As a judge, I am personally very big on delivery and the style in which the presentation is done. I am a strong believer that a passionate, engaging form of delivery is crucial for any successful speech. I like to see active participation and I also like when competitors avoid direct-reading like the plague!
I’ve been judging both speech and congress for over 5 years and can say that the experience has been great!

I am looking for insightful and new analyses of a topic in OO

I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised in INFO

I want honest and truthful storytelling in INTERP

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I completed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judges paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF)). Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask!

CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Note to LD competitors at the FBK tournament - I almost exclusively judge policy, but I've done LD in the past and am quite familiar with the format and traditional argumentation. Most of the below should be pretty applicable, less so the stuff about evidence.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 14 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 5 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments).

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.


Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Small note for LD: Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

I am a fairly traditional judge with two years of experience (mainly LD, but also Congress and some PF).

HELLO!!!!
I am a fairly new judge to debate.

I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.

I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.

Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!

For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace, clarity of delivery, and organization.

Hello, my name is Connor. Below are some of my thoughts on debate. This paradigm is long because I am quite often annoyed by judges who aren't thorough in their paradigm.

Top Level:

- Call me Connor, not judge. Feel free to email me questions.

- I compete in NDT-CEDA. I went to high school at Truman in Missouri (very traditional, not spreading circuit). I've primarily been a 2A/1N; I've been both double 2s, double 1s, 1A/2N, or whatever other combination you can think of.

- NDT Qualifier

- I expect to be on the email chain. My email will be provided to you before the round because conservative wackos are doxxing judges based off of information provided in paradigms.

- I expect the chain to be labeled as: "Tournament Name, Round #, Aff (team code) vs. Neg (team code)" For example: National Debate Tournament, Round the First, [AFF] Missouri State SB vs. [NEG] Missouri State CL

- Here are some general thoughts. These are subject to change based on the round and the way arguments are presented:

Tech ------x------------------------- Truth (In the instance where the tech is level, a mixture of truth and ev quality is how I decide.)

Policy ------------x------------------- K

Limits -------------------------------x Ground

Condo Good -------------x------------------ Condo Bad

Substance x------------------------------- Theory

Death Good -------------------------------x Death Bad

Post Modernist Kritiks x------------------------------- Identity Ks

Line by Line x------------------------------- Embedded Clash

- I am working on transitioning to flowing on computer; go slower than you normally would.

- Send your analytics in the document. If you don't make it look like you are giving them off the top of your head or your flow. Otherwise I'll think that you aren't confident in your own arguments; why should I vote for somebody who isn't confident in their own arguments.

- I don't want to see "1NC" "OFF" or "1NC --- OFF" when I open the 1NC. I want to see the names of things. Otherwise I will not lable my flows and you'll be very upset when I don't know what is going on with your arguments.

TL;DR

- I expect you to do what you do best. I can judge about everything (besides Identity K vs. Identity K) and am fairly confident in my evaluative processes. I think that both you and I need to do some level of adaption. I think this because it is more educational to have to adapt to somebody in the case of arguing in front of a jury, board of directors, your boss, etc. Basically it's a portable skills thing. I'm pretty flexible when it comes to arguments though; you won't have to adapt much.

- Ethos matters a lot more to me than most judges. It's how I assign speaker points. It also helps with your ability to persuade me; if I like the way you present your arguments I'm more likely to be willing to vote on them. This means that if you are in a scenario where you think that being excessively rude is good, you shouldn't do it becasue I will like you much less.

- Rounds you want me in the back of:

a. rounds that involve any sort of post-modern philosophy (besides Derrida because I haven't had the chance to read any of their lit yet).

b. A 2nr that focuses on a disad or case turn with deep analysis on case defense or solvency takeouts.

c. a 2NR that focuses on settler colonialism with an alt that is either decol or refusal.

- Rounds you don't want me in the back of:

a. Identity K vs. Identity K.

b. Theory debates.

c. A 2NR of T-USfg vs. a K-Aff.

- Some of the people who have influnced me: Ermo, Sam Cade, Jake Shew, Parker Hopkins, and Layne Smith.

- Below are how I evaluate arguments.

Aff Construction

- I think that there are 3 types of affs:

a. the traditional policy aff with extinction impacts. I think they should be a conglomerate advantage with solvency thrown in. This allows for the cleanest and most-flowable debates. I think that two advantage affs are also good. I typically dislike a seperate page for solvency or 3+ advantages.

b. Soft-Left, topical K-Affs . I think they should be advantage + solvency as a seperate page with whatever preempts you plan on reading.

c. Non-traditional kritikal affirmatives. I think that they should follow the chain of what a K would be. ie, links, an impact or two, AN ADVOCACY STATEMENT (or else you'll lose on presumption), and whatever preempts you need.

- This is a minor thing, but organizing affs like this will probably increase your speaks because of my ability to flow them.

Disads/Case Turns

- I care much more about internal links in terms of probability/timeframe. This is where the impact calc needs to be done. I can not stress how important it is for you to do impact calculus instead of me. If you leave it to me, you'll be very unsatisfied with the result (because the chances are that you didn't explain it well enough and I'm voting against you).

- All four parts of the disad need to be clear in order for you to receive my vote. Quite often, you need to only go for one piece of offense in the 2NR in front of me so that you have time to thoroughly explain the way your offense functions and why it is more important than your opponents.

- Zero risk is possible. Debate it well and you might win that there's zero risk of a disad or advantage.

- I very much enjoy impact turns.

- I think cp disad 2nrs are a strategic risk in front of me. Most often, they undercover something important to one thing and the aff is more than able to exploit it.

- You HAVE to do impact calc. At least 45 seconds in the 2n/2ar. If you don't and your opponent does, they'll probably win the round.

Counterplans

- I think that most of the time, process/states counterplans are illegitimate.

- Condo is good. I'm pretty steadfast in my opinion on this; because, I think to go for condo bad you are making a purposeful decision to not focus on the substance debate (aka the most educational part). If a team reads a contradictory advocacy, concede one and stick them with the other. Perf con implies you win condo bad; it's not really a thing that I would fine myself voting on.

- Perms are tests of competition and not reasons to reject the team.

- I'm a big fan of 20 plank advantage counterplans where you can't kick individual planks, BUT you can add new ones.

- YOU NEED SOLVENCY ADVOCATES.

- Judge kick is an abomination. It's lazy debating. Either kick the counterplan or defend it's world. I won't do it.

- If the 2AC straight turns a counterplan, you should be stuck with it in my eyes. This is one of the few instances where condo becomes a serious threat to you.

- aff lean on: 50-state/international fiat and process counterplans.

Topicality

- I dislike T debates. I think they're boring and don't actually have any pedagogical value outside of the first tournament of the year or absolutely egriguos plan texts.

- I default to competing interps. Do the debating for me to not default to it.

- The neg needs a caselist, evidence of ground that was lost, reasons why functional limits (whatever da/cp combo takes out most affs) don't check, reasons why their version of the topic is prefferable (ie, what new disads could be read, what links for Ks, giving competition to counterplans, etc.), and a tva.

Policy vs. Policy Debates:

- My ideal 2NR in this round is a Disad with solvency takeouts or impact defence. I think that counterplans are not strategic in front of me because the risk of missing a small thing vastly outweighs going for a disad and case defense.

- I think that if both teams are reading extinction impact, I'm more interested in the likelihood of an internal link getting triggered.

- T is less welcome here than it is in the K-Aff realm.

- I am a politics fiend. Do with that what you will.

Kritiks

- This is where my thoughts have changed the most over the years. I'm constantly reading new literature; my thoughts on Ks are always changing.

- I think that the state can do good things, even if its current iteration is bad.

- I'm really good for you if you pull lines out of the 1AC to prove links.

- I think fairness and clash are typically good and that obviating the 1AC post facto is bad. This isn't to say that you can't win framework, but rather that you need to be very clear and persuasive in order to win it.

- In scenarios where you are a team that typically goes for framework tricks, you should typically have a reason for why your model of debate is better than your opponents.

- You link you lose is stupid.

- I'm good for util strategies. I think everyone dying is worse than genocide.

- You need an alt in order for me to vote for your K. If you go for a non-unique disad I won't vote for it because I need all parts of a disad to vote for it. I also think that they often struggle against the extinction outweighs arguments.

- This all might sound very pessimistic for you if you are a one off team. Don't worry, debate to your maximum and win on tech and you'll win.

- I have a pretty decent understanding of most post modernist philosphy. I read Baudrillard my freshman year of college pretty consistently. I've also read Bataille a lot. I generally enjoy pomo and don't have the predispositions for it that most people do. That being said, because I know your argument, I expect it to be faithful to what the original literature is. I also expect you to know the literature and be faithful to it; it will be painfully obvious when you don't because you'll try to read Bataille and then crumble when your opponent asks what the general economy is.

- I don't really understand the literature behind most identity Ks (besides set col); you should overexplain and send your blocks for me to be able to read them. Otherwise, your analytical arguments will not be transcribed correctly and we'll all be sad.

- I think util is probably a good frame for me to evaluate the round. This isn't to say that you can't win the util debate in front of me, you just need to be better than your opponents.

- If your links are to the status quo, they're probably better to read as an aff. But, if you explain why it still applies to the aff's mech, than I'm all good for it.

- The reason I'm not good for identity Ks is because I mainly don't understand the literature behind them. If you explain it in a way that makes sense then by all means, go for it. If you go for it and it doesn't make sense then you'll probably lose.

K Affs vs. Framework/T

- I dislike these rounds. I think that K affs are so widespread that you and your team are just too lazy to interact with. You're undoubtedly reading the same blocks that your coaches read when they were in college. I hate that. Learn to interact with affs and don't read the same mind-numbing blocks that you've been reading all year.

- That being said, the aff needs to have a couple of things for me. The first is a reason why the aff is necessary. The second is a reason why switch sides doesn't solve your offense. Third, have a chunk of literature to back your aff up. Otherwise I'm slightly more empathetic to T.

- I think if you're a traditional T-USfg team, you're better suited to read a different T-Shell. I think that a good example from the personhood topic would be reading T-AI, Nature, or Nonhuman Animals because most teams typically don't prep that out and end up reading answers to different T-args.

- I think for T-USfg to be persuasive in front of me, the aff needs to have done 2 things:

A. Not have substantive literature around their arguments. This means that arguments like afropess, set col, baud, Bataille, deleuze, or any other one you just need to do research for is not feasible to run T-USfg in front of me.

B. The aff needs to have warranted links to the resolution. For example, a Baudrillard aff could have indicted NATO, AI, and Cybersecurity. If they don't have those warrants, then go for it.

- I do think that things that happen outside of debate shouldn’t be weighed against topicality arguments. This is because advocating for a structure of debate doesn’t mean that the negative wants to oppress you.

K vs. K rounds

- I refuse to vote on oppression olympics. If it's Identity K vs. Identity K, I need to understand your solvency. A role of the ballot will be good for you and me as it will typically frame how I evaluate the round itself.

- I'm 100% down to judge pomo vs pomo, pomo vs. identity, and pomo vs. cap.

- I think that if you're a primarily framework team, you probably just need to read 1 off cap. It's a perfectly fine strat and there is a lot of lit for your side.

- I think that a lot of these rounds would benefit from impact comparison or turns case/K offense. This can come from a root cause debate, turns your opponents arguments, or other things like that. In this instance, it makes it a lot easier to ajudicate the debate.

- These rounds typically suffer from a lack of clash. This means that you should compare impacts, provide reasons why one side doesn't have solvency.

Speaker Points

- I start at a 28.5.

- Here's how to boost it: Speak clearly, communicate your arguments effectively. To do this, group arguments, critique your opponents evidence. Qualifications matter more to me than a lot of people; that can definitely be a part of your strategy that is pretty convincing. Look like your having fun. Be nice to your opponents (treat them like they're people). Do line by line. I'll number the arguments on my flow how you send them in the doc.

- Here's how to lower them: Do the opposite of the things that I said above. Embedding clash is also a huge pet peeve. I refuse to flow straight down; I'll miss arguments that are responses to other things.

- If you're a 2N and go for a K, disad, counteradvocacy, or whatever instead of T against a K aff, your minimum speaker points are a 29.5.

Other thoughts

- Don't be rude to your opponents. Don't cut them off in cross ex. Don't speak over them. We are all humans and deserve to be treated with basic decency.

- Number your arguments in the 2ac and respond to the numbers in the block.

- I reserve the right to end the round early in the case of clipping, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Should this happen, the team who does it will get a loss. The speaker who did it will get the lowest speaks possible, their partner will receive a score based on how they did.

- I follow along, but I don't flow off the doc. If I don't hear what you said, it won't be flowed, therefore it won't factor into my decision.

- I typically decide very quickly. That is not a sign of bad debating, but rather it shows that the ideas of the round were communicated clearly and effectively. If I take a long time it either means 1 of 2 things. 1: you weren't clear, I had no warrants that I would feel comfortable to base a decision around, or I'm missing key things that you are relying on to win the round. 2: The round is damn near flawless and I spend time reading cards, scouring the clash for concessions, or something to that effect. Feel free to postround; I should be able to defend my decision.

- I enjoy humor in rounds. Debate takes itself way too seriously quite often and humor negates that pretty well.

- Allusions to the souls games, progressive metal, and mob movies will all be greatly appreciated to the point of potentially higher speaks (depending on if it makes sense in the context of the allusion. For example, I once said "non-topical affs make debate harder than dark souls").

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26

Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu

I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an alright career. Just finished my first year of parli at Berkeley, and won NPTE.

Public Forum

TL;DR:

I'm only a year removed from the circuit, and from what I've heard things are rapidly getting more tech. That's fun and exciting, but there could be new norms I'm unfamiliar with? Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing will take you a long way. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. Debate is a lot more serious than it needs to be.

Constructive:

Speed: Send a doc, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 300 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.

Evidence: If practiced correctly, I'm cool with paraphrasing (I paraphrased in HS), but don't get it twisted. I'm still down to vote for any evidence based shell or IVI, including paraphrasing. Also add me to the email chain pls.

Cross:

I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.

Rebuttal:

2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.

Summary:

Extensions: I think that extensions as a fundamental idea is really silly, and I don't really understand why PF cares so much about them. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.

Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If no weighing's done (god forbid this happens), I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).

Final Focus:

I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.

This goes without saying, but everything in final should have been mentioned in summary (but not everything in summary should be in final), I don't like new stuff. No new implications can be made in this speech unless they're directly responsive to the speech before. I won't evaluate new weighing here unless there hasn't been any other weighing in the round.

Progressive Debate:

Progressive debate is good, awesome, cool, fun, and good.

Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. Feel comfortable reading theory on me, I've ran/hit theory a good amount over my career. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. If no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs for accessibility reasons.

K's: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli. There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo. I prefer K's with good (and multiple) topic links and alts outside of "vote neg" (I'm not sure if this is possible with PF rules?) but anything goes.

Tricks: Big fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. Note that my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team, but feel free to run tricks.

Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this.

Other:

• I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
• Big fan of TKO's
• Big fan of content warnings
• Big fan of tag-teaming
• Not a big fan of discrimination. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

• + 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
• + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my music
• + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech (Update: If I hear one more person tell me to say thank u, next to their C2, I will give you L20's and quit any involvement in this activity. I need a GOOD reference)
• + 0.5 for every CX skipped
• + 0.1 for every swear word
• - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
• Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
• Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
• Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
• Instant 30's to both team members if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive

I know this is short, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round

Parli

TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms etc. in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. Debate is a lot more serious than it needs to be.

Case:

• Love it, definitely the most confident in my decisions here.
• Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Why does your impact matter, go the extra step during prep.
• I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
• Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are.
• I love lots of warranting.
• Go for turns.
• Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.

Theory:

• I love theory!! Let's go theory!!
• MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won't vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it's a super violent violation.
• I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
• I really don't understand the norm of no RVI's in parli. If a team runs theory on you, GO FOR RVI'S!!! I'm not an RVI hack but I want to see more RVI debates.
• Because PF has too many theory rounds where someone doesn't know anything about theory, in the case that no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable) and reasonability.
• I'll default to Text > Spirit and Potential Abuse > Actual Abuse in case those debates don't actually occur.

Kritiks:

• Note that while I've read and competed against K's a good amount in my career, I'm still relatively new to K's compared to a super tech judge, so there's a chance you won't hear the decision you like.
• Not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it.
• The more links the better, preferably have them not generic, but this isn't necessary.
• K affs are 100% fine, but if you can't tell already, I typically err Framework-T > K affs. I'm not a hack, but keep that in mind.

Other:

• Speed is cool, but if I say clear and you don't clear I'll stop flowing.
• Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
• Perms: If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
• Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
• Condo's good, but it's easy to convince me that condo's bad.
• Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
• Big fan of content warnings
• Big fan of tag-teaming
• Not a big fan of discrimination. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
• Collapse. Please.
• Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
• Repeat your texts or say them slowly.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

• + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
• + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech (Update: If I hear one more person tell me to say thank u, next to their C2, I will give you L20's and quit any involvement in this activity. I need a GOOD reference)
• + 0.1 for every swear word
• - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
• Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
• Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
• Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)

As I'm writing this I feel like I'm missing something. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

LD/Policy

Dawg I have no clue how good of a LD/Policy judge I am. My roots come from "tech" PF debate, and I do parli now, but I have no effing clue what a value criterion is, nor do I have any interest in knowing what it means in the future. I know theory norms are completely different in these events, but I don't know exactly in what ways, so run it at your own risk. Your best bet is to keep things simple, and while nothing you run will get you dropped, I can only evaluate rounds to the best of my ability. Skim my parli paradigm to get a sense of how I judge. If you have any questions please ask them before the round.

Congress

I've never competed, judged, or even watched a congress round. LCQ will be my first experience and I don't really know what to put here. Think of me as a tech from other events, I don't really care if you speak pretty or anything. I feel like if you're funny I would probably like you? Bear with me, and if you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Lauren Carter, Assistant Coach at Olathe East High School

lncarter@olatheschools.org

I debated for three years in high school (two years as a policy debater and one year in public forum debate) at Liberty High School in Missouri. I didn't debate in college, but have been coaching and judging since 2017.

Judging debate in general:

While your arguments and debate skills may win you the arguments in the round, how you hold yourself will reflect on my ballot as well. A well-spoken, professional debater with under-developed arguments who keeps their composer will get more speaker points, and maybe even my ballot, over a rude and/or unprepared speaker with solid arguments.

I do my best to flow all arguments made in the round. That being said, if you argument isn't clear and/or I don't know where to flow it because you're jumping between points and aren't clearly sign-posting, it may not make it on my flow. Please stick to your roadmap as much as possible if you give one.

I'm not a huge fan of scripted/pre-typed speeches, aside from the first speech of the round. Going off-script and giving me sound analysis and explanation shows me that you have a good handle of your arguments and will reflect well on the ballot. Being a good reader and a good debater are not one and the same.

I'm not comfortable giving oral critiques or round disclosure after the debate. I will put comments on my ballots.

Policy: I'm okay with speed but would prefer that you slow it down a bit during analytics and explanations of arguments/cards.

I learned a more traditional, stock issue oriented style of policy when I debated, so that is what I have the most experience with. However, you are the debaters and know which arguments work best for you.

I especially love to hear good disads, but I also think that CPs and T are effective when argued well.

I don't mind kritiks and theory, but I don't have the background to follow them well without very clear explanations.

While you should respond to all arguments, I do believe that quality over quantity often comes into play when it comes to reading a bunch of evidence. If you're going to read a bunch of cards in a row, make sure they actually do something to support or build arguments, and make sure that argument is clearly stated. A good debate need clashing, and you can't leave that up to the cards and assume I'll get the point you're making.

I generally don't spend a lot of time looking at your speech docs. I'll mostly look at your doc as a quick reference to help me keep track of my flow. If I have to continuously look at your doc to follow you, you aren't being clear or sign-posting enough. If a card is called into question I will look at it, but I don't take evidence credibility or inconsistencies with cards into consideration unless you as the debaters bring it up, no matter how obvious a problem is when I look at your doc.

LD: I prefer a more traditional style of debate for LD and like to see rounds that bring out the distinct style of debate that represents LD. I would prefer to see debates centered on your case values, philosophy and logic.

Public Forum: I've judged PFD at local tournaments and prelim rounds at nationals.

You don't have to speak super slow for me but I don't enjoy hearing spreading during PF rounds. In this style of debate, I appreciate debaters who use their time well and know when to develop and expand on arguments and when to narrow the focus. You have longer speeches at the beginning so use this time wisely early on, especially for you second speakers. I generally don't flow last minute arguments late in the round, so be sure you and your partner are on the same page on building and responding to arguments when the second speaker on your side gives their first speech and during summaries.

I am in my second year of Judging Debate. My son started last year, and am so inspired with any student who is willing to compete in debate. It takes skill, preparation and ample amount of courage. I volunteer because I want to learn more about debate, and when I see a quality debate it is fun and engaging. I consider myself a naturally neutral individual. I will not favor a side because its what I believe, but will favor a side because you convince me to.

Speed:

I understand there is a lot to cover in small amount of time. This said, I prefer a clear concise style of speech. I believe this allows for a more persuasive and all around better style of debating. The faster you speak the more clear and concise you need to be. If i can’t track your argument because your speaking to fast then you didn’t make the argument.

Evidence:

I want to hear evidence that links well to argument. Does the evidence truly support your stance. Is the reference relevant to time period. I will buy the evidence if its clear, all conditions met, and it makes sense, and it actually proves a point. I will refer to reference if I feel a need to, but that means it wasn’t clear to begin with. I also like to hear multiple references to validate your argument.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. comments and/or arguments and/or behavior are not tolerated. You WILL lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. Don't do it. And that includes coded language. The debate/speech space must be open and safe for all.

If you use stereotypes of identities (particularly race, gender, disabilities, and/or ethnicities) that aren’t yours, especially for comedic effect, you will be ranked last. There is no place in the speech and debate space for that kind of behavior.

General note for both speech and debate: how you behave in a round matters. I expect you to be cordial and collegial to your opponents. If you are not, your speaker points and/or ranking will reflect it.

A little about me: I was a policy debater in high school (20+ years ago). Currently, I am the Head Congress Coach for Lakeville North and Lakeville South High Schools in MN. I also teach Congress and PF for Potomac Debate Academy. I was the Head Coach at Wayzata High School for two years where I coached policy. I also coach speech (all categories), most recently at Edina High School. I've literally coached and judged it all. I also have a PhD in social ethics.

Here’s the TL;DR version:
Clash is necessary. I love Ks and critical argumentation (but know your theory!). Give me the ballot in every speech after the constructive! And don’t conflate ethics and morals!


CONGRESS

Each speech should have proper argumentation (claim, warrant, impact(s)). IMPACT OUT YOUR EVIDENCE!!! You should know why the evidence you’re reading or the statistic you’re citing matters and you should communicate that! Road map your speeches. Signpost during them. If you are not the first speaker on either side of a bill, make it clear that you're following what's come before you. Acknowledge your fellow representatives when you're building on their point or when you're refuting it. CLASH IS IMPORTANT! I expect crystallizations and rebuttals to include weighing/impact calc. I rank POs unless the round is chaotic/incredibly poorly run. Precedency and recency matter. I track the number of questions you ask in addition to scoring your speeches. The person who gets my top rank is the person who performed best in the round. I'm looking for cordiality and collegiality, strength and uniqueness of arguments, and excellent in-round engagement with the thoughts and arguments of others. Generally, I care more about the content of your speech than your delivery, unless the delivery makes it impossible for your arguments to land.

LD/POLICY/PF DEBATE
In a round, I'm paying close attention to whether arguments are complete and if they're well supported by the cards used. It's not just about cramming as much as will fit into an X-minute speech; it's about making sure that your evidence says what you're saying it does and using information to make your argument stronger. I'm looking for claims, warrants, and impacts. I will vote on impacts, so make sure you extend them. ***Trigger warnings are not enough; you need to have a non-explicit case that you can run.***

I'm not a strict flow judge, but I am tracking all the arguments. If questions are raised in rounds that are a priori (need to be addressed prior to addressing the resolution), I'm paying special attention to how they're run and responded to; T and K are voters that, for me, always take precedence over case. RFDs will not be tech heavy.

Clash is important! Rounds where the sides talk past each other and don’t engage with the arguments of the other side are not good rounds

Tell me why you should get the ballot in all post-constructive speeches. Make your case for why you win the round. But please do not tell me that I have an ethical obligation to vote a certain way, unless you're giving me the ethical paradigm from which you want me to vote. Otherwise, the phrase "you have an ethical obligation to vote for us" means nothing. Ethics and morals are not the same thing, so please don't conflate them. Morals are an appeal to shared values, while an ethic is simply a way of being in the world. Knowing how to make these arguments successfully will make you better debaters.

While I am an old school policy debater, my doctoral studies were continental philosophy, critical theory, cultural theory, and social ethics. Bring on your critical arguments! I love critical argumentation in both LD and Policy when it's done well. I welcome it in PF, too. I expect students to understand the theory that underlies their critical arguments, as that is the only way to successfully defend arguments of that kind. My decisions in many rounds come down to a priori questions to the resolution, especially Ks.

Speed, in and of itself, is not a problem; speed without clarity is. If I can't understand you, I will say “Clear” once. Slow down and enunciate. If I still cannot understand you, it's an issue that will impact speaker points. Please slow on your tags and citations.

This is the single best advice I can give you if I am your judge: do not conflate ethics and morals. An ethic is a way of being in the world; it does not require morals. Morals, conversely, are principles by which one lives one’s life. While many ethics include morals as part of their structure, ethics and morals aren’t the same thing. If you’re making a moral appeal argument, you need to tell me what the morals to which you’re appealing are and why they’re important. If you’re making an ethical argument, you need to tell me what the ethical framework is that I should use. Otherwise, telling me that I have an ethical or moral obligation to vote in a particular way means nothing; you need to give me the framework or the values you want me to use to evaluate the round. When you don’t, it means that I am using my own ethical or moral framework to evaluate rounds and, because no two people have the exact same ethic (way of being in the world), it lowers the persuasiveness of your argument.

PF-Specific Preferences:
Evidence ethics matter!!! DO NOT PARAPHRASE IN FRONT OF ME. Read the actual card. It doesn't take any longer to read the card than it does to paraphrase it. There are no excuses for not reading the actual card. If you take longer than a minute to provide a card that's called, I will strike it from the flow. If the card is called and you were paraphrasing it, I reserve the right to drop you, especially if there are any discrepancies between what you said and what the source says. Critical arguments are always welcome, but make sure you can prove a violation if you’re running T or a norms violation (disclosure, trigger warning, spreading, etc).

SPEECH
I’ve coached every NSDA category and regularly judge them. There are a couple big things that I’m looking for when I judge a speech round.

1) Performance: Can I hear you? Do your movements make sense? Are you comfortable with the material? Do you wait for the judge before beginning? Does entire performance fit with the material? How well do you perform or present your piece? Are you off book? Do you speak with confidence and authority?

2) Category specific things: For interp generally, I pay close attention to transitions, pops, and character work. Are they clean? Are they distinct physically and vocally? Getting those to a point where they’re clean is a huge hurdle, but one that matters.

In humor, do the jokes land? Are they told well? Does the performance include pauses after jokes that elicit a laugh? Do you know what your laugh lines are? Is the piece funny? Are you relying on racial/ethnic, gender, or other stereotypes for comedic effect? (If you do, you'll rank last!)

TRAUMA FOR THE SAKE OF DRAMA IS NOT OKAY! Pieces that include descriptions sexual assaults will not rank highly; there is no reason for the details of an assault to be included in a piece or portrayed during a performance. Trigger warnings must be delivered properly; if I am your judge and your piece needs a trigger warning, you need to communicate that to me prior to the start of the round. I will take care of alerting the room and allowing time and space for people to take care of themselves. Do NOT turn the trigger warning into a performative action that does not allow time and space for people to take care of themselves.

In POI, I’m looking for a cohesive piece that has a clear narrative arc throughout it. Do the piece selections fit with each other? Is each piece identifiable? In other words, can I tell when you’re popping between pieces? Does the theme carry through? Have the cuttings been done well? 

In Info, OO, and other student-written categories, does the text make sense? How well written is the piece? Does it succeed in being interesting and engaging? In an OO round, is the speech persuasive or is it dramatic? Does the solutions fit the problem? And in an Info round, is it an informative speech or is it persuasive? I want persuasion in OO and informative in Info.

For extemp, I want to see both an understanding of the prompt and an understanding of the arguments advanced. Are arguments complete (claim, warrant, impact) or are they missing a piece? Does the argument have ground? Impact out your evidence!

3) Category requirements: do the piece and its performance adhere to the NSDA rules or the operative rules for a tournament? If you’re not sure what they are, you can find that information on the NSDA website or the tournament website (NSDA rules are used widely, so start there).

4) Respect and collegiality: do you treat everyone with respect? Are you on your phone or engaged in watching your peers? Put simply: don’t be a jerk. No one likes a jerk. If you’re disrespectful in a round, it will impact your ranking.

Make my ranking decisions hard for me! The best rounds are the ones where I have a hard time figuring out how to rank you.

So I guess I'll start off by letting you know that I did PF all four years of high school and I am now going to college so that I can be a debate coach.

That being said, onto my actual paradigms:

First of all: I will almost always vote based on impact weighing; this means at the end of the round I will use any empirics to make my final decision(usually this ends up being numbers unless it is a debate where numbers are not a possibility on one or both sides). To follow impact weighing, I cannot weigh your arguments if they don't have proper links so please, please, please, have links and make them obvious!

Secondly: If you are doing a speech event I will make sure you have all parts of a speech(intro, body, conclusion, sources- I have things I look for in each section) and then I will go off of speaking ability.

As a note for debates! I promise I keep track of time! I stop flowing arguments when time is up but if I let someone go a little long it's because I'm giving them just a second to figure it out!

I have previously coached high school debate in Missouri and Kansas, and I currently assist Lansing and Olathe East. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.

Congress Paradigm:

I have judged congress for over two decades, even before it became a National standardized qualifying event and have advocated for it all that time because I believe it to be the best overall, well-rounded event that we offer in forensic competition.

It encompasses the benefits of acting because you are playing a role as a representative and the more you understand the motivation of your position, the greater the performance. It is one of the purest of speaking events, because a great representative is a great orator, in life and in your chamber. The writing and interpretation of legislation is at the core of the event and illustrating your deep understanding of that legislation is paramount in your performance. Lastly, but most importantly, it is a debate event, where civil clash is necessary.

All that being said, to understand how I view the event holistically, there are specific standards I prefer.

I do believe that in a three to four minute speech the speaker should get our attention in a creative way and give us a clear call for action and preview of their arguments, coming back to that AGD at the end, time permitting. Preparing us for what you are about to argue is important. There is no actual grace, so 3:08 is abusing the time of the next speaker. I prefer fewer, well developed arguments, than many blipped ones. Sources are important and both the quantity and quality of such sources, Q2, are vital. Representatives do not just rely on periodicals, but government reports, experts in the field, think-tanks, etc. These considerations are important, not just the number of sources. Consideration and knowledge of how our government actually works and the type of legislation at hand is also vital. We are debating issues present in the real world, so take that into consideration and consider what are the real-world implications to your constituents? Know and use parliamentary procedure to benefit the progress of debate; do not abuse it.

PO's are a vital part to any chamber and I look for a strong understanding of parliamentary procedure and efficiency and fairness are of utmost importance. If you have not read "Robert's Rules." it behooves you to do so, then be aware of all NSDA guidelines in adapting them. A good PO should run an efficient chamber and be pro-active in enforcing a fair chamber. Any perception of recognizing speakers unfairly will be penalized. Make sure you are clear with your procedures from the start and follow them consistently.

Overall, consider the above standards in your performance and you will do well. Remember, you are not just speaking for yourself; you are truly representing your school, your state, and your nation. We need good role models.

Policy Debate CX Paradigm:

I have judge policy for almost three decades and prefer traditional policy making focused debates with well weighed impacts.

That being said, I can handle speed, but clarity and articulation are key. I will not say clear, so if I put down my pen and you don't adjust, it is on you. If I don't flow it, it's not on the flow; I will not just read your files. This is an oral exercise in debate, so if it's important, make sure I get it.

My teams also have had great success with progressive arguments and K's, so I'm fine with it if you really know the literature and have clear links. I don't like K's, so make sure the story, links, and alternative are clear. All types of arguments are fine, as long as you know how to run them and they are relevant to your debate. I don't vote on T often, but it must be ran and answered correctly, not "they aren't topical, or "yeah, we are topical", and there should be clear in-round abuse.

Make sure there is direct clash and not just random generic arguments with weak links and no direct weighing. I love those debating actually debating case, so don't ignore it.

Probability and meaningful impacts are a must.

Be civil and debate well and every round will be fulfilling.

Good Morning/Afternoon/Night to whichever debater Is reading this 

Email for the chain: only4debate@gmail.com

I am currently a freshman CX debater at the University of Houston, I did three years of debate in high school though very little of it is relevant to policy. The TLDR: I am receptive to all arguments ( I do not leave my common sense at the door and will not vote on racist or harmful arguments) Besides that feel free to run any arguments you desire.I will not explain nor extend arguments for you.

As a judge, I look for clash, impact weighing and warrant comparisons above all and the debaters to do as much work for me as possible, judge instruction is heavily recommended, tell me why you are winning and make the RFD easy to write. I am best for Policy v. Policy debate but am also receptive to Policy v.K and K v.K. K debate will require greater explanation for me as I am not familiar with all the literature besides that you should be fine, showing me you are familiar with your arguments and not just a good reader is always a plus and will boost speaker points. CX is your time to shine, there is no need to be rude but making your opponent's arguments look silly is a great way to boost your points. If something you think is important comes out in CX, bring it into your speech

Clarity> Speed, If I don't catch it, it won't be flowed. My facial expressions should tell you how I feel about what you are reading.

Above all debate should be an activity you enjoy, seeing both debaters have gears turning in their heads is always great. 

For other events such as WSD a lot of the same applies, judge instruction and a good understanding of your arguments will get you far. 

I am a parent volunteer Speech & Debate judge with three years of experience.

I have judged various formats such as Congress, LD, BQ, DI, HI, DUO, OO, IMP, DEC, etc...

I am a traditional Lincoln Douglas judge.

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

I have been Competing, Coaching, and Judging for going on 8 years now and I'm 21 so that says a lot about my wild amount of commitment I have towards this activity.

Mainly competed and coached extemp and congress so that is where my best critiques would come from since those are the events that I know the most about, however, I am proficient in knowing PF and LD since I have judged tons of elimination rounds for those events and have friends in the events so they teach me the game.

I would say no matter the event it always comes down to three solid principles for me

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

Logic without evidence meaning how solid on a logic understands deductive or inductive reasoning is the argument, to the point that at the least from a basic philosophical level can I consider that argument valid but not being true because that would require evidence.

Quality of evidence is what sets an argument to being a good argument because if your evidence is timely, relevant, and flows within the speech or case then that sets you apart from the round. Good evidence balances arguments, Bad Evidence breaks arguments

Speaking and execution of Rhetoric meaning simply how well are you conveying your speech and case in your delivery, even in Policy debate, if you want the judge to hear something import and round defining then you slow down and say it with conviction. How well do your voice and your inflections convey your narrative especially on the impact analysis which to me is the most important parts of arguments especially;y on a human level is to be important

Most of all, be respectful and courteous to your judges and especially to your opponents because if you are rude, condescending, sexist, racist, you know the deal if it's bad and I catch it, expect the worst result from me and expect for me to back it up. So just be a respectful person and we will be all good.

Hi!

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. Clear sources please. I value accurate information that is credible and unbiased.

I need to see an impact with clear context. If I do not understand it I will not flow it, so assume I do not know anything and be sure to provide context to your claims.

Use the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics beforehand, however understand I want to see how your claim aligns with the legislation.

I value quality questions and quality answers, need to see you are active in round.

Rhetoric is so important. Please present your arguments confidently, clearly, and succinctly so I can understand you completely. Do not spread in a CD round. Keep the debate topical.

And lastly, always be respectful.

About me: I generally judge Congress, speech, and sometimes PF. In high school, I primarily did extemp (mostly international) and congress at the local, state, and national level.

In college/graduate school I studied political science and philosophy and I currently work in editing/journalism. When they come up, I can handle more theoretical/philosophical arguments, especially if they're more in the domain of political theory or IR theory. That being said I do like debating the intricacies of policy as well. This paradigm is generally tailored to Congress (which I judge most of the time) but much of it can be applied to extemp and PF.

Things I like:

- Clash is great. Call people out! Don't be afraid to get a bit aggressive especially if someone tries to pull a stunt but don't veer over into sheer meanness. Direct refutation is especially preferred, particularly if you can point out how someone misread an article by telling me what it actually says.

- Sources sources sources. Especially interesting or underutilized sources like think tanks that aren't Brookings, AEI, CFR, etc. Or interesting news sites like The Intercept or foreign news like Rudaw. Or interesting journals. One time someone cited the American Journal of Potato Research in a round and I almost died from happiness. Doing some digging for something off the beaten path a) shows you care enough to do deep research and b) leads into my next point...

- ...interesting and unique points! Don't let debate get repetitious and show me some interesting and unique ways that a bill may affect something that is unexpected. An example: did you know that investing in infrastructure in Afghanistan like highways or public transit may actually let rural terrorism become more mobile and nationwide in urban areas? Or that Tibetan freedom activists are trying to improve their cybersecurity efforts to remove an epidemic of Chinese malware? Stuff like that is great.

- Extemporaneity is also really good. I hate canned speeches because they really reduce the possibilities of debate and the ability to directly refute arguments. And it allows you to be a more dynamic and engaging speaker. I prefer when people speak with notes in Congress and PF -- it's more natural than a memorized speech.

- Impacts!!!! Lots of Congress I have seen lacks direct impacts and linking sources/arguments to them. Tell me why something matters as well as how it matters. Ultimately this is a DEBATE event, and you should reflect that in your rhetoric.

- Enunciation. Don't slur your words together. I understand speaking fast but you can do that without letting speech get mushy. Be crisp.

- POs: I love when POs have personalities even if they are kind of supposed to fade into the background. Make some puns and some observations! This goes for everyone else. I love a good joke or witty statement.

- Pronouns: This should definitely be a norm in speech and debate at this point. If you're in congress, give them while you're walking up to speak. If in PF/speech, give them to me/the team before round. I.e. "That's Representative Maxwell Fenton, school code JD. I use he/him/his pronouns."

Things I don't like:

- Don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, classist etc. etc. Particularly avoid using slurs. If you get really offensive or get into a direct personal attack on someone I have no hesitation about ranking you the lowest possible score and if I know you, informing your coach of what you said.

- I hate when people judge or mention clothing on ballots and I won't dock you for not wearing a suit or whatever. I think people that do judge based on this are fundamentally classist (and maybe worse). That being said you should tuck in your shirt.

- If someone doesn't want to speak whatsoever don't push them to do it. They made the choice to show up and hang out for three hours while everyone else participated. Don't edit the docket because of this.

- Don't speak from your computer. Use a legal pad or notebook. It's super unwieldy and I'm always afraid someone will drop one.

- "Legislation" is a mass noun. There's no such thing as "a legislation," but there are such things as "pieces of legislation." Same with the word "economist" -- it's pronounced ee-KON-oh-mist, not the dreaded "eh-kon-OMM-ist." I have other word pet peeves like this but these are the big two I've seen in Congress/debate more generally.

- "Basic economics" is not evidence. Neither is "logic." Both of those things require sources and people disagree what they mean and how they matter.

- Repetition. One time I saw a Congress round where 10 people from the same school gave the same canned speeches on the No Child Left Behind Act with the same points, same sources, and same text. You will be ranked down if you rehash the same points over and over and over and over. See above for my love of interesting arguments and sources.

- Don't just sit there, particularly if you're in Congress. You're here for three hours. Give a speech or at least ask some questions.

- Disorganization. Give me a roadmap and an intro, and do the "walk" to split up your points visually as well as rhetorically.

- For intros, don't just say the subject and then move into the speech: i.e. "The national debt. I don't like it because...."

- If you're texting or Facebook messaging in round there's no way you're getting a decent rank. If you're using your phone to access sources because of a broken computer or something please tell me beforehand.

- "Are you aware...?" questions are loaded and stupid and demeans the intelligence of the speaker. Don't ask them. Same with questions that are essentially extended comments -- your statement should easily end in a question mark.

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

If you have any questions, just ask me when you get to round!

Last updated April 2023.

I am a lay debate judge, I have been judging in multiple different events this year. I feel that debaters speaking skills are more important than the overall quantity of their material. Do they speak with intonation and fluency or are they just reading cards? The debater's overall understanding of the material that they are presenting is important, but rather than just reciting words, I feel that they should understand what they are reading. I am looking forward to hearing the resolution and listening to both sides' debate before I make any decisions as to the "winners".

The most important indicators of a good debate are logical reasoning and good use of high-quality sources.

I started my judging career as a speech judge so I will always prefer a high-quality delivery over spreading.

I focus on the quality of the arguments - how well they are backed up with data. I am fine with vigorous counter arguments and debate but do not appreciate personal attacks or rudeness.

6-year debate parent. Argumentation heavy.

When judging Congress, I look for three things:

Is your point supported by a logical argument and/or a source?

Do you respond to other debaters and other points?

Are you respectful and attentive in the chamber?

And as always, be mature and be good people.

• This is the first time that I've judged this event.
• I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.
• Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

No spreading please. I WILL take off points if you do so.

I prefer Traditional LD over Progressive.

Also, as a last note. Don't be rude. Any behavior that is not appropriate will result in getting to lowest amount of speaker points.

Include me in your email chain at: ngurumukhi@hotmail.com

This is my 37th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix.

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save the spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the AC can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins re-election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29s and 29.7s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

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 am a parent judge relatively new to judging speech and debate. Meaning that my highest order concern is understanding what you're saying. That said, paradigm is below.

I try my best to flow your arguments, and my final ranking depends on how well you play your part in a round. For instance, if you're an early-round speaker, I expect you to lay out the more critical arguments of the debate and give clear links on the benefits/harms of the bill. If you speak mid-round I expect engagement with your fellow speakers, and if you speak late-round, I want to see some clash and weighing of the debate. I appreciate creativity in introductions and conclusions, though it's not a must.

Please be polite during questioning. If you are the questioner, try your best to let the speaker finish their thought before cutting them off. Also be sure that your questions are relevant to their speech. Don't bring up new evidence in questioning just for the sake of advancing some sort of nuanced point that you plan on making later in your own speech.

For speaking, please present at an appropriate pace. English is not my first language, so I'll typically tune out anyone who talks too fast.

I will rank POs by how effectively they've run the round and how knowledgeable they are.

I'm a lay judge so I mostly look for clear delivery. This should be obvious, but please make sure to respect your fellow competitors and try your best to not talk over others aggressively.

Refutation, commentary, logic and argument extension are my primary voters. I am a tabula rasa judge for most forms of debate.

LD - I enjoy having a traditional framework set up in LD but if you can link your debate theory and turn a case that is acceptable. I know there is a push in Arkansas of Prog v. Trad and I honestly don't mind either way. I think if the arguments are accessible and we understand the ground of the debate and can create clash then there is no issue.

PF - This form of debate should be accessible to the average citizen. Speed should be moderate at most and there should not be an expectation for a plan/policy or alternate. I weigh more heavily on impacts than framework but having a weaved in framework throughout the case is a huge plus. I flow and weigh cross.

Biggest pet peeve:

{First speaker starts} Read a card in 1AC with a questionable card

{Neg during cross} can you summarize the card...?

{First speaker} I can't but I can read the card again.

Congress: I am relatively new to judging congress but have a decent grasp of Robert's rules. I enjoy it immensely and find that I try to judge/weigh based on the NSDA Debate Guide. For example, the book lists that representatives should not infringe on the chamber's time - stop before the grace period. I weigh questions in your overall score ESPECIALLY if you are tired for speech scores. By the fourth/fifth speech on a bill there should be active clash in your speech and you should not just be rehashing old points. I love a good clarity/summary speech. If you are double entered and leave the chamber I do not let that affect your score for questions.

I mainly judge congressional debate and speaking events. I'll include information for how I evaluate PO's and speeches in different sections.

1. For Everyone Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and confusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough.

2. For Everyone Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

3.For Everyone I prefer an extemporaneous delivery. Computers/notepads should be used as a reference rather than as a script. I also prefer a more polished delivery in which eye contact is more frequently maintained and a students movement is controlled so that it enhances the speech rather than distracts the listener. I can handle faster speech speeds but to a reasonable limit. I need people to speak at a reasonable volume. I need to be able to hear you but yelling is also inappropriate

4. In congress Your speech should be bringing up new information. If your points have already been made in round than don't waste everyone's time by repeating them. Secondly, While I understand that crystalization speeches are popular in the congressional "meta" they have to be well done and actually work to clearly delineate why one sides arguments are preferable to the other sides arguments. If all you have done is summarize the arguments the other speakers have made in round you have wasted everyone's time.

5.In Congress this is congressional debate not congressional speech. While I can understand a lack of clash in the authorship speech I believe that all other speeches in a cycle of debate should make a clear attempt at refuting the specific arguments that other speakers have made in round. Bonus points if you can set up these arguments using a questioning block to draw attention to the flaws in your opponents logic.

6.In Congress If you are speaking in the negation please don't center your argument around a problem that can be amended away. Write an amendment. If your problem with a bill is that it appropriates 20 million dollars instead of the 25 million that it should have fix that problem with an amendment.

7. In Congress While the PO is responsible for running a smooth and equitable chamber it is not only the responsibility of the PO. debaters that have a clear understanding of the rules and don't disrupt the chamber by making incorrect motions or violate chamber rules will be more highly ranked.

8. For Debate Events While I thoroughly enjoyed my time in debate I recognize that I am not a competitor thus it is not my responsibility to counter problematic arguments in round. If a competitor says something factually incorrect or logically incoherent my belief is that it is the responsibility of the other debaters to actually call you out on it. If the chamber doesn't expose these problems during questioning, cross fire, or cross examination than I don't feel It is my responsibility to weigh it.

9.For Presiding Officers I care that you run a smooth and equitable chamber. Make sure you are properly following rules for recency and presedence. Additionally, where rules/procedural issues arise I expect you to be able to handle them without relying on the parli. I will say that I typically have a hard time ranking PO's at the top of the chamber unless the quality of debate is exceedingly low or the PO is exceptionally proficient. However I will usually rank the PO in the top 5 if there are no serious errors in the way they conduct their chamber.

1. I don't care about how you are dressed. Though understand that other judges may care about that kind of thing.
2. I'm not typically a fan of silly arguments with the exception of the final speech in a round of congress but make sure everyone knows you are having fun.
3. Please make sure your judges are ready before stampeding into a speech. I want to make sure that I've found the appropriate place on my ballot to provide you adequate feedback.

Hi! I am currently a student at the University of Michigan and I was a speech and debate competitor during my time in high school (2018-2022). I competed in Public Forum for 2.5 years on the local and national circuit. I also did Extemp, Impromptu, Dec and Info on the local and national circuit

For my any style of debate:

I flow but please do not spread. Second Rebuttal should frontline turns + defense of offense they are going for - I think second summary is way too late to read new frontlines. Weighing is very very important. Please do not read Ks or Shells because I do not know how to evaluate them. I will disclose at the end of the round - but I'll make it quick.

For speech:

I will evaluate your speaking style based on confidence, articulation and presence in the room. I will also evaluate the argumentation/content of your speech.

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for the last three years.

For the contents of your speech, I would like to hear the debate about the harm and benefit analysis of the bill based on the flow of the chamber arguments and your data. I also look at the type of speeches you present during the round. I expect an argumentative speech if you speak later. If you bring an applicable real-life impact to your speech, that also counts for a good ranking. For the delivery, it matters to me if a student speaks with a clear sound, a persuasive tone, and a natural talking style. I give a favor to a student who participates in the debate actively with critical questions to weigh the side of the bill. I give a good ranking if PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck!

I am a parent who has judged for 5 years. Please be civil and respectful in round. Speak at a reasonable speed, and make sure to have organization in your speech.

You have worked hard. Now is your time to shine.

Interp: I have been teaching speech for 8 years; and teaching, directing, and performing theatre for over 40 years. I know an engaging, well-rehearsed performance when I see it. I will give you the kind of quality feedback I give to my own Interp students.

I am looking for clear characterization(s) both physically and vocally. Establish setting with blocking and business. Pantomime should be realistic and establish object permanence.(ex: a glass of water must be picked up and put down while maintaining a consistent shape and size. Refrigerators don't move unless the character moves them as part of the performance.)

Every performance must tell a story. You must convey the who, what, when, where, and why. Emotion is borne out of action.

Drama is is not all screaming and crying. Pauses and soft spoken words can often covey far more than NOISE.

Great acting may boost your rank, but I must understand what is happening and why. The performance must tell a story to receive a high rank in the round. Show that you have chosen material that is meaningful to you and with which you have a connection.

Humor arises from a character's total commitment to and belief in what they are doing and what is happening. Never TRY to be funny. It doesn't come off as humorous or believable. The absurdity of a situation should be evident to the audience, not the character. That's true comedy.

Most importantly, I want to be moved and entertained. Nothing is more thrilling than witnessing a great performance.

Please, let me know what time signals you prefer.

I truly appreciate all of the time and effort you put into preparing for these tournaments. Break a leg! 

Debate: Please, make it clear to me what is happening. My audio processing issue makes it difficult to comprehend 350 wpm spreading. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow the round. I can't tell if you are making a good case or argument. I have judged too many debaters who have ignored this part of my paradigm, and I am left HOPING that I have chosen the winning side.

I am a 4th year coach who knows enough about LD, PF, and Congress to judge, but I am not a seasoned veteran. I teach speech and interp as well, so I KNOW about speaker points.

Simply because "everyone" in the debate world knows a term's meaning, doesn't mean your judge knows it. Ex: Flow that through to the neg/aff, structural violence, disad, block, kritik, voters, etc. (I know what these mean, but most lay judges do not).

I prefer to judge a debate that is won on your skills as a debater rather than running a theory shell. Show me what you know about DEBATE. I'm not a big fan of kritiks.

If you want to ensure a fair decision, you must give VOTERS. That helps me make sense of my flow.

tldr do what you do best; claims, warrants, and impacts are necessary; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; i care about argument engagement not argument style; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

I’ve bolded what you need to skim preround. Table of contents below for phrases you can ctrl+f to get to a specific portion of the paradigm. There’s also a ctrl+f section for opinions on specific arguments. My argumentative opinions are pretty much the same across all events. The last substantive change to this paradigm was February-ish of 2023; any changes since then have been for clarity/formatting. Feel free to email me if you have any questions.

--

Here's a table of contents - you can ctrl+f any of these phrases to get to a certain portion of the paradigm - i understand that this whole paradigm is unreasonably long to read pre-round --

-"about me"

-"email chains"

-"actual paradigm/explanation of my thoughts and feelings about debate"

-"some general notes"

-"speaker points"

-"miscellaneous odds n ends"

-"opinions on specific positions (ctrl+f section)"

within the specific positions section, here are the labels for each position, so you can ctrl+f for those if you want: "case", "planless affs", "t/framework vs planless affs", "theory", "topicality (not framework)", "tricks", "kritiks (neg)", "disads", "counterplans", and "traditional debate".

-"arguments i will never vote for"

--

About me:

Hi! I'm Nethmin! I use she/her pronouns!

The Hill School ’20, Pitzer College ’24 (double majoring in cs-math and economics).

I coach policy at Damien High School and I coach a few LDers independently. I've coached both sides of almost every style of argument.

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I would consider myself to be competent at evaluating whatever debate you want to have. My debate history should not dictate what you read in your round. I think people should stop treating debate as their immortality project and let the students in the activity do what they want.

ideological flexibility is what i value most in debate. judges who hack against k teams and judges who hack against policy teams are equally objectionable to me, all else equal. i do not believe that the arguments a team reads are a reflection of how good/bad of a person they are (except, of course, cases where people do/say things that are egregious). i try to be someone who will vote on any argument as long as it's not delivered in a way that's morally abhorrent (bullying your opponent = bad) and it meets the minimum standards to be considered a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

nethmindebate@gmail.com for LD rounds (you can also use this email to contact me if you need anything)

damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com for CX rounds (please add both!)

Please have the email chain set up by the time the round is supposed to start - don't wait for me to be in the room. I'm always coaching at tournaments, so I likely won't be in the room for the round I'm judging until the time when the round is starting. Set up the chain beforehand, feel free to wait until I'm there to send it out.

--

actual paradigm/explanations of my thoughts and feelings about debate:

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (claim, warrant, impact).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

I'll vote for whichever team wins the line-by-line. It would be nearly impossible to change my mind on this absent something egregious and very out-of-the-norm occurring in-round.

I don't care what style of argument you read. My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it! I have far fewer set-in-stone debate opinions than most coaches/judges.

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else.These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

--

Some general notes

Policy stuff: I tend to be a good judge for policy teams that read high-quality evidence, are able to explain/contextualize their args against a variety of different positions, and have a good understanding of the topic. I tend to be a worse judge for policy teams that don't do the above, and/or rely on judges to do a substantial amount of work for them. I'm fairly familiar with the topic; the amount of explanation you need to do on acronyms/topic-specific intricacies is inversely proportional to how mainstream/close to the core of the topic the argument/concept is.

K stuff: I tend to be a good judge for K teams that are technical, good at argument engagement/comparative analysis, and understand how their criticism interacts with the core of the topic. I tend to be a worse judge for K teams aren't able to adjust their level of explanation to cater to judges who don't exclusively research/coach their criticism of choice - this isn't because I want to vote against them, I just need to understand what they want me to vote for.

Framing and judge instruction are important. Your speeches should tell me how the arguments in the round interact with each other. Most rounds where a team is unhappy with my decision are rounds where that team failed to weigh, compare args, and give judge instruction. Write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar!

Trad team vs circuit team -- I don’t think it’s anyone’s burden to shift their style of debate to accommodate anyone else. I do think it is the burden of both teams to respect all styles of debate and not be rude or condescending. You should each debate how you debate best and I will evaluate the round you give me. Both teams should engage each others' arguments.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time - it takes time for me to find the place on the flow where you want me to flow a certain arg. It's generally more efficient to handle arguments in the order they were on the flow, or at least try to jump around as little as possible. Also, I think that debaters being able to slow/clear the other team is key to accessibility, please be accommodating. I trust that all participants in the round will request and respond to accessibility-related accommodations in good faith; I have no interest in policing who "needs" accommodations, I just want everyone to be able to engage in the round.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round. Things like not being able to answer the majority of the questions during your cx will negatively impact your points, as will going for messy, confusing, and uphill 2nrs/2ars when there were easier and cleaner routes to the ballot.

Speaker points are scaled to the tournament. A 30 at an abysmal finals bid with 10 entries and a cow as a potential bid round opponent is different from a 30 at Glenbrooks or MBA. I'll be a bit more generous with points at tournaments where there's a 4-2 screw (or another similar consideration). I try to only give 30s to debaters that I think meet a decent standard of being technically proficient and argumentatively adept - even if I think you'll win the Online Nonsense Classic, I'll probably not give you a 30 unless I think you could hold your own at a tournament that is at least semi-competitive.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

This scale is based purely on argumentation/in-round strategy. I definitely give extra points if you do things that are listed below in the section for how to improve your speaker points.

I think that I give fairly average points when compared to other judges in the policy community. I try not to contribute to point inflation. I scale points to the tournament to attempt to find a balance between rewarding good/flexible/consistent teams and not punishing teams for the nature of the tournament. The "bonus points" for things that make debate better will likely mitigate my giving "bad points," if that's something you think I do.

Things that you can do to improve your speaker points:
-debate well, be clear, and win decisively (this will always be the primary factor i consider when awarding points)

-be kind! make the round more enjoyable and be kind to your opponents, partner, and judges! i hate being in debate rounds that feel like divorce court!

-be accessible and accommodating. be nice about tech issues, be nice to newer teams, be considerate of accessibility requests, check tab postings/the wiki for pronouns, etc.

-adapt to things that happen in-round. adjust to judges saying "clear," watch for nonverbal reactions/visible confusion, and engage with args.

-disclose! go to the room after pairings to disclose the aff/past 2nrs. if you think you've disclosed particularly well (contact info, open source with highlighting, cite boxes w/ position names as the citation names, disclosing on your team wiki), let me know, and if i agree that you've disclosed well, i'll boost your speaks a bit!

Things that will actively get you bad speaks:

-discrimination of any sort (racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, etc), bullying, egregious misgendering (issues of discrimination also get you a fun talking-to and an email to your coach).

-misdisclosure/lying about disclosure. if you won't disclose, just say that! don't lie/purposefully be sketchy. there's obviously a difference between forgetting something minor (oops, sorry, forgot we have a few new solvency cards) and intentional/malicious lying (fully telling someone the wrong aff).

-unnecessarily rude/disruptive behavior during the other team's speeches. occasionally looking confused during speeches is just a normal reaction - i don't think anyone understands 100% of the arguments that exist in debate. however, constantly shaking your head, laughing during speeches, being really loud when talking to your partner during speeches, etc. are just not necessary!

-ad-homs & asking me to evaluate things that happened outside of the debate & making the debate about someone's personal life.

the notable exception to this is disclosure - this is pretty much the only out-of-round event that i'm fine evaluating debates about.

i don't want to evaluate callouts/judgments about your opponents' coach(es)/interpersonal incidents that occurred. if there is an issue you'd like me to address, tell me before the round and i'll do my best to handle it in a way that makes you comfortable + informs the relevant entities (coaches, tabroom, etc). this isn't to say that i believe problematic/unsafe members of the community don't deserve punishment, but rather, i don't think the way to go about it is to let 4 minors debate it out for 2 hours and then submit a ballot.

-attempts to avoid argument engagement/clash. examples include "you can't answer the k because you're not x identity," "neg must concede aff framing mechanism," "no neg fiat," and other similar strategies.

--

Miscellaneous odds n ends that didn't really fit in other sections of the paradigm:

1 -- I'm increasingly unconvinced by cards cut from articles written by debate coaches. This is not directed at any one specific person or style of argument. I'm not saying you can't make certain arguments, but I am saying that you should probably find actual academic literature that makes the argument. If there is only one person you can find who says the thing you want them to say, and that person is a debate coach, you should think about why the only person saying what you need them to say is a person who has a vested competitive interest in the thing they're saying being perceived as true. Do with this info what you will.

2 -- I would really strongly prefer that trigger warnings/content warnings/accessibility requests are decided pre-round as opposed to mid-round/by reading a procedural. I'm happy to help facilitate anything that's needed in order to ensure that both teams can engage equitably in the round. I'll still evaluate these debates if they come down to a theory debate, I'll just be not super happy.

3 -- The debate people that I spend a fair amount of time with are Tim Lewis, Chris Paredes, Zoe Rosenberg, Jared Burke, Aly Sawyer, Sam McLoughlin, and Eva Lamberson. This is quite a salad of people, and I don't even know if this info is helpful, but I figured I'd include it in case you're curious. This also doesn't mean that I agree with all of their opinions, but I do talk about debate with them a fair amount, so they've likely shaped how I think about debate as well as how I deliver RFDs. It's worth noting that I coach with the first four people on this list (Tim, Chris, Zoe, and Jared).

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be much better for planless aff teams when they're straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material- "colonization didn't happen" is probably not the best strategy.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy - 2nrs that answer impact turns, make framing arguments, win the internal link to the aff's impacts, and generally are in control of the debate are much more enjoyable to evaluate than 2nrs that give me a generic extension of the framework offense that they're winning and then leave it up to me to weigh between their offense and their opponents' offense.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is. If your counterinterp can plausibly solve the core of the negative's offense, going for the ci will make more sense than if the aff doesn't say a word about the topic. The "no-topic-words-in-aff" teams will likely be more successful going for impact turns purely because the counterinterp will likely link to the neg's disads to the aff's model. This isn't to say that I'm opposed to mostly-topical affs going for impact turns or fully-non-t affs going for a counterinterp; just make sure you're able to adequately warrant what you're going for.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it. I am infinitely better for condo debates than I am for "must spec what state you're from," or whatever's cool these days. This isn't to say I have any super strong opinions about condo, but rather, I have rarely been able to find a warranted & convincing ballot story in rounds where theory arguments are unbearably frivolous.

I've noticed a trend in the policy community where a lot of theory debates tend to be resolved based on a judge's pre-existing biases/opinions regarding what is/isn't theoretically legitimate. I don't think I have any theory opinions that are so strong that I'd intervene/hack for a certain argument because of my opinions. If you can win that there's a violation, a reason your interp is good (and better than your opponent's interp), and a clear internal link to an impact, I'll vote for you.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

Theory defaults: competing interps, drop the debater.

My defaults on RVIs: absent a "no RVIs" arg being made & won, I'll assume that RVIs are theoretically legitimate/I'll evaluate an RVI if it's made. This doesn't mean I'll insert an RVI if it's not made. I don't have a particularly strong opinion in either direction on the yes/no RVIs debate.

Topicality (not framework):

Same defaults as theory.

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Negative teams that can clearly explain what their model includes/excludes and provide tangible examples of their abuse story are great! Negative teams whose arguments devolve into some flavor of "well i guess the aff doesn't feeeeeel topical" with no clear explanation of what is/isn't T are often better served going for different arguments. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. This isn't to say that you shouldn't go for these args in front of me (I actually find myself voting for them a non-zero amount) but rather, that you should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments more than anything.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument (claim, warrant, impact)

Kritiks (neg):

I value the explanation that you do in the round and the actual parts of the evidence you read, and I will not give you credit for the other musings/opinions/theories that I’m sure your author has.

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be! I love judging good K teams; I less-than-love judging K teams that want to run from clash/argument engagement.

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

I tend to think that counterplans need to have a text that is written out in a speech doc and emailed to all participants in the round PRIOR to the speech in which it's read. There's something that feels sketchy about letting teams type out a text to send out after the 1nc (or even worse, after 1nc cx).

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

For all debate events- I don’t encourage spreading, though it is allowed. I prefer to have debaters speak at a normal pace so that I am able to hear all of your arguments and use them to help make my decision.

Congressional Debate -

Presiding Officer: Presiding Officers should be an individual who can show mastery levels of understanding of the role of Presiding Officers in the chamber. It's understood this would be a presiding officer who, once elected, can show leadership of the chamber by beginning with a phrase similar to “this chamber will come to order.” I expect the Presiding Officer will use their best effort to recognize speakers around the chamber in a fair and balanced manner. Describe gavel time signals. Explain procedures clearly: i.e., how they will recognize speakers, etc., that the Presiding Officer will not call for motions at any time (speakers should seek their attention when they wish to rise to move something), and that when it is clear that debate has exhausted on a bill/resolution, The Presiding Officer will ask the chamber if they are ready for the question, rather than waiting for the previous question (which should be reserved for forcing end to debate that has become one-sided or repetitive in arguments). The Presiding Officer should have confidence and authority when addressing the chamber. The Presiding Officer should use a calm, controlled and caring voice to show a genuine interest in the chamber’s business at all times.

Speakers: My expectations for speakers are competitors who have their speeches made beforehand on bills that they really have a passion about. Speakers should be ready to speak and ask questions that are going to challenge their opponents to think candidly and without much preparation. I expect speakers to think critically on the bill in question and be able to show expertise on the subject at hand. These topics take some time to truly research. I will be able to distinguish a speaker who has really taken the time on the topic beforehand or a speaker who clearly is looking for "cheap" speaking points. Although this is simply competition to some, this is a great practice and really good insight for folks to understand how our Congress works in the real world. I want them to understand the Difficulties of passing legislation that may be viewed as "one-sided" or not. I expect good back and forth discussion amongst speakers when it comes to various bills that may one day, affect them in real life if we are to see these bills appear in a real State or United States House of Representatives or Senate. These folks are the people of tomorrow. WE need our folks more involved than ever before; so to my speakers; act as if you have genuine care and passion for what you are debating for as if your FUTURE depends on it and is hanging by the rafters.

I’m a Congress Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota

Background:

-I competed in Congressional Debate for all four years of high school. I am extremely well versed in Robert’s Rules of Order and the NSDA rules. I was ranked first in Congress in Minnesota, went to Nationals and broke to out rounds three times, qualified for the Tournament of Champions, and competed on both the national and local circuits during my time as a debater. I coached policy for the MNUDL for one year, then in 2022, I started coaching Congress.

Congressional Debate:

-Above all else, treat everyone with respect and civility. If you are rude, condescending, insensitive, or have unsportsmanlike behavior, then it will be reflected in your ranks

Speeches

-Congress isn’t a Speech event; I want to hear good argumentation that furthers the debate

-I value quality over quantity, 1 amazing speech will always beat out 3 mediocre speeches

-I expect refutation, rebuttal, and clash in speeches

-You need to include cited evidence, you can’t rely on logic alone

-The delivery of your intro should be smooth and include a clear roadmap

-I appreciate clever jokes or puns but make sure it’s appropriate and relevant

-Author/sponsorship speeches should explain the problem the legislation is trying to solve and how the legislation uniquely solves it

-Mid-round speeches should offer something new, clarify or expand on arguments that have been said, or refute arguments

-If you’re giving a late-round speech, you should not be bringing up new arguments, I expect you to be giving a crystallization speech

-Crystallization speeches should not just be a summary or a line-by-line of the round; the purpose of a crystallization is to weigh each side of the debate and prove why one side wins over the other

Questioning

-I really value participation in questioning; staying involved, asking good questions, and using questioning to further the debate can be the determining factor between two speakers who are tied in my ranks

-Refrain from talking over each other, cutting each other off, or shouting—keep it civil

-Avoid prefacing (making a statement instead of asking a real question) while it technically isn’t against the rules, it’s not a good use of a question and I don’t consider it helpful to the debate

What to Avoid if You Want a Better Rank (Speakers)

-Being disrespectful

-Reading off prewritten speeches

-Reading off a laptop (unless it’s for accessibility reasons)

-Repeating and rehashing points

-Giving an oratory speech (not including refutation/clash or interacting with the debate)

-Breaking cycle and having a one-sided debate

-Being unprepared and then recessing to figure out what you’re going to do or to write speeches

-Not participating in questioning—even if you give a great speech you have to stay involved

-Prefacing in questioning

-Trying to move the previous question even if someone still wants to speak

-Ending the debate early or using excessive recesses when there is still time to debate and get more speeches in—I understand that might mean some people get an extra speech, but remember, it’s quality over quantity

Presiding

-I consider the Presiding Officer (PO) to be one of the most integral parts of the round; if you preside, you will start with my 1—it is your rank to lose

-As PO, you should have good control over the chamber—it should run so smoothly that I never have to step in

-You need to follow NSDA rules, Robert’s Rules of Order, and then any tournament-specific rules

-Clearly explain your gaveling procedures, how you will call on speakers and questioners, and how you will be keeping track of precedence and recency (p/r)

-I dislike online PO sheets if they are the ones that automatically track p/r and determine the next speaker to call on. Having an algorithm do all the work for you is neither skilled nor impressive—I rank competitors, not algorithms

-I expect you to be able to provide speech times, what side a speech was on, and current precedence and recency at any time

-I can provide clarifications, recommendations, and assistance, but I expect you to guide the chamber and promote a healthy debate

-I will not call you out for small mistakes such as P/R because it’s the duty of the chamber to keep you accountable, but I will take note, and every mistake you make will hurt your rank

-Overall, you need to follow the structure of Parliamentary procedure, uphold the rules, and preside fairly, accurately, and efficiently

What to Avoid if You Want a Better Rank (Presiding Officer)

-Using an online PO sheet that automatically tracks and says what speaker to call on

-Using an unnecessary amount of words (not being efficient)

-Gaveling too loudly—I’m sitting right next to you, please don’t give me a headache

-Incorrect Parliamentary Procedure, especially:

-Not knowing the vote needed to pass different motions (like 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, etc)

-“Assuming unanimous consent” for important votes

-Calling for orders of the day to go over the stats from the chamber (that’s not what it is, it’s used for voting on tabled legislation at the end of the session)

-“Amending the docket/agenda” (this motion does not exist and should be ruled out of order)

-“Motion to address the chamber” (this motion does not exist and should be ruled out of order)

I am a Parent Judge who has been judging for 4 years, mostly in Congress. I have judged at Novice through State Tournaments, as well as the Nationals Tournament.

I prefer you to speak at a reasonable speed and if that means covering fewer arguments, fine.

Everyone should be fully engaged in all sessions, delivering speeches and asking meaningful questions.

After the first few speeches, I expect all speakers to be interacting with their fellow speakers and not delivering canned speeches. The idea of Congress is to deliver extemporaneously, which means speaking spontaneously based on an outline of notes, not reading a prepared speech. I want to see clashing and debating, not just giving speeches. Exact repetition (which is different than extending on a previously stated idea) of ideas already presented is not favorable.

I also want to see you are having fun and enjoying competing. Humor, puns, metaphors, and personal examples are all great. It makes your speech more interesting, but I will of course be looking for you to back up your points and make strong convincing arguments.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

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.

Email for potential chains: miscavishja@parkhill.k12.mo.us

I'm a long-time coach. I'll be flowing the round and also typing feedback on my computer. 

Please take turns asking questions in CX so one team doesn't dominate. I think a follow up is appropriate but after that you NEED to let your opponent have a question on your case.

Please find clash as quickly as possible and please DON'T clash on definitions. It's super boring to watch teams argue about what 'comprehensive' means. 

If both teams have similar impacts (nuclear warfare, for example), please determine how I should weigh that. I can't flow the exact same impact to both sides of this debate, so give me a reason to flow it to your side. 

Please make sure that your arguments have logical consistency and that your presentation has integrity.

Also, presentation skills play a large part of my evaluation.

Hello there. My name is Brian Nguyen and this is my judging paradigm. I have no preference on how fast you go nor do I mind the various arguments that you may have. I have debate experience, but that should not matter as I will only judge the quality of your debate with respect to your current opponent.

Good luck and have fun!

On arguments. I appreciate arguments that acknowledge the complexity of the imperfect world we live in. There are no perfect solutions to the issues we debate, so I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise. These issues are complicated; approach them with compassion and nuance. In LD, this means I really want you to lean into the lens of your value. Engage with your opponent's arguments authentically, don't twist their words or intentionally misconstrue what they are saying for a "technical gotcha."

On delivery. Slow down. I know it's not speech, but I'd like your delivery to add something. I don't want to feel like I would have been better off simply reading your argument. Consider variance in tone, tempo, and volume. Pauses separate ideas and can add emphasis.

On losing me. I will question your entire argument if you use logical fallacies, outdated research, or clearly unreliable sources. Do not use arguments that rely on racism, sexism, classism, etc. You will lose my respect if you attempt to intimidate your opponent.

About me. I'm an English teacher who loves cats, books, and learning new things. I value passion and creativity in others. Kindness and compassion are more important than the win.

Congress:

Please DEBATE with each other. If you refute and weigh you'll have my ballot. For sponsors, I need a problem/solution explanation of the bill, and I love when you frame the debate around one metric/value/impact we should weigh both sides. Also keep me interested! Have fun with it! If you're enjoying debating and care about what you're saying, I can tell and it makes me want to care. If you're speaking on the NEGATION of a legeslation, you need to prove a net harm of passing it. The later in round your speech is, the more refutation it needs to have.

About me: I'm Audrey (he/they) I did congress for four years of high school. I know what good debate looks like. Also I'm evil.

1. If you give a pre-written speech while holding your laptop in front of you and staring down at it, I'm telling on you. Speaking extemp is wayyyyy cooler and sooooooo much more fun. all the cool kids are doing it.

2. If you do a silly little dance and jazz hands on your way up to speak i will move you up two (2) ranks. (this might be a lie. you have to just do it and find out.)

Keep in mind: this is high school debate. if you stumble or say the wrong thing or mess up in some way just remember it's not that serious! Be kind to yourself and others! We're all in this to have fun.

TLDR; REFUTE, WEIGH, RESPOND, IMPACT & BE KIND

POs: Have control of the room. Be in the background. Be accurate above all else. Don't take up excess time in the chamber with unessesary flourishes. If I hear a "the chair thanks you" your rank is being moved down.

If you want more feedback after a round, my email is Audrey.Victoria.Pearson@gmail.com.

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

I see each round as a game: I start at 27 speaks, from there you win points for well-made arguments, good use of cards, and clear attacks and rebuttals and you lose points for dropped arguments, poorly sourced or clipped cards, and vaguely linked or unclear impacts. However, I won't flow dropped arguments to your side unless you call them out!

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

• LD: I prefer you not run a K or using theory shells, but if you do it won't lose you points unless you do not explain in great detail what it means, why it's the right move for the round, and why I should weigh it over your opponent.
• Policy:Not a policy coach, so run whatever you'd like, just explain it to me as you go.

I am looking for ref and clashes if giving a late round speech, sharp CX involving both, staying alert (asking questions) and staying confident when being questioned. I would also be looking for speeches with good inflections (a speech I would want to hear twice) rather than speeches that don't show emotion, and as always show respect to all other participants.

Thank You!

Jonathan Roath 

Russellville High School- Education Specialist (SPED teacher) 

11 years working in SPED at the elementary and high school settings. 

1st year Speech and Debate assistant coach.

Took 2 Debate classes in High School.

I like facts and supporting those facts. I like honesty in a speech and do not hold back information that is supported and not just an opinion. Enlighten me !! 

Hello, I am pretty new to debate (Katy Taylor is my second tournament judging), so you need to make sure you are doing a good job explaining your points and giving voters in Final Focus, I will most likely be voting on that. Also, don't talk fast because then I will not understand what you are saying.

Good morning; I am a rhetorician. I look for language/definitions - the burden is on the Aff. Evidentiary support is critical - please ensure sources are recent.

I am a stock issues judge also I am fine with counter plans. I don't mind spreading of cards just no spreading of the tags.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge. When I'm deciding who won the round, I first evaluate framing issues like definitions, ground, and burdens. Then I evaluate the value/criterion level to determine what standard(s) I'm using to weigh the impacts. In many of the rounds I judge, I believe that there is unnecessary clash over values and criteria because both sides have the same standard but are using slightly different language. Once I understand the standard(s) level of the debate, I weigh the contention level arguments' impacts to see which side better upholds their standard. You debaters should be weighing impacts during your rebuttal speeches, and those impacts should carry weight because they connect to the standard.

I'm not great at flowing speed. Fast conversational is my limit.

I have a hard time following debates when the arguments are referred to by author names.

If you have a different approach to LD than the traditional model, I am open to it. I just need an explanation for why I should award you my ballot.

Congress: I generally follow the ICDA Congressional Debate rubric for scoring speeches.

Additionally, I ask myself "Is this the appropriate speech for the moment?" The first few speeches should construct the best arguments for and against the legislation, the speeches in the middle of the sequence should focus on refutation and extension, and the final speeches should have weighing and crystallization. For example, if the Con makes a great, impactful argument for why the legislation will have devastating unintended consequences, I expect the Pro side to engage with that argument right away.

For nominations and ranks, I'm rewarding the debaters who I believe would most persuade someone who is on the fence about the issues.

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 18 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 7th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level. I have been judging debate for the last 12 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the beginning years and the last 5 in LD, PF and Congress. I graduated with a Mass Comm degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law in 2014. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed! 

I have a congress paradigm and CX,LD,PF one included in here.

Congress Paradigm:

General:

One thing to remember - judging congress is hard! It's just as exhausting for us as it is for you. We're trying really hard to compare a lot of people who have vastly different styles! I try to write as much as I can, but I spend a lot of time listening, so sometimes my comments can be lite at times. I'm working on that, the three mins go so fast. I'm hoping this will help shed some light on how I evaluate debaters.

When it comes to national level tournaments, at this point, almost everyone is a proficient speaker, so I really focus on the quality of arguments and ability to be flexible in round. Being a well rounded debater is important for me, especially as a Parli. I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Make sure you are listening and not rehashing, if you're doing a rebuttal make sure you are extending or further attacking an argument.

I REALLY APPRECIATE A GOOD AUTHORSHIP OR SPONSORSHIP. Nothing is worse than judging or watching a semi-final round where there is no first aff, and having to take an in house recess immediately. Come prepared, have one. Spend the rest of your time doing great questions and defending your position there. I feel like people don't like to do this because they feel like they will be dropped. Rebuttals and Crystals are great, but there's a lot of them. If you can do this well, we'll know. It comes with the most amount of questioning time that if you know a lot about the topic you can show boat.

Linking: This is a debate skill you should have, you should able to link your impacts with others, link arguments together for rebuttal. Most national level congress debaters are great at linking within their own argument, but make sure you link and contextualize to the round. I want to see that they go together rather be a stand alone. That being said, contextualizing by: "I want to separate myself from the other AFF or NEG arguments", that's okay because you are still contextualizing within the round. Do not operate as an island in the debate, it's a good way to be dropped by me. Also remember, you can have great speeches, but if you don't ask questions, you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot. It's a crucial part of debate.

Impacting:

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. Again, at the national level, most people can impact to lives or economy etc. But what I find people aren't as good, is contextualizing the impact. Example: You tell me that thousands of lives are being lost in Yemen, take it one step further tell me what percentage of that population is being killed, or how that compares to another genocide for context. Make it hit home for all of us. Just giving generic #'s, sure it's the impact, but it doesn't show me the impact. Make sense? Remember I come from a policy background where pretty much everything leads to nuclear war.

Questioning:

Direct questioning is great, but make sure you're not too long winded or too brief, there's a nice sweet spot, where you have maybe a sentence or two question and answer. I've seen people basically run out the time by doing a really long answer, and I've also seen debaters ask such long questions that there's no way the opponent can answer. You only have 30 seconds, make it count.

Participation in Round:

Leadership is important. Remember, I'm comparing a lot of kids, participation with motioning and making sure that all students get to talk is important. This can help make up for bad presidency etc.

PO:

I almost always rank P.O.s in the top 5. It's a hard job, and as a parli, we appreciate good POs. A good way to get to the top 1/2 of my ballot as a PO. The round runs so smoothly I barely know you're there. You are able to solve issues of people not being prepared / docket issues. (This happens so often, time restrictions make things complicated. Especially since lots of tournaments have their own rules).

Mistakes happen, one mistake is not going to tank you. Continuous mistakes, or failing to help chamber resolve issues. This makes it harder. Fairness is also important, I notice when you pick your teammates repeatedly or if you always start in the middle of the room. 

Inclusiveness - especially on the local circuit. I don't like parliamentary procedure used to limit people talking. It is also important to encourage those who haven't talked to go. Do your best to make sure the chamber is inclusive.

DON'T ALWAYS PICK YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. I know this happens. And it's easier to pick up than you think it is. Presidency means a lot in congress. Make it fair.

There's a reason I love coaching congress, it's a fun event!

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

General: As I’ve previously mentioned I come from a legal background. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: As I wasn’t a debater in high school, I don’t have the technical experience dealing with these arguments, however, I don’t mind critical affs on-face. Since I don’t have the technical experience, I appreciate all critical arguments to be understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable. I generally dislike affs that are anti-topical or affs that critique the topic. I’m not saying I’ll never vote for a critical aff, whiteness aff, performance aff’s, etc, but its the one area where an affirmative is asking the most out of me as a judge. Again, I have less experience with these types of aff’s so extra explanation of sources and philosophies. For kritiks from the negative, I prefer ones that are topic-specific rather than K’s that are broad or philosophical. I’m pretty familiar at this point with cap k, neolib, fem, eco-k, anything outside of these again you’ll have to communicate more effectively as it is a bigger burden for me to decipher.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My training in law, and my work, deals almost exclusively with substantive arguments, so I tend to prefer and understand those better. If you do decide to go this route, it must be very well done. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence. Keep tags like 5-8 words, long tags suck.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

FOR LD PREFS AT BERKELEY

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) I'll be honest, if you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you. I'll try my best, but I often find myself behind in these debates and struggling to find an offensive reason to vote for you.

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

That being said, if you have me as a judge read below:

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

I'm a sucker for ethos, pathos and logos. Please include your sources when making claims. Above all, I'm looking to BELIEVE the words you're saying, and that you're fully engaging in the legislative process. If you're furthering debate, you've got my attention. Please avoid personal attacks during cross examination and/or direct questioning.

I am currently the Assistant Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. I coach Congressional Debate and Public Forum.

Background:

High School Debate (Iowa): Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Speech

College Debate (Loyola U): Parliamentary Debate

Coach/Mentoring: The Chicago Debate League, MN Urban Debate League

Retired Attorney – Business Law for pay and Constitutional Law for fun.

Congressional Debate:

-Congressional Debate is not a Speech event; I am looking for argumentation skills that further the debate.

-I encourage signposting, great intros, and a quick summary conclusion. When appropriate, a joke or pun is always welcome.

-I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal.

-I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have importance to their constituents back home.

-The authorship or sponsorship speech should address the status quo, lay out the problem(s), and explain with specificity how the legislation solves it. The first con should be equally as strong. Second-round speeches and beyond should advance the debate – offer something new, clarify something that has been said, or refute something proffered.

-If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch, crystallization speech is in order and very much enjoyed when done well.

-One amazing speech will always beat out three mediocre speeches.

-No same-sided questions...it does not further debate.

-Don't break the cycle of debate; either flip sides or give a speech on another piece of legislation.

-Refrain from the three Rs: Repeat, Rehash, Recycle.

-Make your arguments stronger, not louder.

-I expect you to treat your colleagues with respect and civility. Shouting, pointing fingers (literally), and being downright rude in questioning will drop you quickly. I like questions that further debate and shore up the arguments. I frown upon unsportsmanlike shenanigans – no “gotcha” or snarky questions. My frown will extend to chamber rankings.

Presiding Officer: Please consider the job of PO ONLY if you are comfortable with Parliamentary Procedure, keeping track of recency and precedence, and running a controlled chamber. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. I do not mind some levity, but this is also a competition. As PO, please explain your gaveling procedure, your understanding of recency and precedence, and how you call on representatives for questioning. Please do not call for "orders of the day" in front of me. Y'all are using it wrong to give your stats from the round.

Public Forum Debate:

>>>SPEED: I am a Coach, but I still can't write as fast as I hear you. You never said if it does not make it to my flow.

Clear signposting.

Off-time roadmaps work for me.

I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Don't cherry-pick your evidence.

I want to hear debate on the NSDA PF resolution only. Run anything else at your own risk!

I really need narrative and great warranting - please extend them through the flow. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them.

Are you still terminally impacting to Nuclear War in 2021? If so, use caution because the probability is about 1%. I know that, you know that, and the academic literature states that.

I prefer line-by-line rebuttals.

Collapse as necessary to keep the debate sharp.

Please weigh in summary and final focus. If you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both the summary and final focus. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the round.

Alum of the program, competed 4 years and have coached for the last 2 (give or take). I have judged pf before as well as multiple speech events.

I look for who has the better cohesive argument. I also look closely for who is better able to thoughtfully deconstruct the other sides argument in cross. I am not picky, just be coherent.

I have been an educator in a medical university for almost twenty years. For all debater, I promise to be open and fair.

I look forward to listening all debates. Best of luck.

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.

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.

Hey everyone!

I competed on the Speech circuit for a little over six years. I focused largely on Extemp and Informative Speaking, but I dabbled in Impromptu and Congress at the national level. 

For speaking events: I want to see clear structure and articulate speaking. Good humor will get you very far for me!! If your event has a structure, I expect to see it (in extemp especially! I want data, warrants, and impacts for all points!!). Be confident and you will do fine. 

For interp events: I want to understand your message and your characters. I have helped construct parts of POIs, DIs, HIs and DUOs so I know what I am looking for. If it should be funny, it better be funny; if it is dramatic, I need to feel the drama. Your intro, while short in comparison, is very important to me since this sets the stage for the entire performance. If I do not understand your story and message, I will not understand the piece and my ranking will reflect as such. 

Congress: I want to see very clear arguments and unique points. If you speak and it is rehash, please know ahead of time I will drop you. You are not helping the round by having non-unique claims. If you are giving a refutation speech, it better have refutation. If you are giving the authorship/sponsorship, introduce the bill and why it is important. If you do not make me care, then I won't. It's simple!

General note for politically-based events: I am very well versed on politics domestically and globally due to (1) religious reading of the news and (2) I am studying it in college. If you are presenting an argument and I find the evidence to seem fake, I will challenge it or make my point known. If you are lying about something political, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and look it up to confirm, but I will ultimately drop you if it is falsified. Also, I am studying political science and international relations - I know what evidence means and when data is misused. If you are using data use it correctly or I will call you out on it in ballots and ranking. 

hi yall! i coach congress for leland, but i also did pf and policy a fair bit during my time debating

TOC '22 Congress Quarterfinalist

Congress:

- dont feel pressured to do only late round speeches — I'll bump up good constructives/authorships so don't worry about not getting clash in as an early speaker

- PO's will generally be ranked pretty highly, depending on how many mistakes you make/how efficient you are

- i vote between a mix of argumentation and presentation — both are important for ranking well

- i like questions that try to point flaws in logic, try to keep new evidence for your own speeches (basically no leading questions)

- debatey terminology like "warrant" and "framework" are okay with me, but i know some judges don't like it so proceed with caution

- don't forget the congress roleplay! That also means that you can include arguments that come as a consequence of previous legislation — e.g. if theres a docket that includes VAT tax and UBI, and VAT tax was passed in an earlier round, then you can now use that to fund the UBI bill! don't forget the congressional rhetoric too

- please please please please figure and stick to splits at the beginning of the round — too many times in which people got screwed because the aff/neg cycle screws over later speakers. if you are forced/choose to flip, ill bump you up

General debate (excluding Congress):

- if rules allow, add me on the email chain: smmzhu@gmail.com

- feel free to run unique and strange arguments, as long as they are explained well and arent offensive

- progressive arguments (Ks, high theory) may be evaluated if i can understand them, but I have basically no experience in progressive arguments, so run at your own risk

- spread at your own risk (250+ wpm), and send a speech doc past 200+ wpm

- signpost pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

- anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. = automatic drop (duh), also make sure to include content warnings when necessary

- please don't be rude

- being funny will help ur speaks, debate can get dry without it

- ill disclose if tourney rules allow and both teams agree

PF:

- paraphrasing is okay, I will assume that your card tags are correct until someone contests them (if there is slight ambiguity then that's okay, but if there's wild misconstruing I may have to intervene)

- in cross, i'll be watching but not flowing so if theres anything flow worthy, bring it up in the subsequent speech

- please extend your links and warrants throughout the debate, i swear i will cry if you dont

- extend in rebuttal, and second rebuttal should have frontlines — anything you go for must be in summary and FF

- you can win off of a turn, but you would need to weigh those turns against the opponents contentions

- please do your own weighing, i dont wanna do weighing for you cuz im super lazy

- hopefully i dont have to read through cards at the end of the round, but i will do so if it RFD depends on it

- no third final focus, you know who you are

Policy:

- ive done a bit of lay policy, so i know about how the general debate format works

- anything circuit (kritiks, theory) must be explained spectacularly to a dodo like me, also run at your own risk since i know nothing about k lit

- framework (burden of proof, net benefits, etc.) will default to utilitarianism until someone provides a framework to follow

LD/Parli:

- im a bit newer to these debates, but i think most of the general debate concepts dont change, so just explain your jargon

gj for making it thus far into my paradigm, hope round runs smoothly

any questions? email me at smmzhu@gmail.com