Hello! My paradigm will be broken down into a general overview of how I judge and specifics for each main event is listed below. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round starts.

I don't typically judge on this point, but remember to respect everyone in the round. This means not insulting people, respecting people's pronouns and prefered names. Generally, don't be rude and disrespectful. If there is a major issue in this regard I will take it to tab and contact the coaches and individuals who need to know. I don't expect this to be an issue, but I do want to set the expectation.

I did debate in high school so I am very familiar with all of the events. I primarily competed in Policy and LD. I'm primarily an impact and flow judge. Show me clear links to the impacts and how they are relevent to the round. Make sure that arguments aren't dropped, and if they are I know why and that it's intentional. I don't mind if people speak quickly, as long as all the judges (if there are multiple) and competitors agree before the round begins. I'm not a huge fan of spreading, mostly because I have often seen it used as a way to overwhelm the other team and win because of dropped arguments instead of debating in any real depth. I think it is important to have multiple different arguments to present, but I do prefer quality over quantity. If you set up a SpeechDrop or email chain please include me in it. Overall, be nice, have fun and try your best!

Policy:

Policy was the event I did the most in high school, so while I may not be familiar with the topic, I am well aware of the rules. I like impact debates with a solid focus on the flow. However, don't sacrifice comms for flow or impacts. I don't mind Counter Plans or Topicality arguments, but I'm not a huge fan of Kritiks. If you decide to run a K, make sure you understand it very well and have a solid link and alt. I don't usually vote on Ks and I often find them to be more trouble than they're worth. Many times people don't understand what they're saying and missinterpret the authors they're citing. I will know if you don't understand what you're saying, it will affect the quality of the debate, and impact your chances of winning. I like seeing a lot of clash on both sides of the flow. Make the round interesting, show me exactly why the plan is either a great or a terrible idea.

LD:

I love the value and criterion debates in LD. I like a lot of clash on both sides of the flow, but don't forget the value and criterion. I am a more traditional person when it comes to LD because I don't like counter plans or counter advocacies and I like seeing the moral side of the debate. Impacts are important, but in LD morality is the primary focus. Please don't try to turn the round into policy or PF. Those events have their places, LD is not one of them. I have yet to see a Kritik in an LD round that needed to be there. Often the arguments in the K could just be run as part of the case, so I'm not a huge fan.

PF:

I didn't really do PF in high school, so I am less familiar with the rules and standards. Regardless, I like seeing a solid framework that is upheld in the round and a solid flow. I do like impacts and clear link chains. I do prefer when frameworks are more than Cost Benefit Analysis, but it's not a requirement to win.

Communication is Key!!

I also vote on Stock Issues.

Tag Teaming and arguments based on T are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. You should be able to perform a good speech without having to shock and awe me through graphic depictions.

Hello!

My paradigm is rather simple. I tend to be an impacts judge and go for whichever side can impact calc. their arguments out. Students should debate the way they want to, just please make sure I can hear you. I can follow speed, just make sure that you enunciate clearly so that I can still follow. If you have any additional, specific, questions please feel free to ask me about them before the round. For the purpose of setting up email chains, my email is hubbchri@gmail.com

I am a mixture of communication and flow. I need to see you hold up your own case, but I do care how you express yourself and treat your opponent. Civility is crucial. If you are rude, patronizing, or needlessly aggressive, you will lose. I need to understand what you say, so please speak slowly enough for me to understand.

I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguements and communicate effectivly. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your arguement and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. Keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!

I've been judging for more than 15 years now. I've been a coach for more than 7 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

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

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

Congress: I very much hate redundant, rehashed, speeches. You don't all need to speak on the same bill. It hurts you when you do that because the later speeches don't have new points and don't progress the debate. Direct, by name, refutation is absolutely going to help you. Using evidence AND citing your evidence is absolutely going to benefit you. You don't need to wave your arm like you're trying to conduct an orchestra. Movement can either add or detract from your speech. Move with a purpose and make sure that it adds to your speech otherwise it's a waste. If you use an intro, which is recommended, make sure you tie it into your conclusion because it ties everything into a nice little bow. I, also, use the NSDA guidelines for scoring speeches and PO time.

P.O. Be ruthlessly efficient. Cut out all of the unnecessary wording. You don't need to thank them for a speech. If we just had a speech in affirmation we don't need to tell everyone that. You can just say "negation" and tap and expect people to rise to be recognized. That saves a lot of time. Same thing for questioning. Cut out all the unnecessary words. It slows the round down and makes it so you don't get the maximum number of speeches. Shut down dilatory motions. Only recognize one motion at a time. Keep the chamber in order. Don't recognize motions that aren't a part of Parli Pro.

SPEECH:

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

I have been judging for the last eight years. One of my important rules are if you are the AFF. it is your burden to prove your case. The neg only need to break down your case by two points. They will the case. I don't mind speed but the easier it is to understand you the better it is for you. I love when you battle each other but in a clean and respectful way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your round, take the experience to learn to critique your case and grow. Good luck!

I like good strong evidence that backs up your claims.

Be respectful

Okay with speed but make sure you are understandable.

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

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

2x Nats Attendee in Policy

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

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

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

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

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

With this background I look for arguments and presentations:

1. That are persuasive.

2. That are full arguments (without holes).

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

4. Good connection with audience.

5. Good speed (not too fast).

6. Believable.

7. Professional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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