I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

I really focus on making sure that I can understand what you are saying. Clear and intentional speaking points are something I look for. Off time road maps are always a plus, and I love well thought through voters.

I really watch for follow through on arguments. I like to see defense on your end as well as attacks on your opponents arguments.

Respect is key for me. Please make sure during the debate you treat your opponent with the respect that they deserve.

I debated for all four years in high school. I did LD and PF for three years and then the policy for my senior year. I evaluate courtesy and ethics before I evaluate the flow. Please be respectful.

PLEASE USE SPEECH DROP TO SHARE EVIDENCE. If you don't know what this is ask me in round

LD:

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

I don't care if you run a K but you need to be able to explain it well because I don't have a ton of experience with K's but I am more than willing to learn with you if you can effectively debate the K.

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

I weigh theory above everything else, and topicality is a theory argument.

For the value criterion debate- this is framework and it tells me how to weigh the round. I will follow that framework when making my decision if an effective debate was made on it. However, the value criterion is not a reason to vote for you, it just tells me the lense to vote through.

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

PF:

Plans and counter plans are illegal in PF. I will drop you if you run one.

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

Cost benefit analysis is not a framework. If you read CBA as your framework in your case, you are better off skipping over that part.

Please please please collapse.

Please give me explicitly voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

Policy:

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

I don't care if you run a K but you need to be able to explain it well because I don't have a ton of experience with K's but I am more than willing to learn with you if you can effectively debate the K.

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

I weigh theory above everything else, and topicality is a theory argument.

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

______

Do what you do best and I will keep up

If you have any questions about my paradigm, the RFD, or debater/team-specific feedback feel free to email me at andrus.cadee@gmail.com

My model for great debate is not focused on terms that have become cultural conventions. I dislike the terms "voters," "flow," and "cards." Great debate should focus on ideas; that is to say, I do not mind the philosophy of explaining to a judge why you won, why arguments do and do not connect, and evidence that is germane, but I do mind that debaters expect certain things when they use those terms.

I like debate that focuses on the issue and remains topical whenever possible. I do not like when debate becomes a highly technical examination of who understands the cultural conventions better.

If you gamify the rules, like accusing an opponent of abuse, dropping an argument, or having a plan in PF, this will affect my decision. You should be EXTREMELY sure that these violations have occurred before using these terms.

I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

Good argumentation and analysis is very important to me! I place great emphasis on quality of evidence and strength of argumentation using that evidence—a greater number of rebuttal arguments or evidence cards presented is not necessarily better. Please avoid speaking too quickly; if I can’t understand you due to speed, I will not be able to follow your case and that will cause problems. Again, PLEASE speak at a reasonable pace so both judge and opponents can understand—this is key for a productive debate.

Thank you!!

Debate paradigm:

For all formats, I focus on solid argumentation and skillful use of rhetoric. Framework is important to me. Tell me how you plan to win your argument and follow through. I do not usually favor competitors who try avoiding the topic by focusing on loosely connected tangents or technicalities. When giving voters, I do not enjoy hearing a list of individual points won. Instead, I favor big-picture summaries of what you have accomplished in the debate focused on how each individual argument supports your side of the resolution. Avoid the over-use of debate-specific terms, like which points "flow through". You should be able to tell me in lay terminology how you've won this debate. Especially be careful of claiming your opponent "dropped your case" or similar claims. If you claim this and it isn't true, this will affect my decision.

Speak clearly and with sufficient volume that I do not need to guess what you said. Courtesy towards your opponent is important to me. You should be able to argue without resorting to name-calling or caustic accusations. Communication skills matter as well. If I feel opponents are rhetorically matched, nonverbal and vocal communication skills may break the tie for me.

Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge enough to enjoy the competition. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy, too!

Format-specific paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas:

Value and criterion debate are crucial. I will heavily consider those competitors who successfully advocate their value and criterion over their opponent’s. One can lose the flow but win the value/criterion debate and still win the round.

I only partially flow, and I only judge partially based on the flow. A dropped argument is still considered poor argumentation to me, but not all arguments carry the same weight, and just because a contention is glossed over does not mean the entire debate was lost. I will expect more rhetorically sound, evidence-based contentions to be the priority.

Some competitors try adapting strategies from other debate formats to LD, such as running kritik or spreading. I do not favor such strategies. I focus on the moral argumentation, on rhetorically sound argumentation of the assigned topic, and on clear, professional communication skills.

This paradigm will generally apply to Policy, LD, and PF. (and even BQ)

I will judge each round based on the arguments presented in that round. I am looking for good argumentation on each side. I want to see well constructed arguments that are relevant to the Resolution. If neither side brings up Value, Criterion, one of your contentions, etc don’t tell me it is a voter. Voters will be issues we have discussed within the debate. Arguments made will hold the most weight. If it isn’t a contested point in the debate, it likely won’t be a deciding issue. However, If no on case attacks were made, that lack of attacks could be a voter.

I want to see clash, but I expect you to remain civil and kind. Things I consider to be unsportsmanlike are eye-rolling, raising voices, being rude or intentionally obtuse. For example: Don’t make eye contact with the judge and roll your eyes when your opponent is speaking. Don’t scoff when your opponent says something you disagree with, don’t pump fists when your opponent says something that you can turn or that sets you up with a perfect argument. I should never feel like anyone, including myself, is being yelled at. If you are being asked a question that is damaging to your case- don’t ask for it to be rephrased 10 times- that just wastes time and alerts me that it damages your case. It draws more attention than quickly answering and moving to the next question. My recommendation: Find a way to answer it that doesn’t blow your case or find a way to answer it and move on.

I keep a detailed flow and will use that when determining the winner of the round. Signposting is preferred to Roadmap. I don't mind both, but sign posting is more important. Signposting each argument will be crucial to making sure your arguments end up where they belong, if you leave me guessing where the argument goes, it may not end up where you intend it. For example: "Moving on to Inherency/ Contention 1/Value, etc." That tells me where on the flow your evidence goes. If you tell me after then it is too late for me to flow it.

When refuting an attack made against your case, don’t just tell me to extend the argument from your case as your refutation. The point is under attack, so even if you are using the same argument/evidence/idea there is necessary argumentation needed from you to tell me WHY your evidence/idea/argument is the superior idea for that point. Telling me to extend something without doing the damage control after an attack is not repairing the damage done to your case. Even if you think the opponent’s argument is weak- repair and defend your position.

Logical reasoning has a strong place in debate, and I like to see your ideas logically presented, with supporting evidence. Make connections and well constructed arguments.

Crossfire and cross examination are integral parts of debate and I always like a well controlled cross period. I don’t typically flow cross, but I will be paying attention. If you make a strong point in cross, or set up a good argument, bring it up in your next speech or it won’t be a deciding factor.

Theory/Kritiks: I am a stock issues/resolution based judge. I want to see the resolution debated, running theory or kritiks is at your own risk. They will be received by me as you not having any relevant, on case arguments. I do not like them so I don’t recommend it. I can usually spot a disguised theory or kritik argument, so like I said- it’s a big risk.

Speaking quickly is ok, spreading is not. If you are speaking quickly, clear signposting and clear tag lines are essential. If you choose to speak quickly, I expect that you are able to clearly articulate each word-enunciate. If your words are a jumbled mess or become mispronounced due to speed, you shouldn't be speaking that quickly.

Regarding Tag-teaming during cross examination in policy and crossfire in PF (excluding grand crossfire)- Each person should be able to answer their own questions. Answering for your partner demonstrates a lack of faith in their ability/knowledge and doesn't present as a strong team of equals.

Keep your arguments or speech courteous and respectful. Support each statement well and speak clearly.

For Debate events: Do your best to flow the arguments and address them in order. I do not score kritiks or theory and would likely be classified as a stock issues judge and appreciate a line by line approach.

For Speech events: Spreading will not earn speaker points unless everything you say has value. I value substance over speed when speaking. It is quite possible to speak quickly and steadily and say nothing of any impact. It is more important to fill your words with well-supported arguments or persuasive evidence than to fill your time with words.

Present yourself professionally in how you dress and interact with others.

Feel free to email with questions after the event. Scarpenterlaw@gmail.com

I am a 'tab' judge. Teams/speakers must show me why their arguments should be voted on as opposed to assuming I will vote on them based on my own beliefs. I am a former TOC circuit policy debater and current head coach of a high school debate program. I am fine with all types of arguments, and very familiar with debate jargon and procedures.

I am typically fine with speed as well.

Please give clear voting issues a the end of the round.

Please signpost clearly.

Please give a brief off time road map prior to all speeches with the acceptation of the first affirmative.

Who am I:

I am the head speech & debate coach at Idaho Falls HS. I've been a head coach for 10 years, and also competed in high school and college.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) Win the flow. If you drop an issue in a speech, do not bring it back up. In PF, dropped arguments are technically ok (you gotta summarize after all). Just make sure to communicate to me on why it is good/bad/unimportant that an argument was dropped.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is regular conversational speed, but I understand when you have to pick it up a bit. Not a fan of spreading.

6) Comms: The more I coach and teach, the more I find myself being persuaded by stronger and more polished speakers. Don't forget about good speaking techniques!

CONGRESS:

Good congress involves speaking extemporaneously, using evidence and analysis, and having excellent speaking skills. I will rank you higher if you are kind, yet strong in your quesitoning answers. Good congress people should be present throughout the round the round through both speeches and questions. I recognize that preset recency can be difficult, so make sure you are both asking questions, and raising your placard to speak often!

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate, but i'm open to progressive ideas (or CPs). Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large weighing mechanism for me, so make sure I know why I should prefer your V/CR and how you use that to win the round.

K's/Theory

I don't prefer Ks, but recognize the need for theory at times. I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Plan's/Counterplans

I'm much more accepting of CPs than Ks in LD. I understand when a CP is necessary to run as the neg.

POLICY DEBATE:

I tend to be a more traditional-style policy judge, as in I judge following traditional rules. However, I'm still very open to arguments. I don't love Ks, mostly because I think debating the heart of the topic is important. I love a good T shell when the aff isn't topical (you won't find me penalizing you for T...unless you run a million as a time suck. Then I might not like it). Line-by-line and sign posting are key. I would say I'm about a 5 out of 10 on a speed scale for policy. If you go too quickly, you will notice me flowing less, so be aware.

PF DEBATE:

I love good public forum debate! I think good PF is a balance between amazing argumentation (line-by-line, direct clash, etc.) and killer speaking skills. I think good teamwork with your partner is very important. Treat your partner like a person who deserves respect. Both partners should be involved in Grand Cross. I prefer crystalization over line-by-line in the summary, but I won't punish you for a line-by-line refutation summary. Weighing is crucial in PF. Tell me WHY I should prefer your arguments and impacts so that I don't have to intervene with my own thoughts during deliberation. Debaters that don't tell the judge exactly what to vote on andwhy are just inviting the judge to choose whatever they want, leading to intervention.

Calling for evidence during in-person rounds

From the judge---

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

From your opponent---

I will not time you to give evidence to your opponents, but I will time you if you start reading the evidence and analyzing it. I believe that should be done in prep. If you are taking too long to find/give evidence to your opponents, I will start your prep time. So be quick!

Have an excellent round!! Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round starts!

Organization, logical, professionalism, articulate, ability to show original ideas, don't speak too fast. Be clear, concise. I need to be able to follow your thoughts.

First and foremost, I still consider myself to be a new judge. I have been judging since November 2022. I see myself as a communication judge. Speak clearly at a conversational pace. Make sure you state your arguments clearly. I want to be able to track all of your arguments. Make it obvious when you are beginning a new argument or rebutting one of your opponents. I like to see good cross, both in questioning and answering.

Give me some voters in final speeches. Tell me what you think the focus of the round is and where your arguments outweigh your opponents.

I don’t like Kritiks or Theory arguments and normally won’t vote for the debater that uses them.

Tag teaming is fine in that the partner isn’t answering but just providing information.

I will base part of my decision based how well organization you are and how you present you arguments.

General- Lets explain everything you are doing. I will flow and if something is dropped then you are most likely going to loose. ROAD MAPS. Explaining and over explaining is better then assuming I know what you are talking about.

At the end of the day its your job to convince me on why and how you won. If you want me to remember something then tell me and explain why.

Subject to change.

Policy----------- As I am a policy judge now I request no Theories unless its your best theory and you explain it SUPER WELL. EXPLAIN EVERYTHING as I am a very comms judge but I will also flow. The better you make me understand what you are arguing the better chance of you winning. Reading Evidence then explaining will help your chances. Just reading Evidence is will most likely hinder you.

Quality is better than quantity- make your ideas concise and organized, and say the most important ideas before diving into more minute things if time allows. Given that, avoid speaking quickly in order to pack in as many words as you can- good ideas impress me more than amount of ideas. Be respectful no matter your opponent’s background,experience level, or argumentation style. I’d like voters- most of all have fun and be proud of the work you do!

I am a stock issues judge, meaning I care about the pillar arguments in each round. Whether that be Inherency, Solvency (For Policy) or the Value-Criterion debate (for LD). Your dropped arguments weigh heavily as well, so make sure to cover the flow. I debated all throughout high school so I understand critical theory and can handle speed. That being said, I believe that debating is an opportunity for you to demonstrate your ability to communicate clearly and effectively, so I also value your comms.

Please be kind and professional as well.

First and foremost, I still consider myself to be a new judge. I have been judging since November 2021. I didn't do debate or speech in high school but my son does Policy and that's why I'm here.

I always ask that you speak clearly and at a speed that I am able to hear and note all your arguments. You DO NOT have to go slow but if you are going so fast I cannot understand you, then I am not hearing your side. I do enjoy a good argument as long as you have the evidence to back it up. Tag teaming is ok, as long as it's done respectfully and is not a distraction.

I do flow the rounds, sometimes on paper, sometimes on my laptop. All I ask for is quality arguments and if you bring something up, you better be ready to defend it. Don't go evidence dumping just to do it, remember we do have time limits.

Please have respect towards your opponent(s) and show professionalism throughout the debate. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful to each other, your opponent or to me or the judges.

I look forward to hearing all your speeches and debates. Remember to have fun and never stop being an inspiration!

Blank slate, voters are huge

Hello! First, a little on me. I did four years' worth of LD debate in high school I currently do collegiate debate. I also currently assistant coach. This being said, I tend to value traditional debate over progressive. However, this is your round, not mine, and I will flow whatever you choose to run. I'm fine with speed as long as it's accessible to everyone in the round- this includes the other judges and especially the other competitors, and it is used as a tool rather than a weapon. I'm generally tech over truth.

As for actual voting issues rather than my preferences about the round:

First and foremost, the debate is a space of inclusivity and kindness. I can and will vote on professionality. Discriminatory comments will not ever be accepted.

Secondly, I am a flow judge. Make sure you have time management so that you have plenty of time to respond to everything on the flow, including the framework. I am not a huge fan of kicking arguments and if I were you, I would stay away from this when you can. However, if you are going to kick an argument, be sure to explain to me why you are doing it. Otherwise, it's dropped on my ballot.

Finally, impact calculus is incredibly important. Tell me why your point matters more than your opponents.

Please feel free to ask me any questions as you have them.

I love debate. Do it well :)

Hullo! I'm excited to meet you and hope you're feeling okay as you come into round.

My paradigm is pretty simplistic - I am looking for good communication, strong cases, and for you to have fun! Depending on the format, my feedback will be a little more specific. I have experience either competing or judging all of the formats here.

I’m a communications judge. Please speak clearly enough that I can understand your ideas. I can handle a faster pace but make sure you're not speaking quickly so you can repeat yourself. Give me voters at the end. I ask that you maintain professionalism and that you're respectful to your opponent's and judges.

Policy: Don't argue the Neg begins at a disadvantage or there is an uneven playing field. I will take that to mean you believe you can't beat any of the Aff arguments.

I am a quality over quantity judge. I am much more impressed by a few well-made arguments than by throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. I understand that debaters have prepared their material ahead of time and are somewhat tied to the strategy that they have prepared; however, I will always value solid, well-reasoned argumentation, and good communication above some minor technicality. To me, this activity is about communicating your point of view effectively to an audience, and I am your audience. I have a fair bit of debate experience, and can usually keep up with whatever goes on, but that doesn't mean I want to. Speaking at an understandable pace, and using rhetorical techniques to drive home points will not be lost on me, and I prefer that to speed and shotgunning.

In LD I believe heavily in Value/Criterion or framework debate. Nit-picky contention argumentation is fine, but I want to see which side is true as a general rule, so dealing with your opponent's framework is very important. One reason here or there is not terribly meaningful unless they are in service of some grander principle.

For Policy, I think the first paragraph really covers most of it. I'd rather see relevant debate than kritiques, but I understand if that is all you brought. If you are going to sell me on a K, please be convincing, and commit to it. I don't like to see a K followed by, "But if you don't buy that here's a bunch of other stuff." I feel like a K should actually critique the resolution, and if you feel that way, then engaging with it immediately after feels cheap, and disingenuous.

For PF I don't have much of a particular paradigm beyond the one mentioned in the first paragraph. Forum was designed to be accessible, and while it isn't World Schools, I do think that a round of Forum should be understandable, at least mostly, to a layperson. They are short speeches and I get that there is a lot to get through, but making efforts to communicate clearly goes a long way in my book.

I am familiar with all the categories of debate and speech and would classify myself as a comms judge. I feel that excellent communication skills are critical, and in reality, the point in any style or form of debate/speech. What good is the intent of what you are trying to say if you cannot communicate your point to your audience effectively? So, making sure to be clear and articulate, effectively linking and impacting your arguments, and being respectful of your opponent(s) are all big for me. Speed is not usually an issue, as long as the technology cooperates and the clarity is there.

Other than that, I do really appreciate voters in final speeches. Tell me what you see the focal points for the round being, rather than letting me sort through and pull out whatever stood out or comes to mind. In good rounds the decisions are usually very close. Taking the time to remind me of your important arguments or the shortcomings of your opponent's responses helps ensure that I don't overlook anything in making my decision.

Please speak clearly and distinctly, especially early in your initial construction.
This helps me to understand your framework and also make it easier to remember everything you said.

I judge based on the stock issues/voting issues. I appreciate well-mannered debaters who speak slow enough to be understood. Just because one speaks fast, doesn't make one better in the round. Evidence should be clear and in the appropriate context.

I will vote for whoever makes the most sense. I can't flow an argument I don't understand.

I like it when debaters use their own words to explain evidence and contentions, rather than just saying buzz words. If you can't explain your contention in your own words, then it makes me think you don't understand what you're saying yourself.

Most importantly, have fun and don't be mean to your opponents! It is possible to be assertive and confident without being condescending or arrogant!

I was a former High School Policy debater. I competed for three years in Parliamentary debate for the University of Montana and have coached for 6 years now.

I am generally tabula rasa and will consider whatever arguments you make in the round. I don't think it's my job to tell you what positions to run or not to run. Your ability to decide on an effective strategy is part of debate. That said, everyone has their own preferences and biases, I have a few of my own.

Debate is a communication-based event. As such, effective communication and analysis are just as important as evidence in a round.

Mutual respect and decorum are paramount in my opinion. If you are a jerk or disrespectful to competitors you might still earn the ballot, but your speaking scores will reflect your tone and behavior. I will not hesitate to penalize someone for abusive rhetoric, slander, or any kind of hateful/discriminatory speech.

I like to see good clash of ideas and thoughtful analysis of arguments. Quality often wins over quantity with me. I have voted for teams that only won one argument on the flow, but they were able to explain why that argument won the round.

Unless specifically instructed otherwise I will revert to a stock issue/net benefits style framework. I have and will vote on things like inherency if the argument is well-made and impacted properly.

Vague or overly generic positions, and poorly supported causal link chains are not exceptionally convincing to me unless I'm given very good reasons to prefer them.

I am decent with speed and jargon, but if it impacts clarity and understanding it might impact what I get on the flow. My general rule is that if you are going too fast or are otherwise incomprehensible, I will put my pen down as a signal that I am not following you. If it's not on my flow, it probably won't be on my ballot either. Speed is not a substitute for substance. Your strategy should be something beyond talking faster than anyone else at the tournament and hoping they miss something.

Cross examination is binding and I will hold you to your word on how you choose to answer questions. Also, where I coach tag-team cx is against the rules. I won't penalize you if you do it, but each debater ought to be able to ask and answer questions without one partner taking over each time.

I don't consider new arguments in rebuttals. Responses are okay. Evidence to support existing positions is okay but any attempt to bring up brand new arguments or resurrect dropped ones won't make it onto my ballot.

Do your own extensions, cross-applying, impact calculus and voting issues. Please don't expect me to do a lot of extra work for you on the flow at the end of the round. You might not like how I choose to weigh things when left to my own devices. It's a lot more productive to simply say: what the argument is, how you have won it, and why that should decide the round.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

Add me on email chains and email me if you have any questions before/after the round: hankanator13@gmail.com

TL;DR: I consider myself Tab Ras. I am comfortable with any type of argument, I am comfortable with any speed (P L E A S E drop a doc if we're online. I dont care how good you are, momentary lag could literally lose you my ballot - if i dont hear it or read it, i dont flow it), don't impact turn structural violence if you have any moral compass, and be respectful. Debate is a game you play with your friends, and you can't be friends with someone you don't respect! Plus if everyone is mad at each other all the time, none of us have fun. I probably won't look at the debaters too much, but know that I am listening, flowing, and processing every word!

Above all, the most important part of every debate is inclusion: Elitist and exclusionary practices are killing this activity across the board.

When your opponent has an accessibility request; unless you have a legitimate reason that their request is unrealistic, please comply and adjust your strategy so that your opponent can participate at their best. Reading overly complex arguments so your opponent can't respond and spreading when your opponent has asked you not to does not make you cool, smart, or a good debater. The best debaters are excited to have their ideas tested by other intellectual minds, not so scared of losing that they will do anything they can to manipulate the ballot for a cheap win. Oh, and also, please remember to have fun :)

LD/PF

LD: Value/Criterion

• This is framework. It decides how I vote and what impacts I vote on, but it is not in and of itself a reason to vote for you. So just know, if you stand up in your last speech and tell me your first voter is the v/c debate, I am inwardly sighing.
• There are a million different arguments you can read for framework, and the majority are strong enough to vote through. That being said, in my humble opinion, V/C arguments like Morality are empty and mean nothing. Whose morals? What moral guidelines? So, know that the more specific and nuanced framework will most always win out over the vague and general one.

PF: Framework

• For the love of all things good in this world, please stop reading Cost/benefit analysis in any and all debate events. PF topics are almost always written to have an inherently CBA structured debate, so reading it in case is a waste of your precious time. The only time you should read CBA is if your opponent reads some wacky framing and in the rebuttal you're like "Nah, cba lol" in which case you're fine. I'm exaggerating, but at the same time I'm really not.
• Seething pretense out of the way... CBA is the assumption, but I 100% believe that you can read alternative framework in PF. When you can't read a plan, F/W can help you narrow the debate in a nonabrasive way, and can lead to some very powerful debates. That being said, the same standards apply from LD (and policy...)

Substance

• Links, Links, Links. Debate is about the links. How do we get from your argument to its impact; how does voting for economic growth leads to a decrease in poverty; how does the existence of great power competition lead to nuclear war; how does implementing a UBI mean a marxist takeover that results in the death of all the soy plants as we are all forced to be vegans, etc! If you go through the effort of intentionally building a solid narrative that can guide me to the voting issues, the ballot will probably be in your favor. In other words, extend your case, don't just respond to what your opponent has said against your arguments!
• Impact Calc! The more impact calc you do in the debate, the less I have to do after the speeches are over, and that only works in your favor. Tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponent's and the debate will be a lot easier for you.
• A clean flow makes a clean ballot! Make the effort to stay extra organized, and it will only work in your favor.
• Give me voters; in your perfect world, my RFD should just be a regurgitation of your last speech. Tell me where you're winning in your eyes. Tell me what's important to evaluate and make my life easier.
• Be Confident in yourself! You've got this!

Everything else is in CX

CX

I default to stock issues until told otherwise. I will vote on what you tell me to except impact turns to structural violence as explained above.

T

Here is where I have made enemies (Jett). I will vote for T. I will. But just be very aware that the bar for your Interp is really high. If their aff is actually non-topical, then it should be the easiest debate to vote on as I believe in fairness and education above all else. However, if the T debate is just teams spreading definitions of what Russia or NATO is back and forth, I will ignore T. You have been warned. :P

Theory

Every theory shell needs the following: Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voters/Impacts, and Framing. Theory is to correct abuse, so don't make me sad by being abusive with your theory.

F/W

Tab Ras - what you say goes, right up until they say something different. Then you've gotta prove why your worldview is better.

AC

I don't care how you structure your case, just make sure it has all the necessary parts. K affs are dope and you will make me happy by reading one, but it is really easy to tell if you're reading one without knowing what it actually is, typically by the first cx, if not the rebuttals (don't just steal off of open ev).

DA

Every disad needs clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If they all exist in one piece of evidence, great. But you need to do the work to make the chain of events clear to me, as the clearer your argument is the more likely I am to vote on it.

CP

I love a CP. Read one if you do too. Every CP needs a text, it needs to be mutually exclusive, and it needs to have a net benefit. I.e. I need to know what the counterplan is, why it can't happen in the aff world, and why it is a better course of action than the aff. Perms are a test of competition, so if they can prove why the aff and neg can coexist, it doesn't become a reason to vote neg anymore, and I can comfortably default to the aff.

K

Warning for Idaho: I understand that it can be exciting to get a prog judge and want to read a k on the rare opportunity. However, in my experience, it is better for you to win the round with the prog judge and get solid feedback on the arguments you know, as opposed to the arguments that you've brushed up on or downloaded from the wiki. I'm always in the mood for a K, but reread the fairness piece at the top of the RFD. If you're a varsity excited to smoke a novice because, unlike you, the novice hasn't spent hours reading Baudrillard or Mbembe, you are bad at debate and I dislike you. That being reiterated, I love a good K debate! A few notes:

• Frame the ballot. When you read a K, give me a role in your vision of the world so that I know what's expected of me as a judge; give me instructions. If I have a stock lay case against an Identity K, I'm going to need work from both sides to determine the ballot. Most likely the K will be read against a case that has V/C or CBA which is framework. So, contest the moral question brought by the other team; don't ignore it.

• In 999/1000 cases I Do Not Believe in You Link You Lose. Prove the impact, no matter how obvious the impact is (even cap). Prove everything and assume nothing.
• The more specific the alt the better. Personally, I believe the material strategies outweigh complex ivory tower proposals to change the entirety of the human race's epistemology. In other words, I buy the alt of anarchist revolution by defunding the police and handing out guns in the street more than I buy the alt of transforming society into hippies singing kumbayah and loving one another. Extreme and hyper specific examples for sure, but I hope the point is carried across.

Do it, but do it right. I need a clear impact, a clear link to the aff, and an even clearer alternative. A material course of action is always better than a vague epistemology argument (tho epistemology is obviously key to K). I you want me to burn everything down, I will grab the torch, but you need to do all of the work necessary to outweigh the aff.

Clear organization, signposting, and impacts are key to winning debates that I judge. Speed is fine as long as those things are met. Don't just give me a lot of facts or a lot of reasoning. I like both: facts backed up with why it matters, but facts or examples to back up your points. I like direct clash, as long as appropriate, based upon the issues, and fair. Clear definitions and framework help as well. Rudeness is not tolerated & will impact your score, if not the outcome of the debate. Well-developed contentions & arguments, mindful of addressing all opponents points are key.

Good communication, with arguments based on evidence, logic, and persuasion. Reasonable arguments and impacts. Extreme harms such as mass extinction, nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, zombies, etc. require extreme real-world evidence. Not recommended.

Logical fallacies make for weak debate. I watch for logical fallacies, but also expect the opposing team to point out if their opponent is relying on a logical fallacy as part of their case.

I expect the following during debate rounds:

1. Debaters should provide their own timekeeping. Judges should be observers and not controlling the round.
2. Tag-teaming protects a weak debater by hiding in the shadow of a strong debater and consequently slows their growth. I do not allow tag-teaming in rounds.
3. Debate should be focus on discussion of the topic. No ad hominem attacks.

Hi everyone! I've done both PF and LD for my years in debate.

I look for clear, concise arguments. Make sure your arguments make sense throughout the whole debate. Go down the flow please. Do not bring crazy topics (e.g. nuclear way, etc.) that are not relevant to the debate. Address all points made by your opponent because dropped points will be considered. Voters really matter so focus on addressing why YOU win the round.

Most importantly, be respectful. There's a key difference between being critical and disrespectful.

Good luck!

I did debate in high school, all 4 years. I did mainly LD & BQ, but dabbled in PF a few times. My paradigm is pretty simple all in all. The less I have to do the better. The more I think the worse it could be for you, so the less I have to do the better. The more you can explain why something matters clearly and concisely the more likely you are to have my ballet. Your job is to convince me, so convince me and do it clearly. Also, I will be going primarily off of quality over quantity. A single well-thought-out argument is much better than a hundred mediocre ones. Speaking of, I hate speed. If you want me to follow the debate, I have to be able to understand you. I will obviously still flow and will try my best to follow the arguments as best I can, but if I can't keep up I will just focus on listening and then only off of my memory for reference which is not gonna be good for you. If I miss something that will be on you, if you want me to remember something make it clear that I need to remember it. At the end of the day, all I want is a good clean debate with nothing too crazy. Debate should be fun, so do your best, have fun, and tell me why you should win!

If you want to ask anything specific, please feel free to ask!

A few things to know about me: I teach English and world history at the high school level. In other words, I spend my days teaching and critiquing student reading, writing, speaking, and listening. I was also on the debate team in high school. I'm a graduate student at Idaho State.

One of my biggest debate pet peeves is interruptions and cutting people off during cross examination. You may think you're being assertive, I think you're being condescending. If you actually deserve the win, it can be accomplished without that kind of behavior. Same concept applies to talking over each other.

Also, if you notice be looking up at the ceiling or rolling my eyes during rounds, don't take it personally. It's a bad habit--sort of a physical manifestation of the fact I'm processing information/what is being said.

General: I have about nine years of speech and debate experience. In all forms of debate, your points must be clear and impactful.

Public Forum: My primary debate experience is in PF. I did it for three years in high school and one in college. The format is intended to be delivered as if to the general public, so communication is very important. In PF, your goal should be to pick out the most important arguments in the debate, and provide supporting evidence for them. I don't care about dropped arguments (but be careful, if you drop an important point and your opponent wins that point and shows its importance, it could cost you the round). I love seeing a clean, strategic debate, where everyone is courteous to one another. Use all of your time -- use it effectively -- and we will all have a good time.

Lincoln Douglas: I have the least experience with LD. I can generally understand the jargon, but at the end of the day, debaters in LD probably understand what's going on better than I do. Make it very clear why I should be voting for you; each point should have a substantive claim, warrant, and impact for it to have any effect on my opinion.

Policy: I have participated in and watched lots of policy. I have enjoyed most rounds thoroughly, so long as there is some substance to the debate. I'm okay with Kritiks, CPs, and anything crazy you want to do, so long as I can follow what's going on. Don't do anything sketchy with your evidence -- just give it to your opponents, highlight the proper section, give it a professional name, and keep it bookmarked just in case I want to see it. I will notice power-tagging or any other kind of evidence manipulation, especially if it is called out. One final note: I probably will not like your topicality. If you have ANYTHING prepared for the debate, topicality is a waste of your time. If you run topicality anyway, despite reading this, and you decide to kick it later in the debate, I will be irritated at you for wasting our time. If there is a legit debate on it, and you actually thing the debate is unfair, that's an exception. Otherwise, do whatever you want as long as it's clear and professional.

Congress: I have never judged congress, but I enjoy seeing people engage in thoughtful discussions of the bills. I don't have much to say here, so just keep it professional and work slowly for me so that I can catch on.

Big Questions: Possibly my favorite debate type, I love the new and unique arguments this form can bring to the table. Stay on topic, address counter arguements, and we'll all have fun.

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I will base my decisions on performance quality for each event. Clear speaking style, familiarity with script or case, accurate pronunciation, and the attitude toward and respect for fellow competitors.

I value clarity in rounds. I can absolutely follow speed, however it does not mean I like to. I am typically not a fan of spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality is always greater than Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid frameworks. Definitions. Impacts.

Clear speech and quality arguments grounded in evidence is paramount.

I've been judging for more than 12 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

Background:

I did debate for about 2 and a half years, sticking mostly with policy. I was the novice/ policy captain of my team my senior year. I was a semi-finalist at state in open policy and attended 2022 nationals as part of a world schools team! I have dabbled into other forms of debate but am not nearly as comfortable with them as I am with policy.

All Debate Types:

I am not familiar with the current years topics, but can catch on pretty quick. I am pretty flexible as to what I'll vote on but mostly stick to the flow and take comms into consideration. Speed is fine, if you are going too fast I will ask to see your document just to read along. Prog debate is also fine, just make sure you understand it and you don't abuse it. I won't flow CX unless you bring it up in another speech. You are allowed to time yourselves. I will do my best to keep time and give you time signals, however, I often get caught up in the debate and forget about the time. Lastly, make sure you are being kind to one another, don't yell at one another, respect each others pronouns etc.

Policy:

You guys are the luckiest group because I understand policy the best of all debate types. I am mostly tech > truth. Run K's, theory, topicality, DA's, CP's, I don't really care, as long as you do it right (if you don't it doesn't mean you will loose, I will just explain it to you in the RFD). I will be flowing so make sure you address all arguments, even if it's just to say you are kicking it. I DO NOT allow ins-and-outs and strong advise against tag-teaming, but again won't drop you for it. Spreading is good, again just do it correctly. I can understand a good spreader but will not follow if you are mumbling. I will try to time but may get caught up flowing or listening so timing yourself is strongly advised. Make sure to include voters in your last speech. Also, I WILL NOT flow CX, if something important comes up, you tell me in your next speech. I may ask for cards during the round so its easiest to add me to the email chain- taylorbellemelanese@gmail.com

LD:

LD is one of the events i am more comfortable with. I watched quite a bit at nationals and all of my best debate buddies did LD, so I've done my fair share of prep. I can keep up with any prog debate you wanna run and am fine with speed. Some of the lingo is newer to me so try to explain it in the first speech so I don't miss anything. Make sure to include voters in your last speech.

PF:

I understand PF at a very basic level, so go easy on me. Don't necessarily dumb your debate down, but go easy on the lingo and don't just assume I know things (PF specific things obviously). Make sure to give voters, be nice to your opponents and don't overpower each other too much during the grand crossfire.

Congress:

Unfortunately I have never done nor watched congress so I'm going in to this event pretty blind. Think of me as a mom judge here.

I'm newer to judging debate. But I am here to be fair, un-bias and as helpful as possible.

I am a conservative and support strong traditional values and ethics, but am open minded and I know everyone has a side......

What I look for during debates:

Strong framework -at the least have definitions and a weighing mechanism for the round.

Clash (be civil)- don't just ignore your opponents case.

Evidence to back up argumentation.

Articulate your point -you can go as fast as you want as long as I can understand you. Remember if I cannot understand you, I cannot judge what you are saying.

Be civil. Allowing an opponent to finish their response will never hurt you.

Persuade me...... Do you really feel it or just reading?

What I dislike:

Attacking your opponent as a person or otherwise acting like a jerk.

Filler words (um, like, uhh, )

What I look for during speeches:

Strong framework

Evidence

Articulation

Engagement with your audience (eye contact)

I like good strong evidence that backs up your claims.

Be respectful

Okay with speed but make sure you are understandable.

Just make sure to follow the rules according to your debate topic and we will be good.

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

2x Nats Attendee in Policy

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

tech > truth as long as you support with reasoning, do the leg work. (default to truth)

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

Remember Debate is a game you play with your friends, Have Fun!

I debated in High school for three years with an emphasis on Policy and Humorus Interpretation.

For policy: I look for good convincing arguments and value logic when explaining anything. I go based on flow and if I find that your argument, statement or reasoning does not make sense or I cannot tell how you got from one idea to the next, I will mark down. Clash is good, don't take it too far. I understand that having an edge in competition can be good but also recognize that you need to be kind, considerate and respectful to other competitors.

For other types of debate, treat me as though I were a mom judge. If I look confused, I probably am.

For speech: Make me feel something.

Good Luck.

First and foremost, I am not a former debater and have been introduced to speech and debate through my daughter. I've been judging for two full years now and make most tournaments so I do have a fair amount of experience judging debate. Although this is a debate, good speaking characteristics are definitely a portion of your score. Off time road maps to start a speech are always helpful. I like to see good eye contact while speaking, signposting, clear and concise communication along with other good speaking habits help the audience stay engaged. Please don't go too fast as it can cloud up what your audience is hearing. Quality over quantity is usually always best.

I will somewhat flow each round I judge to help me ensure both teams are paying attention to what the other is stating. I like to hear arguments that are well constructed and well presented with supporting evidence that is clear and easy to follow. The same also applies when you are refuting an attack against your case.

As a judge that hasn't done debate before, strong voters to close out the debate do help in making my decision. They are the last thing I hear from you as a judge, so make them count.

Lastly, RESPECT for your opponents is mandatory in rounds I am judging. I expect to hear a good educated argument during a debate, not a shouting match.

For Congress:

Please remember this is Congressional debate, not congressional speech. Although the speeches are what we are judging, they need to address points brought up during previous speeches or questioning. The only speeches that shouldn't address arguments/points brought up by other legislators are the authorship/sponsorship speeches given to start debate on a piece of legislation.

During questioning, please ensure your questions are to the topic at hand. I do reward participants for involvement in the questioning period after each speech as long as the question is relevant to the legislation being discussed.

When reading a prepared speech, make sure to still make good eye contact and use other good speaking practices while giving your speech. I write a lot of comments stating "please speak to me, not just read to me"

I'm a former policy debater. That said, for policy, stock issues. Not a big fan of topicality arguments, but raise them before the rebuttal. Spreading should stay on the farm.

LD--its a values debate. Tie your contentions to your value. Tell me why your value outweighs your opponent's.

PF--I want impacts. This debate is short. Impacts are critical.

Overall--I pay attention to evidence, so it helps if you CLEARLY give me the citation up front. I guess I'm a comms judge, because if I cannot understand, or you speak too fast, it isn't counting in your favor.

Be able to summarize, in layman's terms, what your evidence means. It's obvious on a cross ex when you can't.

I am a new judge without a lot of formal experience. That said, I am looking for clear, thought out arguments. Don’t speak too fast. Be clear and understandable. Be respectful of your opponent and enjoy yourself!

I am a good judge... I think? I did a year of debate (2021-22) as well, with a main focus on Congressional Debate. My standards reflect Congress more so than other events. For example, I focus a lot on style and especially professionalism. How people conduct their arguments as well as debate techniques they use will catch my eye. I prefer when people look up frequently during their speaking because this gives the audience (and me) a sense of care and shows that they, as the debater, are prepared. In regard to speaking, I don’t have a preference on speed, but pronunciation is key. I don’t like when people slur words together, which happens more often when they think faster than their bodies can speak it. Also, if you do speak faster, I am more likely to focus on your technique rather than your argument, but if you talk normally/slower, I will focus more on your argument. I will still try to balance between both.

- Also, I hold a higher value to the use of Pathos, Ethos, and Logos in your speaking tone and words.

- I do try to be light-hearted before the round. I want the debaters to not feel threatened by my presence as a judge.

My political position:

-I consider myself middle of the road but in debate, we know this is not possible… I do have an open mind and I understand that debate is about much more than opinions. For me, I will be looking for whichever side (Aff or Neg) can produce the more convincing argument. There is no argument that I will not allow.

Etc:

Road Maps are not a problem, by the way.

Feel free to ask me any other questions about my paradigm. I know there can be more info to a paradigm that isn’t always listed.

I debated all four years in high school, and my husband is a coach. I did LD, PF, Worlds, info, impromptu, and duo (among others). I can talk the talk, so don't worry about jargon. I like engaging speeches. I'm more concerned with persuasion than winning on the flow, but if you drop the best arguments, it's going to count against you. In LD, I vote a lot on the value and value criterion debate. Make sure you have them :) Please, I beg of you, time yourselves. I trust you and I'm so bad at timing. Also, feel free to ask questions in the round if you need clarification. I promise I'm not that scary.

General: I did Policy debate for 4 years in highschool and I'm now studying political science in college. I'm down to vote on any type of argument and I'm fine with speed. (Just go a little easy on me because I've been out of the game for a couple years) I'm totally fine with tag teaming during CX and speeches. The easiest way to get my vote is with impact calculus and/or framework. This is my first tournament judging this season so treat me like I don't know anything about the topics because I probably don't. I really like evidence debate, and I reaaally don't like power tagging.

Policy: I always love theory and K's wanna run just make sure you know what you're talking about. My and my partner were big into Security K so that's the one I know the most about. For anything else I'm going to need some explanations and definitions. Fiat for me is always assumed.

Public Forum: I'm fine with Theory and Ks in P.F. but come on... it's P.F. Only run them if you're actually serious about the topics you're talking about. Also, please don't go super fast, I'm really not a fan of super chaotic P.F. rounds. I’m going to prefer the quality and logic of the argument over speaking skills.

Lincoln Douglas: I'm going to let you know I don't have a lot of experience with LD, but I've gone to a couple tournaments, and judged a bit. I'm totally down for Ks and at least make use of Value Criterion. If both sides just agree on one, that's fine too, just don't get caught up debating about V.C. if it's not going to help your case.

Sorry if that was confusing! Feel free to clarify or ask me more questions in round!

Also... don't say anything problematic please!

My paradigm for Speech is that I’m judging on two main areas.

1. Presentation
2. Presentation includes vocal, tonal, and body language and positioning. I also take preparation into account so memorization will raise your score.

1. Clarity of Message
2. Each event has a particular purpose. Your message should reflect the purpose of the event. Also your message should be clear on what your objective is including a hook, introduction, body and conclusion.
   
   

For policy debate I consider myself to be primarily a stock-issues judge. I have experience in policy and recognize the importance of the stock issues, as well as debaters clearly explaining their arguments surrounding the stock issues. I am not against theory, but hold kritiks and counter plans to a very high standard. My judging mindset is tab-ras within reason (i.e. if I know something is highly incorrect from personal/professional experience it will be scrutinized, but otherwise I leave the debate to the debaters).

From speakers I appreciate confident and well paced arguments. I will flow most rounds and even though very fast speaking does not prevent me from flowing, it is not encouraged.

Charlotte Reid has been teaching for 17 years, but coaching debate for only 7 of them. While she has no specific preferences towards style, she is conservative and a traditionalist. She keeps a detailed flow, weighs arguments and their impacts, she doesn't like dropped arguments, she likes medium-high speed, clash, appreciates courtesy, and prioritizes clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate round!

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

I am an experienced LD debater and judge. I'm also most of the way through my philosophy and economics majors, so odds are I will understand the majority of arguments you are trying to run. I dislike progressive debate (mostly its speed and exclusionary language), largely for its impacts on debate and its accessibility, and will almost always prefer traditional debate on the ballot (especially in LD). I encourage you to ask for my paradigm in round if you have more questions or need clarifications.

General Debate:

I am an experienced debater who specialized in LD, but I have judged long enough that I can follow other events just fine. There are 3 main things I look at in a debate round.

The first of these is accessibility. Just because you have a well written case and can speed read it does not mean you are a good debater. The mark of a good debater is smooth communications, which means speaking clearly, and often not using speed. I can usually follow speed plenty well, but if it is used like a weapon by preventing your opponent from catching all of your case, you will be penalized for it. If both opponents agree that speed is fine beforehand, then go for it. Also, if you have any accessibility needs (eg. difficulty hearing, etc), feel free to let me know before the round so we can make the round as accessible as possible. Another important aspect of accessibility is abuse. If your arguments are abusive, you will be penalized, regardless of whether your opponent points it out. Run strong arguments, not abusive ones. Still feel free to point out abusive arguments if your opponent makes any, though, to make sure I catch them.

The second thing I look for is clash. Regardless of how well either side debates, if there is no clash, it's difficult to determine which debater won the arguments. Attack each other's cases, and try to avoid dropping points unless it is strategic to do so (don't do this unless you know how to strategically drop points though). Although I'm looking for clash, I'm also looking for civility. Don't be rude to your opponent, it's unnecessary and unprofessional.

Thirdly, I vote off of framework and flow. Provide a solid framework, and tie your arguments to that framework throughout the entirety of the debate. Your framework exists for the purpose of telling me how to vote. If you don't carry your framework throughout the round, you aren't really supporting the issues you initially told me I should vote on. Additionally, follow the flow in your speeches. This ensures I know what you are attacking or rebuilding when you speak, and better organization usually equals a better speech. Provide voters and remind me why you deserve to win.

LD Specific:

Personally, I prefer more of a traditional style LD round. I'm a huge sucker for value and criterion, so don't neglect them as they are fundamental to the debate style. Don't run a value for your criterion, or a criterion for your value. As I mentioned above in the framework section, tie your framework (In LD this is your value and criterion) to the rest of your case to support why you should win the round. A well-thought out and developed value and criterion do wonders for improving your case. If you prefer a more progressive style, I can follow along if you must. Additionally, LD already allows for the use of philosophy, so most Kritiks do not need to be called a Kritik in LD. If you want to run philosophy, you can just do that without calling it a K. If it is something external to the round that you are critiquing, then a K may be appropriate if you really desire so.

I am an attorney and practiced law many years before I started to teach. As a young law clerk, I worked for the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee where I loved going to the chambers to watch the debates. I also helped draft legislation and reports for the U.S. Senate.

With this background I look for arguments and presentations:

1. That are persuasive.

2. That are full arguments (without holes).

3. That a common person (such as a jury member) could easily follow.

4. Good connection with audience.

5. Good speed (not too fast).

6. Believable.

7. Professional.

I love debate as a communication tool. I will LOVE judging your event!

Congressional Debate: I've dealt in congress for the majority of my career; I know what I'm doing and looking for in competitors, as well as the rules of the round and common practice (Robert's Rules, etc).

The three main things I focus on are clarity, presentation, and clash.

You must present yourself professionally and succinctly, while also building a comprehensive case. This doesn't mean you have to dumb things down (I actually really love high-vocab and intellectual comprehension/interpretation of rules/congressional legal lingo), just don't try to elaborate unnecessarily on previously made points or talk a point to death once it has been introduced into the debate. It is also great to acknowledge previously made speeches, especially if you are citing work from a fellow house/senate member. I have a very high regard for civility, particularly in questioning period. Don't be rude, in short.

I know whether or not you actually know what you're talking about, as well, so unless you're capable of making a good on-the-spot extemporaneous speech or point, don't bother. Along with that point, you should be getting through as many questions in QP as possible: this is another dead giveaway as to whether or not you really know your stuff and gives you the opportunity to elaborate more upon previously made statements and really get your idea and presence out there. I may be biased, but I find Congress to be one of if not the most powerful and graceful forms of debate, and when done well, it is nothing shy of dazzling; live to your fullest potential in this regard! Personal style and the development of such is one of congressional debate's strong suits.

Finally, there should be solid clash and new points being presented AT LEAST every three speeches (both aff and neg). Unless there is actual debate going on on the same point for several consecutive speeches, don't drag out an argument for longer than it needs to be- no it doesn't make you look smart or edgy.

LD: Extensive background in this as well. Once again, I can see right through you.

Main focuses are clarity, clash, strong and assertive cross ex, and related value/criterion pairings- make sure to really reinforce and affirm exactly why it is that they go together, and continually reference and tie them into your speeches throughout the round

Off-time roadmaps are also much appreciated!

POFO: This should NOT look like an LD round, and should operate much more like policy. Do NOT tell me anything about a value or morality set. Automatic red flag.

I love to see effective tag-teaming that shows whether or not your team is in-sync and mentally present during debate. There is a difference between carrying them and working WITH them. Make sure all your questions reflect such as well. Always go over VOTERS!!

Policy: Essentially the same things as POFO. I want clarity, efficacy, and voters. Do not set up your speech/give your speech during a QP.

It is my sincere honour and pleasure to work with you all. Good luck!! :))

Hello, my name is Paxton (He/ Him) and I love debate! If you are disclosing I would prefer you use file share or speech drop. Depending on the event you are in you can jump around my paradigm.

Circuit Debate (This section is up to date for TOC 2024)

Substance im tech over truth. Theory im truth over tech.

BE NICE! One thing that i feel happens alot more in circuit debate than locals are people being rude or down right abusive to their opponents. Please be nice. Debate is a game at the end of the day, and aggression will not make you better at it. Have passion but not anger.

There are some things to keep in mind. 1) I come from a traditional background. I am ok with you going fast and running whatever you want, but i may evaluate the round slightly different than someone who comes from a prog background. I really want you to tell me why you win. I dont need super slow voters, but i want you to either weigh really well or tell me why an arg is a round winner. At the UK opener my number 1 comment was not getting enough round analysis on why the debater won the round. Flow is great, but i need a clear reason to vote if you want to better your chances.

Im ok with speed, that doesnt mean im not a mortal. If it is unclear or not well organized then i will not have a perfect flow. I can only evaluate the round based on what gets on my flow, so dont think "ok with speed" means lose organization and clarity.

ROTB or explicit k framing is a must. I will not do the work for you on this. Also im skeptical of alts, if they arent explained in the NR i wont just give them to you. I also dont like "reject the aff alts", more creative/ more specific is better.

I dont like PICs. They have to be really good for me to vote on them.

I typically dont like theory or t. If there is legit abuse then run it and i will evaluate it, but if its a time suck or a speech filler than dont run it please. Theory is a tool not a weapon, please treat it as such. I am usually more willing to listen to theory from the aff (condo or speed bad) than from the neg. It takes a lot for me to vote on T.

I like pre speech disclosure, but im not a fan of pre round disclosure in LD. I dont think the neg needs extra prep time in LD like they do in Policy. I wont vote on disclosure theory unless you dont get the doc before the speech at all, didnt ask for it, and your opponent is spreading. If it doesnt meet those three criteria i wont vote on it.

My History

I have done well in LD, BQ, Worlds, BP, Policy, and PF. I am very familiar in any event I am judging. Policy and LD were my main events in high school. I was a state finalist in policy and a state champ in LD. I also finished 3rd at NSDA nats in LD. I am now currently coaching high school debate.

Overall

I am a tabula rasa judge (in traditional rounds). I prefer a clean flow with solid evidence and warrant extensions. I will vote off the framework, so tell me what that is! If I get no framework I default to impact calc. I WILL LISTEN TO ANY ARG. If you are running something ultra complex then do the extra work so I can understand the advocacy, but theory and k’s are great. (If you run a theory or k please give me role of the ballot analysis and do the proper extensions.) I am good with speed.

1. Don’t yell at or attack your opponents for who they are, please be civil. There is no excuse. I do understand that debate can get intense, and that is ok.
2. Roadmap and SignPost
3. Have fun and try your hardest! If you have any questions ask me after the round.

LD

I love this event. Give me good impact calc through the criterion. Cover the flow. When making extensions I need the card name, the arg, and why you are extending it or why it matters, basic stuff (comment for locals).

PF

QOL is not a framework (comment for locals). If you are going to read a framework please make sure it is unique and not just weigh impacts. Read one if you are actually framing the round in a unique way. I love evidence and warrant extensions. Sometimes slimming the case and dropping points is ok if done strategically. I will vote off of impact calc.

Policy

You do you. I’ll vote on anything, just make sure to tell me why. I err aff on T. Only run it if there is a clear violation. If you run it, give me good analysis on the impact of the violation. Solvency is very important, aff please extend it, neg please attack it. I am cool with CP’s, k’s, and theory. All I ask is that you do the work to fully develop them if you are going to try and win on it. I want role of the ballot analysis if you run a k or theory.If you run a ton in the 1nc I will be happy and excited for the round. If you run 1 or 2 very deep complex advocacies I will also be pleased. I err prog in policy but I also think all policy can be good policy (comment for locals, "prog" in a local not national context).

He/Him

Tech over truth

Speed is fine just put me in the email chain matthewspall@gmail.com

Things I love are clash and impacts, and I love good strategy(that means please condense).

I also love the theory debate so don't be afraid to get into that or go for it in the 2nc.

With condo I can vote for anything but if you're running a ton of positions I will probably err aff, whereas if it's only a couple I will probably err neg. On condo i much prefer interps that are you can only run 1 conditional argument, rather than conditional arguments are bad.

You will lose if you clip cards

You will lose if you say anything racist, sexist, etc.

K's are fine but definitely explain them. If it took you a while to understand the K, it will probably take me a while as well and I would love to learn about whatever argument you run. If you run a K I would love to see a ton of clash with the aff case and it must show why the aff is bad.

Tell me how to vote and impact out your arguments

CPs must be mutually exclusive and have net benefit

Signpost as always

T needs to be interp violation standards and voters. Too many times I see teams not extend all of these and if you don't I will not vote on it.

Aff must prove it is better than the squo, neg must prove squo or their advocacy is better than the aff.

I'm okay with being sassy just don't be mean or rude, we should all try to be pals in debate.

I am a communications judge. I focus on clarity, evidence and good speaking skills. Stay respectful and professional and have good clash. I did debate/speech all through high-school and am a experienced judge and Asst.Coach.

Email: haltonstancil@gmail.com

---For everything---

• NO SPREADING PLEASE!

- Remember to speak clearly and concisely!

-Make sure your arguments are explicitly explainable

-Roadmap and signpost, keep consistent organization throughout the round, number your points

- Refer to your tags/author’s content for referencing cards instead of “author date”, makes evidence way easier to identify during rebuttals and extensions

-----------------------

General: I have experience with debating/judging policy and congress. Clash is the #1 biggest thing I want to see in a round.

Stock issues/T: Stock issues debate makes for a great round, style is not always imperative. T is fine, but I often find that the argument chains don't provide the debate with a meaningful/educational impact.

K's/CPs: K's and CP's are great! My experience is financial/economic IR-interrelated theory, but please be creative.

PREFACE: I have not judged a single round (this year) before this tournament (The Trojan War) so I have no idea about topic-specific references like acronyms, nuanced issues, etc. If you do the legwork to define an ambiguous issue right before you present it in the debate, that would be ideal! (No need for more than that, I can pick it up the first time)

I did debate all four years of high school and now two years in college. I mostly debated in Policy and LD while in high school.

I did Radio, Extemp, and some interp for speech.

I flow and take notes on my laptop. You can assume that I am paying attention even when I'm buried in the screen.

I am easily distracted. Talking to me directly, telling me what evidence to look at and where, clear signposting, sending over speech documents, etc. ensures that your words make their way onto my flow.

I believe any argument as true unless tested by some analytic or evidence.

I will not weigh arguments that attack a person's identity.

Try your best to make the debate accessible to everybody. If someone doesn't like speed, then don't go fast. (For example)

I am not perfect when it comes to bias, but I try my best to be a blank slate. Run whatever arguments you want. (I am only familiar with very basic K literature/strategy so be mindful of that)

I believe debate is a game so taking it "seriously" matters insofar as how we talk about impacts. Treating death as hilarious is different from giving a sarcastic answer in cross-ex. I'm okay with the latter. I'll give you a boost in speaks if you can make the debate enjoyable with non-problematic jokes.

I'll give you speaker points based on a combination of your in-round strategy and delivery.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

I'm a coms judge mainly, so I appreciate a steady talking pace because I'm not conditioned yet to listen and process all of what the speaker says at faster paces. Other than that, I expect good volume, eye contact, body language, etc. When it comes to the arguments I dislike, I am not a fan of end of the world scenario arguments/extreme escalation arguments. I understand that some things could lead to that given the situation in the world today, so if those arguments are reasonably made, I expect a good link to that extreme escalation happening.

I'm not extraordinarily experienced in the debate world, as this is my second year judging. That being said, I am knowledgeable about argumentation, evidence, theory, etc. as an English teacher so please be careful and intentional when backing things up with evidence. I've found that I really appreciate clear signposting as you go through your speech. What I don't appreciate is speaking so quickly that I'm unable to take notes. If I don't have time to write down your argument or evidence, it doesn't exist to me when I go to make a decision on the winner.

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote. If no framework is provided, I'll default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Theory I love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down.

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked. However, I will give verifiable birthday points and last senior tournament bumps at invitationals ONLY

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. If you don't, I default to cost-benefit (And that's boring as heck. So please give me something better). Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

I will flow just about everything. I weigh dropped arguments harder than highly contested arguments. For example, if Team A has ground on their Contention 1, and Team B doesn't ever answer or refute and put a counterargument on the flow, that Contention will be of a larger impact than Team A's contention 2 which both sides were fighting for back and forth.

If both teams cover everything on the flow to the best of their ability, it will come down to who provided the best analytical and evidential arguments. This will also largely come from whichever team had the best speaking ability.

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

I am Katy, my email is katyvree@gmail.com for email chains, but I very much prefer speech drop.

I debated for all four years in high school, doing PF and Policy.

Please be respectful to your opponents, debate is a game you play with your friends and I weigh courtesy and ethics above all else in the round. In other words, if you are being a jerk I will drop you.

I am cool with speed and pretty much any argument.

Policy-

I have not had any experience with this year's topic, so keep that in mind with running complicated arguments, they just need a bit more explaining.

I am cool with Ks and theory, except for frivolous theory. There needs to be a good reason why the theory links and is being run. I do not have a whole lot of experience with Ks, so if you do run it, just hold my hand a bit and make it clear to why it is important.

I will vote for topicality, but the threshold for the interpretation is pretty high. If you read a T argument just to run an argument and it kinda sucks, don't go for it later on in the round, there is a good chance I won't vote on it.

I think DA's need to have clear uniqueness, link, and impact, and must in some way relate to the ac, even if it is just a general link.

CPs are great but please make sure they are mutually exclusive to the plan and have a net benefit attached. If the cp is practically the plan, I might as well vote aff.

framing is also very good but do it early in the round.

PF-

please please please collapse. there is not enough time to run every argument and not collapsing makes the debate very muddled.

I think framework is super important and can really make or break a debate, but cost-benefit analysis is not an actual framework, it is an assumption in PF, and reading it is only a waste of time.

Voters are crucial, tell me how to vote and do the impact calc why your impacts matter more than your opponents.

LD-

I have very little experience with LD, but I know debate so do what you will and make your value/criterion clear so I know how to weigh the round.

Communication Judge

Hello,

My name is Brooklyn Willford (She/ Her).

I have been around debate for about two and a half years. I have been dating a high school debater and now coach since the end of his junior year. He won state in LD and got 3rd at nationals in LD, so I have picked up some knowledge, but I am not super familiar with judging.

I will be flowing the round and using it in determining my decision. I will vote off what you tell me to vote on. Please explain things to me if you expect me to give you credit for them. Be nice. Off-time roadmaps are allowed. 10-second grace period. I may look at your evidence if it becomes a big point of contention. My biggest sway in judging is impact calc and I expect a voters speech.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Richard Wolff - Debate Paradigm

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions (6 years Judging Experience)

I consider myself a communication (comms) judge but I flow everything. If the flow is not backing you up you will not do well.

Well-developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak clearly with an emphasis on communication delivery! Speed is not beneficial to your cause if it is too fast to be understood. (Info dumps are not beneficial to your cause) Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

Please follow the state/national rules and guidelines for evidence. You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer that you write things down or pass the evidence to your partner on a device.

I put a lot of emphasis on a well-developed case. Use criteria and arguments to support a value position. Reference evidence/support throughout the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

Please use empirical and philosophical arguments that make sense! Please explain your views on critical arguments. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I enjoy hearing a well-structured plan and how it will solve the issue being debated.

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link it to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose my vote. Do not go off-topic.

The focus should be on winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a person’s style, flaws, or methods. Please respect your opponent and show professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave. I am less likely to vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

Pronouns: He/him/his

For email chains/post-round questions: yikwill@gmail.com

TLDR: I did policy for all four years in HS, but it has been a few years. I consider myself a tabs judge, so debate the way you think will you the round. Be sure to do the analysis for me on the flow because I won't accept just name dropping evidence as a response to an argument. As long as you read your tags slow enough and your spreading is somewhat coherent, I can keep up with any speed you read at. Be kind.

Long

Please, please, please signpost. My biggest pet peeve when judging is people not telling me where they are on the flow. This is more than just saying "on the DA". Say what argument you're responding to or say you're going down the flow and stick to it. It makes it very hard for me to judge rounds when I don't know where to flow your arguments.

Background:

I did policy for all four years of high school. While it has been a few years since I've competed, I should be able to keep up with whatever you're saying at any speed. This means as a judge, I want to enable you to be your best self. Debate the way you think will win you the round. As a former debater, I know what I feels like to have to change your style to fit a judge's paradigm/prior experience.

Specifics:

* I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression, racism, genocide, etc.

F/W: It's dope if you do it right. If not, it's a hot mess. Give me clear interpretations and defend those interpretations with standards.

Theory: Basically the same as my opinions on f/w.

Ks: While my knowledge of K literature is not the best, I am quite familiar with how they work. Thus, if you're going to run a K with a rich literature background, you'll have to do the work in explaining it to me.

CPs: All good with me. I default to unlimited conditionality for the neg, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise. I also default to "PICs are legitimate", but again, my mind can be changed with a good theory arg.

DAs: All good with me. I love a good impact calculus debate. Why should I prefer nuke war? Why should I prioritize probability? What does that mean in the context of the round? That doesn't mean I won't look at the uq, link, and I/L though if they're challenged.

Speed: Please make your tags distinct in some way from your evidence (slowing down, raising your voice, etc.). Go as fast as you'd like on the evidence but make sure you're somewhat intelligible.

The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.

-Mark Twain

young.broox@gmail.com - shoot me an email if you have any questions or concerns, or if you want specific feedback post-tourney.

I’m Broox, an undergraduate student in English and philosophy. I Have been a Finals Panelist Judge in Congress at the annual Nationals Tournament and have judged Congressional Debate and other events for 5+ years.

My most important rule is to keep decorum and be respectful.

In terms of my general debate paradigm;

Go ahead and read whatever case you want—even theory if you think you can.

I like to think that I'm generally well informed but treat me as if I’m an idiot(I am.)

Absolutely do your best to write my ballot for me in the last few speeches, I will evaluate the arguments you tell me to. Unless that is, what you're telling me to evaluate is stupid, which I will probably tell you on your ballot(respectfully we hope.) If you don't tell me how to evaluate your—and/or your interlocutors'—arguments, I will not know how you want me to weigh them.

I try not to call cards often unless opposite things are being said about the same piece of evidence. Or if you tell me to call a card.

Please don’t spread I’ll probably cry, I can flow at any speed at this point, but spreading will reflect poorly on your speaks.

pleaSE signpost. I neither need nor want your off-time roadmap if you signpost effectively.

Probably most importantly; Good luck, have fun.