressive arguments! K's, plans, disads, counterplans, T, theory, etc. If you don't know what those things are, don't worry about it :)

- Being polite

- Clearly explaining v/c and IMPACTS- I will vote on impacts far more readily than framing alone, but if your impacts are dependent on framing you definitely need to be extending and explaining that throughout the round.

I will NOT penalize you for kicking out of arguments IF it's done correctly (that means you have to answer offense on it first!)

Things I don't like:

- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it. It's rude, so just be nice.

- Philosophy cases: if you spend more than 2 minutes of your constructive reading framing, a) I probably won't understand it, and b) I'm going to get bored and might zone out a bit.

- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls

Congress Paradigm

- USE. EVIDENCE. You CANNOT just go up and spout claims for 3 minutes with no cards and expect me to believe you. PROVE what you're saying.

- Show me that you're involved in the chamber by speaking on every bill and asking good questions as often as you can! I also like to see that you understand parli procedure. I know it and will step in if I need to but I'd like you to run the chamber yourselves.

- I go by Nationals standards so don't try to mess with anybody by trying to enforce Idaho standards, your rank will drop so fast I swear your ears will pop. Same thing if you are POing and I see you trying to screw someone over- I was a Congress debater. I will know. Don't do it.

Policy Paradigm

Spreading is fine as long as everyone has the doc unless there's an accessibility issue, tag teaming is ok by me, and I want to see all the parts of your case clearly please! (ie. inherency, solvency, etc.)

Tbh I don't have hardly any experience with policy so minus the stuff about V/C I'm probably going to evaluate it like I would a progressive LD round. Ask me if you have questions.

PF Paradigm

Disclaimer- this is the only form of debate I am almost completely unfamiliar with, so it might be a bit of a learning curve for me.

That being said! Things I like:

- Being polite

- Clearly explaining IMPACTS and WARRANTING- if you don't tell my WHY x causes y, you're leaving me to decide whether or not that argument is true and you don't want to do that because it's unlikely I'll agree with you unless you've given me a concrete reason to. Also, I will have a very low threshold for arguments that your impacts won't actually happen from your opponents if they're not warranted.

- Unique, fun cases!

- Team players- you're a member of a team, so act like it. Both partners need to be active participants in the round. Tag teaming is fine by me.

Things I don't like:

- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it. It's rude, so just be nice. In PF, this also means letting your partner speak :) I've heard of some teams where one partner reads everything, does all of the rebuttals, and answers all of the questions. Don't do that, you will lose in front of me. If you want to debate solo, go do LD.

- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls

___________________

If you made it this far, congrats!

Things that will boost your speaks (applies to all forms of debate):

- Going for a K in LD (+.5 speaks bc doing progressive debate in Idaho is hard)

- Making me laugh while making a good point (+.3 speaks, the best speeches are the entertaining ones!)

- In-person tournaments: bring me food, an energy drink, or hot chocolate :) (+.3 speaks for helping me stay awake)

CIRCUT PARADIGM

Hey y'all! I'm Taylor (she/her/hers), I'm a Junior at Boise State rn. I was an LD'er but I started on the Idaho circuit doing Congress for a couple of years and only have one year of experience competing on the national circuit. I did a lot of K's, LARP, pretty standard stuff for the most part, you can check last year's wiki if you want more detailed info.

SEND ME THE SPEECH DOC taylorjepson@u.boisestate.edu

If you do not send me the speech doc, I'll flow what I hear but I guarantee I'm going to miss quite a bit and that's on you.

Also please don't send me cards in the body of an email, it's really annoying and hard to read.

I expect respect for everybody. Debate is a game but it's also a real place and what you say and do has real impacts, so be kind, respect pronouns, don't be sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc. or I will drop you, give you 0 speaks, and then report you both to your coach and tabs :) I am going to be VERY strict about this y'all- I literally quit competing February of my senior year because I was sick of people being awful. Be a good human.

Also if you have any questions pre/post round feel free to reach out.

LD

A lot of this is copied from my former coach, the wonderful Nethmin Liyanage :) but my stuff is slightly different so even if you know her style it's still worth a read preround

Prefs Cheat Sheet

1 – Good/inventive Ks, performance, standard policy stuff (I appreciate cool new disads and fun advantage CPs). I'm a really good person to run K's in front of (I did a lot of these as a debater, specifically reps k's, fem killjoy and sick womxn theory, stuff like that). Just don't be abusive with it, I'm not going to hack for you so run and argue it well if this is your plan.

2 – Generic k's (cap, security, etc.), generic policy cases, good trad debate (traditional format but does line-by-line, is not violent, engages in actual clash/argumentation). Like I said, I was on the Idaho circuit for a long time so trad is what I'm most used to. If in doubt, I'm honestly not a terrible judge for this so feel comfortable going for it

3 – Theory (that's not frivolous) is around here in terms of whether or not you want me as a judge. I am far more receptive to “condo bad” against 3+ conditional CPs than I am to 4 theory shells against a whole res aff just because you felt like ROBspec was what we needed to experience at that moment in time. I'm a much better judge for you if you read good theory and theory isn't your primary strat.

4 – Theory/procedurals (if your only strat is theory), Phil is also around here IF you're willing to explain/warrant args and not assume that I know Every Single Thing you're saying, otherwise I'm a 5. I don't have a lot of experience with phil and if you choose to read these in front of me keep in mind that if you spend more than 2 minutes of your constructive reading framing, a) I probably won't understand it, and b) I'm going to get bored and might zone out a bit.

5 - Tricks. This is both because I'm the least experienced in this style of debate and because I enjoy it the least.

General thoughts

I will give +0.2 speaker points if you add a significant portion of your analytics to the speech doc and organize them such that they are easy to follow. I think this makes debate more accessible, and also just makes everyone more happy during online debate. On a related note, if someone asks for analytics and you say something rude or condescending along the lines of “it’s your job to flow,” your speaks just dropped by 0.3.

Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. If your opponent concedes something, that means you get access to uncontested warrants/I consider those warrants to be true. It does not mean I will vote on an argument with no warranting. It also does not mean your extension can be sans-warrants.

I believe in disclosure :)

I value technical debate. However, I also think that truth matters. I do not default to dropping a team that reads untrue arguments (either for strategic value or out of lack of knowledge), however, I am receptive to this being argued as a “reject the team” issue by the opponent. Use your judgment on this – a novice with a bad politics disad is probably not the same level of egregious as someone who read 8 untrue disads because disproving an untrue DA takes longer than reading one.

Similarly, I think that independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they sequence before everything else. This isn’t to say I won’t listen to args about reps or other independent voters. I made these args. Reps matter and I value these debates. I also value warrants, sequencing, and ballot analysis in these debates. Independent voters are arguments and they need a claim, warrant, and impact, along with a justification for how they sequence (just like any other argument). Calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Please clearly link V/C or ROB/ROJ to your impacts. If you win framing but can't prove that you win the impacts under that framing, you're not in a good place. That being said, if you have explained to me why an argument/ind voter comes before framing, I will weigh that before V/C and impacts.

Relatedly: sequencing saves ballots!! Tell me which layer comes first and why. I will buy things like “case comes first because it has a value criterion and those are good for debate” as long as you warrant your argument. Just tell me why your offense comes first, give me a warrant, and tell me why your offense sequences before that of your opponent. If not … it’s up to me and that’s not good for you.

Framing is important. If your opponent concedes your ROB but reads theory, use the ROB to exclude their offense. Don’t concede framing.

Finally, as someone who didn't have access to massive team block files or ten coaches, I am very sympathetic to small school and independent debaters. I will not reward you for just reading a massive team block in your rebuttals. I want actual debate, not just regurgitation of what your coach wrote for you.

Things I don't like (IMPORTANT):

- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it multiple times. I'm not kidding and will not tolerate it. It's rude and it's demeaning, so just be nice.

- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls

Hi! I'm Lexi. I did Speech and Debate in highschool for three years. I went to nationals in LD my senior year and placed top 45 in the nation. I love great flow work and respectful banter. For speech, I mainly did DUO, HI, and ADS. Regardless of what I'm judging though, I expect everyone to be kind and caring. Speech and Debate is fun.

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am strictly going off the flow for my decision.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

I am a judge who has formerly competed in debate in high school and college, and I am a coach.

I will flow the round and make decisions based on the ability of a debater to tie arguments back to frameworks and properly defend their position using line by line argumentation. I attempt to be a tabula rassa judge, but no person is entirely a blank slate. So, if you can attack and refute the arguments of your opponent by using evidence that is convincing and do so in a rhetorically effective manner then you will do well. I will not connect arguments for you, so you have to be able to make clear linkages between impacts and your case's ability to solve them. Please sign post along the way so I know where you are at on the flow, and make the debate as comprehensive as you possibly can. Use overviews and voters in rebuttals to summarize and connect your speeches effectively. Use your time wisely and be courteous of your opponents and their time as well.

I will hear out most arguments as long as they are clear and sufficiently backed up with evidence. I am okay with speed reading as long as it is clear and not too overwhelming to your opponents.

I have a lot of experience in mainly speeches.

I currently teach Speech & Debate. I have done this for the past year along with coaching speech/debate.

Debates that I can not judge are policy and congress. I am very comfortable in judging PF.

Hi, my name’s Sunny Nelson, this is my third year as an assistant coach and my fourth year judging debate. I did public forum and congress, and I also did theater in high school. It’s very difficult for me to describe my paradigm because there is no ONE surefire way to win the round in my eyes. I will be flowing, and I will be paying attention to your communication skills (delivery, body language, etc). Below are some FAQs to help guide you.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS even when there is not a pandemic. Air high fives are my preferred alternative.

Kritiks: Acceptable, though I’d prefer you debate the topic.

Counterplans: Good, great even. I like seeing a good counterplan, but I hate condo. If you’re just gonna kick the CP in the 1NR then don’t run a CP.

Topicality: I like topicality when it’s done well, but I think everyone runs T the same, so I’ve grown bored with it.

Theory: Okay with theory, I think it stimulates discussion and furthers the progress of debate, but same with Ks, I would prefer you debate the topic.

Time: You may finish the sentence you are on when time is complete. I will verbally cut you off if you continue to speak past that. Self-timing is okay.

Masks: Off while speaking, if that applies to you.

Speed: I’m comfortable with it but I have no problem telling you to clear your diction up if I can’t understand you

Tag-teaming: Acceptable in policy, but overstepping will cause a loss in speaker points for the current speaker if I feel that they’re relying too hard on their partner.

Strategic dropping: I appreciate strategically dropping arguments as long as you explain why you’re dropping. Do this with caution because if you drop an argument that I really liked, then you might lose.

Evidence exchanges: Finding evidence is off time. Looking at evidence is on time. Discussing evidence is prohibited outside of cross-examination.

Impacts: If you’re bringing up impacts, use impact calc.

Extinction impacts: If you’ve had me as a judge before, you should already know this. I do not weigh extinction impacts. If your opponent brings up extinction, I still want you to address it for flowing purposes, but please do not impact calc it out and use extinction as a voter. The reason why is because I think that extinction is too heavy of an impact to weigh fairly in a debate, and I try to not have "instant wins" in any of my rounds.

Value-criterion and framework debates: I use the VC/FW debate as a way to develop a lens for the rest of the debate. A VC/FW should never be used as a voter. Instead, you should tell me which VC/FW to prefer and why your case meets the VC/FW better. I typically prefer the debater that can tell me why their case meets both value-criterions/frameworks, but if you outright disagree with your opponents VC/FW, don’t concede just because you think it’ll make me happy.

Decorum: Please remain professional during rounds. Some light joking can be appropriate but points will be docked if it gets out of hand. Rude/disrespectful behavior will result in an immediate loss regardless of how good I think your arguments are.

Competitors should be passionate, but respectful of each other. I do not mind speed, as long as you're clear and concise.

I am new to coaching, and began my experience with Speech and Debate in 2022. I have a background in Classics (Greek and Latin Language, Culture, Literature and History), and care deeply about effective pedagogy. I have students competing in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas and Policy style debate, as well as in a variety of speech events. For my approach to specific speech events, please follow this link.

Essentially, I am a communications judge, meaning that effective communication, clear signposting/structure, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me. I will judge from my flows for both LD and PF, so I will ask for pre-flow of your number of contentions and sub-points; please make sure I can flow your case.

Cross: I value civil and direct cross. Direct engagement with evidence is possible while still treating one another well. I will notice evasive responses.

Spread: I can tolerate a fairly quick rate of speech, but if I miss key terms or points, my understanding of your argument will suffer.

Resolution Analysis and Kritiks: Unless you are a going to do something amazing with them, I think they're a waste of time and unnecessarily obfuscate argumentation.

Pet Peeves: I resent being gaslighted.

Hello! My name is Madison Pritchard. I debated for 3 years in high school with experience in LD, Congress, and mainly Public Forum. I have also debated in college at Idaho State University, so safe to say I am very experienced. I have organized my paradigm by events that I am familiar with, as well as some general preferences. Happy debating and good luck!

General:

Be kind! This is high school debate and at its core needs to be about respect and understanding. I love clash but you need to make sure it is respectful, clash makes the debate interesting, without clash a debate ends up being bland. Make sure you are not interrupting your opponent a lot during cross examinations. Be sure that you have all of your evidence on hand and that it is properly cited, if I catch you falsely representing evidence then you will probably get a loss, unless your opponent does something somehow worse. If you choose to run a definition argument, be completely sure you can make it work, I don't love these but sometimes they are needed, make sure it is necessary if you do run one. I am fine with spectators as long as your opponents are fine with it, and as long as they are respectful (NO BEING ON THEIR PHONES). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask in round! Good luck debaters!

Public Forum:

This was my event in high school so you will not be able to get a lot past me here. A good balance of evidence and ethics are the core of this debate. I flow, so make sure your attacks stand and not to drop any main arguments, that will lose you the debate. Do not make the whole debate about evidence, evidence validity debates are not fun for anyone. If I feel a piece of evidence needs addressed, I will take a look once the debate has concluded. Speed reading is not loved but I can follow to a degree, just remember this is not policy.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I have a decent amount of experience with this event, so I can follow a lot of the jargon and ideas. My main problem sometimes with this debate is when people make it solely about the value/criterion, don't forget to attack the actual case and not just the value it is based on. Remember this debate is about morality, you need to convince me that yours is the morally correct argument, I will carry these over on the flow more than solely logic arguments.

Policy:

I don't have a lot of experience participating in this one, but I have ended up judging it a lot, so I have experience in that sense. A lot of the jargon I can understand but still be sure to explain some of your terms if you think there is a chance they could not be understood. Make sure your links are very clear. When your links get muddy, especially on a counterplan, you can lose me. Topicality arguments can be great, but again, just make sure they are completely clear. I do not love speed reading; I can usually follow but tread carefully.

Congress:

I just thought I would put some things in here I like to see in congress just in case someone looks for it. Make sure your speeches have substance, I really hate throw away speeches. If you are getting up just to get a speech in, it will not get you any points with me. Everyone needs to be respectful, do not be rude or personally attack other representatives. Please do not use questioning periods to debate, use your speeches, if you do this it will not reflect greatly in your ranking.

General/ For all Debate

I am a flow communications judge. That is not to say I will be judging you by how well you speak, but by how effectively you do it. No speed! My decisions are primarily derived from the flow. I like clash, I do not want cases to be two ships passing in the night, I want them to crash, explode, have fireworks, and all the cool things about debate. Do not simply present your case and defend the whole time, you need to interact with your opponent. If you want something to be remembered on my flow- slow down on the tag or make it obvious you want me to believe it is important. Do impact analysis whether that is using impact calculation or a simple comparison I do not care. Debatewise, I am an inherently lazy person and I hate guessing. So the more weighing you do for me the better- it eliminates all the guess work that could potentially harm your side of the debate. Moreover, we have different perspectives and beliefs so something that you think is important could become missed if you do not tell me it is important in some fashion. Do not be overtly rude to your opponents- basically I do not wish for ad hominems to come into action. Lastly, I competed 4 years in high school and 4 in college. I've been to nationals and won it twice in college. I can keep up. Debate how you want to debate, but make sure it is accessible. Before running a K ask your opponent if they are okay with prog debate. I do not want speed, k, theory, overviews, etc. to become a way to isolate your opponent.

LD

In voting issues do more than note you win on Value Criterion. VC is a weighing mechanism not something that wins the debate simply because yours is better- frankly I do not care which VC is better if one person upholds both better. Upon coaching LD for a year I have determined I have never been more wrong in my life. VC is super important in LD and most of your time needs to be spent here proving why your VC matters. Do I like it? No, but it is what it is.

Policy

In-n-outs are fine, tag teaming keep to a minimal if one partner does all the work it looks bad on you. I prefer lay over prog in terms of theory and Kritics, but if you can contextualize them and flush them out I can keep up.

Bailey (They/She)

YES, please add me to the Email chain :) baileyrspaulding@gmail.com

Hey! A little background information about me. I just graduated last year and now I'm Coaching, I did Policy all 4 years but I have experience in all forms of debate. Across the board I like to think I'm kind of a blank slate Judge (tabs). I will follow whatever kind of round y'all want to have. However, make sure that you are keeping the round competitive and educational. (I really don't like reading an advanced critical argument when your opponent is new to debate). Be kind and helpful!!

I will never pick up something that advocates for dehumanization, or marginalization.

DISCLAIMER- i will try really hard to flow but im horrible at it

If everyone competing is okay with it I'm okay with tag teaming.

PF-

Take your time to explain the links and Impacts and extend them through your speeches. I like good clash and analytical arguments. Cited evidence is great in rebuttals but make sure you explain why the card effectively rebuttals the argument.

Impact Calc is SUPER IMPORTANT! I prefer crystallization in voters, give me a few strong voters and write my RFD for me.

LD-

Progressive arguments- I love progressive arguments so if you want to try some out I'm your gal! That being said, keep it fun competitive and educational, especially if you opponent isn't as comfortable with progressive arguments If you are going take a progressive approach make sure your still focusing on impacting out the link chain and linking it back to your V+C.

Take your time to explain the links and Impacts and extend them through your speeches. I like good clash and analytical arguments. Cited evidence is great in rebuttals but make sure you explain why the card effectively rebuttals the argument.

V+C should be the most important part of the debate, please don't forget about it till your voters, it should run through the entire debate.

Clear crystallized voters are my preference, try to write my RFD for me when you give me your voters.

Policy-

I have a feeling that policy is going to be non-existent this year so if on the odd chance there is a policy round, I'm okay with pretty much every argument you want to run, if you have any questions regarding specific arguments just ask me before the round starts :)

Overall have fun! If I missed anything feel free to ask.

If you have any Questions about my RFD find me after round or Email me!

I look for thoughtful, well-conveyed contentions with clear and logical arguments that are backed by evidence (direct, anecdotal ,or common knowledge). The tone of delivery conveying passion for the topic without coming across as rude or offensive is important to me.

I am an assistant coach with eight years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are. Since we are debating virtually, I will wave my hand if you are not clear.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your standards for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with debate and have judged it for a couple years now. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!