EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

EXPERIENCE

I'm a parent judge.

I will likely vote down on you if you run a bunch of arguments using fancy terms that I'm not familiar with.

LD

I have some knowledge of what LD debate is.

From my understanding, LD debate should a traditional debate that mainly argues the morals/ethics of a resolution. DO NOT run a progressive case or a policy case, if I hear a Plan, CP, DA, or a K, I will vote against you. Keep that in Policy realm.

Speed should be at a conversational rate, DO NOT spread in LD round. If I can't understand you because you spoke too fast, I will vote against you.

I prefer debaters sharing their cases before the speech so that I can follow, but if you are going to speak clearly and slowly, I don't mind.

Provide a clear framework and weighing mechanism in the round as to why I should vote for you! I especially enjoy the round that are heavily packed with the observation and analysis of ethics/morals of the resolution. Don't just spend all of your time reading cards, actually make an argument!

Feedbacks will be provided on tabroom, instead of giving it verbally. And I won't disclose my ballot after the round.

High speaker points go to a debater who give me a clear and convincing voters and arguments that I can comprehend and follow.

Reasons why I will vote for you:

• Gave me a well constructed argument with valid warrants that has credible source.
• A clear framework that tells me why I should vote for you.
• Structured rebuttals-I prefer you not just reading cards and not explaining why it is important.
• Good impact or framework clash in the round.
• Arguments were logical and backed with evidence + warrants with credible source.
• Some things for you to keep in mind:

*Roadmaps/signposts are helpful

*I am more likely to vote for a smaller number of coherent/well-explained arguments over a multitude of rapidfire/scattershot arguments

*Speak at a speed suitable for a parent judge. If I can follow your opponent's arguments, but not yours.. then I will vote for your opponent.

*Be explicit/structured when calling out contentions/points, and some verbal cue ("next", etc.) when you start a tag

Reasons why I will vote against you:

• Spread in the round.
• Was disrespectful to judge/opponent.
• Arguments were disoriented and muddled.
• Presented logical fallacies and made contradictions to your own argument.
• No clear framework for a debate.
• Aggressive and yelled during the speeches.
• Ran a policy case, DA, K, CP, Plan, etc.

Hi my name is Miranda, I'm a junior in my 3rd year of debate, I've competed in LD, Original Oratory, Impromptu, and Congress.

In your round speak clearly and precisely, try not to use fillers such as "um" or "like".

Be respectful of other competitors, don't be on your phone during the round.

Have fun, keep calm, do your best!

Stock issues rule!

Be organized, be nice, represent your school well :D

email: mckenzielwebb1@gmail.com