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

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

LD

• Have debated LD for a couple of years, so I'm familiar with how the debate goes
• Spreading is fine to an extent, but don't be mean about it
• Dropped arguments will not be flowed through, even if you bring them up later (audibly extend)
• I'll take most arguments, just prove them to me

lastly, don't be rude, this is just an activity and we're here to have fun! (:

always throw me on the email chain- my email is ashleyellis068@gmail.com

- northwestern university 2022/shawnee mission northwest 2018

- coach at evanston township

top level:

1. be nice to each other please-- being excessively rude will to anyone in the room will probably get your speaker points docked. aggressive postrounding is ugly and will also get your speaker points docked.

2. tech (almost always) > truth

3. tech>truth, but i do think pics, conditions cps, object fiat, and other silly fiat tricks can be pretty cheaty, so you'll have to reeeeeally pull through on those to win them-- and i will grant a lot of leeway to bad 2acs on them

4. debate is a game

5. i try to avoid any argumentative extrapolation when deciding

6. time yourselves

case:

1. affirmatives should be topical. i'll weigh a k aff if you win framework. be clear and thorough with framework answers or i'll probably err neg

2. i find presumption arguments to be pretty persuasive

3. any impact scenario is fine-- if you're reading a structural advantage, have good framing cards

4. fiat is durable

topicality: jurisdiction is not a voter and potential abuse is ALMOST never a voter

disadvantages: please read them

counterplans: as i said above, there are a few types that i think can be cheating and you absolutely must win the theory debate if you want me to vote on them. if you find yourself wondering if you may be reading a cp that i am inclined to think is cheating, just ask yourself: am i cheating right now? the answer should become pretty clear at that point. be very clear and thorough on cp theory.

i'll judge kick if you tell me to. i'll probably do it even if you don't tell me to. as long as it's conditional, the status quo is always an option, especially since you'll presumably still have a disad in play. not allowing judge kicking justifies sloppy work on the net benefit which is probably... bad for debate.

** to be clear: i will not judge kick if the aff is winning a perm or any offense. apparently this is a point of contention.

kritiks: go for them if that's your thing, i'll weigh them. i'm really not sure how i feel about out-of-round occurrences, so you can most likely persuade me either way.

1. don't sacrifice argumentative clarity for trying to sound sophisticated

2. perms

3. cyclical structural violence is infuriating but you should still, idk, be a nice person in round

theory: It sounds trashy, but, as a 2a, I'm definitely willing to vote on bad theory arguments if not answered well. this is where i'm definitely the most tech>truth.

conditionality is generally good but I'll vote aff on *1 fewer* solves their offense if the work is there.

reverse voting issues??? probably don't belong in debate

speaker points: start around a 28.5 and i'll raise or lower them accordingly. you can go pretty fast in front of me, i'll probably be slightly offended if you go slow. pop tags and stay clear. i appreciate good jokes and time-relevant memes. really hot lines in cards will probably get you a boost. i really like weird/risky strategies that end well. a strong, hot cross ex is the #1 route to a 30. good organization is #2.

lincoln-douglas:

****framework =/= framing****

1. i am 100% a policy debater/judge/coach but I did a little bit of ld in high school and have judged it before without managing to royally screw up decisions-- keep this in mind when choosing which argumentative tools are at your disposal in the debate.

2. being that I'm not too big into ld, make sure you're getting your point across. i understand most of the tech, but if I look confused, you should try to help me out. i'm pretty reactive.

3. util did not justify slavery. this arg is tired and I have a very very very low* threshold for voting on it.

4. i think defensive framework pre-empts in the 1ac are generally a waste of time because they make args that have to almost fully be reiterated in the 1ar- just read more offense.

*I will never vote on it

public forum:

1. see ld- i'm definitely a policy person. i did pf a lot more in high school than I did ld and was alright at it, but i was limited to the local, nsda-type circuit.

i'm not sure if that means I'm a flex-type judge then? if you want to turn it into a policy debate---go ahead, i'll adjudicate the round like i would a policy debate. if you want to keep it soundbyte debate, then it will probably be a low point win-- i can't not let myself weigh tech, sorry.

I've got quite a bit of experience coaching, judging, and even competing in all the main debate events - Congress, Public Forum, LD, Policy, and World Schools. I will understand your terminology, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations of the events. I've been participating in speech and debate for 16 years, coaching for 10, and this is my third year in Minnesota.

PF and LD Specifically: I tend to prefer the debate to be a tad bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal. I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.

LD Specifically: Framework debate is extremely important in LD... HOWEVER, framework debate is somewhat pointless when it has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really care why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a general sense. I care a lot more about why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a resolutional sense. If you can't make your framework arguments specifically applicable to the topic at hand and the arguments you are making, then you are wasting your time debating it in the first place, and I will just end up using your voters, impacts, and weighing to make my final decision in the round.

PF/LD/Policy/WSD: I will rarely vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaker points. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:

1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your are practicing the art of understanding, preparing, and delivering arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-5 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time in all events.

PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.

2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual tournaments. In a virtual debate, sitting is the norm and that is fine).

3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards and cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for Policy only. If you do decide to spread, please slow WAY down on tags, and always include a short analysis at the end of each card.

4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and be prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.

5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and may affect your speaker points.

6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one and vice versa. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.

Congress:

PO: Between "Fast, Fair, and Efficient" I care most about fairness, second most about about efficiency, and I don't care at all about "fast." Be efficient of course, try to make sure that things are running smoothly and that you aren't taking extra time because you don't know the process or because you are adding unnecessary extra words to your phrasing, but I would much rather you take an extra couple of seconds to make an accurate decision which doesn't require me to correct you, than I would for you to make a quick decision in the hopes that you'll look better. It may not flow off the tongue as well, but "Accurate, Fair, and Efficient" would be my preference.

Also, some common phrasing that I think you can shorten:

• When calling on subsequent speakers after the first speaker on a piece of legislation, cut all the nonsense about "Seeing as that was the 3rd affirmative speech we are now in line for a 3rd negative speech. All those wishing to speak in the negation please rise." Cut it out. Just say "Negative speakers rise" "Affirmative speakers rise"
• For the end of a speech/start of questioning: "Thank you ____ for that speech of (time), questioners please rise" No need to say "We are now in line for 2/4 blocks of questioning"
• When calling subsequent questioners after the first questioner for a speaker, please do not waste time by saying things like "Thank you (questioner), the next questioner is (name)." Literally just call out the name of the next questioner at the same time as you tap the gavel twice for the end of one questioners block. "(tap tap) Rep. Blah"

Some other PO Notes:

• I appreciate when the PO shares their precedence sheet with the chamber in some sort of google spreadsheet or something.
• I think the PO should be consistent in reminding the chamber of any and all rules that are not being followed. "Please do not abuse the grace period" "You must ask permission to leave and exit the chamber"
• I think a really good PO can add super small yet effective elements to their responses which show more personality in general. I don't think "The chair thanks you" is necessarily enough for that since it's so common. I like when a PO is able to reword their responses to things in ways that are still accurate but which can add some slight, yet not time-consuming, humor to the round.
• The PO should recommend and remind the chamber not to stand for speeches or questions until they tap their gavel. This provides a more fair moment for all to stand rather than having some people stand right at the end of the speech while the PO is still talking.
• The PO should state at the beginning of the round: Gaveling procedures, how they are determining precedence and recency (and if it isn't preset, then what system will they use to fairly call on people at first), and any particular ways in which they will go about things like calling for speakers or questioners. If there are rules particular to a given tournament such as how precedence or recency should be used which are not common at other MN tournaments, the PO should also mention those at the beginning to make sure everyone is on the same page and there aren't random issues regarding precedence or recency or following those rules at the very start of the round.

Speakers: I dislike speaking from laptops. Laptops are generally best used when they can be placed on a podium or desk, not held up and balanced on one hand in the middle of a public speech. When you use a laptop to speak from, you are forced to have one of your hands constantly held up and there is a giant barrier between you and your audience. I prefer the use of a notepad, or second best would be an ipad with the intention being that you can actually hold those notes at your side for certain parts of your speech to show that you are prepared. I also believe strongly that you should be writing outlines, not speeches. You will likely receive a pretty low speaker score from me if you appear to be glued to your notes because you wrote too much down. The sign of a good speaker is someone who knows their speech or their topic well enough that they don't rely on the notes and can speak well regardless of whether or not they have them. Use the notes for sources or bullet point key ideas with short phrases. Please do not read to us, speak to us. Additionally, I think participation is important. You could be the number one speaker in a round but if you are clearly not engaged at all in questions, motions, etc. then it's likely I will knock you down some ranks because of that. On that same note, while I would hope all speakers decide to attempt to speak on all items, if you have purposefully made the decision not to speak on the first item for debate in a session, then my expectation is that you would be fully prepared to give one of the first speeches on the next item. On the note of preparation, please do not EVER delay a chamber for something that YOU want for YOUR own purposes but that you are NOT prepared for at the time you are asking for a delay. For example "We shouldn't move to previous question yet because I still want to speak" and then the chamber decides not to move to previous question, and when calling for speakers you don't immediately stand up.

Side note: One sided debate sucks. Please either swap sides or just be prepared to give an early speech on the next debate item. Also, I understand the culture of saying "I'm prepared for both sides" because that's a good skill to have as a debater, but I don't like how publicly and simply people are willing to swap sides in congress. I really dislike hearing students say "Yea I can swap sides" out loud in the middle of a recess. It really defeats the whole purpose of you actually trying to convince me that you care at all about the side of the debate you are on, and I think one of the things you should be trying to do as a congressional debater is really be assertive concerning your feelings on a topic. I'd much rather you say something like "I'm not sure which side I'm on yet" or at least make those side-specific decisions more privately. Perhaps even just hide the decision a bit better by making it seem like the decision was actually made after hearing some of the arguments and giving more of a refutation speech. On that note, I think the longer debate on an item goes on the more I should see speakers refuting other arguments.

Don't be cringe

I am a parent judge and enjoy volunteering my time for the greater good of debating. I've sent two of my kids thru the high school debate program in Lakeville. I'm in my 9th year of judging and have been hooked since day one. Since then I've changed my own philosophy to better myself and listen to each side of any debate whether at a tournament or in day to day living.

I strongly believe one of the primary purposes of studying and participating in debate is to learn how to speak to and influence an audience. You should appeal to the judge, stick to the resolution and KNOW your case. This will guide my critique of your debate.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about one or two pieces of important evidence rather than simply listing several off.

If you plan to argue the resolution is unfair, I am not your judge. I believe it is a waste of time to complain about the resolution rather than doing what you should be doing, debating it.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. I expect you to take your RFD graciously as well as shake your opponent’s hand.

Thank you and Good luck!!

*For the Milo Cup

Since I am judging through a computer screen, please go slow on tag and cap speed at 7.

PF/LD

Do NOT run a paraphrased case in front of me.

AFF or NEG should be topical, the burden is on AFF or NEG to justify why that topicality is not burdened on them if they run something that is not topical.

Arguments must have links and impacts.

I’m cool with the speed at 5-9. Make sure to signpost and enunciate tags.

Slow down on the Tag.

The speech must be clear, no matter how fast or slow it may be.

You only need to convince me why there should be an affirmation or negation of the resolution.

Make sure to cover both sides in the round while also making each transition audibly between points of argument.

Case turns are underutilized in rounds. That and key impact calc are often game-winner.

Spec:

Tech over truth.

Just win the offense.

Condo & Judge Kick is fine

I’m cool with Theory, T, Disads, Counter Plans also.

Email Chain
Speechdrop.net

Steve.Haile@trojans.dsu.edu

HI! My name is Sofia Ishal I am an LD coach at Apple Valley and I did LD debate throughout hs. :)

I am now a student at the University of Minnesota. I consider myself a very traditional leaning judge but still, tech > truth so take these both into consideration with the way you debate in the round.

Most of my debate influence/knowledge has come from my HS coaches: Nick Smith, Cori Roberts, Alharith Dahmeh, Amadea Datel, and Jacob Nails

I have Judged roughly 60 rounds ranging from Novice, JV, and Varsity as four rounds of PF and four rounds of World Schools Debate

JV/VARSITY:

I am not a circuit debater so run anything circuity at your own risk; I know a semi-decent amount about circuit args theory, counter plans, K's,spec, etc. just do a clear job extending it and explaining why I should vote on it. with that being said I do not want to see circuit behavior during local tournaments. I am okay with speed, but anything faster than fast conversation may get lost in my flow. Do not assume that I will catch everything on my speech doc if you do decide to spread it. If there is an email chain, add me: Sofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

NOVICE:

I have a very good understanding of Phil frameworks, but please do a good job extending it and telling me why I should weigh under it for the round. If you run anything circuit as a novice (theory, counter plans, kritics, etc.) and your opponent very clearly cannot interact with it due to lack of knowledge, I won't vote on it. and even if your opponent can interact with it, there is still a very small chance I will vote on it, And it will lead to very low speaker points.

For both:

You guys should time yourself, but I will also keep time; if you go over, I will let you finish your sentence but will cut you off if you start making new points.

I'll start speaking around 27 and move up based on how the round goes :)

PF:

I have judged four rounds of PF LOL and have a semi-ok(emphasis on semi) grasp on how to evaluate a PF round, same attitude towards tricks and K's I was not a circuit debater... like at all so run any of these at your own risk :)

WSD:

I did not do WSD however I understand the speech times and the general gist of it. from what I noticed WSD tends to avoid a clash, pls pls pls have a clash, it'll make me so happy :). I am not familiar with all of the community norms but I will knock during the first and last min to signify protected time. Makes the extensions of previous arguments clear in rebuttal speeches and stray away from talking fast.

BQ

I did some BQ in high school but not a ton( and not a lot competitively) however having done and coached LD I am apt enough to judge BQ. My big thing is please have a clash and explain clearly link level arguments. In BQ definitions are going to determine a lot in the rounds so make sure you have clear and extended definitions and you should be good.

Disclosure:

I will disclose if both debaters are okay with it, and I write extensive comments on ballots.

Especially if I disclose, but in all cases, please ask me questions, but stray away from extensive post-rounding(In the case that I disclose), if there is anything I can do to make it make more sense to you, I am happy to do so. please feel free to email me: atSofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

please be respectful to your opponent and stay away from racist, homophobic xenophobic, etc remarks; these will lead you to being dropped!!! Being rude is never acceptable EVER I have and will tank speaks.

I love judging laid-back rounds where the competitors are having fun and are friendly with each other so try to strive for this! debate before anything else is an activity meant to be enjoyed!!

I am a parent judge and have been judging for over a year. In the past year I've judged at 6 tournaments including Berkeley, Bronx and Apple Valley

I will struggle to follow you if you speak very quickly and will ask you to slow down. I will look for well-waranted arguments and you should make sure to explain to me why you should win the debate.

I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy and respect.

I am a parent/lay judge. Do not spread; go at a conversational speed. Be respectful to me, your opponents, and anyone in the round.

Please only read positions relating to the topic: no Kritiks or Theory. If you do read them, I will be very confused and your chances of winning will be much lower. Articulate your positions in a way that is easy for someone without much knowledge of the topic to understand.

I will assign speaker points based on how clear you are during the round and if you make the debate easy for me to evaluate.

I am looking forward to judging your round!

Sasha Kreinik Paradigm

Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com

I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.

LD/CX:

Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.

LD:

Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.

All:

One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.

I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.

In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.

Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.

I am mostly experienced in LD, Congressional, and BQ. I prefer to hear your frameworks and contentions. I'm ok with spreading as long as you are articulate and I can hear your sources. Relax, Have Fun, Good luck! Please send me your case at lisa.lewis@mtka.org.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a traditional/classic style judge as I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate.

You can speak fast, however I must be able to follow the debate. If I can't understand you, your chances of winning the debate are slim.

I look for a friendly/polite debate. Rudeness will not help your case.

I do not disclose my decision.

Good Luck.

Kanisha Parthasarathy

Email: kpartha93 at gmail.com

Conflicts: Marlborough School (CA), Barrington High School (IL), Apple Valley (MN)

I was a former LD debater at Barrington High School from 2007-2011, taught at VBI from 2011-2013, and coached Public Forum from 2011-2015.

Few notes:

I haven't judged in a number of years, so I will not be able to judge you at your top speed. You don't have to treat me like a parent, but clarity is important to me.

I prefer arguments that are stock / central to the core of the topic, as opposed to deep philosophical arguments, kritiks, etc.

Extra emphasis on crystallization, impact calculation, and clarity when explaining your advocacy will go a long way.

On Nov / Dec 2022 specifically, I think it's important that when we debate about other countries that we remain sensitive to how we describe our arguments and attribute motives to other folks

In general, have fun and be good to each other!

The following isn't really a paradigm but some background information that may help the debaters that I have the privilege to judge. I've been very reluctant to publish this, but I realize that it may be useful so here it goes. I was a policy debater (state level) many decades ago and have been judging policy and LD since 2016. I have a strong preference to not judge varsity level because I have not kept up with debate and argumentation theory over the decades and I am not a coach. As would be expected I find varsity level debate often gets into these types of argumentations that I am not familiar with. With that said I don't inherently discount any type of argument or style but how I judge such arguments or the terms I use to describe may be limited. I do not accept/review files unless some type of ethics issue develops, and I would also consult the Tab Room in those situations. I am fine with speed to certain level and in general if a debater is consistently gasping for breath that is too fast for me. When citing evidence after initial reference refer to the argument and not the source as I don't track/flow sources.

Hi! You can call me Clarice, Peachy, and/or Judge. I debated in high school and now I judge primarily PF and LD but have experience in Congress as well. Here are some things to know about me:
- I go by they/them pronouns. I am a Mx (pronounced "mix"), not a "Miss" or "Ma'am". Even if you see me wearing a skirt or makeup or any other traditionally feminine clothing/cosmetics, I am not a woman. Please don't use she/her with me. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and the incorrect pronoun may slip out once in awhile, so I don't dock points for misgendering me unless it's egregious, but please try to pay attention and correct yourself if a mistake does happen. There are very few cases in which you would need to refer to me or any other judge with gendered language anyway, but please keep this in mind.

- I am COVID-conscious and still mask religiously around others. While I respect your freedom to choose whether or not to mask at the tournament as long as they are optional, I greatly appreciate when debaters I'm judging wear masks (over the nose and mouth) during the round. I'm very happy when I see debaters masking, but I won't dock points from those who don't mask and I won't award additional points to those who do.

- My main career is in the mental health field and I care very much about mental health and disability accommodations. When I was a competitor in debate, I was often too nervous and stressed to have fun. I want every debater to have fun and learn from their experiences during tournaments above all else, regardless of their mental health or neurodiversity status. If you feel particularly stressed/nervous/bad before a round, please feel free to tell me and we can take a deep breath together.

- Adding to my previous point, if you have a condition that may affect your communication (such as autism, ADHD, anxiety) or anything along the lines of that you feel I should know, feel free to notify me before the round if you feel comfortable doing so and I will keep it confidential. You don't have to say a diagnosis necessarily, but knowing more about how you communicate will help me know what to expect. I have ADHD myself so I understand how your performance can be influenced. How I give points won't be changed if you disclose something to me before the round--that is, I won't dock points or award extra points if you disclose a concern, condition, communication style, etc to me. 

Here are some things to know about how I judge and my preferences:
- I don't like excessive spreading. Speaking a bit faster than conversational pace is fine, especially for PF, but if I can't understand what you're saying I can't judge your rhetoric and performance accurately. Have diction and enunciate your words.

- Try to keep your voice at a volume slightly above conversational volume. I know during speeches you can get really wrapped up and passionate during your performance, but please don't yell. We're usually not that far away from each other so there's no need.

- Maintaining decorum/being professional, polite, and kind is extremely important to me. If you interrupt or speak over the other team during crossover, I will bring it up in the notes and, depending on how egregious it is, may dock points. If you are rude or sarcastic when asking questions during crossfire or asking for a card/source from the other team, I will bring it up in the notes and dock points (although I understand that sometimes what you say comes out sounding harsher than you intended). If you speak to your partner, giggle/laugh, roll your eyes, make faces, or do any other visible display of contempt during the other team's speeches, I will bring it up in the notes and DEFINITELY dock points. Show respect to each other and keep in mind that while debate is a competition, its ultimate goal is for competitors to have fun and learn. Nothing constructive comes from being disrespectful and I WILL notice it. By all means, be assertive and have clash, but don't be mean.

- I don't like when debaters read speeches directly off of their screens/papers. I find it hard to pay attention to your flow when you are only focused on reading a speech word-for-word and have a monotone reading voice with no interactivity. It makes you sound more knowledgeable about the topic and more compelling if you're able to speak mostly extemporaneously while using your speech outline just enough to keep you on track and keep track of sources. I'm a little more lenient with PF debaters when it comes to this, but please try your best.

- In addition to my former point, I like eye contact and skilled speaking performance (sounds rehearsed, few-to-none filler words such as "like" and "umm"/"uhh", appropriate gestures, no distracting fidgeting). However, I expect these skills to be less developed in novice/JV level debaters. Also, I understand that conditions that influence communication such as the ones I listed above (autism, ADHD, anxiety) can often influence someone's speaking performance. For example, neurodivergent people often find it difficult to make eye contact while speaking and people with anxiety/ADHD may fidget, use filler words, and jump from topic-to-topic more often. I am sympathetic to this and recommend debaters who struggle with this to do practice rounds with those they are comfortable with. For those who struggle with eye contact, looking at someone's ear/forehead or just above their head has the same effect. I won't dock points for underdeveloped speaking skills unless it is particularly distracting, but in the notes I will mention unconscious habits I see so that you can work on it during practice.

- Please signpost and lay out the argument/contentions in your speeches. It makes it so much easier for me to flow and understand your argument. I'm fine with off-clock roadmaps before speeches.

- I vote for whichever side shows the most in-depth understanding of the topic and most convincing points--that is, while I discussed performance skills being preferred, I try to judge mostly on the quality of your flow. Being able to understand and refute the other side's points is a really good look and shows me that you were listening to the other team and can explain why their side is inferior/has more flaws than yours.

- Once your time is up, I will hold my hand up. You can conclude your point quickly but please don't start another contention. If you haven't finished up after 15-20 seconds or you start another contention, I will cut you off. I hate interrupting people, so please try to finish up within the time provided.

I usually score in .5 increments. I have never given a 30 point score since there's usually always something to improve on. My scores most often range from 26.5-28. This is how I think of my scoring:

• 25 points = You used a slur or said something bigoted/You were otherwise extremely rude/I couldn't understand you whatsoever
• 26 points = Your flow needed a lot of work/(for PF) Your teamwork was very poor/You had distracting speaking habits that detracted from your argumentation/Your flow was fine but you had some instances of being rude, too quiet, too loud, couldn't understand, etc
• 27 points = Your performance was average and had both strong and weak points/Your flow was cohesive and understandable
• 28 points = Your speaking skills are above average/Your flow was very convincing/You displayed understanding of the topic and respect for the other team
• 29 points = Your performance was overall very high quality and compelling/Your flow was overwhelmingly convincing and well thought out/You displayed an impressive amount of understanding of the topic, how to argue it well, the other team, and the other team's arguments
• 30 points = A perfect performance with no weak points or advice needed

I'm a student at Apple Valley High School and I do Varsity LD.

I have a good understanding of Phil frameworks, but please do a good job extending it and telling me why I should weigh under it for the round. If you run anything circuit as a novice (Theory, counter plans, kritics, etc.) and your opponent very clearly cannot interact with it due to lack of knowledge, I won't vote on it, and it will lead to very low speaker points. You guys should time yourself, but I will also keep time; if you go over, I will cut you off if you start making new points.

I'll start speaks at 27.5 and move up based on how the round goes, they are mainly based on how good of a debater I think you are and also if I like your speaking style. :)

I really want to hear wacky impacts, I've never heard someone impact turn extinction or climate change and I think they are fun.

I don't want to hear "speechy" speeches, if I wanted to hear something with emotional appeal or emphasizing I would watch an extemp or an oratory. Cross should be casual like you are just having a conversation with your opponent.

Outside of the framework, everything in the AC and the case part of the NC should be carded.

Please feel free to add me to the email chain: daniellestull313@gmail.com.

I am a parent judge who was recruited by my son's debate team to help out with judging. I am comfortable with speaking at conversational speed. Please always be respectful to everyone in the room.

I am a former college English teacher who taught Composition, Technical Writing, and Critical and Creative Thinking. My graduate research was in Feminist Rhetorical Scholarship. I currently work as a Technical Writer in the Environmental Health and Engineering fields. I'm excited to judge debate and look forward to all I will learn through this process.

Pronouns: she/her

Hi, I'm Quincy. I’m an assistant coach at Iowa City West, I am in college at the University of Iowa, I debated for 2 years and I have been judging LD for 4 years, PF for 3 years and speech events for 2 years. For the sake of transparency, I’ve only judged 4-5 bid tournaments, but again, I’ve been around the block.

Email Chain Format:

Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs. School Name (Neg)

My email: qat1@rice.edu.
Share a couple of minutes before round. My email has a spam blocker, so it WILL take at least 3 minutes before I receive any email you send.

1. Spreading: If I cannot understand you, I will say 'clear'. I expect to be on the e-mail chain. If I have to say ‘clear’ more than twice, I will stop flowing until your you achieve clarity again.

2. Speaks:

a) Strategy: Debate is an intellectual battle. Strategy shows that you are a good debater. Creativity in your arguments shows ingenuity, which will be rewarded. Unorthodox standards or contentions are encouraged.

b) Common Courtesy: Some simple things affect this, like whether or not you ask to see if your opponent is ready before a speech or before CX. Signposting is always good. Off-time road map, etc. DBAA- don’t be a jerk.

c) Presentation: This has everything to do with how you carry yourself. Wealth can’t buy class. You can look more presentable with a $3 t-shirt than in a rumpled $500 suit.

I will award speaker points based on these factors, and debaters that exhibit a good combination of both of these will be the only ones whom I will award 30 speaks. I will typically award 27-29 or so.

3. Norms Setting: I will harshly punish prejudice (ableism, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.), evidence ethics violations, and other tomfoolery. I reserve the right to unilaterally drop you from the round if the violation is egregious enough. On the flip side, frivolous IVIs will not convince me.

Don't steal prep time, don't stall, and have your evidence and sources on hand in case your opponent asks about them.

4. Ks: I will give VERY low speaks if you run an identity K(e.g, afropess, queerpess, etc.) that doesn’t apply to you (e.g. afropess but you aren’t black).

5. tech > truth. Obviously. If you win K > theory, I’ll vote on that. If you do the opposite, I’ll vote on that too.

Lastly, if you have questions, or if anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask. However, you should wait until your opponent is present to ask questions.

Good luck, and may the best debater win!

P.S. +0.1 speaks if you tastefully roast any (current) IC West Debater.

Badgerland Only: online tournaments often have audio issues. Please ensure your environment is clear of ambient noise. I’d hate to vote incorrectly because of audio interruptions.

This used to be much longer, but at this point there are only a few things you need to know about me:

They/Them

I am currently a UMN Policy debater and an Edina High school LD Coach.

1—I am absolutely dead inside in terms of arguments I will vote on anything and everything if won and have minimal preferences. I will vote on spark, warming good, skep, condo, derrida, ect.

2—I have a lot of feelings about in round conduct—sexism, transphobia, homophobia, racism, micro aggressions or not, are things I will intervene and end debates on. If you are overly rude, dismissive, or cruel expect a 27. I have had a lot of experience on the receiving end and will always make time to talk with anyone about how to manage these situations.

3—I am tech over truth and check my biases at the door.

4—I have been an ideologically flexible debater for my entire career—read Ks, policy args, and phil in HS LD and now mainly read policy arguments. I did four years of LD and now do college policy, have been a 2A/1N and 2N/1A.

5—I will not, repeat, I will not ever flow from the doc or back flow. I will clear you three times and then give up. Low speaks will be in your future. Speed is not a problem for me, clarity is.

6—I will read evidence is it is necessary for my decision OR I have been instructed to read it, but if you can’t explain the evidence to me I will not vote on it.

7—Disclosure is an intrinsically good norm both before the debate and on the wiki after—if you send a screenshot of your wiki to the email chain and it is good I will bump speaks +0.1.

8—I value clash a lot and think clash is the basis to how we get most of the benefits of debate. I generally am convinced debates where the affirmative defends a topical action and the negative argues that action is undesirable create the most meaningful clash. Does that mean I auto vote NEG on t-fw? No. Does the AFF have to convince me they provide better model of debate? Yes.

9—Feel free to email me or find me with questions before and after debates—I love debate and would be more than willing to answer any questions.

10—Not a big fan of theory—deeply persuaded by reject the argument and reasonability. However, I am still tech over truth and have voted for everything from AFC to spec status to condo. I don’t hold really any thoughts on condo probably more willing to vote on it than most.

11—You can post round me at your own risk--I care a lot about this activity and think hard about my decisions and will always do my best to explain them, but pointless arguing with me will get you nothing.

12--Yes you can tag team, yes flex prep, yes email chains, preference for cameras on but won't penalize you in anyway, no I do not care where you sit or if you sit for speeches, call me kacee, and let me know if you have any other questions.

13--You do you, not you do me. As a debater strategic value over coded personal desire to read an argument, I read arguments I thought I could win with and that always came first for me, I really value cut throat strategic debating, but I would also love to see you go for arguments you clearly believe and are passionate about--don't try to be me I've listened to myself debate more times than I can count, but I do want to listen to how YOU debate.

14--If any part of your strategy is premised on personal attacks against individuals, judges, or coaches and their identities unrelated to the content of the debate, I am not a good judge for you---please strike me.

15--Ev ethics unless truly egregious (e.g. removing the word "not") should be debated out via theory.

Hi, my name is Leah and I'm a graduated senior from Apple Valley, Minnesota who debated LD for three years. I occasionally coach and judge today.

I will stop flowing when the timer goes off, finish your sentence and wrap it up!

Congress:

I have never judged congress before + have seen one round, not familiar with community norms or the format. I value argumentative quality higher than presentation. I would like to see strong clash and courtesy to your fellow debaters!

WSD:

I will knock once at 1 minute, 7 minutes, 8 minutes, and keep knocking at 8:15. I understand argument norms are different and I'll do my best to adhere to them, but I do have a background in LD that can tell you how I value different arguments. I personally value argumentative quality stronger than presentation, but will still allocate points for speaking ability. I also think clash is really awesome, please respond to your opponents arguments- the easiest way to get higher points. WEIGH- this style of debate will end up with tons of loose ends and tying it all together for me is the best path to the ballot. Yeah, I get you're winning your offense, but you have to explain to me why its important even if your opponent is winning all of their offense.

PF:

I have only judged a PF tournament once, so the thing I am least familiar with is community norms. With arguments, hopefully, anything in my paradigm about LD will tell you how I'll view the round. I'm not sure how important framing is in PF, so if its significant to your case, explain that in your speeches. If winning framing means you win the round, tell me that and tell me why. I've found so far that winning framing does not usually do much for debaters in the round. Weigh your impacts against your opponent and point out when they aren't responding to your arguments. Be clear in the way you speak and be respectful of your opponent.

I will keep time for you, but I expect you to keep track of it once it has been established and be able to cut yourself off once your speech time is over. If you tell me when you're starting/ending your prep time, that is ideal for me. I will cut you off and stop flowing once time is over.

TRADITIONAL/NOVICE LD:

Make sure to let me know when you are starting and ending prep!

I am familiar with a good amount of philosophy run on the local MN circuit and I enjoy clashing framework debates more than util. That said, I will still evaluate fairly in a consequentialist debate. I can keep up with decent speed, but clarity is important. If you are a novice and you are running theory/Ks/T/spikes/etc and your opponent clearly doesn't know how to handle it, I will not vote on it. I think the circuit is a great way to test skills in JV or Varsity but when you're first learning how to debate it's more important to understand the basics first.

I will weigh the flow under the winning framework, but tell me what the most important impacts are and relate your voting issues back to that framework. If winning the framework means you automatically win the round, make sure to lay that out for me. Weigh your impacts well.

JV/VARSITY LD:

circuit voting preference is stock>Phil>T>LARP>Ks>Theory. Don't run tricks please. I have a higher preference for legitimate theory arguments or actual in-round abuse, but mostly, I just would strongly prefer not to evaluate a theory debate for your own good because I'm super unfamiliar with the hundreds of one-line analytic arguments that you need to win a theory debate. Also not really sure how to evaluate any layers outside of topicality coming first, so please lay it out in round if theory or the K comes first before substance. Anything you run circuit you run at your own risk. If there is an email chain, please add me : leah.kay.willingham@gmail.com . I can keep up with speed more than a local circuit round, but anything much faster than that I may not catch all of the arguments you are making. I have some background in basic circuit debate and understand arguments like cap K's, philosophy, T, and other theory. If you are making a theory argument, I am more apt to vote on a legitimate argument than frivolous one. If your case is complex and nontraditional, make extra sure to explain the line of reasoning. Same thing with Queer Ks, Afropess, Setcol, or Fem Ks: I understand the basics of these but do a good job with the line of reasoning and the voting issues. I will probably not buy any argument saying my role as a judge is to do anything other than vote for the better debater. Don't use guilt-tripping as a mechanism to get me to vote for your social K, you will get lower speaks.

Other than all of that, have fun and enjoy the debate! Please be respectful to your opponent and I will automatically drop you + give 0 speaks if you are being racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc. But hopefully, we won't have to deal with that.

My name is Becky Zmarzly  (she/her), and I'm a first-year parent judge from Austin, TX. I work as a technical content editor, and I debated LD for a couple of years at my Missouri high school many moons ago. I have a BA in French and an MA in Tudor History, with a certification in editing.

Given my day job as an editor, I am comfortable providing feedback and judging both sides of the topic. Make sure your arguments are cohesive and make logical sense. Good supporting evidence is crucial. I judge based on the information presented, not preconceptions or inferences/implications. Those who make the best case, prevail.

Be kind, be respectful, and have a good attitude. Competition can be invigorating, but don't go overboard with your opponent. Enjoy the experience and use it to improve your skills for the next round (whether you win or lose).