I am a debater from Arkansas who has competed in the majority of NSDA events, especially within debate. I now do IPDA and Ethics Bowl on the collegiate level. I'm majoring in Psychology and Educational Studies at Macalester College.

Across all debates, there are a few things that I value quite highly:

I believe the value of debate is to forcibly create spaces where voices are humanized and uplifted, and knowledge is freely shared in order to shift our own sense of reality. I also believe that dialogue is how we as humans learn and construct a critical consciousness of the world around us ala Paulo Freire. That said, it is required that you keep the space of discourse OPEN: I want debate to remain equitable and accessible for all. This means no spreading (dont go higher than 225-ish wpm), and minimal theory, kritiks, counterplans, unless well-elaborated and well-applied (and your event allows it!). In a round with me, it is okay to abandon your trained debate skills a little bit and just get real with me. Essentially, I'm not looking to see how "good" you are at the unspoken rules and formalities of debate as an activity. Your job is NOT to prove to me that you are smart. I already know that you are smart. Rather, I am looking at whether you spent enough time pondering your own case and whether you can critically engage with your opponent's case. Remember, the goal is to keep the space open for ALL forms of ideas and knowledge. This also means you can speak however feels least restrictive and most comfortable to you e.g., I don't care if you sound academic, so long as I can understand you. Additionally, if you need to pause for a second during your speech, take a breath, take a sip of water, or anything else to help your brain process its thoughts, I won't mark you down.

As far as evidence goes, I believe the standards for evidence in debate as well as academia have been constructed by those who seek structural power and come from a place of abusive privilege to exclude the voices of the oppressed. That said, I believe all forms of evidence are valid, insofar as you can justify your use of it and that you are NSDA compliant. If you want to use poetry, song, discuss art and media, or anything else to represent your point, I will totally accept that as fair evidence so long as you sufficiently analyze it! If it holds meaning to you and you resonate with it, I think it is important for you to include it in your case. However, if it isn't topical, I will not buy it.

TIPS AND TRICKS BELOW!!!

***It is crucial that your impacts are not only applied to your own case, but applied to all arguments made in the round. It is not likely that I will buy an argument that has offers impacts without this kind of analysis.

***(For team debates): First speaker won't get max speaker points because they can read a case verbatim without stuttering. The more of your personality that shines through in your speech, the more points you will get. This also goes for the second speaker in regards to reading cards; they should supplement your speech, not fill up the entirety of it.

***Cross examination is a time for you to try to better understand your opponent's case. If you use it as an opportunity to point out flaws in their case, great! i dont care unless you mention it in a later speech. If are confused about the logic of your opponent's case, also great; I won't flow it against you and will probably tune out your opponent's answer to reduce bias. Basically cross-examination is one of the most pedagogically valuable parts of debate and I think using it to learn about your opponent's stance is totally acceptable if you wish to do so.

BIG NO-NO'S THAT WILL LIKELY GET YOU A FAT L:

***rudeness, profanity, or attitude that is meant to either intimidate or take a stab at your opponent(s) personally

***violating any rules in the NSDA unified manual

***going over on speech times or prep time. this goes overlooked in most rounds but I will not allow you to continue for any more than around 10 seconds after the timer goes off. if this happens often, you will not see many speaker points awarded to you

***a lack of case structure. i must hear signposting that i can write down on my flow paper or else i will have trouble flowing your arguments. however, following the dominant case structure of contention, subpoints, impact, is not necessary. you CAN be creative with your case construction so long as it flows logically. in that line of thought, PLEASE no meme cases. please don't waste my time, i'm not being paid to judge you.

***referring back to evidence by name/year but not reminding me of the content. DO NOT EXPECT ME TO BE FAMILIAR WITH ANY CARDS! i am almost always a tab judge!

Things I Am Okay With That Could Actually Help You Win) :

***Evidence chain. yes im fine with it. just let me know you added me (my email is davida9202@gmail.com)

***Referring back to my own paradigms in round for any reason!! Yes really!!

***Using sound logic to warrant your arguments (if nuclear bombs drop on a populated area, people will probably die. duh. you dont need evidence for that. you do need evidence that the bomb will drop in the first place, however)

***Getting into the debate of ethics, morality, or any other philosophical concepts. Usually that stuff is reserved for LD and BQ but i think it is paramount in all forms of debate. I reeeeeally love post-structuralist and critical theory scholarship (Foucault, Said, Freire, Hooks, Fanon, Deluze to name a few).

***i also love framework/definition debate. i think it's really fascinating in its ability to frame the reality of which your arguments are applied. get into it!

yeah just have fun. i weigh most heavily what is brought up in final speeches when you are offering me voters, consolidations, etc.

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Volunteer

This is my third time judging a debate. I do have additional exposure to debate through my daughter, now in her third year of debate/forensics. My education is in business however I have spent the last 10 years of my career in Higher Education.

I will do my best to judge each round fairly and to do that I expect the following from you.

-- I am newer so please don’t use any debate jargon as it may be lost on me.

-- Provide clear and understandable arguments and supporting evidence.

-- Please speak at a reasonable speed and enunciate clearly. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.

-- Keep it professional and respectful. Any demeaning or disrespectful behavior could cost you the round.

-- Have fun and good luck to each of you!

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not want to see a performance (deal-breaker)—I took policy debate extremely seriously, and I only want to see your creativity showcased through your strategy and your arguments; however, a relevant and cutesy pun here and there will be well-appreciated.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

They/Them

I am a debater at the University of Arkansas. I did HS Forensics and Debate at Fayetteville High School and graduated in 2021. I mostly did Big Questions, Congress, and Public Forum.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out! greenlee.m.crow@gmail.com (add me to any email chains please)

Run whatever you want, as long as it's explained well and links.

Saying or running anything that's racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. will result in being voted down immediately.

Please don't be rude. It's okay to be aggressive, but there is a line.

Speaking quickly is fine, but please don’t spread.

I am a parent LD Judge. 

1. I am looking for participants to be passionate and well researched with valid data and solid arguments
2. Good Speaking style and pause and slow down. Quality over Quantity.
3. have fun. be kind and respectful to each other.
4.  

Hello, I'm Blake Enwiller, and I debated Public Forum for three years and competed in Congress and Impromptu for two years.

Ultimately, I believe that Speech and Debate is an activity to foster effective and convincing rhetoric in addition to strong argumentation. Please do not engage in anything that hinders fair debate, especially in Public Forum since it was designed for lay judges.

Please make this round educational for all participants. In addition to the general knowledge I have, I believe that each side has the burden to teach me the topic and provide clear links between their arguments to that topic. I'm always open to questions after the round (or before the round if you want to clarify anything in my paradigm).

Email for additional feedback: blake.enwiller@vanderbilt.edu

Public Forum Preferences

General Philosophy: Please stick to PF's central purpose in the round, which is to promote an accessible debate format to the most general of audiences. Though I am a flow judge, I still value strong links and tangible impacts that are reasonable and comprehensible. Also, the best debate rounds are always ones where debaters understand their cases. Being able to succinctly and persuasively explain your argument causes better extensions, better analytical interaction, and easier decisions for the judge.

1. I do not handle spreading. Moderate speed is fine (220 wpm, 880 word case is close to max I can handle), but spreading prevents your opponents and myself from understanding the arguments and having an effective debate.

2. Argument-wise, I'll vote on anything warranted with clear links. However, I prefer when teams' arguments are the ones you would use in general conversation about the topic rather than squirrelly links with obscure evidence. I value links, probability, and warrants over impacts with high magnitude (nuclear war, extinction). I'm highly receptive to arguments that question your opponents' warrants and evidence, especially the impact.

a. I do not like “overviews” in first rebuttal that function as hidden contentions.

b. No progressive arguments. This event is called Public Forum for a reason; your arguments should be accessible and reasonable. There is no real-world application to deviating from an important topic by providing non-resolutional and extraneous arguments, unless you're intending to be a politician.

3. Second rebuttal must respond to turns, but I don't require extensive frontlining. I ask that the first summary extends defense, even if it was unaddressed in the 2nd rebuttal just for continuity of flow.

4. Please extend your arguments. Cards/links, warrants, and specific numbers within the impact being extended throughout the round are important. The entirety of the logical progression with each of these elements must be mentioned each time you extend your arguments. This is the best way to get the argument on the flow and make it easiest for me to vote.

5. Regarding weighing, it's important. However, I'll only evaluate weighing on arguments that each team won. Having large numbers isn't as important as actually winning the arguments.

6. Given evidence issues in PF, I will allow reading cards without using prep time, but when there are a lot of cards being requested but not mentioned or indicted in speeches, that becomes suspicious and prep will be required. Any misconstrued evidence will not be voted on.

a. Please feel free to ask me in speeches to read cards that you find suspicious. Explain why the card is bad in your speech so I know what to look for. I don't like intervening in rounds, but I also don't like voting for arguments that I know are either fallacious, poorly-linked, or incredibly far-fetched. Please call this out; I don't enjoy imposing my opinion on evidence quality unless you tell me to. I will choose to view your evidence at my discretion after the round.

b. I will drop cards I find to be misconstrued. If it's an impact, I won't vote on that argument.

7. I will time speeches and crossfires. Please do not make any new arguments over the time limit. I will not flow them. I'll let you finish whatever argument you were on, but I won't flow anything else.

8. Brief speech orders are fine. I like them, unless its 1st rebuttal.

9. Etiquette.

a. Prefer standing over sitting.

b. Respect is important. Unnecessarily aggressive crossfires are uncomfortable and exclusionary. No talking during opponents’ speeches. Try to avoid overly emotive facial expressions.

c. Don't care where you sit; feel free to orient yourself near the outlets should you need a charge.

d. I’ll watch and pay attention to cross apart from a brief score check during baseball and football season. Bring up concessions in speeches, but make sure they're actually concessions. There are better ways to explain the round besides yelling the word "concession" for every argument on the flow.

Lincoln Douglas Preferences

I have a similar philosophy for LD as I do for PF, but with some modifications owing to event differences. I do not want to read off a document, and I don't handle spreading. Debate is an oral event. If you want to use e-mails for evidence exchange, I am fine with that, but I will not be reading off a document during any speech.

1. Please include Value and Value Criterion. If you run progressive argumentation, please be aware that my confidence in my ability to properly judge those arguments is alarmingly low. Your choice and your risk. DAs, CPs, and Plans make sense to me. Theory and Kritiks are where my evaluation capability might be questionable. When I evaluate LD rounds, I look first at the arguments that each side is winning, and then I see whether those arguments apply to the prevailing framework. During your extensions, please connect back to your V/VC so I know how to weigh. Again, as a former PF debater, I’m not familiar with evaluating FW debate — if both you and opponent are running different frameworks, it might be advantageous for you to weigh under both frameworks.

2. I understand that the style of cutting cards in LD with random, sporadic chunks of words is the norm. However, if there is any evidence misinterpretation or deliberate omission of parts of a card that alters the meaning, please feel free to make that argument. I don't want to intervene, so please call it out.

3. I need warrants to buy your arguments.

4. Etiquette is the same that I wrote in my PF paradigm. I'll abide by traditional LD event norms and require prep time to read cards.

Congress Preferences

1. Congress, at its roots, should be an event with mostly extemporaneous speaking off of a legal pad. Speeches that are clearly pre-written with no regard to opposing arguments will not be ranked high, as these speeches typically rehash arguments.

2. Each speech besides the authorship should refute. I appreciate when later speeches introduce new arguments and weigh impacts.

3. I do not appreciate when there are 3+ speeches on the same side in a row. This isn't debating, and most of the time, these are rehashed arguments anyway. When debaters refrain from moving to question so they can get an earlier session end time, it's not fair, especially when the speeches on that bill become rehashed and debate is one-sided.

4. I appreciate when debaters are the presiding officer. I am more than happy to rank a PO high that either (a.) volunteers when veteran debaters who are well-versed in procedure do not PO or (b.) exhibits excellent command of procedure.

5. I do enjoy arguments about the constitutionality of a piece of legislation.

Hey! Nice to meet you!

I'm MK! I competed in almost all types of speech and debate events in high school, but I mainly competed in Congressional debate. With that being said, my standards for Congress are much higher than other events. To me, Congress is not just a debate event, it's role-playing a real senator or representative. Tell stories to empathize with your constituents. Formulate defensible arguments that are backed up with strong impact and analysis... Why should I care? Are you making me care? I reward and love varied sources(articles, books, research papers, etc.), I hate rehash( please don't let me get bored), and cookie-cutter speeches(I can tell if you didn't write the words you speak). Stand out to me, in a positive light, and you will be rewarded.

* you will be judged the moment you walk into the room*

Debate: I'm looking for clarity and strong arguments. Please be clear about what you're trying to convey. Speak slowly, and stay engaged throughout the debate. Never forgot your claim, warrant, and impact! I want to see a strong value and criterion. Warning: I will keep a rigorous flow.

Speech: Love good storytelling. Project your voice, I have bad hearing. Stay engaged with your audience. Speak slowly. Show your personality through your piece.

I’m a communications judge. Please speak clearly enough that I can understand your ideas. I can handle a faster pace but make sure you're not speaking quickly so you can repeat yourself. Give me voters at the end. I ask that you maintain professionalism and that you're respectful to your opponent's and judges.

Policy: Don't argue the Neg begins at a disadvantage or there is an uneven playing field. I will take that to mean you believe you can't beat any of the Aff arguments.

I am really looking forward to hearing what topics students identify with to debate. I am a armature judge, as I have only judged one competition previously. As the parent of a Sophomore debate student, I understand the time and commitment it takes to prepare and compete. Best of luck to all!

Don't speed read. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. Please stick to stock issues.

I'm a non-interventional judge. I like debates with meaningful arguments and don't encourage too much speed or aggressive tactics. I prefer quality over quantity. I'm going to be diligent in taking notes and watching for impact, flow, link, and rebuttal in the debates. I'm not a big fan of definitions as most of the time both sides are similar. I'd expect Cross to be focused on clarifying your opponent's points/cases but not as an opportunity to humiliate. I appreciate the summary at the end to clearly point out why your case is more weighted and why I should vote for you.

I wish you all the best!

I am a parent judge.

I appreciate good sign posting, as it's a proxy for a clearly thought-out argument. I'd like to be able to walk away and remember the 2 or 3 major points on which you constructed your argument. In your final round, I'd appreciate a clear statement of why you should win.

Help me out, please - no spreading, and try to avoid debate jargon. Please speak at a reasonable pace and explain any debate-specific terms in plain english. If you don’t want me flowing on the wrong side, PLEASE GIVE ME AN OFF-TIME ROAD MAP.

Please be courteous to one another, as you and your opponent are here to help each other improve.

I will do my best to give substantive, constructive feedback to help you in your future rounds.

Have fun!

---Some tips for debating before parent judges---

Speak like you're elaborating on an outline, rather than like you're reading prose. If I can make a clear outline of your major contentions, sub-points and evidence, but can't do so for your opponent, you are at a distinct advantage because I can better follow your logic.

When you state your contentions, word them as a complete sentence (subject and predicate) that promotes your side of the argument. For instance, don't say, "Poverty." Say, "prioritizing environmental protections will create more poverty," or, "Poverty will increase if we deprioritize the economy,."

Another example, instead of stating the contention as "economy," say, "prioritizing the environment will promote a healthier economy."

Speak at a reasonable pace.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm: My approach to judging Lincoln Douglas debate is to vote based on whether or not I should affirm the resolution. I will try to evaluate it from one or both of the frameworks put forward by the debaters. If one of the debaters persuades me that their framework is better than their opponent's, then I will use that framework to evaluate the arguments made by the debaters to determine how I should respond to the resolution. If neither debater conclusively wins the framework debate, I may see if either debater wins under both frameworks or if one of them was superior in terms of overall persuasiveness.

I think there is some ground for interesting interpretation of the language of resolutions, but whether an interpretation of language in the resolution is ultimately reasonable is something that the debaters can attempt to debate over to persuade me one way or another. In general, the more novel the interpretation, the stronger the arguments need to be to justify the interpretation.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds no weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE, pull it through, explain to me how contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that is able to best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

BQ - Definitions and evidence are very important. In Big Question the topic is very vague and broad, you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you are building your arguments.

Hello there!

I'm looking forward to the tournament. Here's my paradigm:
- I am a parent judge
- I didn't debate in high school or college, but I have judged high school tournaments—both debate and speeches, but primarily speeches
- I am an Art Director and appreciate concise and cohesive arguments and thought-out links
- Please speak at a reasonable pace—I take notes. Please no spreading; if I don't understand you, I won't vote for you.
- Please avoid debate jargon
- I appreciate signposting or telling me where you are in your argument (e.g. My first contention is ...)
- Be substantively persuasive
- Be respectful—not aggressive
- Have a wonderful time!

Thank you.

Hello there!

I'm looking forward to the tournament. Here's my paradigm:
- I am a parent judge
- I didn't debate in high school or college
- I am an ecommerce business owner and appreciate concise and cohesive arguments and thought-out links
- Please speak at a reasonable pace—I take notes. Please no spreading; if I don't understand you, I won't vote for you.
- Please avoid debate jargon
- I appreciate signposting or telling me where you are in your argument (e.g. My first contention is ...)
- Be substantively persuasive
- Be respectful—not aggressive
- Have a wonderful time!

Thank you.

General/ For all Debate

I am a flow communications judge. That is not to say I will be judging you by how well you speak, but by how effectively you do it. No speed! My decisions are primarily derived from the flow. I like clash, I do not want cases to be two ships passing in the night, I want them to crash, explode, have fireworks, and all the cool things about debate. Do not simply present your case and defend the whole time, you need to interact with your opponent. If you want something to be remembered on my flow- slow down on the tag or make it obvious you want me to believe it is important. Do impact analysis whether that is using impact calculation or a simple comparison I do not care. Debatewise, I am an inherently lazy person and I hate guessing. So the more weighing you do for me the better- it eliminates all the guess work that could potentially harm your side of the debate. Moreover, we have different perspectives and beliefs so something that you think is important could become missed if you do not tell me it is important in some fashion. Do not be overtly rude to your opponents- basically I do not wish for ad hominems to come into action. Lastly, I competed 4 years in high school and 4 in college. I've been to nationals and won it twice in college. I can keep up. Debate how you want to debate, but make sure it is accessible. Before running a K ask your opponent if they are okay with prog debate. I do not want speed, k, theory, overviews, etc. to become a way to isolate your opponent.

LD

In voting issues do more than note you win on Value Criterion. VC is a weighing mechanism not something that wins the debate simply because yours is better- frankly I do not care which VC is better if one person upholds both better. Upon coaching LD for a year I have determined I have never been more wrong in my life. VC is super important in LD and most of your time needs to be spent here proving why your VC matters. Do I like it? No, but it is what it is.

Policy

In-n-outs are fine, tag teaming keep to a minimal if one partner does all the work it looks bad on you. I prefer lay over prog in terms of theory and Kritics, but if you can contextualize them and flush them out I can keep up.

I did speech and debate for four years. I did dabble in debate throughout my time.

There is only one rule, fight to the death!1!!

I'm kidding, just don't spread please.

Im not a 'tech' judge, I judge based off of how your arguments and your opponents arguments are displayed to me throughout the round. I'll make sure to keep notes of what is said in the round and try to weigh it into my decision.

Former High School Policy Debater (before PF even existed) in Wisconsin and on National Circuit. Assistant Coach at STRIVE Prep - RISE in Denver, CO. Former coach of DSST: Cole High School in Denver, CO.

PF Specific Updates:

Read Evidence Call me old-school, but I'd like to hear you actually read evidence. I'm really not enjoying the paraphrased tag-line strategy that supposedly brings in the entire card of evidence and warrants without reading the actual warrants in the round. Some teams are "reading" more cards than a policy debate round would, but it is really just citing a bibliography with tags. Furthermore, this then can become a bunch of overtagged claims linked together to some extremely illogical argument that isn't supported by the literature. So, read more evidence. This would also make the rounds so much better because we could go more in depth rather than breadth and actual get to the warrants and clash between arguments.

Summary Speech I do think that summary speeches should be "summarizing" the round down and include all the arguments you plan on going for in the final focus. If you don't argue everything in summary then the round can get very messy with new story-lines/cards reappearing in the final focus speech from way back in the rebuttals but hadn't been talked about since, which seems borderline abusive but definitely makes the weighing and story of the round more confusing. Therefore, if your partner didn't talk about it in Summary I won't listen to your argument in Final Focus.

Overarching thoughts for both PF and Policy:

• Evidence: I am evidence-focused and will ask for evidence if it is up for Debate (in both PF and Policy).
• Warrants/Analysis/Links: The lost art of debate from what I've seen at a lot of local tournaments this year - please explain the warrants, analysis, and links/internal links of your arguments to be strong. If you do not adequately do this, don't be surprised by a decision that you might not agree with as I should not be doing any work on my end to make connections - that is your job to prove it to me.
• Clash: The most successful debaters in front of me will clearly clash with their opponents arguments in the line-by-line and explain why those arguments are flawed or not as good as your counter-analytics/evidence.
• Speed: I can handle speed (as long as your speed is clear), but for the fastest teams will require some slight slowing on tags/authors and analytics/non-evidence based arguments (for example when reading your Aff Plan Details or arguing Topicality) so I can adequately capture everything. If during the round it becomes clear you are a lot faster than the other team, please do not continuing spreading to the point of being mean or your speaks will drop. (Also, for PF when you aren't actually reading evidence even slow speed can be hard for me to flow because I just can't keep up flowing a million tag lines.)
• Flow/Drops: I am a flow judge, and do take dropped arguments seriously. However, I also much prefer argumentation and analysis than a ticky-tack debate about who dropped what. Furthermore, if all you say is "they dropped it, so it flows for us" - I will not give it much weight as you need to explain the importance of the argument and how it matters in the round for me to care about it otherwise you effectively dropped it as well by not explaining it. Also, for PF teams that don't talk about a particular contention after their constructive until the Final Focus and then say "our opponents dropped our contention, so we should win on that" I will not take that seriously as you also effectively dropped it throughout the round.
• Social Etiquette: Do not be bigoted or racist in anyway despite the fact our country seems to currently be okay with that - this is the only time you would ever see judge intervention from me.

Policy Specific Paradigm:

• Policy Maker: I would consider myself a policy-maker that evaluates the impacts of the round for Aff vs Neg. Therefore, 2NR and 2AR would do well to frame the round in term of impact analysis and explain why their impacts are the most critical to be solved - this can be argued and justified in many ways, so convince me.
• Like Well-Argued Kritiks/Critiques: I really enjoy Kritik/Critique arguments. However, most teams do not do them super well as they are deeply philosophical arguments that are often very nuanced. If you argue that fiat is illusory (this is not required, and I actually appreciate the kritiks that have real policy impacts more as they are often more believable and interesting in the debate), you better not link harder to the Kritik in your on-case arguments than your opponent. Also, if fiat is illusory, I do want to hear convincing arguments for your alternative and how voting for you actually achieves this alternative goal (and why the Aff can't just perm it and talk/acknowledge the problems in the pre-fiat world but still debate a hypothetical post-fiat policy world). Also as a recommendation, if you are truly going for a Kritik, you should spend substantial time dedicated to it from both evidence and analytic standpoints as they are complicated topics that should be in some ways outside the "game" of debate.
• Limit Topicality/Theory Arguments: While I will vote on topicality/theory arguments if forced to, I do not enjoy them in any way. I understand running T is a negative strategy as a time suck, so I am okay with one or two T arguments and won't hold it against you, but I hope the round doesn't come to Topicality and the quicker they get punted the better. For someone to win on topicality/theory it will have to be largely dropped or actually show very real abuse (with open-evidence project and familiarity of cases/topics, I have a hard time believing there is very much actual abuse that is happening though, so it better be convincing and don't be surprised if I give leeway to reasonable arguments from the other team.)

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like snicker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters and was acing Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so don’t let that be you, too. I don’t understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please don’t go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or don’t and don’t go for theory if there’s no proven abuse or if you’re not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. “Use of the state” is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your “use of the state specifically” is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me on social media (probably facebook most easily) or you can email me at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

Hello debaters,

As your judge I value clear, concise and polite speakers. Content and presentation are both equally valuable, and I will be carefully observing the quality of your speeches and questions asked. During crossfire, I expect questions and answers to be straight to the point.

I'm a parent judge.