I'm a traditional judge with over 30 years of coaching all events. I am currently teaching a new Debate course at Center Academy for Success.

I debated in high school all four years in both LD and PF. Please don't spread.

I have judged High School Speech and Debate. Was a previous High School Speech Coach.

I like arguments based in concrete examples and sound logic. Competitor understandability is very important to me. Stay away from kritiks and highly technical debate jargon. Win with clear, sound ideas related to the topic at hand.

I pay close attention to the flow. I will flow myself and look for any holes in the debate. It is important to me that you refute each argument that has been made on the other side with evidence. I will be looking for logical fallacies in your argument. In other words, persuade me with the evidence that exists on your side, not the emotional persuasion techniques that support your position. I appreciate a well rounded speaker who is intentional about pace, vocabulary, and the general flow of the speech.

Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

I am currently a middle school teacher in Kansas City. I was on Speech and Debate Teams for six years. I typically mainly focused on forensics. I listen to the facts and arguments in debate and make the decision based on that.

I am a flow judge but for me it's all about the voters! I do judge on appearance and behavior, especially in team debate but it will most likely come down to the flow.

Good Luck!

Email chain: tkitchen4@gmail.com

Intro on myself:

I debated Policy my entire high school career at Lawrence High. (2009-2012)

General:

Read as fast as you want, but please slow down on citations, tags, and blocks so I can keep track of them. My general rule of thumb though is that if I can’t understand you then I can’t vote for you.

Don’t speak over your opponent. It isn’t constructive to the debate nor will it be tolerated. It should also go without saying that if you’re rude in general to the opposing team that it will not be looked kindly upon.

Cutting evidence (e.g. making the font size .1 or taking out things all together) to make your argument sound better is considered cheating in my eyes. Don’t do it.

Speaks are not decided based on speed or presentation alone, but moreover your effectiveness as a debater to convince me of your arguments.

Arguments:

I can handle most arguments. I tend to default as a policy maker. If you choose to run a policy argument just make sure that it is explained well enough as to why I should be voting for it. Other than that I am pretty open to anything you want to run.

K’s- I am not a big fan of Kritiks. I am not saying that you shouldn’t run them, just be aware that you will need to explain it (why I should vote for it) to me very well if you want me to consider it. We’re talking like explaining it to an 80-year-old grandpa who used a flip phone for the past decade and just got his first iPhone level of explanation.

Lastly, and most importantly… Have FUN!

Best of luck!

I am an English teacher and have taught Grades 9, 10, 11, 12, AP Lang, AP Lit and college.

What I value:

• ideas that are clear, well-organized, and appropriately developed;

• evidence that is credible, relevant, sufficient, thoughtfully interpreted and logically arranged;

• strong critical thinking (good definitions, careful distinctions, sharp cause/effect analysis, ability to set aside emotional reactions, ability to explain nuance, etc.);

• anticipation and effective response to reasonable objections;

• manners that are gracious, confident, and respectful and deportment that is dignified and confident (strong speaking voice, good posture, eye contact, etc.)

quick history : debated four years of HS, did PF and USX. 7th PF at districts and 6th in USX, (not super impressive ik but oh well) I’m a sophomore at miz now go tigers

email: chloricname342@gmail.com for questions ig idk

Speed:

I don't really care about speed, I'd like to think I could keep up w most of the policy guys. If I can't hear you or if ur too fast, I will clear and if you don't slow down or compensate I will just not flow the args. Maybe don't go too fast since we're all on zoom :/ If you can’t spread well then please don’t spread, I will value the arguments over the ability to dump evidence on someone.

Frameworks:

If u run a FW, explain to me why its important and why I should value ur framework over the opps. If u run a FW, then make sure u don’t drop it later.

Roadmapping:

I will most likely be flowing the round so please roadmap and make it crystal clear what you’re defending or attacking. I don’t want to hear the usual “today im going to be attacking my opponent and defending my case”. Just quickly tell me the order and reiterate the signposting throughout the speech.

Types of Arguments:

I'm fine w progressive shit, i honestly don't care – I think that if they are done well then they provide value for debate as a whole. If you have weird args just explain them to me and prove to me why they matter, I’m not super well versed in K and Theory but I will work with it.

Don’t run memey cases just to mess with the opp, I’m fine with weird args so long as they are substantial and worthwhile.

Evidence:

I'm fine with paraphrasing, but you better have the actual evidence to back it up. I'm most likely not going to call for evidence unless both teams are arguing over the same evidence or if a team specifically asks me to call for it. If the topic is extremely knowledge dense or acronym dense, please quickly explain what they are as I haven’t even looked at the topic yet. Please don't drop all of ur evidence into the file share if you didn't read it, i won't either.

Impacts:

I like impacts – I won’t cap. I will flow and value any impact so long as you have strong and legitimate links to the argument. Have strong links and probability and I’ll vibe w it.

Decorum:

Don’t be an ass. I’m okay with jokes/wit/all of that and I understand that debate can get toxic but if you are being overly aggressive and disrespectful for no reason, then you’re losing speaks. I personally don’t care abt appearance, I know that we’re all in quarantine especially – I care abt the argumentation more than looking good. Try not to be distracting in ur the way you present urself. I also don’t care abt cursing but im sure ur coach and other judges do so whatever. I don’t like it when people try and kiss the judge’s ass.

CX:

I like crossfire/crossX, I think it’s fun. I probably won’t be voting on anything that comes from it unless it proves that one debater obviously doesn’t know their stuff or if they’ve been caught up. I would rather vote on stuff provided in speeches. I don’t flow CX but if theres a major revelation or sum crzy goes down, I’ll mark it down.

Things I Like to Vote On:

Impacts go brrr. Don’t just tell me the impact, prove to me that its going to happen. Tell me why the impacts matter and why they’re probable and why they’re more important than the opp. You don’t have to go for every argument/impact as long as you sufficiently cover them in previous speeches. Write my ballot for me in ur last few speeches. Please do not bring up new arguments or impacts in the last speech, its disrespectful and I’m not gonna value them. Same goes for arguments that weren’t hotly debated, if you can’t extend an argument through the round then im not weighing it. Point out drops for mad props. Speaks: If ur mad disrespectful or you don’t have ur cases down whatsoever then you’re probably getting voted down.

Random stuff:

Keep track of ur own prep. Don’t try and abuse it or finesse me. If you take ur sweet time finding evidence for the other team, its going to reflect on ur ballot. Citing pop culture or rap lyrics to me will win style points. If u can rhyme or make puns without them being absolutely awful, confusing, forced, or awkward, then ur getting more speaks :)

Hello,

I have experience and success in policy debate in both high school and college. My judging paradigm is best described as tabula rasa (blank slate) with the exception of adherence to traditional debate rules (stock issues, topicality is a priori, etc.). Although I am older, I will be able to keep up (flow) as fast as you can speak.

I believe Lincoln Douglas is more about persuasion than speed. That being said, issues still must be carried through in an LD debate as they form the underlying basis for an effective ability to persuade.

I am open to any questions you may have before the round begins.

Thanks & good luck!

School assistant coach, 5 years judging experience

Policy

Stock Issue approach

Willing to vote on Topicality, Counterplans, Kritiks, or theory.

Against conditional negative positions

Do not exceed 7/10 speed.

LD

Value Criterion may be a major factor in my decision

I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round - winning the value/vc debate determines my framework for choosing the winning side. I then evaluate the contentions based on which side accomplishes that value/vc better.

I keep a flow

I am parent judge. My son was a varsity debater for four years. During his years as a debater, I judged and have continued after, making 2023 my fifth year of debate judging.

What I look for during a debate-

BE RESPECTFUL! Do not talk down to your teammates or opponents or over them.

Be prepared. Track your time and your opponents.

State your case and points clearly- outline them and repeat them.

Speak in words and phrases that the general population understands.

And, last, but not least... be a good sport!

Good luck!

I am a high school teacher. As a judge, I am looking for debaters who:

-speak clearly, concisely, accurately, and respectfully

-behave well, especially while not speaking

-demonstrate knowledge of subject matter and develop logical arguments

I have experience in judging for 4 years.

I value the following: depth in understanding of the core issue, relevancy of evidence and sources, overall delivery/presentation - including your manners to your opponents, please don't spread, and keep track of both your and your opponent's time.

Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution?

Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

Please give voters. Tell me why you have won.

Debate experience: assistant high school debate and forensics coach; high school Lincoln/Douglas debate competitor; frequently judge high school debate.

Notes during the round: a moderate flow of the debate.

LINCOLN/DOUGLAS DEBATE:

Preferred rate of delivery: typical conversational speed.

The value is a required element of a case.

The criterion may be a factor in making a decision, depending on its use in the round.

Final rebuttals may include voting issues, line-by-line analysis, or both. Voting issues may be given as one moves down the flow, or at the end of the final speech.

The use of jargon or technical language ("extend," "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable but not required.

The use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) in the round is sometimes necessary.

I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round.

POLICY DEBATE:

Preferred rate of delivery: typical conversational speed.

Quantity of arguments (on a scale of 1 to 9, with “a few well developed arguments” being 1, and “the more arguments the better” being 9): 5.

Communication and issues (on a scale of 1 to 9, with “communication skills most important” being 1, and “resolving issues most important” being 9): 6.

I am willing to vote on topicality when it is actually an issue in the round, but I do not vote on it when it is not.

If 1 is “not acceptable” and 9 is “acceptable”....

Counterplans are a 7.

Generic disadvantages are a 7.

Conditional negative positions are a 7.

Reasonable debate theory arguments applicable to the topic are a 7.

Reasonable critique (kritik) arguments directly applicable to the topic are a 5.

Policy debate paradigm: Stock Issues

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

Preferred rate of delivery: typical conversational speed.

Kritiks: not legitimate in Public Forum.

Theory debate and its jargon: acceptable, but not preferred in Public Forum.

Public forum is designed to be accessible to the average citizen. The decision is based on argumentation and communication skills.

I like well-structured arguments based on solid reasoning and credible evidence. Don't talk so fast that I can't understand you. Spreading is only beneficial if the judge can understand what you say. This should be an educational experience for everyone in the room. Be a good human and be respectful.

I prefer well-structured arguments supported by thorough analysis and credible evidence

Presentation style is important to me. When presenting your case if you speed through it so fast just to make sure you get every piece of it out will not help your case if I can't understand you.

Don't underestimate the importance of Cross X/Fire.

Evidence Cards - please don't use overly old evidence, just to find ANY evidence to support your cause/case. Do more research and find more current evidence or don't say the old evidence at all.

Respect the time constraints of the debate in all speeches. I don't mind a little over the time but please don't push more than 30 seconds.

I have judged a handful of tournaments since leaving full-time coaching in 2015. I was able to maintain the same flowing abilities and understanding of arguments. If there are new styles of arguments, acronyms, etc., you may need to clarify those. Aside from that, the below remains the same.

- I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discoursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like facr/value debate and have a low threshhold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments.
- I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line!
The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK!
- I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine.
- I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order).
- You cannot perm a DA….period!
- I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”).
- Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy
- If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round.
- I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and
banter are fine, but there are limits.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical
arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions.
The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good;
make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions.
- I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances).
- I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions.
Performance based arguments…
I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing
interpretations?
I require you to win the argument and have a voter….
I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual
competition ok? functional competition?
The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP.
I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will
use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede costbenefit
analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are
diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts
(i.e. "one million deaths")?
I love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these.
One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority.
I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

-Judging Debate & Speech for 6+ years

-familiar with extemp, LD, PuF, and Big Question

-Judging based off: strength of case, ability to attack opponents cases and rebuilding your own, good public speaking skills

Policy

Debate is about persuasion, not about speed. If you can't formulate an appropriate argument because you're too busy speeding through 14 cards in an attempt to make sure that your opponent doesn't get to one, then I'm going to be prone to vote more for the person who missed your cards, but actually formulated well developed arguments.

Also, Policy is policy, I'm voting on pre-plan and post-plan worlds along with stock issues.

It takes a lot to get me to vote on a K, especially with many of the underdeveloped and overreaching kritiks people put out. (Not everything ties into your Anti-Cap or Sexism K believe it or not)

L-D and PuF

This isn't policy debate. Don't treat it like such. And Crossfire/Cross examination is a time for questions. Treat it as such. If you make arguments instead of asking questions in the time allotted for such, I'll be ignoring the argument that you make.

I am a lay parent judge. I value the following:

- Understanding of the core issue;

- relevancy of evidences and sources; common sense arguements

- overall delivery/presentation, including your manners to your opponents;

I am a speech/debate coach. Though I did not participate in the activity myself, I have five years of experience coaching and judging at all levels of competition.

I can follow you at whatever speed you wish to debate, as long as you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

I will be taking notes throughout the round, focusing on key arguments in the case. I am willing to vote on topicality, to vote for counterplans, and to vote for a K, but at the end of the day, my decision will come down to who argues their side most effectively. A well-argued stock issues case will win my ballot over a poorly-articulated theory argument every time (and vice versa).

I debated throughout high school and have judged at tournaments regularly since then.

I will judge, first and foremost, on the content and clarity of your argument. The presentation itself will be used to determine a winner only when the arguments alone cannot determine a victor.

I do expect people to treat one another with courtesy and respect. I do not appreciate bragging, showboating, ignoring or interrupting your opponent, or talking ill of other opponents. I will be taking note of this type of behavior from the moment I enter the room.

I like intelligible speech and stock issues. I'll vote for anything that's persuasive and supported with evidence, though.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

She/her

I competed in competitive speech and debate in high school and all four years of college. From this experience, I know how important it is to walk into each round with an open perspective and leave my personal opinions at the door. I will base my decision solely on who was able to provide/defend their side of the debate the best.

I was a cross-ex debater for three years in high school in the 90s. I flow as well as I can. I am not a big fan of speed. I enjoy good clash in a round. I like it when debaters directly engage with each other's arguments courteously and respectfully. Make your case to me and tell me what arguments stand and why they are important.

- Current Forensics Coach at Pembroke Hill, 7 years of coaching experience and 7 years of competitive experience between NSDA and Collegiate Speech and Debate

- Flay-lay judge. Lightly flow to follow the debate and issues.

- Moderate-low speed preference.

- Voters in final speeches are appreciated.

- Policy- will vote strongly on issues of topicality and relevance to the debate.

I am primarily a forensics coach who has judged Policy a handful of times. I debated Public Forum in college.

My biggest thing is that you don't spread - if I have to stop flowing because you are going too fast or I am trying to understand what you are saying...you have already lost me and I will default to a policymaker paradigm.

It is important to me as a judge that you are kind to one another - a little sass is okay, but be careful of being hateful or rude to one another. That is not the point of this debate.

I care way more about clarity than speed. I appreciate signposting as a flow judge. Don't spread.

I am a lay parent judge. I value the following:

- depth in understanding of the core issue;

- relevancy of evidences and sources;

- overall delivery/presentation, including your manners to your opponents;

• I have experience judging in debate for 12 years.
• I value the following: depth in understanding of the core issue, relevancy of evidence and sources; please don’t spread.
• Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution?
• Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.
  
• Be kind.

I am a former PFD debater and national qualifier. I have a degree in criminology and a law degree. Regardless of debate type, I am not a fan of quantity of quality and I do not enjoy watching a spreading style round. Do not argue that dropping an issue alone is enough to win, expand on why not addressing that issue is a big deal. I am fine with all types of arguments so long as they come across as credible. If I am presented with an impact argument which claims huge and terrible ramifications such as nuclear war, if I do not find that a compelling or likely outcome that will likely be a round deciding issue for me, regardless of whatever else is discussed in round.

I do not flow in the traditional sense but do follow my own style of diligent note taking.

I have judged about 5 rounds this year. I really enjoy a slow, persuasive debate. I have never competed in debate but I enjoy judging and learning new things every round. It really impresses me how much work goes into every competition.

Speaking rate should be normal. Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution? Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

I judge very highly based on speaking. Debate is not just the art of "being right". It is the art of convincing someone, namely me, that you are right. If you have a great flow and argumentation, but speak incredibly fast with no emotional or weighted impacts spoken in a dispassionate tone, ill be more likley to vote for your opponant who spoke better. That is not to say I dont flow, but I do not vote exclusively off of it. It is a balance. You must have good argumentation spoken well. Obviously if you demolish the flow and it is not close I will vote soly based on that. Outside that scenario, however, I vote very highly on speaking. Do not spread or I WILL vote you down.

Traditional style LD. Not big on flowing.

Assistant coach for 5 years.

Taken from Tyler Gamble's paradigm, but holds mostly true for me:
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often that not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are directly oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained...
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Taken from Ellen Ivens-Duran's paradigm:
Here are the things that matter:
I did not debate as a student.
I have judged and coached PF and LD for (5) years.
I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.
...

I have been volunteering for judging this year (2022-23) for the first time. I have read information to help me with the judging process and have talked with other judges about their processes and how to approach judging. Additionally I have researched criteria online from various outlets.

Speech/Debate Experience: Debated policy debate in high school and have been judging debate for the past 7 years.

Speed: I can follow above average speed (it's the duty of the debater to signpost effectively and speak clearly), but I value quality over quantity of arguments.

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, prep time is going. Since policy debate has extended the prep time amount from 5 minutes to 8 minutes, there should be no reason to try to "steal" prep. Evidence exchanges should also be done on prep.

I will be flowing, but will not extend or weigh arguments for you - it must be said in speeches, which have priority. I also will not consider new arguments in the rebuttals. In order to weigh something on the flow, the argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. You need to provide a reason for why the argument is important to my overall decision.

I typically lean more toward traditional debate, in terms of stock issues being the priority for voting. If negative team can prove that the affirmative doesn't fulfill all five stock issues, then the negative should win the round. I will vote on topicality IF it is a clearly untopical case. I am fine with counterplans if the negative can prove why it cannot coincide with the affirmative plan and solves for the same impacts. Kritiks are also fine in the round if they have a clear link to the case, the argument is clear, and provide clash in the round. However, case debate is my preferred style of argumentation.

I have judged practice rounds and enjoyed the presentations and topics presented by students.

I am a Hispanic female, college graduate who grew up in an upper middle-class family in Kansas City. My mother, a native of Mexico, was a homemaker and my father was a political science professor at the university level. I am the mother of three children and have been a stay-at-home mom but also work two part-time jobs. I am open to new ideas and usually try to see both sides of an issue.

I'm a stock issues judge.

I prefer analytics and not having a million arguments speed read to me, unless the argument files are being shared with me directly.

I love DISADVANTAGES.

I'm not a fan of Counter-plans. I've become more prone to believing that the negative should be defending the status quo, not trying to change it, which is the affirmative's job.

Kritiks are tricky. If they are run well and are understood, they can be effective. Please do not try to run a Kritik for the sake of adding more arguments.

I'm a fan of well thought out arguments and the analytics that support your logic and reasoning.

I self-identify as very left leaning, tending to side with ideas that are centered around affirming and aiding in those who are systematically disadvantaged in our society, as well as ideas that are for the betterment of society as a whole. I believe in ideas that might even out the price paid for some of others struggle less, such as paying higher taxes for everyone to have better access to healthcare. I believe in the betterment of society and ALL people that make up our society.

Name: April Palmer

School - LSW

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Assistant Coach of a team

D. Policy debater in HS

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged 20+ years of policy debate.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills -- Be careful not to go too fast. I like conversational speaking.

Stock Issues -- I am "old school" debate and will judge based on the flow as well. Who makes the best and quality arguments for each issue.

Policymaker --

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality IF it is deemed important and worthy of flipping the round.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are acceptable IF it is deemed the only alternative. Then argue quality arguments for/against each side.

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: Not a good idea unless you have very specific links to the case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

L. I have judged LD debate for 20+ years.

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? If I have missed arguments because of speed, then yes.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? YES

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include voting issues and/or major analysis of issues

2. Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow, at the end of the final speech, but either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are necessary to create a "bubble" of the most important arguments.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker and the winner of key arguments in the round.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

I think it's important use evidence to support your points, but you don't need TONS of cards for evidence's sake.

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

I keep a flow until the end.

Name

Charles Palmer

Current institutional affiliation

Lincoln College Preparatory Academy, Kansas City, MO

Current role at institution

Head Debate Coach

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Foreign Language Academy - Head Debate Coach

Debating experience

High School Competitor and Head Coach

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? (Possible answers may include: referee, policymaker, tabula rasa, stock issues, capable of effectuating change or educator). Please elaborate

I’m of the tabula rasa mindset. I accept all arguments and opponents should be prepared to clash with whatever is brought up in a debate round. I will vote for affirmative cases that have no plan or are not necessarily topical on its face if the negative team fails to win their arguments against these types of cases. It should be the ultimate goal of each team to be the most persuasive. My favorite debates are those with great clash and passionate speech. I have no issues with performance teams, but what they say will hold more weight than how they say it.

I will say that I tend to roll my eyes at most claims of 'abuse'. If you're going to claim that another team is abusive, there better be some real validity to it. Don't claim that you didn't have time to prepare for an Aff case that's been on open evidence since the beginning of the season. Additionally, racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other hateful types of comments or arguments will not be tolerated.

I do not count flash time or road maps against prep and debaters should keep their own time. I don’t expect debaters to share evidence with me, unless I request it for the purposes of determining validity or making a final decision, but the debaters should absolutely share evidence with one another. I will only consider arguments that are made from each debater and/ or read in evidence. Open cross-ex is fine, as long as both teams agree to it. Some speed is okay, but make sure I can understand your argument and include me on the speech drop or email chain.

My normal speaker point range is 20-30. I consider not only clarity and how well a debater speaks, but also how persuasive they are and the organization of their thoughts. It is on the debater to be clear from the beginning.

Most of my experience is with policy, but I do have some LD and PF experience. Persuade me.

I will vote based on the argument that persuaded me the most. Effective clash is critical to winning a round although doing so while maintaining professionalism is paramount. If I cannot understand your spread, I obviously will not be able to use it in my decision making. I only have some background in debate, use of debate-jargon is fine just please ensure your explanations are clear.

My name is James Patterson

I was a debater in High School

I have experience in Lincoln Douglas and Speech Events

Preferences:

I will flow most of the round to the best of my ability

Respect is key, its okay to be excited but respect is vital.

You are welcome to spread (speed read) but I would like to have a flow of your arguments.

Speaking clearly is strictly so I can understand your debate round. Your arguments matter.

In Individual Events, speaking clearly carries more weight.

You are welcome to run any argument as long as you tie it into your debate format and topic.

Hi friends:) plz add me to the email chain if there is one @drpham1126@gmail.com

My name is Doanh Pham, but I go by Rita (she/her). Currently debating policy at University of Kansas as a 2nd year. I'm currently a double major in Political Science and East Asian Studies with a concentration in Chinese. Highschool history wise, I debated PF and did IX at Lee's Summit West Highschool for 4 years there. Was decent, was state champ and did the NSDA jazz, you can look me up at Rita Pham on NSDA. PF is my first love!

Don't be a-holes to each other. I'm a firm believer that debate is about education and pedagogy.

No matter what event, framing then tech into truth plz. Judge direction is important, you should tell me from the beginning how I should evaluate the round/on what framework. FRAMING IS TOP LEVEL. Identity politics and structural violence works well with me over extinction/econ impacts. Also evidence quality is so important to me, I will read it if you highlight its important. Below you can see events spec thoughts:

Policy: I love high theory and critical things. any flavors of Ks are welcomed and if I don't know then I'll try to keep up actively. Some of my fav is Set Col, Cap, Asian Identity/Orentialism, Academy.... I think alt is important but if you don't have one, prove to me why your link makes their aff net worse. Im very good judge for identity politics.

Stuff like wipe out and pess/death good, eh idk how I feel about it but I don't particularly love.

K aff are cool, I'm running one for the 2023-2024 season myself - but try to have it tie the resolution somehow. I'm pretty good on the FW debate, impacts like education is more convincing then fairness for the sake of fairness. This means that I'm pretty ok with seeing how the T flow interacts with K affs if that's your thing!

I am ok at policy stuff (don't run more then 4 off as a policy strat, I will be very annoyed and the args start to lose quality), T-subsets and etcs arent my thing but I will still flow. A good DA with a strong link story is always good. Extinction impacts are overrated but I will always vote on what you tell me to vote on.

Don't love PIX/PICS and stuff that steals opponents' args but justify yourself.

I usually don't cancel teams for certain args and will give them grace since I view debate as a game but you can convince me otherwise!

PF: I am very well versed in this area, and a stern believer that PF should remain like PF. Please don't try to be high theory on your opponents, otherwise go try policy.

Since rounds are only 45 min, I think CX should be binding so you can build args. Be organized, I don't care how many contention or subpoints you have, I'll keep up. I flow most things, make sure you signpost. I think since there are less arguments in PF, you should have quality evidence. Logistics are always welcomed, but if most of the round is false logic then I will decide based on evidence quality even if you did well at framing. Just because the nature of PF is more evidence based.

LD: I never did this event but I understand its about morals/ethics and a mix of pf and policy. Especially in LD, you should center around your value criteria. Ref puff stuff to know more about me but I will judge you base on how you want me to.

1. Experience with LD debate: Community Judge

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

B. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? No

C.Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? No

3. How important is the criterion in making your decision? It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

A. Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes

4. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

A. Final rebuttals should include: Voting issues

B. Voting issues should be given: at the end of the final speech, or .

C. Voting issues are: not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is: acceptable

5. How do you decide the winner of the round? I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

6. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? Always necessary

7. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round: I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

1. Your experience with policy debate: Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate: 0-10 years

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate: stock issues

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY: 7

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS: 4

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES: 6

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: 3

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS : 2

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS: 5

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS: 3

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

Hey yall!

⭐ I'm a former college policy debater (2 years) & 4 years in High School. Mill Valley HS Ast. Coach for 4 years.

⭐ You can throw anything at me argument-wise. Speed is fine as long as you are still articulate (a big influence in speaker points is clarity).

⭐ speech drop> email chain. email: hprins@usd232.org

⭐ I read evidence throughout the round, so know that I am paying attention to important warrants, and will only vote on something if there is evidence backing it and it's extended properly throughout the debate.

I was a high school NSDA competitor for four years. I competed in informative speaking, duo interpretation, program oral interpretation, poetry, prose, and expository speaking. I was a two-time national competitor, and in 2022, I was a NSDA national finalist in expository speaking.

Experienced policy judge. Cool with speed and just about everything

This is my first time judging this event. I will be looking for the following:

1. a clear and concise argument with good supporting evidence
2. citations from quality, peer reviewed sources
3. a strong speaking voice with compelling body language and intonation
4. refutation of key arguments that run counter to your own
5. equilibrium and pose

I competed in high School for 3 years(DI, DUO, POI) and was given the opportunity to compete at nationals, so I really love the speech and debate world.

IE:
The main two things I look for is sharp blocking from beginning to end and good characterization. Other important things I look for is whether or not the piece fits you as an individual, is your message clear, is the storyline clear, is your tone and diction clear, and overall impact of the entire piece.

Debate:
Professionalism and clear argument.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Michael Russell

School - Lee’s Summit North

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. travel Coach of a team

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged _8___ years of policy debate.

I have judged only 2 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference): faster is fine. There’s a lot to say.

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS I prefer a few well argued and defended arguments to the Costco-sized jumble of random arguments.

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: more often than not; I prefer topicality over theory

8. COUNTERPLANS: Acceptable if well planned and defended

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES tend to make me think you don’t have a solid specific argument to a case. I lean heavily toward not liking GENERIC disads.

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS Personal preference is to stay away from debate theory and stay with topicality

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS I view these as slightly more acceptable than generic disads, but use them sparingly and with precision.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

Highlight your research. Cards are very important, especially up-to-date citations.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Michael Russell

School: LSN

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

J. Community Judge

L. I have judged LD debate for _8__ years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Rapid conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep. There’s a lot to say and we have limited time.

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep and don’t catch the arguments.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

b) line-by-line analysis, or

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

3. Voting issues are

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Always necessary 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I’m a librarian and believe your cards -- quality, effective research from trusted sources -- can make or break your case. Highlight your research. If you’ve got cards that help prove your point, use them.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

I'm a former HS and College debater... Here's what I would like to see:

Use your words - enunciate when giving speeches ESPECIALLY arguments that you want to highlight

The spread is ok... but remember quality over quantity, I'm looking for some depth in arguments

Know your stuff, or fake it well enough to make clear, concise points that are unrefutable

Beware of important dropped arguments - I can't debate for you. If you miss a moment to go in for the win- that opportunity is just lost.

Everyone needs to live, money needs to be saved.... and without your plan, the world ends. Or something to that effect. Basically, make me a believer using your plan and supporting evidence.

Creativity, compassion and critical thinking are all major points of emphasis when I take notice of when I judge.

My email: ers6535@truman.edu

About me: I did LD all 4 years of high school, briefly did policy, and debated in PF a handful of times. I was primarily an interper and value effective communication over tech. I currently compete for the Truman State speech team and I occasionally do parliamentary debate.

General Preferences:

Speed: I'm begrudgingly OK with speed, but would much prefer a slower round. Both sides MUST agree to speed. I'll accept you spreading cards BUT slow down on tags and analytics. You can give me args at a quick clip but signposting is HUGE for me. Don't expect me to flow your arg if you don't signpost it and don't spread unless I have the doc.

CX: I won't flow cx unless it is brought up in a speech

Ethics: Don't be a jerk! Don't speak over your opponent! I did a speech about sexism in the debate community and I will hold y'all to decent standards

LD Preferences:

Framework: I am a sucker for a phil aff, but make sure you explain it well. Don't expect me to understand obscure philosophical references if you don't explain them. I'm looking for a value and criterion that actually connect with your contentions

Off-Case: I'm fine with off-case positions like DAs, but make sure you identify them as such. I would prefer to vote on case/framework, but I'll vote on a DA if necessary. Don't read a CP. Please.

Theory: Don't be abusive/include spikes in your case/new args in your rebuttal. I'll vote on theory if I have to but would prefer we not go there

Policy Preferences:

Ks: I don't love Ks, but I will vote on them and I recognize their importance and value. Don't read Kritikal affirmatives, soft-left/phil advs are fine. Give me a strong alt and aff-specific links on the neg

T/Theory: If you're running T make sure it's justifiable. There are some theory args I may not automatically understand, so explain them! Don't just say "condo bad" and expect me to know what you mean by that :). Interp, Violation, Standards and voters on theory sheets. Again, I'll vote on theory, but not my favorite. Don't run it unless it's important

I haven't judged this topic at all so don't assume I know the basic arguments. I award high speaks to debaters who prioritize effective communication and argumentation rather than who can spread their opponent out of the round by throwing things at the wall. (I get the need to spread in constructives, but give me a solid rebuttal. frame the round, don't make me do work for you, I'm a lazy judge and I don't like to intervene!)

I am looking for solid logic based arguments, with concrete evidence. I value empirical evidence over anecdotal support.

As a judge I look for who has the more complete argument and successfully refuted the opponent. Ensuring that the judge has complete understanding of the debate style and arguments is crucial.

Hi. My name is Helene Slinker. I am the assistant coach at Raytown South High School in Raytown, Missouri.

In high school, I competed in public forum debate, congressional debate, original oratory, and occasionally U.S. extemp for four years. In college, I competed in policy debate in the NDT-CEDA circuit for two years.

Policy

Policy debate is, largely, a question of impacts. When making a decision, I first look at who had the biggest impact and then evaluate who accesses their impact better. The most important thing for you to do is impact calc/impact weighing.

Speed - I can follow speed. Make sure you're clear on the tagline but you can probably go as fast as you want. I may tell you if you're going too fast or too unclear for me to follow. In general, speaking skills are not a priority to me in comparison to quality of argumentation.

T and Theory - I will vote on topicality, but remember that a topicality argument must have structure. You need an interpretation, violation, standards and voters for topicality to be a viable argument. Make sure you invest time in topicality or theory if you want me to vote on it.

CPs - They are fine, I don't have any strong thoughts. I don't really care either way on conditionality, you need to make sure to invest time on it if you are going for a theory argument.

DAs - DAs are fine, I have no issue with "generic disadvantages." It's all about getting to an impact and outweighing.

Ks - I don't mind Ks. I have some experience running and debating against Ks in college. I don't have an incredibly in depth knowledge of all literature bases though, if you are running something very out of the blue you may want to explain heavily.

K affs - K affs are fine (I have some experience running one) and I will also consider and vote on framework. Whatever is put in front of me, I'll evaluate. Both sides have equal chances to win a framework vs K aff debate.

Other thoughts and pet peeves:

A priority for me is organization. A big pet peeve is when late rebuttals are messy and all over the place. Also, please, split the block!

When you're extending arguments, make sure you're clear about the argument, not just the author.

Please, be nice! I really hate judging mean debates and I will give you bad speaker points if you're mean to the other team. You can be aggressive without being mean.

LD

I did LD for one year, my freshman year of high school. I don't like when people get caught up in the evidence line by line rather than weighing value and vc against each other. The most successful LD teams take their opponents value and prove why they access it more.

Speed - See policy paradigm, I'm fine with it but be clear. Rate of delivery/speaking skills does not weigh heavily in my decision. I will flow the debate just as I would a policy debate.

Evidence vs Values - Values are more important, evidence is encouraged but remember what it is all in support of.

PFD

I did PFD for four years in high school but since doing policy in college my perspective has changed somewhat. PFD can often be confusing to follow. I will flow the debate and vote solely on arguments. Although every speech should be doing impact comparison, the last speech should especially focus on clearing up the remaining offense and defense into a coherent ballot.

I'm a debate coach, and have been for nearly two decades. I've coached kids to state and nationals in a variety of events. I don't need all the technicalities explained to me, and I don't like debates about technicalities, jargon, etc. I want a good CONTENT debate, one that is centered on voting issues and sufficient and credible evidence to support claims. I have a bachelors in communication and a masters in educational psychology. I know a lot about research and research methods. Research is key.

What will win debates with me as a judge, 9 times out of 10, is HOW THE CONTENT IS COMMUNICATED. I want a debate that I can flow easily (which means you link all your arguments to your opponents'), and that I can see the development of arguments. I don't want repeat rebuttals where nothing is developed. I want the last speaker in the round to hone in on the 2-3 voting, essential items that should cause me to cast my ballot in their favor. I don't care about how many arguments you present; I want a solid, credible, an courteous debate.

Have some fun! Smile, we're all here together.

I only provide a policy paradigm:

Don't try to appeal to my style. These are just some thoughts I have on policy debate. I do my best not to intervene as long as I am told exactly how to evaluate positions.

4 years high school policy

College: Parli, CEDA/ NDT and NFA-LD

I am a heavy flow judge. I trace the flow carefully and let it speak for me.

Speed: Whatever you want. Slow and concise beats fast and unintelligible. But if you have speed, I can flow as fast as you want to go. If it's too fast for your opponents, I won't penalize you. I put the burden on the opponent to learn how to listen to speed and flow it.

Procedural and T Arguments:

These are important tests of competitive equity. I will vote on these positions for proven or even potential abuse. I just need the position to do the work for me. Potential abuse is an impact in my world. The abuse doesn't need to occur in round if there is a proven progression that leads to such abuse. I don't explicitly need to see the potential demonstrated by reading a counter plan or DA that creates the double-bind. I need standards/voters for these items or it is impossible to evaluate their offensive potential.

DAs:
Run whatever you want. I'll even accept weak links if you get away with it. In general, I don't have a preference on what DA the debater runs. Just make sure it is complete.

The K:

The K is an argument that must be handled with care. Be very careful with these arguments. I have been known to vote on K's over and over again, while also heavily penalizing teams for not understanding their advocacy. Be well practiced and provide me with a solid framework for evaluating the K. Implications of a K are just as dangerous as a direct impact. Please leverage these implications theoretically as deep as possible or the K's weight diminishes.

K Aff/Performance Aff:

Do it and do it well. If you don't do these well then don't do them.

Counterplans:

CPs are a test of the Affs uniqueness and competitive equity. I like to see framework/theory attached to CPs. Give me a criteria to evaluate this test of competitions. If your solvency is weak, you can still win a CP. Be strategic.

The perm:
Perms are important and provide a decent test. Please, aff, do not spend too much time on the perm. These things shouldn't take more than 20 seconds to explain.

Theory:

I vote on theory arguments with offense obviously.

Conditionality is a good thing:

In my world all positions including some stock planks /advantages of the affirmative are conditional unless told otherwise in a theoretical argument.

RVI:

If an RVI is placed, I must have very very good evidence/analytics and framework to evaluate it and effectively vote on it.

Debate:

- I would like to see:

- Money saved

- lives saved

- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers

- Not a huge fan of spreading

- I love seeing new ideas

- Love seeing on case attacks as well

IE Forensics:

- I'm looking for the following

- Your own interpretation of the literature

-Good Memorization

- Understanding of the character

- Understanding of the entire literally selection

- Good characterization

- Projection

Mubariz Tahirkheli (Pronounced Moo-bar-is Tar-Kelly)

Please add me to the email chain: mtahirkheli20@gmail.com

Experience and Overview: I was a 4 year Policy Debater and Original Orator at The Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, Missouri. I graduated from Pembroke Hill in 2020, and I am now attending Washington University in St. Louis, though I am not participating in any college level speech or debate program as of now. My debate experience was in a lay-centered circuit, but I occasionally had slow flow and fast flow rounds when it came down to it. I qualified to NSDA nationals in Policy my senior year, but my school opted out due to the online format. I have now judged Varsity Policy, Novice LD, PFD, and Policy. Most of my preferences on argumentation on here are about Policy, so if I am judging you in another event, make sure to ask me any questions!

TLDR:

Clarity is the most important part of debate for me. I will try my best to understand the argument you present, no matter its complexity, but if you aren't clear enough in your delivery or the explanation, it may as well not be an argument. I prefer policy to K debate, but do what you want. Again, I'm trying to be open minded to all arguments. There are specific arguments I might not be able to handle, but you'll need to read on to learn more.

General:

Speed: With the aid of the speech documents, I can handle flowing rounds up to speeds of 300-350 words per minute, but so long as you are clear. Honestly, if you really like, you can go faster if you are extremely clear, but I might tell you "clear" so slow down if I do. Clarity is the most important part of delivery to me. Please be respectful to your opponents on the matter of speed as well, don't spread if they are not up for it. As to what speed I prefer, rounds in which everyone is speaking at a pace of 240-300 is ideal. One note on speed I will reiterate later on: if you are reading high theory or critical positions, I would prefer you don't spread them (max 225-230 wpm). I really want to understand the position you read without making any limitations to what you can and cannot read, so that is one wish, above all, I hope you all can fulfill for me.

Signposting: If you don't signpost to the point where your speed drastically decreases and is extremely clear you're moving from one card or argument to the next, don't blame me for missing it on the flow.

Overviews and Extension: I don't think you need to say "Extend ____ in 20" at the top of the flow so long as at the top of the flow you give a good story and explanation of the page of flow. I think saying "Extend/Cross-apply ____ in 20," or some other form, is necessary when you're trying to answer a newly made argument with a card you already read.

If you are winning the flow absolutely, but you are being disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, etc, I won't vote for you (this includes to your own partner). I've seen and heard of too many people in my circuit giving up on debate because of the toxic environment, and I cannot endorse such a bad representation of the activity.

Arguments:

Topicality: T was one of my favorite arguments to run and write cases of in high school, but I only ever ran it when I knew it made absolute sense. If you run T, you should know how to run it. Topicality for me is mostly about the interpretations and how they are a measure of good debate. So, mainly focus on developing your interpretations with strong analytics on standards and voters. One note worthy of mentioning is that you should run T not as to overwhelm your opponent, but to actually promote good debate and clash on whether the AFF is topical. I would hate to write an RFD in which I think the AFF is reasonably topical, but they lost the Topicality flow.

Framework: For me, framework is its own page of flow and in order to win it, you need to have in-depth analysis on your FW and the opponent's FW. Don't read a lot of cards on framework in the 1AC, two or three should be the max.

DAs: Specific links are the way to go unless you can make a generic link work with enough analysis (one CX concession won't usually work for me). I dislike DAs that have a link/IL/impact story that become really long. You really have to do a lot of work if you want to read a link/IL/impact story like this for me to vote on it.

CPs: You have to really explain the severance perm should you decide to read one. I don't think you should read an intrinsicness perm with me as the judge as I have only heard of them and never debated one and don't know the theory arguments on them. I prefer if you have solvency advocates of the CP. I will choose to judge kick so long as the situation makes sense. Also, Delay CPs are bad and unfair, I ran them a few times in high school and felt horrible after winning a round with them. They just don't feel legitimate to me.

Performance AFFs: I don't think you should read a Performance AFF in front of me. I have no experience with them.

Ks and Critical AFFs: I have some experience with Ks, and you can run them with me as judge so long as you are clear and don't spread (max 225-250 wpm). The reason I want you to speak slower is so that I understand the arguments and so that a team doesn't have a disadvantage because they are less familiar with the K you are running. I have a particular interest for learning more critical arguments, and I'm sure your opponents do too, so please let this aspect of the round be as fully educational as possible. Please run specific links to Ks, or at least generate a sound link in CX. As for critical AFFs, I have really no experience with them, but feel free to run them so long as you explain ROB and voters as clearly as possible.

Miscellaneous:

Lots of clash on case is ideal

I judge the round usually on how the debaters want me to judge it. You tell me what the voters are. You tell me the role of the ballot.

I am a forensics coach. I have judged all debates for over 10 years now. I competed in PFD when I was in high school in 2010. I will not be taking a rigorous flow. I will take notes and focus on the big arguments of the round and keep track of who is winning the largest points of clash in the round. I do value public speaking and persuasion, but do not judge based solely on that. I am OK with speed, but you must have clear diction and articulation.

Open to any specific questions.

In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Delivery is secondary but still important.

While judging I look for conviction, practice and self confidence in a piece or debate. I look for respect of opponents and a professional demeanor. A variation of tone, clarity in speech and excitement can bring a performance to the next level.

I participated in Individual Events for four years in high school. I am very familiar with all IE's, and I'll judge them based on whether they are well blocked, performed, and memorized.

Additionally, I was a policy debater. I enjoyed high school policy debate to such an extent that I then decided to debate in college. I'm pretty much open to any argument that is well thought out and supported with solid evidence. I don't bring any predispositions to the table, but I do expect a manner of civility for each other and respect for the activity in which you compete. Please tell me how you want me to vote in the final speeches.

I was in speech and debate in high school from 2015-2019. I did HI, DUO, storytelling, poetry, and POI. Last year, I was an assistant coach for Blue Springs High School. This year, I am the assistant coach for Moreland Ridge Middle School. I never competed in debate, but I have judged many debate rounds before.

I am a lay judge. I can flow and will follow arguments. I'm not a fan of spreading.

I've judged various kinds of debate for 13 years.

I don't like it when debaters talk really fast and I usually don't follow most of it when they do. Trying to get more in by taking fast won't help the debate, I would rather they slow down and make less points more meaningful.

I have very little tolerance for debaters who are rude to each other or disrespectful to me as a judge. Good sportsmanship is a must. Debates are so much more fun to watch when the participants are civil :)

I decide a winner based on whoever does the better debating, not based on what I think about a particular issue. So saying, "For these reasons and many more, I urge a ___ vote on today's ballot." will not help. I don't judge anything that isn't said in the round, only the points the debaters actually make.

In debate events, my default for any event is tabula rasa.

Tell me why your arguments are important and why they are more important than your oppositions'.

Tell me how I should evaluate the round and give me reasoning why your evaluation technique should be preferred over your opponents'.

I don't mind speed or critical arguments, but clarity is important if you're going to speed.

Roadmaps, taglines, and impact calculi are your best friends.

In acting and speaking events where clash may not be an element, I tend to judge you on performance and piece selection.

Beyond those two points, I tend to ask these questions (not exhaustive) of any performers:

Have you practiced and executed your physical performance? (Blocking, etc)

Have you rehearsed your vocal performance? (Intros, Transitions, etc.)

Have you chosen literature/topics that you relate to? Does the topic allow you to express yourself through interaction with it?

Is your piece respectful of sensitive issues or populations? If not, is there a point? What am I supposed to take away from your performance?

In general, I don't care whether you come in sweat pants or business attire, but please treat others professionally and with respect.