Speak clearly. If I cannot understand you, I will not even try to flow your arguments. Spreading is fine, but your articulation must be very precise so that I can still hear you.

Warrant. Even if you think the warrant of an argument is obvious, you must spell it out for me completely or I'll ignore it.

Be respectful. Some of my clearest memories from Stennis are competitors being super arrogant when walking into rounds. Don't be condescending 

Don't be racist, homophobic, etc.

Understand how LD works. Don't cite made up rules that aren't in the NSDA handbook. If your opponent actually does do something against LD rules, please tell me, even if the round is over. The burden of that is on you, not me.

Bio:

Hello, my name is Noah Amidon, and I'm a '27 at Dartmouth College where I am a member of the Model UN team, however, I competed in Speech & Debate throughout high school. Throughout my high school career, I competed primarily in PF & Congress (amassing a Congress State Runner-up, 2 Public Forum State Runner-ups, 1 Public Forum State Championship, and 1 Public Forum National Runner-up). I also competed in a variety of speech events, however often with little success.

General Debate Notes:

Please do not go more than 15 seconds over time, it is unfair to your opponents. Once you hit the end of your allotted time I will hold up my timer to indicate that I am no longer listening to what you are saying. If necessary I will read cards after the round if there is any argument about the contents of a card. I am able to handle some speed, however, if you are going too fast for me to understand you then I will not be able to vote for your side; and I will not say CLEAR, it's your job to communicate to the judge effectively. Finally, be cordial and respectful, and do not attack anyone's character or personal judgment of morality.

PF:

I will vote primarily on argumentation and the carrying of arguments throughout the round. If an argument is not furthered into Rebuttal and Summary, I will forget about it and drop it. While I am listening to the cross, anything brought up must be furthered in a speech. Remember this is supposed to be fun, so just relax and speak clearly. I vote almost entirely off of summary and final focus, so make sure that these are very good and concise so that you can make your entire point across. Finally, and most importantly I firmly believe in TECH>TRUTH meaning that I will take anything said in the round as fact unless it is thoroughly rebutted by the other side, this is a common mistake made in debate rounds where people just assume the judge understands what is actually fact, however, it is not my job to fact check every card introduced (Ex. your opponent says the sky is green, I will assume the sky is green until you point out otherwise).

Congress:

In Congress, I judge primarily off of participation in the round combined with your quality of speeches. Additionally, I don't want to hear re-hash when watching your debate, so please don't repeat arguments that another congressperson has made. I hate gamesmanship more than anything in Congress (if you don't know what I mean by that, then you're already on the right track), so don't do it. PO is automatically ranked 4th on my ballot, if speakers are lacking then that can move up, if the PO does a poor job that will move down. I'm fairly knowledgeable on parliamentary procedure, so stick to the book.

Policy:

I understand the purpose of the Affirmative to propose a plan in line with the resolution, and the negative to prove why that plan is not the best way forward. The words coming out of the debaters' mouths are the only things that will be considered in this round, the judge should not be expected to read to understand argumentation. I am willing to consider k's and other theory tools as long as they pertain to the resolution at hand and prove why on balance the plan submitted by the Affirmative or Negative argumentation is faulty, if they do not accomplish that then they are seen as irrelevant in the scope of this debate. Also, if I don't know what's going on, the team that confused me the most gets the L :).

Interp Events:

I believe that your job is to keep me entertained throughout your performance, if you fail to do that; you fail to win my ballot. If there are different characters, make sure that they are distinct so that I (your judge) have to do the least amount of work possible to follow. Also, in any binder events be sure that you are making eye contact as well as limiting movement below the waist, however, that doesn't go without saying that blocking above the waist is still extremely important to a winning performance.

Oratory Events:

If you are able to keep me entranced throughout your presentation you will get 50 speaks and will go on to win high rankings. In extemporaneous I will fact-check you if your sources seem fishy/too good to be true, and the easiest way to get a 6 on my ballot is to make things up.

LD:

I was never an LD debater, however, I will judge the round through the lenses of the presented value/criterion so make sure that those are punctual. If I forget your value/criterion I will default to your opponent's, so be sure that you are consistently reminding me how to value the round. For negation speakers, if your definitions are similar to your opponents, just accept them; if your value/criterion are similar, then just show me how you win under your opponent's. Doing that will demonstrate skill as a debater to adapt, which is something that I value extremely highly in a round.

If there are any questions regarding a round, ballot, or this paradigm please email me at noah.j.amidon.27@dartmouth.edu

P.S.

There's nothing that gets on my nerves more than walking into a round and students asking for me to tell them my paradigm, that's why it's here on tabroom.

Updated 4/24

Hello! I'm a freshman at Yale that competes in ADPA and BP formats. I also did four years of high school debate, competing in PF and LD for two years each. If you want to contact me with questions or if there is an email chain, add me at william.berry@yale.edu

tl;dr: be better than your opponent and don't run bad arguments and I'll give you the W.

General (for all debate events):

1 - I am generally ok with speed, but I do think an important part of this activity is effective communication. As long as there is clarity to your speech, I can deal with it to an extent. If you are intent on actually spreading for some reason, just let me know and give me a speech doc because past a certain point I will not understand you and thus not flow what you are saying.

2 - Make sure you give voters. Your last speech (regardless of event) needs to be a clear summarization on the key points of clash, and you need to tell me why you won them. I won't accept any new evidence or arguments in this speech. If you make my job easier as a judge with some key voting issues, that will be reflected in my evaluation.

3 - WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! As early as possible! I value engagement more than rebuttals piling on top of each other endlessly. Additionally, it's incredibly annoying to hear "my opponent dropped subpoint c of contention 4 so I win the round." No you haven't. You need to do the weighing and show me how you are winning on the remaining arguments.

4 - I don't flow cross examination. I'll watch but if you want something on the flow and in the RFD make sure you bring it up in a speech. Also if you say a funny and clever one liner in cross (you must make me laugh), then I'll give you one extra speaker point as a treat.

5 - Don't go massively over time. If it's like one conclusion sentence that's like 5 seconds over that's probably fine, but past that I'm not considering anything you're saying in my decision.

6 - If you mis-cut or clip evidence, get ready for this fat L.

7 - Obviously, be respectful of your opponents and conduct yourself with a level of decorum. I won't tolerate bullying or ad-hom attacks in or out of the debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

1 - Style: I only competed on a lay circuit, so while I am familiar with progressive styles of argumentation (Theory, Ks, CPs, etc.), I don't have tons of experience running them myself. I don't think LD should be one person policy, so I don't love most of these types of arguments, but I'll listen to them if you're at a TOC bid tournament or something since it's like a community norm or whatever.

2- Framework: The framework debate is key. I love to hear some good clash on the value and criterion. Definitionally, LD is a moral debate, so values like "morality" strike me as uncreative. Other than that, I'll listen to just about any framework that makes sense. This means your framework needs warrants, just like any other argument. Finally, framework is not a voting issue. It's a lens through which I evaluate voting issues. If you tell me that framework is a voting issue, I will say "womp womp" to you in my RFD.

3 - Case Arguments: When it comes to contentions, I guess I am mildly truth>tech. I'm not going to drop the argument if you are running some nuclear war or other extinction impact, but my threshold for responses will be just a little lower. Contentions that link really well back into the framework will be rewarded.

4 - LARP: If you're not at a TOC bid tournament this doesn't apply to you. Below are my opinions on a few specific types of arguments but beyond those just make sure whatever you run is accessible enough.

a - Theory: Theory is thrown around way to much in LD these days, and often not done great. So if you could not have a bad theory debate, that would be really cool. Don't run three frivolous shells just for the sake of it---my threshold for voting on theory is VERY high. Only use it to check legitimate abuse.

b - CPs: Counterplans are fine, just make sure to spell out the net benefit and how it is competitive. Just don't run a PIC. Those are low IQ. I don't care take the L. Also, "perm do both" is never a real response to a CP. Explain yourself. Basically, assume nothing, don't make blippy arguments, don't have a ridiculous advocacy, and you'll be fine.

c - Ks: Basically, make sure you explain your arguments well. I do like to learn things, so if you're able to make it interesting and not yell some obscure philosophy at me then your likelihood of winning will go up.

d - Tricks: I really don't like tricks. They're a cheap way of trying to win while avoiding substance. Even if you're running some truth-testing off, I'm still not voting on a trick.

Public Forum:

There isn't really all that much PF-specific stuff, as most of it applies to all debate events, but there are a few things.

1 - Don't run prog arguments in PF.

2 - Make sure you extend more than "last name, year." When you reference evidence, refer to it so that I remember what it says and why it is relevant at that point in the debate.

3 - CHOOSE. In Summary and FF you will have to choose. Collapse the (probably) 2-3 voting issues for me well. Also if it's not in summary, don't try to pull it back up in FF.

4 - I don't have a big preference on how you call for cards. I probably won't drop a debater for paraphrasing unless there is some egregious misrepresentation.

Those are all of my major comments on how I judge. I am always happy to answer any questions before the round or via email. Have fun and see you in round!

Welcome to Speech and Debate! I competed in high school debate for two years and am currently competing in Speech and Debate on the collegiate level. In high school, I competed in Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking, Original Oratory, and Humorous Interpretation.

My credentials...

- I ended my career as one of the top 3 competitors in Congressional Debate in Mississippi.

- I competed in out-rounds at NSDA 2021 in Congressional Debate and P.O.ed on every level of competition.

- I was top 6 in HI at State Champs.

- I was State Champion in Original Oratory during the 2020-2021 MSHAA Debate Season.

- I STILL compete as a debater and speech kid!

Generally speaking...

- My pronouns are she/her!

- My email is madisonfbiggerstaff@gmail.com. Evidence? Loop me in! Questions? Don't hesitate to ask!

- Speech and Debate is an educational experience. Try to get something out of every round.

- Have fun! At the end of the day, the skills you acquire during your time as a debater are much more important than the trophies or wins.

For Congress:

- Clash with others in the chamber! Work to further the debate.

- Don't rehash! Bring up new points that haven't been introduced or attack/support points that were previously mentioned.

- Do NOT attack the speaker's personal looks or beliefs (unless you want this L).

- I love a good rebuttal speech. If you can demonstrate why the chamber should pass/fail a bill by addressing your opposing sides' arguments and take them down, I can tell you've been paying attention.

- PO will be in my top 8 if they are fair, clearly follow parliamentary procedure (there's wiggle room for a few mistakes, don't worry), and move the debate along. I'm looking for leadership! Being a PO isn't an easy task.

- Be yourself. Try not to give a "cookie-cutter" speech. I'm looking for originality and something that makes you different as a competitor. If you're yourself, you'll be your most confident and comfortable self. :)

For Public Forum:

- I can understand most competitors when speaking quickly. However, PF is supposed to be accessible, so tread carefully on spreading. If I cannot understand your contentions, it won't be flowed.

- Clearly define any terms in the resolution that may be interpreted in different ways.

- Defend your claims (I know, DUH). But, it is easy to get caught up in the main points of clash instead of dividing up your time appropriately.

- Use your crossfires appropriately. Don't waste any time.

- No long-winded questions/answers. This is interactive. Fair debates > Abusive debates.

Note: I'm big on no abuse in rounds. If you sound like Romeo during crossfire because you decided you must monologue, you aren't helping anyone (not even yourself). Even during your own speeches, there shouldn't be targeted remarks. Debate can be sassy, but shouldn't be disrespectful.

- Practice proper decorum and respect (unless you want the L).

- Explain it like I'm 12. If you can't tell me why I should vote for or against a resolution without using unnecessary jargon, I will probably default to the side that I understand better.

LD:

- My paradigm for LD is very similar to my paradigm for PF.

- Value and criterion are extremely important! Make sure you state these clearly.

Final Notes...

I don't ask for anything extra in rounds I judge. If I gave you a layout of how I wanted a round to go exactly, you wouldn't be your best self, competitor or not. I'm flexible. If you provide a good argument, support it without being abusive/rude, and do it with grace, you have a good standing in my books.

I have experience in LD, PF, and congress.

In debate:

Make sure you have a rebuttal to each of your opponent's arguments.

Be clear and try to signpost.

Practice decorum and be nice to each other.

I won't flow if I can't understand understand you, but reasonable speed is okay.

I will flow every moment of the debate and make my final decision on whose arguments still stand and have the largest scale and most practical impacts.

For speech:

Make sure your speech flows, and speak clearly and confidently.

For LD

I'd like to see a good framework debate. Any sort of minor dismissal like, "my opponent's framework falls under the domain of mine." Unless it does of course, but it probably doesn't. Try to avoid fw like "structural violence" too silly for my tastes. Never liked it and it was never very good.

Give voters in your final speech. If your opponent does and you don't, not good for you...

Look at the judge during cx. If you don't, you'll get fewer speaker points.

Time yourself PLEASE.

I coach IPDA debate (an extemporaneous form of debate) at the college level and actively assist with LD and PF at the high school level. I'm also a non-practicing lawyer who works in legal/regulatory compliance, for what that's worth.

In terms of experience, a good summary would be: I'm capable of handling most technical, "progressive" and/or esoteric aspects of debate, but I really don't think I should have to. It's almost always possible to make even the most novel arguments in a way that is understandable and logically accessible to a reasonably educated non-specialist. And while I probably can understand your terminology or theory, I tend to reward debaters who don't need it.

A few specific things to keep in mind with me:

I vote based on complete arguments. That means claim, warrant, impact, and reason for decision. I probably know what you're trying to say, but can't ethically fill in the gaps for you. So please --if that card really is the killer you think it is-- walk me through why it wins the round for you.

I'm not crazy about speed. I won't say it can never add value. But 80-90% of the time that it's deployed in high school, its principal function is to obscure lazy reasoning or the lack of solid evidence, as opposed to fitting in more useful info. Again, debate is more than tag lines, and I'm not going to pretend that I can understand the particulars of a piece of evidence read at 300 wpm. So if you use speed like that, you assume the risk that I'll miss an essential part of your logical syllogism

On a related note, I'm very unlikely to read your case or cards. If you want to create a competition where people pass papers back and forth to make arguments, that might be an interesting game to play. But the essence of this competition --i.e., debating-- is orally delivering an argument to listeners. There's no reason to have oral delivery unless part of the game is encapsulating information in a way that a listener can process and evaluate. So I will generally decline to read cases or cards unless there is a specific, credible allegation of dishonesty.

I have no objection to theory or kritiks per se, but you're not entitled to tabula rasa judging on these kinds of arguments. That is, if your argument is truly a priori --i.e., it takes precedence over the resolution itself-- then you're no longer operating within the protective shell of imaginary judge fiat, where I can comfortably ignore what I know. Instead, you're asking me to take some stand relating to morality, ethics, fairness, etc., because of some ostensible impact on the real world. I can't ethically take "real world" actions while deliberately ignoring my own relevant knowledge. So full disclosure: if you take the debate outside the resolution, you assume the risk that I'll vote against you based on things that were not said in the round.

Be respectful. I know some tension is inherent in the activity, so I'll give a certain measure of leeway. But I'll happily give you the loss for gratuitous rudeness, mockery, etc.

A good debate will always be a good debate and a good performance will always be a good performance, so my opinion is irrelevant.

Hi! My name is Ryder and I am currently a Senior at St. Andrews Episcopal School in Ridgeland Mississippi. I have been involved in Speech and Debate since 7th Grade. I have primarily participated in PF and LD but I have also done Congress, Big Questions, Extemp, Impromptu, Prose, OO, and Pro Con Challenge.

I love this activity and personally, it has done so much for me which is why I also love to judge it! But enough about me let's get into the specifics:

Jude Style: I am a flow judge. I also believe in Tech>Truth (Unless you are just blatantly lying or misrepresenting your card).

General Debate:

1) I have very little experience with Policy and LD, but I am by no means a lay judge. With that being said do not try and put lay judge tricks past me. If you try and say your opponent clean dropped and arg and they clearly didn't that will not bode well with you. Speaking of drops make sure you clean extend evidence through all speeches. If you drop your arg in a rebuttal and then don't bring it up again then I will not flow that to you (Applies to evidence as well). So please make sure you clean extend your arguments.

2) I cannot stress this enough but please ARTICULATE when you speak. I personally do not like speed in debate events however I can still understand it. Just please make sure that you say your words with clarity and I can undoubtedly understand the words that come out of your mouths. (If I do not understand or miss something because you are not articulating your words then I will not flow it through).

3) Make sure that our arguments make sense. This might sound self-explanatory but please make sure you have a clear link chain throughout your case. It makes the debate 1000x times better.

4) As far as timing goes please do not go over the 5-second grace. I know for PF at least 4 minutes is not enough time (trust me I go over sometimes too) but please do not go over the grace. I will just stop paying attention to anything after that. It is extremely unfair to your opponents.

5) Do not be racist, homophobic, sexist, or transphobic. You will instantly lose.

6) In PF and LD I do not like Theory or K's. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. So please, do not run them.

Debate

Debate can often times get a little heated between each other so I will be looking for the team that is able to keep there calm for the entirety of debate. It won't necessarily win them the round, just being aggressive will lose you points.

Even if someone says something ridiculous in round, I will take it into decision unless it is refuted by the other side. (Tech>Truth)

I don't flow cross.

If possible talk at a conversational speed so Im fully able to understand everything that you are saying.

Speech

Speech varies on the event but hand motions, eye contact and confidence will go a long way.

He/Him

hartjefferson10@gmail.com

I'm a pretty chill judge and I have done PF, Policy, and LD. I have also done congress and worlds.

Tech>truth. To a degree I will only flow an arguement if you mention it, so if your opponent says something blatantly wrong you have to mention that it is blatantly wrong. Now if the argument is ridiculous and offensive I am very inclined to not flow it, but if you mention it I definitely won't.

PF: I think that being more conversational and not super technical is ok. I don't really want you to just throw cards at me instead if you explain your logic and then the link chain I will be happy. If you are going to just throw cards at me I will A: be unhappy and B: be inclined to ask for a ton of evidence which is something I don't really want to do and you probably don't want me to do. Also, make sure to extend everything you want to go for through final focus, or I cannot consider it.

Policy is really weird for me since for now I only judge novices, but the biggest thing for me is organization. Like I understand that for a lot of people this is a very daunting event, but also if you don't tagline any of your arguments I'm gonna have no clue where I am at or what I am flowing.

Also as a general note I would like everyone to disclose ev used in round to me even if you aren't sharing it between the other team.

Theory: I'd honestly rather not evaluate it, and you might not want me to evaluate it simply because I am not that experienced with it. Other than that if you do choose to run a theory argument please take the time to explain why you are running it and what particular action happened in round that caused you to run it.

K's: These are fine, but for the stuff that is a little more out there be sure to tagline well and explain your alt well.

Speaker Points are super arbitrary and I usually give pretty high points unless you're not that good at speaking.

Tapan.kotikalapudi@gmail.com

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

Hello debaters! Thanks for reading my paradigm! I'm a retired debater; I competed in PF for two years and went on to compete in college in an extemp-style of debate called IPDA. My experience in LD is very limited and within the confines of a traditional circuit. As such, I'm willing to listen to progressive argumentation like plans or kritiks, but you're really going to have to explain them to me. I know absolutely nothing about policy.

I frown upon spreading. I believe that debate is meant to be an educational exercise that equips you to succeed in the "real-world." Spreading is, in my view, almost always antithetical to that goal. I will try my very best to keep up, but I'm not above setting my pen down and not flowing until you become coherent.

*I will not vote for arguments I don't understand.* It's your job to give me thorough explanations. Remember that I've not been researching your respective topic for the last month and will need logical explanations and warranting. I need you to walk through why your argument or evidence wins my ballot.

I'm a flow judge; I will only consider things actually said by debaters in the round and am looking for complete arguments including claims, warrants, and impacts.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, it won't be on my flow unless you bring it up in a speech.

Things that will automatically cost you the round and/or speaks:

Unnecessary rudeness

Falsifying evidence

Not having fun! :)

Hi! I'm Sara :)) I am in my third year of speech and debate, most of my experience is in PF and interpretation events. My RFD will be based on the following for debates:

PF:

• Speed isn't a huge issue, but if you speak too fast I may not be able to flow. (signpost!!) {basically a roadmap}
• I don't flow crossfire so bring up any arguments you thought were essential.
• TECH >TRUTH meaning that I will take anything said in round as fact unless the opposing side is able to rebut thoroughly.
• Re-iterate arguments so I know that they are important for your case. (there is no such thing as redundancy in pf)
• Final Focus is for key voting issues, weigh your arguments.Nothing new should be brought up here unless it was brought up in summary.

LD:

- LD is value debate, so value clash should be a major point of the round. Any framework is fine as long as you are able to explain to me why you win the round.

Some general things I expect :)

• Be respectful (this goes for the judge AND opponents) I don't want to dock points for this. Any types of disrespect (rude commentary, leaving in the middle of a performance, talking during someones piece etc.) will dock you points.
• (This is for mainly debate) If you go over time, I will no longer continue to flow what you are saying. (time yourself, i'll be timing as well)
• Try your best !!!
• Most importantly, have FUN !!

I'll give more detailed explanations in ballots, don't stress, you guys got this :)

Hey if you have question about the ranking/result please don't hesitate to contact me: megantang0809@gmail.com

Update for TOC Digital 3: My background is in lay/traditional policy and it's been about a year since I've thought a lot about circuit debate/flowed spreading. I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but the less I understand, the more likely I'll make a mistake. If y'all would help me out by slowing down (especially for arguments that aren't in the doc) and taking more time to explain complex arguments and how they function in the round, I'd really appreciate it :D

Hello, I'm Jason. I competed for Madison Central in Mississippi (mostly PF, Policy, and speech; dabbled in World Schools, Congress, and LD). I do BP and APDA debate at Penn now.

My background is mostly in lay/traditional debate, but I did some national circuit PF and policy and think about debate in a more technical way. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

First and foremost, do what you do, and I'll do my best to follow and give constructive feedback. We are all here to learn, so above all else, please respect your opponents, teammates, and judges. At the end of the day, it's a lot more important to be a good person than a great speaker/debater.

General:

1- Tell me what argument(s) you’re winning, why you’re winning them, and why winning those arguments means you win the debate. The same goes for dropped arguments. Being technically proficient is important, but smart overviews, organization, and judge instruction can shape how I view technical issues on the flow.

2- Be smart and adaptable. Cases that are strategically written, clever logical analysis to respond to unpredictable/unrealistic arguments, and comparative weighing of arguments beyond probability/magnitude/timeframe are all great.

3- Here’s a video that shows the speed I am comfortable with without a doc. Please start off slow and work your way up to speed.

4- Highly warranted evidence is great. If there's evidence-sharing, I won't read evidence to make my decision unless you tell me to or I think there's something fishy going on. I might read it for fun though.

5- Try to make the round accessible and educational for everyone involved. Complex or unorthodox arguments are fine, but make them in a way that your opponents can easily understand and don't be mean or shifty in cross if you're asked to explain them. But also, if you read an argument that you wouldn't usually read just to confuse your seemingly-less experienced opponents, I'll be very sad.

Public Forum:

1- PF speeches are super short. Your speaks will be amazing if the last two speeches focus on winning and implicating a few arguments, rather than going for everything.

2- 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

3- An argument must have been in summary for it to be in final focus.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1- If the framework debate is clearly irrelevant (i.e. both debaters are staking the round on consequences) just concede to your opponent's framework and win under it.

2- If the values are different, I'll probably view the value and criterion as a single framework rather than two separate layers of the debate.

Policy:

1- I'm definitely more familiar with policy arguments than kritikal arguments. Seriously go for anything though (provided it isn't hateful), but the further something strays from what I'm familiar with, the more explanation I'll need to understand.

2- Pls slow down on taglines, analytics, and stuff you really want me to flow.

4- Honestly not super familiar with the K outside of Cap and Security. I like to learn though, so if that's your jam, just explain it well (especially how the K interacts with the aff) and I'll be happy to listen.

5- Same goes for K affs. Just be very clear on what your aff does and do impact calc vs framework. For what it's worth, I went for clash/skills impacts in 2NRs on framework, but am good for whatever.

6- I won't judge kick a counterplan in the 2NR unless I'm told to, and it wouldn't take much from the 2AR to convince me not to.

7- Probably not great for super techy competition/theory debates.

8- I'm not super comfortable adjudicating arguments about something that happened out-of-round.

9- The first lines of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words I put at the top of my RFD.

Other Events:

1- Be organized, be polished, and make me think.

2- Have fun!

I am a math teacher and speech and debate coach at Purvis High School in Purvis, MS. Our primary focus as a team is on speech and interp events, so my experience with debate events is rudimentary.

I judge LD debate, where I would prefer that debaters not spread. I judge primarily on the flow with an emphasis on value and criterion, but I do give a higher weight to presentation than do many debate judges. I feel that debate should not just be an exercise in logic and evidence (though that is the focus), but should also reflect the reality that the way in which information is presented affects its persuasiveness.

Hey! I’m Vineeth! I’m a retired high school speech and debate competitor of 4 years and am now starting my first year of my collegiate speech and debate season.

I come from a speech background (OO, Extemp, Info), but I've competed in almost every type of debate (PF, LD, Congress, World Schools), with the exception of Policy. Below are what I find the most important qualities for a healthy debate in general and specifics for each event.

Public Forum:

- Evidence and good analysis are key to good arguments. I'll appreciate points that have a reasonable amount of evidence and analysis to back them up.

- Must speak at a pace where I can understand you, if I don't hear your arguments, then I can't judge them.

- I do not flow crossfire, but I envision a good crossfire as having equal engaged questioning between both sides.

- I want clash in your arguments. It's one thing to present your case to the judge, but it's an even better thing to prove why your opponents are wrong. Any team that can effectively clash with the other team's arguments will have a better chance at receiving my vote.

Congress:

- Speakers: Must be clear, poised, and professional. In questioning I'll look for the speaker who can respond back confidently to questions.

- PO: My only rule for judging a PO is seeing how well they are able to lead the chamber through debate and whether or not they displayed bias to their school when picking people for speeches.

LD:

- The main thing I want to see in this event is tying your value and value criterion into your arguments effectively. The debater that proves to me why their value and value criterion are integral to the topic will most likely receive my vote.

- Just like in PF, I want you to clash with your opponents arguments.

General:

- Be respectful, any team that slanders the other and is clearly offensive will not receive my vote regardless of argumentation. Speech and debate is meant to be a safe place to advocate ideas.

- Coming from a speech background I think good speaking is just as important as good argumentation. Anyone who can clearly articulate their points will be received positively by me.

- Have fun, I get this is a competition and we all want to win, but this activity is more than that. Make sure you enjoy yourselves with this opportunity!

Debate

-Please state contentions/points clearly

-Do NOT spread (talk extremely fast; not understandable)

-Please ask questions during crossfire and remember that all speakers should talk during grand cross

-Weighing is important and preferred, especially in FF

-I expect respect (to me, and to your competitors)

-Most importantly, have fun! :)

Speech/Interp

Nothing specific just try to remember a walking pattern, memory blips are okay, just keep going!

Email for communication (feel free to say hello or ask about ballots) and email chains:edward.e.wilson.jr@gmail.com

Hello!

I have three great loves, Dolphins, Celine Dion, and Speech and Debate, and while a competitor I competed in in Lincoln-Douglas, Public-Forum, Congress, Policy, Informative Speaking, Extemporaneous Debate, Declamation, Poetry, Prose, Impromptu, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Program Oral Interpretation and Pro Con Challenge

I would say my abilities were most notable in Congress which If it interests you any I was a 2 time NCFL Finalist, A Tournament of Champions Semi-Finalist and a 2 Time NSDA Finalist culminating in being the 2nd Place National Winner in Congress-House at the 2023 NSDA Nationals.

I think debate, especially, is something exciting and thus I love to be excited by debates that I watch, not bored to death, or worse; made upset and angry.

General Debate Stuff:

1) Make sense! This is pretty simple just make sure you have an argument that can be LOGICALLY followed by me at the very least. You do not need to make it a case accessible to a ten year old, but do not talk about crazy out of this world stuff unless you can CLEARLY link it to something sensible.

2) Do not go over time. I stop flowing/listening when your time is done so it really does nothing for you-like at all.

3) This should be pretty basic. Don't be rude/racist/sexist/homophobic/elitist. That last one is there because while the others are ones most(but sadly not all) debaters have down pack, elitism seems to seep out of some debates. Don't treat your opponent or their arguments like they are beneath you. Even if an argument is not as well thought out, don't call it ridiculous or something similar. Say it is illogical or does not fall into the resolution or etc. I do not expect you to explain why 2+2 does not equal 3 but also do not expect nor want nor will I be pleased if you are rude about the audacity of the argument or worse if you relate said argument to ad hominem attacks on your opponent.

LD Specific:

1) Values above ALL! This is Lincoln Douglas debate and as much as you may want to make it single person policy IT IS NOT. I do not care if you outline an effective cure to cancer in your case, if it does appeal to the value debate I will place VERY LITTLE weight on it. A debater with a lacking case that upholds his value through the round will ALWAYS win over a debater with an excellent case that loses on the value front. I have to vote by value and value criterion first.

2) Value Criterions matter! For some reason it is the hot new thing to free style it with only a value and have your VC either non existent or irrelevant but VCs matter ALOT. Values mean different things to different people and a VC (a good and relevant one) is the only way to solve this. Jack the Ripper's value of morality did not include preserving human life. Value Criterions tell me how to evaluate your value and that is insanely important.

3) I do not care about drops that are irrelevant. What I mean by this is, if you say "My opponent drops my Contention 3 Subpoint D, therefore I win on X argument", My question will be, does it matter. If all your subpoints in your contention 3 are about the benefits to dolphins and your opponent explains why your world harms dolphins I don't care that they do not cite your specific benefit. If dolphins are going to be hurt in your world what does it matter if your Subpoint D is that Dolphins need better ocean water, it still falls without your opponent attacking it directly. That being said, at all cost do not make drops but know that I will evaluate the measure of a drop to see if flowing the drop is actually worth it or if it even matters to the overall question at hand. Speaking of that....

4) Answer the ACTUAL resolution. The NSDA gives a topic for debate and that is what the debate should be centered around. Theory and any other thing you could think of to sidestep the debate DOES NOT MATTER. If you have a problem with the way debate works, whether it be disclosures or the structure of speaking times, take it up with the NSDA, the people who make the ACTUAL rules. And even if you do not run theory, if you make the ENTIRE debate about something frivolous I will be VERY unpleasant on your ballot. Debate about the topic, and as Miranda Priestly would say, that's all!

5) Truth>tech. I'll elaborate more in round if wanted. But basically I can’t reasonably be expected to evaluate an argument simply because you explained it better even if I blatantly know it’s false I am human after all- furthermore doing that gives great advantage to those who can L.A.R.P in a debate round over those who actually are using substantive evidence and points.

Congress Specific:

Ranking the Top 3 people in congress, then milling around trying to determine the order from 4th to 8th, is fairly Hard if you have a Good round.

POs- I don't want to think about you. If I go the full 2 hour+ session without thinking about your existence, that's a good thing. It means that you kept the session running efficiently without drawing attention to yourself and I will reward you greatly.

As a person who PO'd alot including at National Finals I have GREAT respect for PO's and I know how grueling it is being on constant go mode for hours on end. As such do not be afraid to PO for fear that you won't be noticed amongst the other "talented" speakers- For the VAST majority of rounds a PO is automatically in my top 3 from the start. But don't take that as your star call to run for PO. I expect ALOT from POs.

I would highly advise against running for PO if I'm your judge and you have any one of these qualities:

A) Look at me disease. I'm not impressed by fancy charts or speech or how firm and hostile you sound keeping "order". Your Job as PO is not to show off or make it clear "who's in charge", it's to facilitate the chamber. I don't need to be reminded you're there or to rank you or the hours that have passed, Congress is a lot of people fighting for tight time slots and every second wasted by your need to speak when you don't have to is time that could better spent.

B) Non superior understanding of the rules. If you have to ask the Parli about non tournament specific info/something already included in the NSDA Manual and Congress rules, don't expect very good rankings from me. For me that's like a speaking rep in student congress not understanding speeches or questioning--a main part of your job is knowing the rules better than anyone else in the chamber so it looks very embarassing when you do not.

C) A Weak stomach for conflict. I said in the A) point I don't like PO's being a show off at being tough-which is true. But appropiate toughness is not only warranted but a part of the job. Ideally we should never be at a point where a rulling is questioned but if it is, you better be right-and calmly but firmly explain why such as: (Rep X gave the 8th speech on the prev bill while Y gave the 6th therefore I was correct in calling on them based on Recency.) If you are correct KNOW why you are.

D) Value Speed over Accuarcy. Contrary to popular belief, efficency is not doing things the fastest way possible, it's doing things the fastest way possible CORRECTLY. If you are trying to move so fast that you have to stumble over yourself 4 times in questioning because you keep realizing that someone else is actually supposed to be called on--that's a problem. Even if you end up with the correct person in the end these moments damage your legitmacy and make me think and wonder about you (remember me thinking about you is a bad thing).

Even with these things know I am merciful, as I said, I have been in your shoes as PO and know how hard it is. I recognize these are HIGH expectations for a PO and that judging POs needs appropiate weighing. For example A PO in a 2 hour session is on the clock for 120 minutes, while a REP gets to show their talent for about maybe 8 minutes a piece plus some precudural and activity stuff. Therefore the percentage time of a PO doing what they need to be doing even with some errors will almost always be higher than most REPs. As such it's hard not to be in my top 6 as a PO(unless you're in a killer chamber like a break round at Nats which if that's the case you need to be on your A-game, those people are sharks and, I won't dock good speakers because of my fondness of POs).

Also- I track precedence and recency whether I'm the Parli or not, don't let me catch a slip you don't acknowledge because the chamber trusts you, I won't be happy.

Legislators should always---

1) Refer to your fellow legislators as Senator or Representative. I do not care which one, unless its a Congress Quals or the chamber type has been preset by the tournament, but you MUST use this title. And also, refer to the Presiding Officer as Mr./Madam Presiding Officer, or if neither of those Pronouns fit, Presiding Officer or the Chair is fine.

2) Question time is a time for questioning NOT AHA MOMENTS! Teeing up something for a later speech is fine SO LONG AS you are asking a legitimate question that either relates DIRECTLY to the speaker's speech or to a SPECIFIC part of the bill. For example "Why is Section 3's enforcement of the bill any different than HR.123 introduced in 2012" is an okay and quite frankly excellent question. But "How can you defend this bill when giving money to end cancer is more important" is a very bad question. Do not get me wrong, having a NEG speech about why giving money to end cancer would be a better use of funds is fine, but you are not utilizing questioning time to do it what its purpose is, to clarify issues posed SPECIFICALLY in either the bill/res or the speaker's speech. Also, being rude in Questioning is an automatic way to drop down to 8th (MAX) on my rankings. And while I prefer PO's who act like they are not even there, I expect some interference when questioning time becomes either too rowdy or ineffectual.

3) I, like most sane people, despise Rehash with a burning passion. Any speech after the first cycle of Aff and Neg that doesn't reference a previous question or speaker or at least attempt to answer questions of the debate at hand, will automatically get no higher than a 4. And a legislator who consistently makes these types of speeches in the round can look forward to a nice 8th place or lower depending on the rest of the chamber and how they debate. I don't care what stuck up, pretentious, policy/ld/pf kids say. Congress is a DEBATE EVENT. Actual debate should be taking place as such....

4) MOVE ON!! When debate is done, it is done. Congress is incredible to me because you have such an array of topics you are allowed to debate within the different legislation. If you're the 7th AFF speaker it better be for a VERY good reason. I don't mean the "i thought of something no one has said" good reason i mean the "everyone has been debating that this bill talks about giving Money to The Vatican when it very clearly talks about Togo" good reason.. RARELY do incredibly late speeches have anything new to say. I will be very impressed by Reps who choose to move to the previous questioning even over objections because they know as I do that there is NOTHING new to say. Your laundry list
"crystal" speech does not impress me in the slightest. And reps who fight the motion down for "equity" can expect not so great marks on their ballots for me. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. If you choose to keep the "debate" on a bill going solely so everyone can speak on it I will not be kind in your rankings ESPECIALLY if you break cycle. Breaking cycle means you have not, like is expected of Policy,LD,PF and congress DEBATE competitors researched and prepared to speak on both sides.

tldr, in debate

• tech > truth
• content > delivery
• speed is fine, but if you're spreading, please disclose (email below)
• prog args are fine, but speakers could get docked (see below)
• tabula rasa (see below)

in-depth, in debate

• i have experience in all forms of debate
• i weigh content over delivery; but delivery is still important
• tech > truth
• email: kallen.zhou0@gmail.com
• i have a pretty high tolerance for speed (<350 wpm)
• i'm willing to buy any progressive args (Ks, theory, T, tricks) as long as they are articulated well. but if you're using them against teams that have no idea how to respond, im still willing to give you the win, but i'll dock your speaker points.
• tabula rasa - i default to competing interps, extensions are important, opponents concessions need to be mention
• i don't flow crossfire, but i'll flow a point if you mention it in a speech
• if you're extremely rude during crossfire, speaker points are gonna get docked
• general speaker points go around 28
• i'm usually flowing the entire round on paper, so if you want the flow after the round, just let me know