"I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguments and communicate effectively. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your argument and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. I also appreciate being given a heads up on trigger warnings. If you are not sure if it counts as a trigger warning, just keep in mind that anything involving suicide, rape, abuse, miscarriage, abortion, etc. is a trigger for me. For Debate events, keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!"

I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow

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

Pronouns: He/Him/His

While you can also ask for my paradigm in round, it won't be nearly as in depth as this. Many great debaters use knowing their judges paradigm to work in their favor so I'll give you everything you need to know about me:

Debate Background:

I'm generally familiar with all of the debate events because I tried them all at least once. I started out in Novice Policy and then moved to Varsity Policy, but my Sophomore year I really started getting into Lincoln Douglas and it became my main event for the rest of high school. I was top speaker in LD at State Debate my senior year and I'm a sucker for a *good* analogy.

Overall When Judging Debate:

I'm pretty laid back in terms of what you want to run and I flow heavily almost everything that is said (yes, even in Congress). That being said, clear sign posting is pretty important if you want me to put your argument in the right spot. I really, really like good communication, and while it's not enough to win, it plays a significant role in debate because you can't vote for something you don't understand.

I also will vote for most anything as long as it's convincing. I enjoy voters, but if you want me to vote for something you have to restate *why* I should be voting for that specific issue. Other than that, I will pretty much believe whatever you tell me to (as long as it's not like "the world is flat" lol). It's the responsibility of the opponent to explain to me why the previous claim was wrong and unless it's the last speech and the other team can't rebut, I will not intervene with my own opinions. In other words, I'm a tech over truth judge, but I will never vote for impact turns on oppression.

I will not tolerate any bigotry in rounds. I also would like to remind everyone that "debate is a game you play with your friends," and that means that I want a nice friendly debate that doesn't turn hostile (it's happened..). I'm also very understanding and while this is a lot to read, there is no reason to be scared of me. I'm here to support you all after all lol.

Finally to answer a few of the questions most people ask - Yes, I'm cool with any speed as long as it's coherent. No, I do not mind if you time yourselves and I would prefer it so I don't have to cut you off (you also can finish wrapping up your sentence if the timer goes off, but I won't flow any new arguments during then). No, I do not mind if you move stuff around the room to make a podium as long as it gets put back. No, I don't mind tag teaming as long as partnerships are equally balanced and you're not taking over your partners CX. And yes, I do give out autographs (jk).

Specific Debate Events:

Public Forum - I have only done public forum a few times, but I know quite a bit about it. Be kind and considerate and you'll do just fine by my standards. I also will vote for theory as long as it makes sense and isn't abusive. While usually dropped arguments are a big deal, because times are so short I won't weigh them as heavily. I severely dislike power tagging for evidence so don't do it please!

Lincoln Douglas - LD is seriously my baby and I love it to death. That being said, I am very particular about how Value/Criterion is used. I will almost all of the time use the V/C as a weighing mechanism in framework. If you win the V/C then I will use it to judge the debate. It is NOT a voter, but it can be used to weigh them. But like I've said before, I'm pretty low-key and will vote for anything fleshed out (theories and kritiks included, just make sure you're explaining them well). Also remember, the goal of debate is to show you know how to refute, it's not to show you know how to trick your opponent by using complicated wording that they don't understand. You can still use complicated ideologies and philosophies though. If you drop an argument, don't attack it in your next speech (it's abusive), but you can impact weigh instead.

Policy - You get a lot more time in Policy than other debate events, so that means I weigh dropped arguments pretty heavily (as long as they're impacted out). The main role of the AFF is to make sure all of their stock issues are upheld, and if the Neg manages to topple even one then the ballot goes to them. I know policy can get really technical but most of the time I can keep up. Although, if you're going to run anything super crazy make sure to explain it well so I can vote on it. Policy tends to get kinda aggressive sometimes and I'm not the biggest fan of it. I want to make sure that when both teams are walking out of the room that there is no bad blood because the round got really heated. You have so much time please impact weigh, I need to know why I'm voting for an argument.

Congress - Finally, Congress. Honestly I really am just looking for effort. If you show me that you genuinely care then you're doing a fantastic job. I also love love LOVE when congress debaters refute other representative's claims. Try not to repeat a point that has already been brought up unless your adding to it.

Speech Background:

I was a big interper in high school and in my junior year got 9th in the nation for Duo, and senior year I made it to Quarterfinals at Nats in the supplemental event, "Storytelling" (it's kinda like retold). I'm also a multi-NieToc Bid Qualifier. The only interp event I haven't done is POI but I know A LOT about it. I LOVE INTERP!! I like a lot of the other events too, and if you're in a limited prep event then I enjoy when humor is added. I'm definitely a speecher at heart and I did a bunch of acting in high school too so honestly all of my ballots in speech will be rather large (I really enjoy giving feedback so that your piece becomes the best it can be).

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.

Blank slate, voters are huge

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.

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.

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 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.

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!! :))

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!

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

Communication Judge

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.