Hi,

I am a judge who enjoys a good debate based on logical reasoning supported by evidence. Here are a couple things I like/do not like as a judge:

- I do not like spreading, and will only vote on a contention if it is carried throughout the entire round.

- Please be respectful, and do not yell, passion can be expressed in other ways.

With that said, I am looking forward to listening to your arguments. Good luck!!

Experience-This will be my fifth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

I am a parent judge. I focus on speech clarity, content, clarity of thoughts and delivery.

I don't have a preference as to philosophy or economic arguments, but I have to be able to understand them. I would prefer a slower speaking speed.

Parent Judge:
Please talk slowly, introduce yourself,

For debate: state if you are aff or neg

I am a judge with little experience.

I do not like spreading; please speak slowly. Please clearly state contentions and signpost whenever possible. Please also try to stay on topic.

Good luck!

Hey everyone, I am a parent judge approaching three years of experience in both debate and speech.

• I am a standard tech > truth flow judge (meaning that I will write down everything you say, even if it’s illogical). That being said, it’s your responsibility to address the fact that your opponents are running something very illogical if it happens

• Signpost. Tell me what contention you will be refuting/defending at all times - this makes it so much easier for me to effectively judge

• In the case of a prepared debate, be sure to cite evidence for your claims, but also have the logic for why it is true. Debate is both evidence and logic-based, and I expect to see both

• Lastly but most importantly, please keep your arguments at a reasonable speed. If I can’t understand what you’re saying then I won’t be able to flow it

I am lay parent judge. I am good with progressive and critical arguments within right context.

Put me on the email chain - sarahelisedavidson@gmail.com

**I don't know anything about this topic, please explain any jargon etc**

Online debate:

-I'd prefer if you have your camera on, but having it off is fine

-If my camera isn't on, I'm not ready

-Ask for confirmation that I'm ready before giving your speech

General things:

-time your own speech and prep

-tech > truth

-fairness > education

-I tend to place a lot of weight on evidence quality. I'll still vote on spin of course, but, if the debate is close, I usually look to the quality of both sides' evidence.

-I care a lot about judge instruction in rebuttals. It's really helpful and will get you good speaks

-I love impact turns, advantage cps, and well-debated disadvantages

-I don't like judging topicality or theory debates, but you should still go for it if you know it's the right strategy.

-I was a 2A, but my views are probably more in line with that of a 2N.

T:

-Topical versions of the aff and case lists are good.

-A smaller topic is probably better than aff innovation.

-Competing interpretations > reasonability

Soft left affs:

- I'm predisposed towards extinction-level impacts, and I tend to think utilitarianism is the best framework for evaluating choices between policies. You're far better off spending more time attacking the link and internal link level of a DA than wasting a bunch of time on framing, which is usually a wash anyway. I think that a securitization-type framing argument is way better than some arbitrary "probability first" or "util bad" claim, BUT winning this requires meaningfully reducing the risk of the DA.

DA:

- My favorite debates are DA/case debates.

- I love politics DAs, but aff specific and topic DAs are even better. But feel free to read whatever contrived DA scenario you want. I'll vote on it if you win it.

- Pls do impact calculus - it makes my decision 1000x times easier

- Turns case is also super persuasive to me

- If you're going for a non-unique + link turn, actually explain why the aff resolves the link

CPs:

- Impact out your solvency deficits or explain why the perm shields the net benefit

- I'm not a good judge for process CPs. Complicated competition debates are confusing to me

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to

Theory:

- I will vote on theory, but you need to give examples specific to abuse within the debate and impact out theory in the 2AR

- cheaty fiat cps (ie Tsai should resign or Saudi should stop the war in Yemen) are definitely bad

- Agent CPs, 2NC cps, 50 state fiat, consult Cps, con cons, etc are probably good

- condo = good (but, again, I can be persuaded otherwise)

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps

Ks on the neg:

- i feel like my views on the k have changed a lot over the past few months. i like it more than i used to.

- cap, security, fem ir, and settler colonialism are the literature bases I'm most familiar with -- if you want me to vote on other things, i need lots of explanation

- i prefer specific links to the plan - the more specific, the better

- actually engage with the 1ac and spend time on case in the 2nr - i like when neg teams take lines out of the 1ac and/or recut 1ac ev

- floating PIKs are bad

- the alt should resolve your impacts and links

- i hate long overviews - your overviews should be short & contextualized to the aff

K affs:

- I prefer that you read a plan & im probably not the best judge for you if you read an untopical aff, but I'll still vote for a k aff and I have several times in the past

- at least have some sort of relation to the topic

- just asserting that the USFG is bad is not enough to get my ballot

- k affs probably don't get perms - if the aff doesn't have to be topical, then Cps / K's don't have to be competitive, but this needs to be explained in the debate

Neg v. k affs:

- framework - fairness is an impact (but you have to explain why it is), TVAs are great, tell me what debate looks like in the world of the aff & neg and why your model is better

- presumption - go for it. a lot of k affs just don't do anything

- k's vs k affs - not great for this. if you're going to go for a k, pls do thorough explanations and impact out each of your links

Speaks

- I'll dock your speaks if you're mean or rude to me or others in the round

I ask that competitors do not spread and that they let their opponent finish their sentences during cross. No spreading and no cutting people off while talking! Thank you :)

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

Hello,

My name is Bren Hamaguchi (he/him) and I am the assistant Speech and Debate coach at Overlake HS.

I want to be clear: I have no prior experience participating in or judging Speech or Debate (this is my second season). But, as a history teacher, I am familiar with how to construct an argument, thesis, use of evidence, some philosophy, and persuasive speaking techniques.

I have no overt biases that will affect the decisions that I render.

Warnings:

Speed - I have a difficult time following along when people talk fast, I'll do my best, but if I don't write it down there is a good chance I'll forget and I can't judge you on information I don't have. You can send me your case if you think you speak too fast. No spreading, even with a case.

LD - Philosophy, Theory, and K's - if you're going to run theory or use a philosophical argument make it clear. If you reference something you think a Lay judge might not understand, either thoroughly explain it during your time or don't bother. Try at your own risk.

Be careful with the amount of technical LD jargon. My knowledge of technical, especially progressive debate terms, is limited.

LD/PF - ESPECIALLY PF - Be courteous! I really dislike when competitors are rude to each other.

Congress - I have my B.A. in Political Science so I am very aware of congressional procedure and how to construct arguments for and against bills. It is still up to you to follow proper procedure and structure your speeches in accordance with the rules and regulations.

Speech - Speak clearly, have a thesis, stay on time, and have fun!

Good luck everyone!

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

Paradigm:

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started myparadigmwith.

As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds.

Please respect each other and have a great debate.

Miles Morton

Policy/LD:

Speed is fine

Not a fan of non-t critical affs

Don't love Ks either

I enjoy t debates

PF:

Speed is fine, but it's mostly up to your opponents. If they say "clear" or "speed" or something you should slow down.

Please just flash cases, if you don't I'm going to be annoyed if you call for like a half-dozen cards.

I'll evaluate most arguments barring anything offensive or insensitive.

Disclosing boosts speaks

Flashing cases probably means perfect speaks

If you flash cases or disclose and your opponents don't theory is super viable and a voter imo.

Be nice.

Weigh... That's what the decision is based on, don't focus on the line-by-line in FF, instead explain why your impacts matter more than the other teams.

Parli: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not feel obligated to fill time if you're a beginner or just don't have 7 or 8 minutes worth of argumentation. I would much rather you give a 4-minute rebuttal than an 8-minute rebuttal where half of the speech is you just repeating the same things over and over again. Speed is cool so long as your opponents are fine with it. Any arguments will be evaluated unless they're discriminatory

Let me know if you have any questions

email for chain: milesmorton2@gmail.com

Have fun!

top level:

-i did four years of policy at notre dame high school. i was a 2A

-washu 26

-pls explain terms especially on the IPR topic

-if im less familiar with an argument that doesn't mean you should stray away from the obvious strategy. you just need to give me lots of judge instruction and explanation

general things:

-add me to the email chain: maddiepira@gmail.com

-time ur own speeches

-give me judge instruction

-tech > truth

-im policy leaning, but im receptive to ks on the neg

-u must be clear. i will not flow what i can't understand

soft left affs:

-i prefer extinction level impacts

-id rather you answer the disad than do a bunch of framing. that being said securitization framing is more convincing to me

topicality:

-TVAs and case lists are good

-fairness is the best impact

-competing interps > reasonability

disads:

-do impact calc please

-turns case is good

-on a truth level courts don't link to politics but i can be persuaded otherwise

counterplans:

-50 state fiat and PICs are good

-new 2NC planks are usually a voter but can be justified

-tell me to judge kick

Ks:

-i'm familiar with set col, cap, security, gender, etc. anything else you should explain more

-i learned what i know from joshua michael

-i'll let the aff weigh their aff and i'll let the neg weigh links not to the plan unless given a convincing argument as to why not to

-links should (ideally) be to the plan, rehighlighted 1AC ev/lines from 1AC >

-long overviews are bad

-perf con means you get to sever your reps

-floating PIKs are a voter, and vague alts usually aren't (aff should use vagueness to claim no alt solvency)

K affs:

-im neg biased, but i will vote for you

-im skeptical of out-of-round solvency claims but they aren't impossible to win

-i don't get why u should get perms (plan is not topical, so ks and cps dont have to be competitive) but ill give them to u if the other team doesn't explain this or u out debated them

framework:

-i lean neg on framework, but i can be convinced otherwise

-not best for these debates bc limited framework knowledge: i took it in the 1NR a few times

-TVAs are good

if this a K vs K debate i'll probs be confused unless its cap v. something else. explain your theories

theory:

-if u read ur theory blocks at 100% speed i will lower ur speaks

-around 3 condo is probably good

-i'll vote on dropped aspec, but 1ar gets new answers if the block says something completely new

-i'll vote on death good, spark, etc.

+ .1 speaks if you mention club penguin

speech:

-anything you've heard about debaters judging speech is probably also true for me (ie i might place more of a value on your arguments than presentation compared to other judges)

Parent Judge:
Don't spread, make sure to make your arguments clear.

All responses to constructive must be in rebuttal. If an argument is not extended through FF & Summary, then it won't count. Make sure to frontline your defense against the opponents through all speeches as well.

Sign post

ganu.sankar@gmail.com -- add to the email chain

***EDIT 2/24/2023: FOR SPEECH STUDENTS (debaters should probably also read this)

Please treat sensitive topics with grace and respect. This can mean many things. I think content warnings before speeches are a good norm to follow in both speech and debate. If you are trying to represent other people's suffering, it should be exceedingly clear to me during your speech that you put a lot of thought into it and are engaging with it sincerely instead of commodifying or exploiting it. This is a tough line to walk but a necessary one if you decide to take on topics with which you have little personal experience. It's important to consider where your pieces/sources come from and your own positionality while representing them. Ask yourself questions like: what should the audience conclude from this narrative? How should they feel? What does my representation of these sources add to the world? Why am I drawn to this subject? How can I treat this subject in an intellectually and emotionally nuanced way? Let me be very clear: I am not trying to police your identity or limit the topics you feel like you are allowed to speak on. I am also not trying to pressure you to only discuss things you have directly experienced and bare your soul (although you may if you want to. content warnings still apply). I just want you to not lose sight of why you do speech in the endless quest for a higher ranking. I know it's hard and it may seem like rankings will make all the difference for your future. I am aware of the inequalities in speech and debate and the privileges it offers to students who are able to rise to the top competitively, so I grant that there is a grain of truth in this mindset. Just be kind to yourself, be kind to others, try to grow personally from this experience and let it teach you things about yourself in the world, try not to get burnt out, and reach out to me to discuss anything about my paradigm, RFD, or anything else. My email is ruth_schlenker@brown.edu.

EXPERIENCE

I am currently a college senior. I debated 4 years on the North TX circuit and qualified for state in LD for 3 of those years. The TX circuit is a very mixed bag so I am comfortable with both traditional and progressive LD.

Other events I competed in: Domestic Extemp, Policy, Congress, World Schools, Poetry Interp

BY PROGRESSIVE I MEAN:

-Speed is fine. I will say clear once if I don't understand you. For every additional time, you lose a speaker point. And obviously, if I'm saying clear more than once, it means I am not comprehending your arguments, cannot flow them correctly, and cannot use them to write a ballot in your favor.

-All types of arguments are fine (Ks, theory, etc.) I just need a way to evaluate the round (FW, ROB, etc.) and clear weighing. I repeat: weighing. Tell me what comes first and why!

-I default to reasonability on theory. Please give me a clear abuse story.

OTHER NOTES

-I don't like gimmicky arguments (frivolous theory, DAs with shoddy link chains, etc.). Show me you care about/put some thought into the argument you're making instead of just trying to win the round please

-On a related note. Make sure your cards say what you think they say. If a line by line argument is fuzzy I will go back and read the cards again and if the argument you were trying to extrapolate from the card is a stretch I won’t buy the argument. Power tagging is tacky. Instead of trying to make it seem like the author said x when they didn't, you can say x and justify it with logic!

-If you are a traditional neg debater I need you to make it clear whether you are defending the status quo or an alternative. If it's the latter, I need you to flesh out some solvency and competition if you want me to vote on it. Too many trad neg debaters just throw out alternate policies as responses on the AC flow and expect me to know how to evaluate them. I don't. Also for trad neg debaters: please don’t get up and read an identical framework to what was read in the 1AC it is very unnecessary

-If you are rude to your opponent(s) I will give you low speaks and call you out on the ballot. If you engage in hate speech or harrassment I will do these things and also vote you down. I'm not the PC or tone police; just be decent!

ANYTHING ELSE? Please feel free to ask!

tl;dr I've been coaching since 2011 and can handle any way you want to speak and debate. I encourage and support creativity as long as you follow the rules of the tournament, your league or the NSDA.

*************************************

Please hit the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phones and other devices during the round so that your speeches are not disturbed by alarms for calls from your family and Slack notifications from your coach. I wear headphones and your timer going off sounds really loud.

Please "pre-flow" your cases before the round start time. Tournaments want us to start on time.

I don't disclose after rounds unless the tournament requires it. I weigh everything up to the last word of the last speech. So that means I can't start deciding until the end of the debate round, which means I need time to think and write after the round is done so I can turn the ballot in on time.

I don't like when multiple debate teams from a school use the same constructive. Write your own speeches please.

Ask me if I'm ready before you start speaking. I don't want to miss anything you say because I'm still writing notes. Actually ask me - please don't robotically ask "Judge ready? Opponent ready?" then start speaking before receiving an answer.

If the tournament or your league has a rule that judges may only consider arguments spoken about in the last speeches, then I will respect and follow that. If there is no rule saying that, then I will consider ALL arguments given at any point in the round. If you made a great point 20 minutes before the end of the round, then I'm still going to remember it even if you didn't repeat it 5 minutes before the end of the round. Techniques your coaches teach you (like to extend your arguments into the the last speeches) are not rules, they're just best practices.

Congress

I give high points/ranks to competitors who speak well and argue well. If your speech is as good as those in extemp, I will rank you highly. At a certain point in the year, everyone doing Congress is at about the same level for their argumentation skills because everyone is using the same formula for each speech. Therefore, having high-level presentation skills is what separates the top 6 from the bottom 6 for me.

I am biased against speeches that, after the first few, don't rebut or support previous arguments. As a Congress coach, I've seen the student thought process: "Goshdangit I spent all that time before the tournament writing this sponsorship speech and I'm gonna goshdarn give it." Well...ignoring the other speakers and giving a speech that just repeats the arguments of previous speakers does NOT help you get higher scores from me.

Policy

Policy is rare in the 2 states where I've judged, so I haven’t judged it much. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win. I don’t read cases or evidence that you share - I judge based only on what you say so that there is no confusion about what was said vs what was written. I don’t mind spreading as long as you’re understandable, but I’m not a perfect flow-er so I’m going to miss some things and will depend on you to tell me what you think is important after the first constructives. I judge based on who was more persuasive as opposed to who covered more points - this usually means if you have some squirrelly argument I will ignore it and go with the arguments that makes more real-world sense. Speaking of squirrelly arguments - I am so sorry but "everything leads to nuclear war" is hack. We were saying the same thing in the 80’s and it feels played out. If it makes sense that something might lead to nuclear war, like militarization of the Arctic, then I’ll accept it. But when you try to say something like more laptop manufacturing in Malaysia or the military playing Fall Guys on Twitch will lead to nuclear war, you’re going to have to work REALLY HARD to get me to give that any credence. I do not turn my brain off during rounds - there's no such thing as tabula rasa.

Lincoln-Douglas

My LD preferences are pretty much the same as Policy above. There’s not a lot of progressive in my area, so I don’t know all the jargon. I don’t care if you do progressive or traditional, as long as I understand what you’re talking about. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

Public Forum

The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

SPEECH/IE PREFERENCES

No forensbots. If you are giving us a speech that you've polished so much that it shines, make sure your eyes aren't dead. If this is literally the 50th round you've performed this piece, practice it with a friend and tell her to tell you truthfully if you look like a soulless automaton.

My entire life is spent watching young people speak. I notice everything: swaying back and forth; shifting foot to foot; grabbing the bottom of your blazer; pacing too much; purposeless, repetitive gestures. I was once in a national circuit final round in which I ranked a speaker 7 because she kept smacking her lips every other sentence. The other 2 judges didn't notice and each ranked her first. There is nothing wrong with any individual movement or tic, but if you repeat that movement too often, I will see it and tell you. Watch videos of yourself to notice and reduce your own unnoticed habits.

Please don't make fake changes of position. The purpose of changing positions is so that different parts of the audience can see you better. In front of a camera, this means you have ZERO need to change position. Stay centered in the frame just like a news reporter. Please don't do the golden triangle in front of a camera - people whose job is in front of a camera in real life don't do this. In-person in a normal classroom at a tournament, change position based on the people in the room. Don't go over there and talk to a fake audience if no one is actually sitting over there. Adjust your position changes to the actual people in the room you're in. Changing positions during your speech's transitions is WHEN you do it, NOT WHY.

Events I have judged but not enough to have preferences for:

BQ, Extemp Debate, original spoken word, duo improv, radio speaking, broadcast announcing, pro/con challenge, and world schools.

Events I haven’t judged:

Parliamentary, Mock Trial

My experience

High school coach and classroom Public Speaking teacher from 2011-2018, then 2021 to present. Have coached/taught: PF, LD, Congress, and all Speech events. Have coached students to TOC, NCFL and NSDA in PF, OO and POI. Have coached students to state championships for PF, LD, Congress, OO, POI, Extemp and Humorous.

Teacher since 2003.

Teaching private public speaking lessons to adults since 2019.

I judged at nearly a hundred online tournaments during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Online platforms I've judged on so far: Zoom, NSDA Campus, Accelevents, Classrooms.cloud, HopIn and Yaatly.

I've completed the NSDA/NFHS online judge training including the cultural competency section.

I know how to be a Parliamentarian for Student Congress.

I know how to be an Extemp proctor.

In high school I did policy and prose/poetry.

I speak Spanish and Portuguese.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

Debated and did speech for 5 years. I'm fine with any styles and feel free to ask any questions before round.

I am a novice judge.

I am an engineer by profession. I am used to sitting in presentations and in technical debates.

I find it easier to follow crisp, cogent arguments delivered with clarity.

I sometimes have trouble digesting the arguments if speakers rush through them.

Since I am new to this, please feel free to remind me if I am missing a step or about specific rules that are supposed to be applied during a particular phase of the debate.

have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.

Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.

The main gist:

Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.

More details below:

-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.

-(LD) Value Debate:

I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.

-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.

-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)

I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.

TL;DR for all forms of debate:

I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).

I drop points for rudeness.

PF Debate

I am a parent judge, but I have been a judge previously and understand how a debate round works. Do not use complicated jargon. Please be clear and explain everything. I won't flow what is unclear. I will only weigh off what I understand. Please speak at an acceptable pace. In summary, please make your case on why you should win the round.. In final focus, do not bring up new info or arguments. I will disregard it.

Please be respectful during crossfire

Please keep your time.

Speech

I am a parent judge. Do not use complicated jargon. Speak clearly and confidently and at a reasonable pace. I will look for demonstration of enunciation, voice modulation, and ease of understanding

My name is Astrid (they/them), and I did speech (info and extemp) all 4 years in High School in the Montana circuit, did 2 years of college level NPDA debate, winning Novice Nationals in 2018, and now coach all events at the high school level. I'm excited to judge!

All Events: Avoid gendered language when possible or addressing the crowd. Let me know if you have any time signals you'd like. Have fun, and respect yourself and others. Self advocate for acommodations when possible!

Congress: In a congress debate, I am looking for adaptability and cleverness. A good congressional debater is one who can play the room, find incisive questions that make speakers sweat, and understand the motions that control the pace of the debate space. Congress is best when it's about the details, both of the arguments and of the procedure. Debaters should be able to expand upon their prepared material AND approach new materials/bills with excitement.

In other debates, there is a skill called telling the "story of the ballot." In congress, that is giving a clear and cohesive summary of the argument about a bill and trying to tell the room why it's best to vote the way you're advocating for. The best congress debaters do that with ease.

KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESOLUTION AND A BILL. Please.

I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.

Lincoln-Douglas: I'm pretty good at speed, I've spread-ed my fair share in my day, but I'm a slow writer. For the sake of detail and understanding I may call out "slow" or "clear" when I need it. Please go slower when you're not reading a card so I can keep up.

I'm a big fan of FW debate, impact calculus, and interesting/lesser known philosophy. Watch yourself on colonialism Ks and anything to do with disability/marginalization; I love love love hearing these arguments, but often debaters end up speaking on behalf of marginalized people in unfortunate ways.

In your final speeches, give me clear voters with a story that carries me throughout the flow so I know what the heck is up. Throughout your speech, signpost WHERE we are on the flow.

I weigh theory debates about accessibility and basic respect (misgendering, accessibility around speed, disclosure/wiki etc.) are weighed very heavily for both sides. Evoke them VERY carefully. I care a lot about access to the event. I weigh procedural arguments first unless given a reason not to.

Run stuff you love and what you think is fun.

if you must email a case, email it to alecwillis00@gmail.com

All Speech Events: Move around! Explore the space! Don't get happy feet (shift from foot to foot as if anxious), but don't plant yourself in front of your phone. I value a kind of energy that takes up the whole space. I WILL NOT DETRACT POINTS FOR NO EYE CONTACT, but do look around to various places. I've found if you look at "ghosts," empty seats as if someone sits there, it achieves the same result.

Extemporaneous: I count sources and it contributes to my ranking. I generally like to hear the "out there" questions I know less about, but remember that I might not of heard anything about the topic! Give some preliminary info (which is a great place to stuff in more sources).

Impromptu/SPAR: Explore the space! Have fun! You're in a funny event, make jokes and smile. I love a nice, concise lesson that ties your points together. For Spar, I love having a passion or conviction that is far outside of what is normally considered for such funny topics. I want to feel like you care more about the topic than anything in the world (for both events).

Informative:I will be counting puns and it will contribute to both my ranking and my speaker point allocation. Most puns = 20 speaks no questions asked

Hello, my name is Sam Zubler! I was part of the speech and debate team for four years (three in mock congress, one in speech), and this is my sixth year helping to judge tournaments. I have the most experience with Speech, but I got a bit of experience with Debate last year.

Still, please try to limit spreading in debate. Clarity is key. Since spreading can be a bit subjective, I created three basic determinations to make my views very transparent. 1) If you are skipping syllables, you are going too fast. 2) If you are tripping over your words and its not obviously nerves, you are going too fast. 3) If you are gasping/panting for breath between sentences, you are going too fast. Otherwise, as long as you don't get Too technical with your arguments, everything should be fine.

I am a fairly lenient judge, but I do focus a lot on presentation skills due to my speech/congress background. This can include fluidity, but it also covers posture, use of movements, facial expressions, appropriate theatrical accents, and some pronunciation skills. If you are well informed and well rehearsed, you should be fine.

As a heads up, I may get super nitpicky if you are really good. This is for the purpose of being able to rank you, because sometimes the tiniest of mistakes or hesitations can decide your ranking. I want you all to be able to know exactly why you got the rank that you did, because I know that I hated unhelpful comments when I used to compete.

Accommodations: if you need any, tell me. Verbal stutter or slurred voice? Tell me. I will not count such things against you IF you tell me. I can't do anything if I don't know.

Feel free to ask me any questions, ideally before the round starts. I look forward to seeing all the creative arguments and speeches!