LD

Paradigms are stupid, please don't be as well,
Many debaters rely on it, without it they sell,
And don't start off with "My case, their case",
because everyone thinks it's a waste.

Progressive is rubbish and dumb,
My ears have heard it all, they're numb.
The worst speak fast,
And yet their arguments are ass bad,

Now when deciding whether sit near,
you should have no fear
If your speech I cannot hear,
I will then yell "Clear!"

If still after three times,
Your speech is still mumbled,
Then because of this rhyme,
Your contentions will be fumbled.

Everyone around asks me,
"Do you flow cross?"
My answer is simple as can be,
Mention it in speech, else it's your loss!

Everyone sets up a doc,
And still no one can seem to block.
Countless cards are cut,
But in the end nothing is rebut.

But lets talk about the arguments,
Because I've heard them all,
Even though LD isn't my department,
Bring up non-topicality and you will fall.

Power tagging is distasteful, that's a fact,
Lying is wasteful, don't try this act,
Countless lies and debater-math,
Don't try anything funny, or face my wrath.

Your words alone can't be trusted,
Please cut cards properly, don't get busted.
Be nice to your opponents, don't abuse,
Honesty or not, what shall you use?

Some egos are too big,
I'm tired of hearing countless digs,
It's Speech and Debate,
Not impeach and hate.

For all intents and purposes,
This paradigm is mostly a joke.
Please don't report these verses,
or complain to your coach.

The real paradigm lies within,
Talent, abilities, and skill to win,
Trophies will line your shelf, in time,
Remember to have fun and unwind.

Policy

No progressive. Speed is fine, but you better be prepared to be clear and vocal, especially with your evidence. If you drop your syllables I will drop you. In all seriousness, if I have to say clear three times, I will stop flowing for that speech. Topicality is a must, refer to my LD paradigm.

I am absolutely and wholly unqualified to be judging policy debate, and yet it seems I get assigned this tournament after tournament. Please take this into account when coming into the round, there is no "bad judge, good judge", but rather any other judges, and me. I will have preconceptions and implicit bias, as we all do, take note. At the end of the day, I value debate skills and strategy over content, if that helps. I wish you the best of luck, you will need it.

Public Forum

The event's called Public Forum,
That's why you maintain decorum.
Follow the rules during debate,
If not then you won't break.

Don't lie to me, should be simple enough as a PF debater right? No inflated impacts, misattributed statistics, exaggerated tagging, etc. Easy!

Congress

I did Congressional debate for all four years of my time in the NSDA. Congress is unique in that competitors are able to discuss and advocate for change regarding issues that directly affect all of us in a debate format that's open and accessible. Whether new to the event or experienced, I look forward to seeing all your speeches out there on the circuit!

Baseline Expectations

Due to the fast paced nature of Congress, the speakers' evidence is often given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, every competitor's integrity is central to maintaining the trustworthiness of the overall event. This integrity is lost when evidence is fabricated, so it is expected that you've put in a reasonable amount of effort to ensure the credibility of the sources you cite in your speech. No, combining "NYT" with '22 does not make what you say more believable, contrary to popular belief.

How I Judge

I value strategy.

Too often enough in Congress, speeches with previously elaborated arguments are given again by another speaker. Congress is not just an event where one can expect to prepare speeches ahead of time and do well by giving them canned; you and your speeches must be adaptable. If you respond to or build upon others' speeches given before you and introduce new but relevant arguments, then you'll do well. If you completely shut down the other side's case for passing/failing the legislation, I will have no other choice than to rank you high!

You can be the most articulate, clear, well-spoken competitor out there, but if you do not strategically give your speech at the right time and address the right points of contention/speakers, your impact on debate will be minimal. This is why I believe that in Congress, all ought to be judged on how they strategize.

Do Not Under ANY Circumstance Do the Following (I've seen it all)

Not Paying Attention - Going up and saying in your speech saying "here's something NO other representative has brought up"... only to rehash something previously brought up. Shows you aren't paying attention.

Political Stupidity - Say something so politically inept like "Representative, why would China spy on its own citizens?" I wonder, why would an authoritarian government spy on its own citizens? Other things I've heard include: "Why would Putin lie about killing civilians?", "Isn't it the obligation of the US to provide aid to the world?", etc.

Putting Down Others to Be Different- Going up and saying "Rep. X falls flat when they say ____" or rebutting your own speech side for the sake of making yourself seem smarter is simply a waste of time, better spent focusing on yourself.

Refuse to Speak Until a Certain Cycle - Despite popular belief, speaking later in the round does not mean higher ranks. Judges only really care if you're rebutting and referring to the most important arguments in your cycle and if you clash properly. I've seen people go "I can give an X speech" when gauging the chamber's splits, only to refuse to speak and forcing the chamber to break cycle, which hinders everyone's experience. I will point this out to the judges, and they will rank you accordingly.

PO'ing

Our circuit is plagued by a chronic shortage of POs, to the point where you'll see a chamber full of competitors awkwardly staring at each other hoping that someone steps up and takes the gavel. You'll hear things such as "Oh I can PO but I haven't done it in a long time..." or "If someone POs now I can PO later...". Despite the long-held rumor that becoming the PO will ruin your ranking, this is far from the case, especially when I'm judging.

Remember, the Congressional debate national champion has been a PO for more than a few years in a row, how do you think they got there? Pure skill? Wrong. They PO'd.

If you PO and do it impartially, fairly, and efficiently, a high ranking will reflect your high performance.

For all forms of debate, I am basically a flow judge. That being said if you spread too fast I will not be able to get parts of your case on to my flow. In the end, be logical, make good cases and be respectful.

I don't time off time road maps as long as they are quick and efficient.

General:

- Pronouns: she/her

- I have experience competing/judging/coaching in CD, PF, LD, and WSD.

- If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations, please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).

- Be kind and have fun!

- Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.

Congress:

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!

- If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.

- I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.

PF:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponents.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

LD:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Although I prefer a traditional debate, I can follow/have voted on most progressive arguments.

- Spread all you like, but it should still be clear.

- Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent drops something in a speech or concedes in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponent.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

I have judged all events, but when it comes to debate most of my experience stems from LD and Congress. I value clash and enjoy watching strategies unfold. Framework is important and so is strong evidence. If you ask me in person what do I like in a debate, I say show me the best you can do and impress me. I don’t mind spreading (especially in CX where it is expected) or traditional and/or progressive debate as long your arguments are sound and adapt to your opponents’ points. Be respectful, professional, and have fun.

Hello! I'm a coach who didn't do speech and debate in high school because my school was too small to have a team. I love a good debate, though, and I currently coach LD, BQ, Impromptu, Original Oratory, Info, and Prose.

I'm a high school English teacher, and I read the news and studies for fun. Yes, really. I'm that person.

How to win my vote:

- Don't spread. Seriously - I want the time to digest what you're saying, so you need to speak at a reasonable pace. I'll tell you to slow down by saying "Slower!" if it's an issue, but unless you're flying through your case you'll be fine.

- I'm ok with Ks, but your links need to be meticulously logical. Your link chain needs to be reasonable between individual links so that each OBVIOUSLY leads to the next; if you start at the resolution and end at global destruction, make sure each link makes this overall leap seem like it could actually happen. Prove to me that Point A automatically leads to Point B and that there's no other alternatives that can happen EXCEPT Point B.

During the round:

- I'm looking for framework clash. Why is your framework the one we need to look at this resolution through? What makes yours more favorable?

- I'm very interested in the impacts. If it doesn't touch our current reality, what's the point of debating the resolution? I want you to go through why it matters to us, in this world, right now. This is what I'd deem the most important part of the debate!

- I don't mind if you finish your sentence after time is called, but don't prolong this too much. I'll give you about a 5 second grace period.

- Please stand while giving speeches, but you can sit for cross-ex.

- Be respectful and have fun :)

Hello! First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm. If you have the time, please read the sections that are important to you. My paradigm is broken up by events, and each section will include my preferences and general thoughts on how the round should go. Each section will include a TLDR if you don't have time for whatever reason and it's right before the round, but otherwise PLEASE read the entire thing!

VERY GENERAL OVERVIEW; TLDR

I competed for three years in Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, extemporaneous speaking, and Impromptu speaking. For two of those years, I personally coached many in extemp, impromptu, and public forum while also helping others in congress. If you have me for any of the ad libs events, congress, or pf, these are my strong suits and I hope you like me better than your average parent judge who has never competed themselves. I as a judge will work to accommodate you while maintaining the integrity of the round and the sprit of speech and debate. i.e - If you need a minute before the round starts to take a breath or get a drink of water, please inform me and feel free. I was there not too long ago myself. Finally, speech and debate is about growing your skills as a speaker, a debater, and growing yourself as a person. Not winning. With that being said have fun, and just be respectful of others!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

TLDR; I know what congress is (for the most part).

Full version

I was in house finals at nationals.

PUBLIC FORUM;

TLDR; I know how to flow tech debate, but I like it when you make good arguments that are backed by a solid logical link chain in a more of a lay appeal style. DO NOT SPREAD. I can understand spreading (mostly), but I can understand your speech better if you do not spread and you explain everything in a logical manner, not just trying to spit out as many words as you can in a minute. If you start speaking too fast, I will simply put down my pen and stop flowing. Just rhetoric won't get you very far either, actually interact with your opponents arguments and WEIGH them against your own.

Full version

Speech and debate is meant to make you better at debating and speaking. I do not like spreading at all. I understand speaking slightly faster than normal in order to get all of your points in (more so if your in summary or FF), but you should not spread. Public forum is supposed to be PUBLIC FORUM, it was originally a "laymans" form of debate, in which someone off the street should be able to judge your round with reasonable competency. I am well aware that the debate space is all about inclusion, however spreading in public forum if anything makes the debate inaccessible to those who can not understand spreading (either opponents or the judges). If you start spreading too much I will simply put down my pen and stop flowing. Same thing goes for theory, don't do it in PF. If it's a local tournament, 99% chance there is no reason to be running theory in PF. If you really feel you have to in pf, in my round, my understanding of theory is minimal in comparison to someone who spent three years doing LD. Chances are I won't be able to understand it for the most part, and if it comes down to a technical level I probably won't weigh/vote on it. If you have to read theory, first ask me if I'm okay with it in the round. If you just start reading it off, especially in the first or second speech (without asking me), I'll just drop it. In crossfire look at the judge so things don't get heated. Be respectful of each other, but also be assertive. I don't weigh crossfire unless you get a concession or have an important point to make, however you have to bring it up crossfire in speeches for me to weigh it. In general, if your respectful, there should be zero issues. Next, I want to see actual interaction in the round between you and your opponents arguments. Simply giving me endless rhetoric or restating your case won't get you far if you don't respond to the uniqueness of your opponents arguments and how they WEIGH against your own. PLEASE WEIGH in summary and final focus, and if possible do so in rebuttal. Make the vote for me as a judge easy to make, tell me why your side should win the debate comprehensively. I go off the flow, I'm mostly tech over truth unless you straight up lie. Lastly, have fun! Time goes by fast, and debate is something that should be fun and propel you in your future endeavors.

Extemp. (to be updated very soon)

Impromptu (to be updated very soon)

All other debate formats, and IE events will be updated very soon!

I prefer to hear a few well developed arguments, delivered with clarity, rather than a mass of contentions delivered at an unintelligible rate. Debate the topic and refrain from Plans as they often tend to skirt the issue. Please avoid speaking over your opponent during Cross. I tend to weigh impacts rather heavily and I will consider the flow, however it will not be the sole factor in determining the round.

Your conclusion should clearly follow from your arguments and evidence. I value logical rigor and quality of evidence.

You should speak clearly and at a reasonable speed, and be respectful to each other and to other teams.

Background: I am a high school English and math teacher who is new to Speech & Debate.

I value:

• A progressive debate. One where there are no two speech that are alike and build off one another rather than repeating the same points. Get creative!
• Clash. Address your fellow congress members and call out their points you have an issue with.
• Outline your speeches. Provide a road map tell the audience when you are stating new contentions, evidence, and impact.
• Engaging the audiences. Proper volume, eye contact, and body language. Moving to different stops for each contention.
• Being chill. Respect and help your fellow debaters. Have fun!

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't send chain it's not going on my flow.

Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.

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

LD/Policy TLDR

Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions

For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.

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

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

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

Random:

Flex prep is fine

Tag team is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Tag team cross is fine.

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

Misc LD/policy things:

I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.

Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.

If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.

Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)

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

PF paradigm- I was an LD debater but I did PF a a few times. Knowing my LD background, you can feel free to read framework or non-traditional PF arguments. HOWEVER, I feel PF should be a debate for a lay judge so everyone can understand it, so if you have a lay panel and you run that stuff be warned that might not end up favorably.

TLDR- If you have a tech panel do what you like, but on a lay panel I will be less flexible so you should act like I'm a somewhat experienced lay judge in such a situation. Additionally, reading progressive in front of an LD judge who did a lot of that stuff might be bad if you don't structure it properly or understand what you're doing.

- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

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

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).

- There is a huge PO shortage on our circuit. If you step up to PO, do a decent job, and (if I'm parli) are also active in the other session, you will receive a good rank as a result. If it's your first time POing, ask the parli questions and try your best and you probably can still get a decent rank. It's all about trying your best. But, even if you don't perform the best as PO, you can still make ranks by following the above suggestions in the next session!

I will demand that everyone pay attention to their competitors during round; no texting or talking or distracting. Don't be rude.

For Speech, I look for something creative, interesting, original, and clean. A story or line of argumentation within your performance that makes me think, appreciate your process of ideas, and leave the room with a new perspective on the narrative you've shared with us.

For Debate, I am a lay judge that will occasionally flow your arguments. My primary focus is obviously a coherent argument, but if both sides are coherent, then I will bring in the aspect of performance and speech skills as a way to decide who will progress to the next round. Therefore, don't spread for the sake of proving that you have these mountains of evidence that you can word-vomit to me, unless you can then dissect each piece thoroughly and precisely. I enjoy respectful clash, and have a special emphasis on specific refutation.

For Congress, I again judge based off strategic argumentation, originality (do not say the same speech over and over), and then confidence and conviction in your speaking. My biggest pet peeve is a one-sided debate. I enjoy respectful clash, and have a special emphasis on specific refutation.

If you are ill-mannered or obnoxious, I will not choose you as the winner; if you don't have the human decency to respect your opponents, you need to learn a lesson on civility before debating another competitor.

Specialties: Program Oral Interpretation, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Informative Speaking

I am a parent judge and value speeches with clear, logical flow of ideas supported by evidence, delivered with good inflection, energy, and proper speed.

I look forward to hearing well-researched and constructive arguments during the early round, and speeches that bring new ideas to advance the debate and clash from previous speakers, as the round progresses.

Good synthesis in late round speeches is appreciated but should go beyond rehashing previous statements and be used to present own cohesive arguments.

I do not mind aggressive cross but please be respectful.

For PO, I value those who can demonstrate good knowledge of procedures and manage the chamber in a transparent and efficient manner.