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.

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Pronouns: She/her

Time in speech/debate world: 16 years (combined competing, judging, coaching).

I have NO TIME FOR HATE. Any comments that are offensive, racist, bigoted, transphobic, misogynistic, etc will result in an automatic drop. This includes: speaking down to opponents, using improper pronouns/misgendering, using offensive terminology, etc. Speech and debate is about respectfully allowing our arguments to shine through, not attacking one another; therefore, I will not tolerate it.

LD:

I am an old-fashioned LD judge. No spreading. If I cannot hear an argument, I do not judge that argument. It is not my job as the judge to figure out your arguments; it is YOUR job as the debater to tell me what they are.

I want to see framework debate. LD is NOT Policy! 99% of the time I'm not interested in solvency. I also usually drop counterplans, because that's subverting the intention of LD.

Also, personal pet-peeve: poorly cut cards. Cards should not be cut stringing disparate words together to change the intention of the writer of the card. If you can't pull a clean quote out of it, choose a new card.

I am a firm believer in the idea that an LD round ought to be understandable by anyone off the street.

Congress:

I reward active speakers who participate and advance debate. Rehashing in a late-cycle or giving speeches just to give a speech and not to advance debate will NOT be rewarded. I do notice who is just giving speeches and who is giving speeches, proposing motions, asking questions, etc.

In Congress, follow NSDA rules in speeches and questioning. If your speech is the second or third add or beg, make sure you articulating a new point or giving significant evidence to further the add/ neg case. Do not preface in questioning, if you have new information, give a speech rather than ask a question. Questions should only be one part, the goal is to unpack what the speaker just said.

In Events involving research, verbal citations of unknown authors should include some context for why that author may be an authority, verbal citations of known news sources should include an author or year for context. Make sure you are using information ethically, and not magnifying or misrepresenting the claims you make about the data that you cite.

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.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

I believe Public Forum debate to be exactly that- a public forum. I also appreciate and enjoy the intricacies of argumentation. In the end, my jurisdiction is the resolution, therefore I need to hear argumentation stemming from the given resolution.

Speaking quickly in a round is a must, but it should not be at the expense of communication. Throwing arguments around to see what sticks is not the best strategy with me. I also believe that there is rarely a "silver bullet" type of argument, and argument that is so good that it is irrefutable. Don't try to isolate your competition- instead, clash your arguments with theirs. Debate is about the clash. That is what makes it engaging and important. Create that clash.

Theory arguments rarely persuade me, although I have been known to vote for theory. I prefer to hear about the point of conflict within the resolution.

The best advice I can give is to connect the dots in the round. If you don't, that means if I have to connect arguments to impacts and evaluate both on my own, I may not make connections the way you would like Weigh the round, not just your impacts.

I've been hearing that nuclear war is going to happen since 1982. Just because something is said in a round does not make it true. Valid, reasonable positions and evidence are key. The impacts of arguments need to be sound and connected.

A dropped argument does not mean you win the debate. You need to tell me why.

In the end, debate is an exercise in discussion, discourse, rhetoric, argumentation and rebuttal. Logos, ethos and pathos are vital in the debate arena. Debate decisions are about who debates better in a given moment in time with a given situation. You've chosen a remarkable activity to participate in. If you are looking for a national circuit judge, probably best not to pref me.

Austin Keefe (he/him)

University of Arkansas (akeefe@uark.edu)

Public Forum/Congress/Lincoln Douglas/IPDA

Howdy, I am a former public forum/Lincoln Douglass and a current IPDA varsity debater for The University of Arkansas and have been doing debate for about 4 years competitively. I'm a simple man, any homophobia, racism, xenophobia will immediately lose you the round and 20 speaker points. Just don't, it's not worth it. Please time yourself, if I have to call you out for a time, it'll hurt speaks so just time yourself.

Public Forum

I am a big framework guy so for me to flow it to your side it needs to be thoroughly tied to your case and brought up every speech. If you do concede to your opponent's framework then I need a card or an extremely valid reason why. Weighing and magnitude also don't hurt when flowing as it gives me a lens for the debate. Personally, I believe debates peak during crossfire. Use your time wisely and don't ask cupcake questions that drag out time. I am an aggressive-style type debater and love it when there is a high-volume clash and argumentation. I don't want free melatonin in the form of a lame crossfire so make the most of it. Lastly, signposting will save your life when I judge. I am not the best at flowing so if I lose your argument, even if you brought it up, that's on you. I need to be able to understand your arguments to be able to clearly lay out your case. That being said I can understand spreading but if you do, there will need to be a speech doc shared beforehand.

Lincoln Douglas

Traditional LD is my stuff and I'll be able to follow a case very well. I have had Progressive rounds so I will still be able to flow K's, meta-theory, disclosure theory, tricks, etc... I don't specifically have a preference over the other but I do prefer a traditional case-vs-case debate but if you bring in a K, I'll be able to follow. If you don't need to fill the speech time, don't. I'd have a better time flowing your arguments to you if you condense it down to 5 minutes rather than trying to ramble on for the extra 2 minutes.

Congress

I love congress speeches because they are able to provide humor in the serious world of debate. Funny and entertaining intros will help me tie your case to your points and enjoy your speech more. Evidence is just as important in these speeches though and I will take all of your speech with a grain of salt if there isn't a source to back it up. Also, if we have spent 40+ minutes on a single bill, please do not run a constructive speech (unless its new information) that just reiterates past representative's speeches. It makes your speech appear weak and ill founded. Refutation speeches are pretty rad as it provides clash in the debate so try to do that.

Literally any other debate style

Just speak clearly and I think I am capable enough to follow through with your case/argument.

Speaks

The worst amount of speaker points I'll give is a 27 (unless you are being rude, yelling, racist, you know, the no-no stuff). I throw a 30 here and there but I'll need very good signposting, crossfire, and speeches. But in general, if you speak well enough to understand, a 28 is in your grasp. Going overtime will hurt your speaks (over the 10 second grace period) so don't do that.

Misc.

All in all, its you vs. your opponents where y'all are yelling about topics way above our pay grade. Just enjoy it, it's an event where people are forced to listen to you rant about stuff you spent too much time researching. Spend 5 minutes before your round watching this video rather than spam-prepping. Have fun g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJZeNY6dKo&ab_channel=Lucasamiel0406

Hi! My name is Sydney O’Connell. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston, TX for four years and I'm now a junior at Southwestern University in Georgetown, TX. I primarily focused on Congressional debate and Extemp, dabbling in worlds schools as well. In WSD, I competed locally, as well as at NSDA Nationals, the Kandi King RR, and Greenhill. In Congress, I competed on the local and national circuit for three years finaling at tournaments such as ASU, Berkeley, UT, and more; I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year and TFA state sophomore, junior, and senior year.

Congress:

• First and foremost, don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I will evaluate you all equally regardless of your technique and style.

• Don’t lie about/make up your sources.

• Please stay active in the round. Even if you've already spoken, keep asking questions or getting up to question. It makes my rankings a lot easier when competitors are active the entirety of the round.

• Think about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? If you find yourself in a position where arguments have already been said, adjust your speech to bring a new perspective to the round or wait until the next item to speak.

• I'm not a fan of one representative giving 2 speeches on the same legislation as it increases rehash and takes away opportunities from other debaters to speak.

• For POs: Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners after the first cycle. If you make a few small mistakes, it will not affect your rank, but if I see consistent mistakes it will.

Worlds:

• I am looking at teams that are sticking to the heart of motion throughout the entire debate. I want to hear a cohesive story down the bench.

• You need to have logical warrants, links, and weighing of the principle and practical down the bench. Examples are good but they don’t count as links or warrants.

• I would like to see a comparative worlds at the end of the debate.

LD/PF:

• Treat me like a traditional judge please.

• I'm fine with disads, counterplans, and plans.

• Do not spread. please.

Everyone:

• Have fun :)

• Be respectful and be kind

• Debate is an inclusive and educational activity, so if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or anything that is targeted or harmful to a community, you will get dropped.

Hi, I am Ella Salazar. My pronouns are she/her. I competed for four years at Teurlings Catholic High School. I now attend Tulane University (Roll Wave)! 

My main events were forensic events, although I did dabble in interp events. Listed below are my preferences in rounds etc, just general housekeeping. 

Debate: 

• I did LD for only a year, so I understand the basic frameworks, so use whatever you need. I personally don't like K's, but as long as you argue them effectively so I can understand them, then that's fine.
• I don't mind spreading, I can usually keep up pretty well. However, if it comes to a point where I truly cannot understand you, I will stop writing down anything that you are saying in my personal flow. 
• Speaking of flow, I will be flowing on a personal sheet of paper, so I will know if anything is dropped, etc. 
• Please be respectful to your opponent! I do not tolerate any hateful or derogatory speech. 

Speech

• Please make sure that you are respectful of the people in the room. 
• I love listening to all of the pieces, so please have fun! I love seeing your voice through the pieces. Let your individuality shine through your pieces! 

Overall, I want you to have fun! I enjoyed all my years in speech, and it is a pleasure to be able to judge you! 

I went to Caddo Magnet High in Shreveport!

Currently a Political Economy and Environmental Studies student at Tulane.

I competed in national mock trial, youth leg., and work a few legal internships over the years, so I'm pretty knowledgable about public speaking, debate, and politics (especially SCOTUS decisions and environmental economics).

Note the following:

• I value clarity and concision in any debate (I'm a fan of the FIRAC structure, but as long as the argument follows a clear logic it's fine.) If you want to look into this, do research on case brief structures.
• Don't spread. I want you to show your public speaking ability. Be emphatic. Be persuasive.
• Don't be rude/condescending to the other debaters, but a little theatrics are fine.
• If you don't respond to the other teams' arguments, then I will give them the point.
• Every argument you make should be backed up by a CREDIBLE source.
• Bottom line: I may personally agree with one side's politics more, but at the end of the day I will give the point to whoever constructs a better argument.

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.