For debate: Quality of the argument and evidence is paramount, but presentation and confidence can add to the quality of the argument. Make sure to support your arguments with evidence, and respectful debate is always a must.

For speech: Presentation and flow is important. Make me feel something by using good examples in an impactful way. It should feel organic and natural, not rehearsed.

For PF I like to see good quality evidence first and foremost. The team that appears to use the best evidence in the most honest way will most likely receive a winning vote from me.

In LD, evidence is still good, but should not be the focus of the debate. Getting bogged down in a credibility debate with respect to evidence, to me, doesn't seem to be in the spirit of LD debate. My vote in LD rounds will go to the debater that has the better reasoning and better utilizes their value and criterion, with quality and quantity of evidence taking a back seat.

I'm new to judging so I probably won't be impressed by crazy tactics. Don't be rude to your opponent and help me understand your case and you'll do well. Speak up, don't fidget and have fun!

Hi, most likely I'm your judge for your next round, so here's what you need to know. Please feel free to ask any questions. I know this is way too long, so if you didn't have time to read it before the round just let me know and I'll give you the gist of what's in here.

My Background: I am a graduated high school policy debater. I loved running aff plans that have very clear solvency, fit clearly in to the topic, and thoroughly accomplished a narrow goal. I like pinna coladas and getting caught in the rain. I prefer plans that don't try to save the whole world at once through vague means. This is policy debate, so I love talking about the law itself, it's durability and viability. I loved running clever counter plans and kritiks. If your argument is strong and you're good at telling it, I'll read just about anything.

Side note, I love the Phineas and Ferb and the avatar. Reference either of those shows in a cool way, and I'll give you an extra speaker point. If you work in a quality secret tunnel analogy, it'd be the highlight of my life and I might not be able to fairly judge the round. I'm kidding I think...

My pet peeves:

1. Talking past each other. I want to hear you respond directly to your opponent. Don't just tell me they're wrong, tell me why.

2. Not citing evidence. Please tell me where you are in your plan, and what card you're reading from.

3. Dishonesty. I know when you drop a point in the debate it's tempting to claim you brought it up when you didn't. I'm taking notes, so I know what you said and I'm not dumb. Please don't purposely miss quote evidence, or do anything that would be in bad faith.

4. Yelling, demonization, and emotional appeal. Keep the round polite. I don't have a problem with an assertive tone in cross, but when calling another team out on topicality, evidence, ad hominin, or any other violations, please maintain a fairly even tone. I'll just get annoyed I feel like you're taking it too far, or being whiny.

5. Yes you can time your self, yes I'm ready, yes you can start.

How I vote:

I will only consider evidence and arguments made in the round. I will vote down some abusive strategies, but only if abuse is egregious, or if it is brought up in the round. Don't bring up new args in the 2AR unless you want to piss me off. (am I allowed to say piss in a paradigm?)

You can bring in new evidence untill the last 2 speeches. New arguments are allowed untill the 1AR.

I don't find sandbagging arguments convincing, but you're welcome to try.

Aff: In order to win, you need to defend your stock issues. I don't care if you name all of them, or if your plan is traditional or progressive. Additionally you need to prove the comparative advantage of the aff world to the neg world. Obviously perm neg counterplans if they're not mutually exclusive. If you can prove that you're topical, and that your world is better than the neg world, than you'll win.

Unless you want to run an Aff Kritik, then I'm all ears, cause everything is debatable

Neg: First of all, I'm not going to vote down the Aff on topicality, unless they fail to defend it, or they've really got some kind of wacky squirrely plan. If you're arguing about legal definitions vs dictionary, or you're trying to say your definition of a word is better, I seriously doubt your argument is going to be strong, but by all means bring it up. Death by a thousand cuts is one of the best negative tools. As the negative you have a lot of freedom. Run whatever you want. Entertain me. I love a good counterplan. I love a good kritik. If you lose the perm arguement you will probably win the round. Prove that the aff plan won't work, that it has dire unintended consequences, or that it triggers your kritik. Be carful you don't fall into your own kritik or disad.

Both teams:

Spreading is great if you're using it to make more arguments. Just make sure its clear, and ask the other team if they're ok with spreading. If you didn't ask, then I'm going to have to be open to any procedural arguments they run against you. If you're going to run a spreading violation, then please tell them to slow down first.

Evidence is extremely important. I want to hear arguments on who's evidence is more credible and why. I also want you to understand what your evidence is saying and why. I will accept arguements based on common sense. I don't think you need a card to say the sky is blue. Your evidence is important, but you should be able to understand and explain why it is correct. Your evidence should be properly cited in mla format, but I'm not going to vote another team down on evidence violations. I might not consider the card if it isn't properly cited, depending on the arguments in round.

Disadvantages: I'm not easily persuaded by nuclear war, climate change/extinction impacts. I think it is too easy to argue that they are either inherently unlikely or inevitable. I also don't think its very good for a policymaking type experience. I'll absolutely listen to and weigh these impacts. Just know I'm not going to like it.

Counter Plans: Are cool and quite fun. If you run one, make sure you've thought it through. It should probably be mutually exclusive if you want it to go very far. Topical counterplans, or pic plans do probably steal aff ground, but I think this can be argued against pretty successfully.

Permutations: Advocacy or non advocacy? There are arguments for both. I think probably the strongest type would be a non advocacy perm, but that's up to you. Also severance perms are slightly evil and sooooo fun to do. Be warned however, I don't think they're very fair, so depending on what your opponents say, you might not get away with it.

Kritiks: I'll admit I'm not the most familiar with kritiks. I've run a few, and I think they're realy interesting and a lot of fun. Make your points clear. Make sure the link is strong, and that you tell me why to vote for you. I'm not going to be super sympathetic to identity Ks, but if you argue well I'll consider anything.

Good luck!

I'm looking for the team that is most successful in convincing me, with logic, humor, and good sense. N.E.

I competed in LD for four years and have been judging for the last three. I've judged everything under the sun, but I'm most familiar with the debate events. For debate events, I am fairly traditional, though I can follow more progressive arguments. I prefer good logic and argumentation over just throwing evidence out there. Make sure you explain your links and impacts well. I don't flow cross ex, so make sure you bring up anything you feel was important in your speech. For speech events, I pay attention to overall presence as you present as well as the content of your speech itself. I look to be entertained and engaged, but I don't want to see things get to theatric (unless it's an interp of course). Make eye contact, be confident, be engaging. I love debate and I love judging. So as long as everyone's respectful, we should all have a good time :)

Traditional, no spreading.

Larsen, Hunter

Judge for: Hurricane High School, UT-US

Background: 4 Year HS Debater, 9 Year Judge (Debate: CX, PF, LD) ( IE: O.O, FX, DX, Impromptu)

Events: Policy(CX), LD, PF, O.O, IMP, FX/DX

LD Paradigm: LD isn't "Policy Light." LD is a difficult exercise in philosophical reasoning, stylish presentation and persuasion. The LD format requires the use of a value and a value-criterion. The value is the abstract good to be achieved. The value-criterion is the standard used to measure success in achieving the value. If you would like a high score, don't either focus exclusively on public policy outcomes, or use a lot of policy debate jargon. Spend some time analyzing and answering the following questions: What does it mean to achieve your value? Why is it compelling and preferable to your opponent’s value? What is your standard? What makes it a good measure? What is your opponent's standard? Does your opponent’s value-criterion succeed or fail as a good measure? If it fails, don’t just say so; explain your reasoning, and prove it! Persuade me!

PF Paradigm: To understand my paradigm, you'll need to know a bit of PF history. CNN founder, Ted Turner was one of the early sponsors of PF. For a while, PF was called "Ted Turner Public Forum Debate." PF is based upon version 1.0 of CNN's television show, "Crossfire" (1982 -- 2005). My paradigm: During each and every moment of the round, you are on-camera being watched by a national television audience. You are never off-camera. Thus, you'll need a TV persona. I’m looking for brief argument with traction. Get in there. Stay organized. Make your points quickly. Argue persuasively. To do PF well, you must learn the forms of rational and reasonable argument, the figures of speech and the logical fallacies. Most importantly, however, you must learn how to handle an intractable opponent while simultaneously persuading and motivating an audience.

CX Paradigm: Stock issues: In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. I dislike newer arguments such as kritiks and some theoretical points.

NO SPEWING!!!!

SPEECH:

When It comes to speech I am looking for articulate and prepared speakers.

O.O: I am looking for clear well written original speeches, the speech should be persuasive and articulate. The speech should be something you are passionate about.

DX/FX: Your speech should be informative and have at least 3 clear sources. The presenter should be prepared and knowledgeable on the topic chosen, they should also provide clear points and strong arguments on their point.

IMP: I am looking for clarity, clear points and a compelling speech on the topic chosen. (If it's funny, sad, serious, ect. make me feel it.)

My judging paradigm aligns most closely with the Stock Issues paradigm, but with a nod toward the Appearance paradigm. Logically reasoned negative arguments can singularly defeat reasoned affirmative arguments. Presentation is also important, so clarity of speech and projection is paramount, whereas speeding/spreading should be avoided.

My judging paradigm aims towards speaking skills and communication. I want to observe an organized presentation that is well structured and flows with a beginning, middle and end. Persuasion should be articulate backed up with references and reliable data, and presented arguments need to be appealing. Pace should be at a level that the listener is able to follow along and understand speech.

1. Be Respectful! I expect you to respect me, your opponent, and yourself.

2. Be Confident! Don't stress too much; I'm nice I promise.

3. Use facts not opinions! Try your best to not add your own bias to help your case; it won't.

4. Try your best! Even if you don't care for your topic, please put your best foot forward.

My background is in policy debate, but I coach all forms of debate. For policy, I'm generally a stock issues judge, at the end of the round, I see who won on stock issues and/or who won on impact calculus. I tolerate spewing/spreading and progressive debate, but I want to see you impact your arguments (explain to me what your evidence means in the round). If you run Ks, DAs, I want to see more specific links, and generally view generic links as weak. I prefer more traditional debate with on-case arguments. I also look at good reasoning, good clash, and good presentation/persuasion delivery in the round.

Old school debate judge. Preference towards comprehensive speech and evidence. Semantics are fine, fallacy, logical args. appreciated. 1 1/2 years Policy experience, 1/2 year Lincoln Douglas experience, experience in Congress and most speech events.

DEBATER PREFACE: Speaker points are to be earned through quality of presentation. Spreading is fine so long as it is comprehensible. If an argument is being presented so quickly it cannot be understood, I will not be able to consider it while judging. Personal kritiques to be avoided unless there is substantiated backing.

Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and have been judging for a few years. My paradigm comes from Aristotle. I am looking for pathos, ethos and logos. Pathos- Is there an emotional connection? Is it personal? Why should I care? Ethos-Are there reasons to support your credibility? Logos- Do you have a logical and reasonable argument?

More specific to Debate: I understand that debaters have a lot of evidence to present, but if you speak so fast that I do not know what you are saying than you will likely rank lower. It is important that you know how to pronounce words, otherwise it doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about. It is vital that you cite sources to support your case. I will be flowing and trying to give weight to arguments that best carry through. Please avoid personal attacks. ln LD, your case is stronger if the value and criterion line up with contentions.

Dislike: nitpicking about rules.

I expect everyone to be respectful of one another, in speech and in action, during speaking and listening.

I did debate for 4 years, my main events were congress and BQ. I am also familiar with other events.

Debate: I will flow, or at least try my best to flow arguments made during speeches. I won't flow cross, anything substantial in cross should be brought up in your rebuttals for me to flow. I usually keep up with fast talkers, but spew at your own risk, cause if I can't understand your points, well... that's not good for you.

Speech: I'm looking for a good well together speech. I want to have my attention grabbed, and stay hooked throughout your speech. I would love to walk away from a speech round learning something new, this means giving background information to the topics. The more confident you are in your topic also helps.

Congress: If I'm somehow judging congress, rip. `You will probably ask for my paradigm while waiting for round to start because congress never runs on time. In the rare event this doesn't happen, I will judge more on the quality vs quantity of speeches. I want to see good arguments and rebuttals form throughout the progression of the debate. I will keep a tally of questions asked in the event of a tie breaker, but ultimately your rank is going to be determined by your speeches. I will judge the chair based on how well they run the house(I see you chair).

If you have any questions, please ask before rounds. Good luck!

Email: sami.sampson23@gmail.com

Novice judge committing to approach each round tabula rasa. Thank you for the opportunity.

Philosophy:

I believe debate is not only a competitive activity but also a powerful educational tool that sharpens critical thinking, public speaking, and research skills. My primary goal as a judge is to create a fair and constructive environment where all debaters can learn and improve.

What I Value:

1. Clarity and Organization: Arguments should be clearly articulated and well-organized. Signposting and road mapping help me follow your case structure and argument progression.
2. Evidence Quality: I prioritize well-researched, credible evidence and expect debaters to explain its relevance and impact on their arguments.
3. Engagement: Direct engagement with the opponent’s arguments through refutation and rebuttal is crucial. I appreciate when debaters systematically address and dismantle opposing points.
4. Speaking Style: While persuasive and clear communication is important, I prioritize substance over style. However, debaters should strive to be understandable and engaging.

Topicality and Framework:

I expect the affirmative team to present a case that is topical and adheres to the resolution. Framework debates should be clear and directly impact how I evaluate the round.

Argumentation:

I am open to a wide range of arguments, including policy proposals, critical arguments, and kritiks, as long as they are well-explained and directly relevant to the debate at hand. Logical consistency is important to me.

Cross-Examination:

Cross-examination periods should be used effectively to clarify, challenge, and set up arguments. Respectful and strategic questioning is valued.

Decision Making:

My decision will be based on the flow—whichever team more effectively advances their arguments and negates their opponent’s points will likely earn my ballot. I consider dropped arguments as conceded, but their impact on the round must be articulated.

Feedback:

I provide detailed feedback focusing on strengths, areas for improvement, and the reasoning behind my decision. I aim to offer constructive criticism that debaters can use to enhance their skills.

Conduct:

Respectful conduct towards opponents and judges is mandatory. I will not tolerate any form of misconduct or disrespect.

Final Note:

Debate is a learning experience. I encourage debaters to take risks, be creative, and most importantly, enjoy the process. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Written in collaboration with ChatGPT.

I look for professionalism/poise, conscious involvement, and organization. Knowledge of the topic is a perk.

I dock for eye rolls and drama.