Speech

Emotional/intellectual stimulation: I want to be moved by whatever you present. Make me love it like you love it, or make me cry, or make me laugh.

Range: How many different kinds of characters can you effectively show me? OR how many different emotions can you communicate convincingly? OR how many different kinds of writing tools can you use to entertain me? (humor, drama, irony, suspense, visual stimulation for INFO)

Physicality: How do you use your body and the performance space? I want to see bold physicality or nuanced expression whenever each is appropriate to the piece. If possible, I want to see you use the whole performance space - if not with your entire body, then at least with your eyes.

Timing:Have you practiced each line and timed it for comic or dramatic effect?

Clarity:I need to be able to understand each line, regardless of volume.

Blocking: I'm looking for blocking that is clearly intentional, appropriate to the piece, and engaging.

Debate

*VERY IMPORTANT GENERAL NOTE*:I want to see debaters demonstrate skills that actually apply in the real world of persuasion, NOT tactics that only work in the gamified world of competitive debate. Spreading will lose you speaker points if I can't understand you, and if I can't keep track of your contentions and ideas then I will not expect your opponent to either. In other words, if you speak at 1000mph, don't expect my ballot if you then accuse your opponent of dropping contentions or subpoints.

Speaking ability: Don't stress if you stutter or trip on your words. Ultimately, if it is clear you understand your topic, have strong evidence and can undermine your opponents points, your volume, tone and fluency don't matter. That being said, I need to be able to hear and understand you, and I need to feel that you feel confident in your own case. Stay calm and confident even if you make verbal mistakes and you will be all good.

Clash: I need to see you directly turn or defend against your opponents key claims and evidence. A really strong turn is very likely to get my ballot. This shows listening and quick thinking combined with strong research, skills that win debates in real life.

Impacts: I favor teams/debaters that can communicate their impacts in vivid, specific ways that reach me on an emotional level. I may give my ballot to a team that paints a vivid picture of ONE PERSON a vote for them will impact over a team that throws massive numbers of deaths at me. I'll quote Joseph Stalin here: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

Roadmapping:It helps, but not a make-or break. The way you frame your speech as you are giving it should make your organizational structure clear. "

Evidence:Show, don't tell. Give me numbers, statistics, or a key anecdote if you want my ballot. This is still true for LD - once you have established your framework, and its basis in theory, move on quickly to the evidence if you want my ballot.

hi!

I am a parent judge so please do not do anything that you wouldn’t do for a parent judge, and I have a few rules of thumb.

1. Please do not speak too fast and make sure you are clear while you speak.
2. I listen to everything during the round, and I will judge based off whose argument is more convincing.
3. Please be respectful and kind to both me and your opponent's.
4. Please have fun and try your best and good luck to both of you guys!

I have experience as a Parli debate judge, but this is my first time judging PF.

Argumentation: In a round, I mainly look for strong and logical argumentation. I'm pretty tabula rasa, so I want to see persuasion and a lot of impacting and warranting to convince me.

Evidence: Make sure you use evidence to support your contentions.

Spreading: Do NOT spread. I want to hear well-articulated arguments, so please communicate clearly and at a moderate pace so I can get everything down on my flow.

Organization: Please make sure to signpost. I helps me on my flow keeps the round much more organized for both sides.

Decorum: Please be respectful to your opponents and especially be respectful during crossfire.

I can't wait to see all of your arguments. Have fun!

Hi! I’m really excited to be your judge today!

A few notes:

1. Sign posting is an absolute must. If I cannot follow you, that’s a problem.

2. No spreading, this isn’t policy debate.

3. I will reward you for being clear and impacting all of your claims. Tell me why this argument matters!

4. Be civil! I will give you low speaks if you are rude and talk over the top of one another.

5. Be clear on why you believe you have won the round. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence!

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

In Congressional Debate, I believe in clear, concise analysis. I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal. I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have an importance to their constituents back home. I understand that the end result is artificial, but for the moments in which you are in session, act like it matters.

I also expect that you will treat your colleagues with respect and avoid the parliamentary games which serve to prevent them from speaking. I've been around too long and can see through such tactics.

Hi! I'm Ishika. I'm a member of the UT Austin speech team. I specialize in extemp and impromptu but I have experience with OO, info, CX, LD, and Congress.

Racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. is an automatic drop (last place in speech, loss with minimum speaks in debate). Send docs to ibhsdocs@gmail.com. PLEASE use a trigger warning if your piece needs one.

EXTEMP

I value content and structure the most in extemp. Make your analysis make sense. Give me a reason to believe that your answer to the question is correct. Your sources should add genuine substance to your speech. They shouldn't just be included to check off a box of the number of sources you need.

The 30 second grace period is for grace, not for extra speech time. A few seconds past 7:00 to finish a last sentence or two won't factor into my rankings, but anything more than that will.

Overall, I want to learn! Tell me something interesting about your topic. If you seem excited about it, I'll be excited about it too.

OO/INFO

Content is super important here as well. I like when OO solutions are actionable. I want to leave feeling like there is something tangible that I can do after leaving the round in order to stop the issue you're presenting. Similarly, I want to walk out of an info round having learned something new and interesting. For me, a logical and cohesive structure is the most important part of understanding a speech. Make it as easy as possible for me (or any audience member, really) to follow along.

DEBATE

Spreading is fine if I have the doc. If not, slow down on the taglines you want me to flow. I don't know any specific K literature super well (except Baudrillard, kinda) so make sure to fully explain. Tech > truth. I don't flow cross, bring it up in a speech if you want me to flow it. Open cross/flex prep is fine with me if the tournament allows it and both debaters/teams are cool with it.

Big fan of theory as long as it's properly extended. I default to granting RVIs but my threshold for a successful no RVI argument is low. Explain Ks well and make sure the links are super clear.

Don't do tricks. I don't understand or care for all that business.

Speaks are awarded on strategy, word economy, and demeanor (ex: use of humor, not being overly aggressive during cross, etc.).

Be decent people. If you're an experienced debater/team competing against folks who are clearly novices, it's not educational or useful (or fun, really) for anyone if you spread against them at like a million wpm in a clear attempt to overwhelm them.

CONGRESS

Follow parliamentary procedure. PO starts in the last rank that breaks (ex: in a chamber where the top 3 break to the next round, the PO will start at 3rd place) and moves up for stellar performance or down for major mistakes.

As a bonus for reading all the way through my paradigm, before the round starts, tell me your favorite type of tea and I'll give you +0.5 speaks.

I have had 4 boys participate in Speech and Debate, one of them took 3rd place at Nationals 2024 in Speech Commentary.

I have judged since 2020.

I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow. I like to see your facts based on relevant, recent cited evidence you provide. I care more about the content of the speech than how you present it, but I do also care how you present it. Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

Debate:

• I mostly focus on IMPACT CALC and EVIDENCE.
• Quality argumentation over quantity
• Evidence to back up argumentation.
• Be clear in speaking. Spreading is fine as long as I can understand you. Policy - share files with me.
• CX - Good clash and defend your case well.
• Use your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.
• Use your summaries to clean up unclear arguments.
• Use your final focus to persuade me to vote for you.

Congress:

• You have a limited amount of time so try and get as many QUALITY speeches in as you can.
• However, just because you speak the most, doesn’t mean you will get 1st. Your speeches need to be spoken with clarity, confidence, CITED evidence (with author/website AND date), and facts.
• Be ready to back up your argument during questioning, especially with evidence. While you are getting questioned, answer respectfully.
• While you are questioning another speaker, be respectful. Don't just ask yes or no questions, but ask questions that provide detail.
• Just because you are the P.O. does not get you ranked 1st. As a P.O. you need be accurate with recency and precedency, especially for speeches. You need to move the debate along smoothly and have good command.
• I judge you based off of your speeches, your answers, and what you ask your fellow representatives.

Speeches:

• Your speech should engage me and hold my attention the whole time, as well as those of the audience.
• Use varying tone/rate/volume/facial expressions.
• Your speech should have a wow factor. Make your speech so interesting that I will remember it above everyone else.

Parent Volunteer

I am a parent volunteer whose student is in her second year of debate/forensics. I have also been a volunteer judge for the past two years. I am an education professional, having spent 12 years in Higher Education Administration and six in Corporate Learning. I currently lead all Supply Chain Training for a Fortune 10 Company.

While I do not have formal debate experience, my professional experience includes conducting speeches and presentations and succinctly sharing my position, always grounding it in a solid argument. These professional skills and experiences have been imperative to my career success. For example, during my time in higher education, I presented to thousands of students, specifically employing techniques of persuasive speech. Now, in corporate education, my communication skills continue to be integral to my work, such as in advancing projects and bringing my suggestions to all levels of associates – from entry-level to chief executive officers. Possessing the abilities to speak articulately; research; and advance a thoughtful argument and rebuttal is the cornerstone of success in any field.

Most of my communication experience is in speech. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. I expect students to know their content – not just read to me. I want to observe your speaking and delivery skills as much as I want to hear and understand your arguments.

More specifically, I expect solid speaking skills. I prefer that you not speak too fast or too slow. Please enunciate clearly. If you do speak quickly, make sure your words and ideas are clear. If I miss your argument because you are unclear or are speaking too quickly, it could cost you the round.

Your content is also integral to your success. Back your claims and counterclaims with solid arguments. Your claims should be supported with more than your own opinion. I want to feel confident that you have done your research and are prepared to present to someone who does not know the content as well as you do. Make your points clear and understandable.

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution and framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way for me to evaluate it.

Keep it professional. A true debater is able to give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. Any such behavior will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

Since I am a newer judge, do not use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I have never heard the word debate before.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or otherwise offensive. Be respectful of your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

And finally, this is your debate, so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!

I am old school. I believe LD should be communicative, so spreading is out. I also don't like using terminology that is not easily accessible to the general public. Do not try to overwhelm an opponent with evidence, volume of words, or the such. Overwhelm your opponent with logic.

Ultimately, the decision is made in this order:

1. Who won the value clash? (if neither debater, then...)

2. Whose criterion best supports their value?

3. Whose arguments were more reasonable through evidence and logic?

You must have a value. Do not use any progressive techniques, substitute a role of the ballot for a framework structure, and don't just read your progressive CX cases slower and think I will vote for them. I WANT A PHILOSOPHICAL VALUE DEBATE THAT MY GRANDMA WOULD ENJOY WATCHING.

Hi! I'm an IE/debate judge residing in Chicago and working in finance, and am also an assistant high school speech coach. In high school my focus was persuasive/OO and poetry interp, and in college I expanded my events to include duo, impromptu, POI. You name it, I did it. I lead my college's team as one of the 3 student lead collegiate teams in the country, so I know the hard work it takes to not only put together pieces/write/prep, but to lead a team simultaneously.

FOR SPEECH:

1. Quality over quantity. In written events, sources are great to get your point across, but too many can disrupt your thesis. Delve into your sources more and give me concrete, flowing explanations. Do not put sources in just to "have them" or meet your source quota.

2. Include trigger warnings. I do not have any personal triggers that will affect me judging your piece, but your peers who are watching might. Be respectful of everyone you might encounter.

3. Interp Events - Give Me SUBSTANCE! The emotional range of topics vary greatly. Emotions are valid and should be part of an interp piece. However, too much emotion where it isn't warranted during the performance shows me you may be trying to cover up for not having enough substantial material.

3. Be Yourself. Coming from a speech background myself, I know trying to "butter up" the judges may seem like a good idea, but it does not work with me. I am here for your performance. Show me what you've worked on and the reward follows.

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

I like a traditional, value-centric debate. The clash of value / criterion is critical, and supporting contentions should be clearly linked. I do not mind unique approaches to the topics, but I prefer the focus to reaming on the value clash and ability to show its influence on the contentions and evidence chosen. Extended analysis can include social impact, both pro and con.

1. What is your experience level? Have you been
actively coaching or judging, and how long?
How often have you judged rounds on this
topic?

Former interp competitor, who has been coaching and judging all speech and debate events since 2002. I have served as an event specific coach, assistant coach and head coach of small and large programs. I have judged speech, PF and Congress at all levels of competition, from local tournaments, state finals, national circuit, and national final rounds.

2. Describe your preferences as they relate to
debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or
technical language.

I can handle speed for the most part, but too fast to flow and it would be difficult to win the round.

3. Describe your personal note-taking during
the round. Do you write down key arguments?
Keep a rigorous flow?

I record brief notes on the key arguments and points of the round.

4. What are the specific criteria you consider
when assessing a debate?

I look at who won the most important/critical argument of the round based on the impacts presented.

5. What expectations do you have for debaters’
in-round conduct?

I very open to style choices; however, overtly rude or aggressive behavior is unacceptable. Debaters who are respectful of their opponents and understand the art of debate should be applauded.

Pronouns: she/her

email: thaliacharles915@gmail.com. Include me on the email chain.

I competed in CX and LD debate in high school and NFA-LD and parliamentary debate in college (East Coast).

General:

1. I prefer traditional/lay to progressive debates. I prefer a slower debate. If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.If I shout Clear three times and you don't slow down so that I can understand, I may stop flowing.

2. I love a passionate debate, but don’t be rude to your opponent. You can be sassy but don’t be mean or condescending. I will adjust speaker points accordingly.

3. Speaker points- I don’t think there is an exact science to speaker points, but basically I’m going to give you low speaker points if you intentionally use any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist language against your opponent (or me!). Debate rounds should not be boring! There is a lot of possibility for education in each round. That is exciting. I’m going to give higher speaks to the person who is a more engaging speaker.

4. Signpost!

5. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity where you learn important life skills. I think one of the most important skills I learned from debate is how to clearly communicate a point. So, crystallize, crystallize, crystallize! Write my ballot for me. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you.

6. Stats are important, but this is LD, not policy. I don’t want the round to devolve into a debate about a stat or a card

Framework:

1. The framework debate is key in LD. This is a philosophical style of debate. Do not neglect the value debate.

2. If you’re using an uncommon V and/or VC, explain it to me. I encourage fresh V and VCs, as it could make for a more educational debate.

3. Warrant your framework. Explain why your V and VC are relevant to the resolution.

4. Impacts are always important. You need to explain the impacts of affirming and negating your case and weigh them (especially if you have a consequentialist value system). What is at stake? Tie your value system into your impacts.

Progressive debate:

1. I'm okay with theory as long as you explain it and it's relevant to the round
2. I do love a good K, but it needs to be relevant to the round. I want strong links to the round and clarity about whether the K applies to "debate" overall, the AFF case specifically, etc.
3. I'm not a huge fan of perms and CPs

VOTERS:

i will vote for whatever you prioritize in the round, however, I do like a strong framework debate.

1. Framework
2. Impacts and weighing.
3. Line by Line.

Ideally, the winner of the round would clearly uphold their value system, have strong impacts, and clear crystallization, and the best defense or offense. Obviously, the ideal is the ideal. If you win on framework and lose on impact, you’ve gotten my ballot.

Extra note:

(This isn’t important but some insight into me) I work in the legal field, where these philosophical debates are very real. People have very different views of what “justice” or “morality” means— and caught in the middle of these competing interps are people and their lives. So, I just ask you to remember that these debates are not abstract, real life policymakers are having these debates, and just try to recognize the humanity. Basically, in judging and competing, I have debated and seen people debate some arguments that are dehumanizing in service of winning a round. There is a stronger argument out there. You can find it. (Not trying to chill speech but trying to encourage stronger argumentation and education)

As a judge, I look for a couple of things. Overall, I want to see you engaged and having fun with it, and not seem like you are forcing it.

Speech/Interp:

1. Good Introduction, those first few seconds need to get me engaged.

2. If it's a binder event, please don't read of the pages every few seconds. Have a good portion of it memorized.

4. Emotion is key! This is something I really look for, especially in DI.

5. Keep me entertained and hooked to your piece.

6. Good diction, tone, and use of appropriate gestures.

Debate:

1. Clear understanding of the topic being debated.

2. Good evidence and sources.

3. Be kind and respectful towards your opponent.

I am a parent judge. I focus on speech clarity, content, clarity of thoughts and delivery.

I don't have a preference as to philosophy or economic arguments, but I have to be able to understand them. I would prefer a slower speaking speed.

I have been a parent judge for two years.

My email is chenjiyu@yahoo.com, please add me to the evidence share/email chains

I appreciate logical arguments backed up with solid evidences and relevant facts. When it comes to speaking style, I prefer clear articulation with regular speed of speaking.

Do not use theory, I am aware of how it works, but I feel that you should be debating the topic, not the rules of debate.

Parent Judge:
Please talk slowly, introduce yourself,

For debate: state if you are aff or neg

Background:

Practicing attorney, 20+ years. Speech & debate participant in high school.

Notice for all Speech & Debate competitors:

Clarity, clarity, clarity.

Notice for all Impromptu competitors:

1) "Canned" or pre-prepared speeches will be negatively scored.

2) The extent to which the speech incorporates the topic will be a significant factor in scoring.

Notice for all Debate competitors:

I will be "flowing" all debates.

Logic always beats evidence. If your argument fails on logic, no amount of evidence will overcome that failure.

Run your arguments as you will just:

1. Be respectful

- this applies to both arguments and behavior in the round

2. Time yourself

- don't make me stop you because you are out of time, have a timer and use it

3. Slow Down

- if you can't state your arguments, and make them convincing within the time limits without talking at the speed of light then your arguments are not strong enough.

LOATHE Thomas JEFFERSON ENTIRELY, Do Not Use Him. You have been warned.

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)

I have taught communication/rhetoric for 10 years. I have coached debate for six.

2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?

I have been judging for 5 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.

3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?

I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.

4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?

I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.

Other thoughts:

-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX

-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.

-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.

-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.

-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.

-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.

Cooper's Paradigm -

To be able to judge a round, competitors must speak loud and slow enough for me to understand their arguments. Arguments should be supported by evidence along with sound reasoning. Dropped points do not necessarily win a round.

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 27 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 21 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

5. I am not going to vote on disclosure theory. I am more likely for an RVI against the person who ran disclosure. There is no obligation to disclose.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Updates for Berkeley 2025

1. I am finding that in most of my rounds debaters are extremely unclear. I am not going to read your speech doc for you. I will be on the email chain, but I'm only looking if there are disputes. Your job is to make the arguments. If. I can't understand you, that's on you. This means you probably need to go slower than you think.
2. I would be ecstatic to see someone read a non util framework.
3. If it is a policy rounds, please do evidence comparison.
4. If you run a case that use a framework that is not util or critical on aff, you will get higher speaker points.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context. I know enough about most topics that I will know if you are misrepresenting evidence or simply making stuff up.

I am an experienced speech judge, but I have less experience judging debate. I prefer less jargon, and no speed reading. I have no experience with the current topic.

I am a coach with an open mind and I love to see someone bring their own individual style to a performance. Don’t be a robot! Be unique and interesting and you will go far.

Communication is Key!!

I also vote on Stock Issues.

Tag Teaming and arguments based on T are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED!

SPEECH:

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

I am new to judging.

I need to understand what your points are. If you speak very fast that I cannot understand then I cannot award you the points.
Definitions of key points are important.

Being able to defend your opponents questions is important for me. A canned speech that does not react to the round will not score well.

I have a BA degree in Political Science and Journalism. My career was doing political fundraising for National and Statewide candidates until I decided to be a stay at home mom.

I am a parent judge turned coach who has been judging for 12 years, I have judged in Indiana and Arizona. Most of judging has been in PF and Congress with a lot of Parli experience in Congress. I also have experience judging Info, Extemp and Impromptu.

For scoring I need to be able to understand what your points are. In other words if you spread so fast I cannot understand you I cannot award you the points. A roadmap is fine but not necessary. Definitions of key points are important so that I know what you are using as a focus.

Being able to defend your opponents questions is the most important point for me. A canned speech that does not react to the round will not score well with me.

I am a parent judge and judging for past two and half year.

I prefer if both teams would reference their evidence and make their arguments concise and easy to understand.

tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. open to Ks but running one doesn't automatically win you my ballot.i usually give oral feedback after the round.

Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I championed the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students.

CASE:

Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.

Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.

Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.

THEORY:

Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but give legitimate reasons for why.

Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say. Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access to minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.

Framework or Disclosure T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for this if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.

KRITIKS:

Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it, BUT ALSO I'M OPEN TO ALL KS!Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. Slow when they ask you to. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscure words your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.

Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, tell me K > Case, and give me a role of the ballot.

Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.

Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.

K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.

Thank you for reading & good luck! Questions? Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.

Will judge Saturday only. Must be done by 5.
I am a new judge, first time judging LD on 11/5/2022. Mild hearing loss, so speak clearly please. No spreading please. Thanks!

Please don’t spread.

I pay close attention to detail.

I look for consistency in the arguments throughout the debate

Judgement is limited only to the arguments presented and contested in the debate

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School since 2017. Currently, I most frequently judge speech events, LD and Public Forum. My email iseastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during rounds; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy. I also may eat in rounds. Again, if this is a distraction to you, please let me know.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out a little slower so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape, disabilities, immigration and interracial relationships are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: When judging policy debate (not too common anymore) I default policymaker. In LD, I will likely default Util but I welcome other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be at least 2-3 minutes of your final speech.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar. Saying the tagline of an argument in the final rebuttal is not enough for me. I will not vote for "nuclear war" if you do not extend the entire link chain. I need a reason to vote for an argument.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

I want to see you become the character(s) you are portraying and have the most believability in the role. Often times in the speech world, I see so many students caught up in the “statement” of the piece, they are no longer focusing on the acting.

I want to see completely fleshed out characters and actors who have thought about each moment! Breathing, operative words, and event work is crucial.

Blocking should be creative but not steal focus. It should be used to enhance your piece and not done for the sake of doing so.

passion and creativity in OO, INFO, and Extemp is ranked highest! When everyone has the same great analysis, it’s the small things like the intellectual way you created your AGD or vehicle that make you stand out!

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

Head coach at San Angelo Central High School

Extemp:

The most important thing is that you answer the question as clearly as possible. This includes previewing your points, signposting throughout, and reviewing your points at the end that links into the conclusion. Adding a clear structure adds to the impact and value of your overall speech. It is to also help you not ramble on. It is also important to be creative with your attention getter, vehicle, and your conclusion. It will set your self apart in my eyes with creativity done well. Sources are very important, but answering the question your way is the most important, then use sources to back those up. Not the other way around. I look for all of those together and a good flow for my overall ranks.

Interp:

Everything you do in your performance must have purpose. I love creative movements, stories, and really anything as long as there is a purpose. I am ok with any theme or story being told as long as there is impact behind it. Facials, moments, and character development are all very important for the overall performance. DO everything you can to truly become your characters and be in the story you are telling. In close rooms, I always look at who does all of these things together the best.

Congress:

The most important thing in a congress room is to have a presence. Do what you need to do to stand out without personally attacking your fellow representatives. Always attack their points, speeches, and questioning to further strengthen your points, but not them personally. I look for how well you understand the legislation, how well you know the info, the impact your points have for fellow constituents, and the creativity of your speaking. You need to have passion and use points made in the round to help your own side out. I really like crystalization of points and not just continuing to repeat other people's points. Do these things and make me HAVE to put you at the top of the room.

LD/PF:

I’m primarily an interp and speaking coach, so with that said, presentation of arguments is imperative. I still expect exceptional analysis on a substantive level, just know I judge debate as a speaking event first. The debater with the strongest link chain to access their impacts will win my ballot. The easiest way to win my ballot is in your voters section in your final speech, present your RFD for me. The less work I have to do at the end of the round the more likely it is you’ll win my ballot. Good luck and I'm excited to hear what you have to say.

Format and Style:

1. Traditional Approach: I am inclined towards a traditional debate style that emphasizes clear and well-structured arguments without relying on experimental or circuit-style techniques. This means I am not a fan of speed (spread debate), Kritiks (Ks), Theory arguments, or plans and counter plans in LD and PF. Instead, I value a clear and comprehensible presentation of ideas.

2. Clarity Over Quantity:Articulate your arguments clearly and concisely. I prefer substance over quantity, so focus on the quality of your points rather than overwhelming me with sheer volume.

Content Focus:

1. Morality-Centric Arguments: I am particularly interested in arguments that delve into the moral aspects of the resolution. Make sure to clearly establish the ethical implications of your case and how it aligns with broader moral principles.

2. Impactful Values and Criterion:Clearly define your value and criterion, explaining how they connect to the broader moral framework of the resolution. I appreciate well-developed value structures that guide your arguments and tie them together cohesively.

Etiquette and Conduct:

1. Respectful Engagement:Maintain a respectful and civil tone throughout the debate. Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.

2. Adherence to Time Limits: Stay within the allocated time limits for your speeches and cross-examinations. Time management is crucial, and exceeding the time limits may negatively impact your performance in my evaluation.

Judgment Criteria:

1. Moral Soundness:I will prioritize arguments that are morally sound and align with the resolution's ethical implications.

2. Clarity and Coherence:The clarity of your arguments and their connection to the resolution will play a significant role in my evaluation.

3. Effective Rebuttal:Address your opponent's arguments effectively, focusing on the core moral issues at hand.

I've got quite a bit of experience coaching, judging, and even competing in all the main debate events - Congress, Public Forum, LD, Policy, and World Schools. I will understand your terminology, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations of the events. I've been participating in speech and debate for 17 years, coaching for 11, and this is my fourth year in Minnesota.

PF and LD Specifically: I tend to prefer the debate to be a bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal. I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.

LD Specifically: Framework debate is extremely important in LD... HOWEVER, framework debate is somewhat pointless when it has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really care why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a general sense. I care a lot more about why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a resolutional sense. If you can't make your framework arguments specifically applicable to the topic at hand and the arguments you are making, then you are wasting your time debating it in the first place, and I will just end up using your voters, impacts, and weighing to make my final decision in the round.

PF/LD/Policy/WSD: I will rarely vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaker points. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:

1. Debate has time limits for a reason. You are practicing the art of understanding, preparing, and delivering arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-5 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time in all events.

PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.

2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give lower speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual tournaments. In a virtual debate, sitting is the norm and that is fine).

3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards and cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for Policy only. If you do decide to spread, please slow WAY down on tags, and always include a short analysis at the end of each card.

4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and be prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.

5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and may affect your speaker points.

6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one and vice versa. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.

Congress:

PO: Between "Fast, Fair, and Efficient" I care most about fairness, second most about about efficiency, and I don't care at all about "fast." Be efficient of course, try to make sure that things are running smoothly and that you aren't taking extra time because you don't know the process or because you are adding unnecessary extra words to your phrasing, but I would much rather you take an extra couple of seconds to make an accurate decision which doesn't require me to correct you, than I would for you to make a quick decision in the hopes that you'll look better. It may not flow off the tongue as well, but "Accurate, Fair, and Efficient" would be my preference.

Also, some common phrasing that I think you can shorten:

• When calling on subsequent speakers after the first speaker on a piece of legislation, cut all the nonsense about "Seeing as that was the 3rd affirmative speech we are now in line for a 3rd negative speech. All those wishing to speak in the negation please rise." Cut it out. Just say "Negative speakers rise" "Affirmative speakers rise"
• For the end of a speech/start of questioning: "Thank you ____ for that speech of (time), questioners please rise" No need to say "We are now in line for 2/4 blocks of questioning"
• When calling subsequent questioners after the first questioner for a speaker, please do not waste time by saying things like "Thank you (questioner), the next questioner is (name)." Literally just call out the name of the next questioner at the same time as you tap the gavel twice for the end of one questioners block. "(tap tap) Rep. Blah"

Some other PO Notes:

• I appreciate when the PO shares their precedence sheet with the chamber in some sort of google spreadsheet or something.
• I think the PO should be consistent in reminding the chamber of any and all rules that are not being followed. "Please do not abuse the grace period" "You must ask permission to leave and exit the chamber"
• I think a really good PO can add super small yet effective elements to their responses which show more personality in general. I don't think "The chair thanks you" is necessarily enough for that since it's so common. I like when a PO is able to reword their responses to things in ways that are still accurate but which can add some slight, yet not time-consuming, humor to the round.
• The PO should recommend and remind the chamber not to stand for speeches or questions until they tap their gavel. This provides a more fair moment for all to stand rather than having some people stand right at the end of the speech while the PO is still talking.
• The PO should state at the beginning of the round: Gaveling procedures, how they are determining precedence and recency (and if it isn't preset, then what system will they use to fairly call on people at first), and any particular ways in which they will go about things like calling for speakers or questioners. If there are rules particular to a given tournament such as how precedence or recency should be used which are not common at other MN tournaments, the PO should also mention those at the beginning to make sure everyone is on the same page and there aren't random issues regarding precedence or recency or following those rules at the very start of the round.
• While I think everyone in the round is responsible for the correct pronunciation of names, the PO having elected to run the chamber should be particularly wary of name pronunciations and take the time to learn names and pronunciations before the round in which they are electing to run.

Speakers: I dislike speaking from laptops. Laptops are generally best used when they can be placed on a podium or desk, not held up and balanced on one hand in the middle of a public speech. When you use a laptop to speak from, you are forced to have one of your hands constantly held up and there is a giant barrier between you and your audience. I prefer the use of a notepad, or second best would be an ipad with the intention being that you can actually hold those notes at your side for certain parts of your speech to show that you are prepared. I also believe strongly that you should be writing outlines, not speeches. You will likely receive a pretty low speaker score from me if you appear to be glued to your notes because you wrote too much down. The sign of a good speaker is someone who knows their speech or their topic well enough that they don't rely on the notes and can speak well regardless of whether or not they have them. Use the notes for sources or bullet point key ideas with short phrases. Please do not read to us, speak to us. Additionally, I think participation is important. You could be the number one speaker in a round but if you are clearly not engaged at all in questions, motions, etc. then it's likely I will knock you down some ranks because of that. On that same note, while I would hope all speakers decide to attempt to speak on all items, if you have purposefully made the decision not to speak on the first item for debate in a session, then my expectation is that you would be fully prepared to give one of the first speeches on the next item. On the note of preparation, please do not EVER delay a chamber for something that YOU want for YOUR own purposes but that you are NOT prepared for at the time you are asking for a delay. For example "We shouldn't move to previous question yet because I still want to speak" and then the chamber decides not to move to previous question, and when calling for speakers you don't immediately stand up. If you aren't ready to speak, don't delay previous question.

Some specific things I'm picky about: Congress speeches are only 3 minutes long. I think there are two common trends I've seen from some people which don't fit this style of speech well. First of all, with only 3 minutes I don't think it makes sense to have 3 full arguments. I'd much prefer you have 2 well-developed points within your speech rather than 3 shorter and less warranted ones. There's too little time in this type of speech to present that many arguments in a well-developed way without speaking way too quickly or sacrificing other important needs in the speech as well. Also, I think previewing your points in the intro is a waste of time in congress. Sure, a preview is useful in something like a 7 minute extemp speech or a 10 minute Oratory because of the length and depth of the information covered in those types of speeches. In those cases, a preview helps to compact that information and help outline what will be discussed. In congress, with only 2 main points to follow and only 3 minutes to speak, it feels like a waste of time. I'd much prefer you just gave us your agd, link it to the topic, tell us to pass/fail, and then jump right into the first point.

Side note: One sided debate sucks. Please either swap sides or just be prepared to give an early speech on the next debate item. Also, I understand the culture of saying "I'm prepared for both sides" because that's a good skill to have as a debater, but I don't like how publicly and simply people are willing to swap sides in congress. I really dislike hearing students say "Yea I can swap sides" out loud in the middle of a recess. It really defeats the whole purpose of you actually trying to convince me that you care at all about the side of the debate you are on, and I think one of the things you should be trying to do as a congressional debater is really be assertive concerning your feelings on a topic. I'd much rather you say something like "I'm not sure which side I'm on yet" or at least make those side-specific decisions more privately. Perhaps even just hide the decision a bit better by making it seem like the decision was actually made after hearing some of the arguments and giving more of a refutation speech. On that note, I think the longer debate on an item goes on the more I should see speakers refuting other arguments.

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers reckon with their history (if its germane to the topic). When it comes down to relevancy and impacts/harms, I prefer debates that show how their resolution (whether we're going for opp or prop) will benefit or improve black and brown communities, or the global south.

Interp overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices)

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I'm not a good HI judge, please do not let me judge you in HI. I don't like the event and I do my best to avoid judging it. If that fails, I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. Please don't be racist/homophobic in your humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well research speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking, with obvious exceptions being that we might literally not know something, because its still being researched (but that is a different we don't know than say, "and we don't know why people act this way :( ")

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote up in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

NSU '22

UPenn '26

During my career, I won NSDA Nationals and got to quarterfinals of the TOC.

Add me to the email chain afrankk@sas.upenn.edu

Tech>truth - I will vote off the flow and on any argument that's well warranted, extended, and weighed.

I ran a lot of structural violence arguments during my career. When done well, I am very inclined to vote on these types of arguments. However, if you tell me why extinction/util matters more than I am also more than willing to vote on that.

Defense is not sticky - this is especially true with 3 minute summaries.

Frontline everything (offense and defense) in second rebuttal on the argument(s) you're going for; you should also probably already be collapsing in second rebuttal. There are very few teams who can pull off front-lining every contention well and still get to the other team's case with enough time.

I am extremely unlikely to default. I will try to find any piece of offense in the round I can vote on. If I can't, I'll probably just vote for the team that debated better.

I can usually flow most speeds, but if I think you're going too fast, I will ask for a case doc after.

Do:

- Roadmaps (you rlly only need to tell me where you're starting if you signpost well)

- Comparative Weighing

- Make me laugh in cross and/or speeches

- Pre-flow before the round

Do Not:

- Take a while to get a piece of evidence; more than 2 minutes and i'll probably get annoyed

- Call me "judge" - this feels too official

- Be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

- Read that 900 million ppl go into poverty during recessions without some sort of warrant

Theory:

Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I won't drop you on face for paraphrasing or not disclosing, but I would be very likely to vote on disclosure and/or paraphrasing theory.

The purpose of theory is made to make the debate space more equitable and improve norms. Do not just read theory with the sole purpose of winning the debate.

Kritiks:

Probably not the best judge to read a K in front of. I have minimal experience with them, but if you want to run one I will try my best to evaluate it.

Weighing:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. PLEASE. It doesn't matter if you're winning an argument if you don't tell me why that argument matters more than the other team's.

If two teams have competing weighing mechanisms, tell me which one is more important and why.

Trigger Warnings:

Trigger warnings are only needed when describing graphic/explicit content. There have only been 2-3 times in my debate career in which I've encountered arguments that truly needed a TW. I don't think trigger warnings are necessary for arguments that say common phrases such as "domestic violence." These types of arguments are important and should be read in the debate space.

I will always disclose my decision and please feel free to postround me :)

This is my third year judging and mostly have experience with speech events. I just ask for you to speak at normal pace as I have some slower processing issues and I want to understand and follow your piece!

I do not mind off-time road maps.  A clear outline of each point and subpoint during construction is imperative.  Linking each point to your value and criterion helps flow the case for judges and opponents. Definitions can make or break a case.  Be confident in your definitions.  Speak rapidly ONLY if you can also speak clearly. I like to see passion.

• I've been coaching in southeast Florida since 2000, and have had national qualifiers in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and World Schools Debate. Some have even advanced beyond prelims!

DEBATE EVENTS:

(1) Picture ... if you will ... your 93-year-old great-grandfather. In order for him to understand the words coming out of your mouth, you must speak clearly. Very clearly. I'm not 93, or your great-grandfather (or, at least, to the best of my knowledge I'm not - and if I am, why am I judging you? You're my great-grandchild! Conflict of interest!), butI weigh clarity highly. If I cannot understand you, and stop flowing (whether via old-school "putting the pen down" or new-school "no longer pounding away on my laptop keyboard or iPad"), you are probably losing the round. Badly.

(1a) I type fast but slopily, so I tend to merge words together when attempting to flow using electronic ballots. Which means I sometimes miss arguments while trying to fix my hot mess typos. Or when I look back on the round to review, there’s chunks missing. Clarity (there's that word again!) in your presentation will go a long way toward me remembering what you said and why it was important. “Speed kills” isn’t just about how you drive on the roadways.

Speaking of which ...

(1b) Debate is an educational communications activity. It's about persuasion; competitors ought to hone and practice the skills that will be effective in the real world; I expect no less in a debate round. Spewing out random crap just because you think a 72nd argument will win you the round won't cut it. The ONLY spreading that matters is cream cheese on a toasted onion bagel. (Mmmmm, toasted onion bagel ... with cream cheese ... and lox ...)

But I digress.

(2) "End of the world" nuke war-type arguments don't sway me. We've somehow managed to survive the Cold War and Krushchev's shoe-banging incident.

(3) I prefer substance over style.

(3a) I also prefer you treat your opponent and the judge (and, in a paired event, your partner) like they are human beings. DO NOT GO DONALD TRUMP/MAGA IN A ROUND - YOU WILL LOSE POINTS, AND PROBABLY LOSE THE ROUND ... BADLY.

(4) In Lincoln Douglas Debate, I'm really old school - it's a philosophical debate, not a forum to jam statistics and facts down my throat. Notice that "OLD SCHOOL" has the initials "LD" embedded in the name. Live it; learn it; know it.

(5) I do not require or expect case disclosure, nor will I incorporate case disclosure as a reason to vote for or against a debater, or add/dock points.

(5a) I rarely call for cards. Like, I’ve done it maybe twice in 15+ years? Don’t expect to be the third.

(6) I am not a "point fairy" (earning a 30 from me is damn next to impossible) but am not overly harsh ... unless you do something reallllllllly stupid or insulting, in which case, fear my wrath! Also, I will deduct an entire point if I don't believe you are flowing the majority of the time you should be OR if you pack-up your belongings and don't take notes/look at your flow during my RFD/critique. (BTW, I rarely disclose, but I will offer analysis of things that occurred during the round.)

(7) Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia rocks my dirty socks. So do Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers (RIP, Tom!), Monty Python, the Detroit Red Wings, and Mountain Dew. Sadly, I'm not supposed to have Ben & Jerry's or Mountain Dew anymore (damn you, Type 2 diabetes!), but such is life.

CONGRESS:

(1) If you even hint you are a high school student (or anything other than an elected federal legislator, representing the constituents of your community, on Capitol Hill), expect to lose a ton of speaker points and probably any chance of ranking highly on my master ballot. The role play is crucial in this event, especially in advanced break rounds.

(2) Use of an electronic device (Chromebook, iPad, etc.) from which to read speeches will likely result in being docked a point or two. Use of a cell phone from which to read is incredibly stupid and guarantees a horrific score and a major admonishment from yours truly on your ballot. Use a legal pad!

(3) You don't need to tell me how many speeches you have given, or if it's your first or last time speaking in the session. We have all the details on electronic ballots.

(4) POs had better be standing every time they speak! Speaking of which ...

(4a) POs will almost always get ranked by me, unless they are incredibly abusive or obnoxious, allow negative speeches to open debate on a legislative item, throw gavels at the chamber, sit while speaking (see #4 above), or implore me to give them speech scores every hour on the hour. No other event - including Congressional Debate non-POs - conclude a presentation with "Hey, judge, rank me / give me scores!" The same should cross-apply to the PO.

(4b) POs cannot be impeached. Your chamber chose the PO, its legislators are stuck with their decision.

(5) ChatGPT is evil and satanic. Don't use it. And don't let me see you using it.

(6) If you use pop culture references that I don't understand, I will point this out on your ballot. Please enlighten me about the latest rap singer whose lyrics you are incorporating, or TikTok artist whose videos are part of your intro, because I am older than dirt and probably have no clue what you are talking about.

(7) Do not try to bribe the judges. You cannot afford me.

My email is paul.gaba@palmbeachschools.org.

Give the performance you think is the best.  That’s all I ask for! 

Wayzata (MN) 21'

GMU (college) 25'

In High School I competed for Wayzata High School (2018-2021) and garnered multiple national outrounds in HI, OO, Poetry, POI, PPS (prepared prompt speaking) and even have a title in DI from the TOC. I now am a competitor for George Mason's Forensics team in Fairfax, Virginia where I compete in POI, Poetry, Prose, DI, Duo, ADS, CA, and Info with national finals and outrounds in all of them, (I have 13 national finals and 5 national championships across AFA/NFA). Since I graduated highschool, I have coached at Stillwater high school, Wayzata High school, and private coached numerous students to success at NIETOC, NSDA, UKTOC, and NCFLs.

I pretty much only use tab like this when I'm judging debate so here's debate at the top, and I wrote a speech paradigm because I was bored one day.

DEBATE

PF/Policy:

I'm a pretty lay judge (I'll probs talk a lil' bit before the round and give you a brief summary of this paradigm if you hadn't checked it out beforehand) but if there is one thing you do take away from my paradigm: please don't spread, (policy, sure, I'll try and keep up), but if you're in PF and are spreading, I may drop speaks, not astronomically though. I value your voice when you're not speaking at 100 mph. I'm generally a flow judge, but I don't always flow card authors/names. My focus on the flow is getting what the evidence claims and what the warrant is, rather than who the source was. Moreover, if you wanna add me on an email chain, go ahead @premganesan12345@gmail.com . That being said, I'll mainly use it SOLELY to see if you and your opp are exchanging cards correctly and timely, any evidence in those docs that YOU DO NOT BRING UP IN THE ROUND WILL NOT BE JUDGED UPON.

Generally: I like sign posting, off time roadmaps, clear voters, I like when you extend your flow, sensible impacts (not just war is bad), solid/timely citation.

I'm also a very very VERY expressive human! I'll make a face if I believe you misstated something. I'll nod if I think you're making a good point. I'll shake my head if I think you're making a poor point. This doesn't mean that I'm voting for you or against you. It just means I liked or didn't like that particular statement.

LD:

I study Economics with a concentration in Political and Philosophical Economy. I'm well versed in sensing balanced arguments and will look for balanced arguments. This is a values debate at the end of the day, so argue values. Argue morality. Argue Justice. Argue any of the 7 deadly sins for all I care. LD has become far more about random tangental examples and far less about value-based arguments. Play the game and bring me some weird cases, I don't care. You think I'm joking, but I am not. Just don't lose the flow.

Congress:

I usually let PO's work their magic. I love sitting back and watching congress. Here's some wise words from my friend Sam Padmanabhan, all of which I agree with:

- Cite complete sources → Author, Publication, Month, Year. Also be cognizant of source quality. I want to see expert analysis, empirical data, etc.

- POs should make the round feel seamless. The ideal PO runs the chamber so well that I don't even know they're there. I will rank good POs very well. (top 4 usually)

- I need to see clash. People often mischaracterize Congress as a speech event; this is not true. Congress is debate so I need to see clash, refutation, clear interaction between arguments. Especially if you give a later cycle speech, make sure you’re engaging with what’s been said in the round (either by refuting it or crystallizing the issues). New arguments in the 4th or 5th cycle won’t help you. When doing refutation, the preferred style is line by line OR picking the major arguments and arguing at the warrant level.

SPEECH

INTERP:

I had a speech paradigm but it was me saying normal speech norms in my own way so lemme just say. Have fun, do what the purpose of whatever even it is you're doing, and be In time. If you're under 8:00, your rank may be affected, fill the time, use the time. If you're over 10:30, I won't stop you, go 16 min for all I care, I won't stop you at all, you (unfortunately) will not get my one. But still you'd be surprised how many people miss these marks, I always say if you look like you're having the most fun in the round you're automatically top half. Speech is beautiful but jading, find the cool things and speak on that.

OVERALL

I don't tolerate bigotry in ANY form: racism, sexism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia, etc. If I see any signs of this in any speech/debate, I will not be afraid to drop you. Ultimately, I am a speech NERD and love true advocacy. If you have ANY questions whatsoever, please reach out to me via email @premganesan12345@gmail.com : I mean it, if you have any questions about the ballot, reach out. This is a communicative activity built on communication.... so COMMUNICATE WITH ME!!!! Have an amazing time and have so so so much fun!

Prem Ganesan

Howdy, my name is Daniel Gardiner and I'm a political science major from Corpus Christi TX but most importantly I am the loudest and proudest member of the fighting Texas Aggie class of 2026. I competed in debate all four years of high school at the local state and national level having the privilege to attend some really great tournaments like Bluekey, University of Texas, TOC, and more. I have separate paradigms listed for each event I consider myself qualified to judge.

Congress: I did nats circuit congressional debate all across the country and man do I love the event. I think its important to remember that although the event allows for a lot of theatrics and really cool speaking styles it is a debate event. Presentation and argumentation are both extremely significant for my ballot. Present bad arguments that do not have a big impact on the round and I'll probably drop you. For early round speakers I expect you to frame the debate dive deep into the legislation and what it does and really outline the impact of an aff or neg vote. Late round speakers should have a lot of refutation with a mix of new points. Evidence and analysis work together to create solid claims and warrants I expect both in a point. Please be respectful to other speakers and address each other properly when bringing their name up in questions or speeches. With that being said I appreciate all types of AGDs in introductions as long as they are not canned. Never call me sir or Mr during a round I will not drop you for it but I much prefer Daniel or parli depending on my role in the round. For Po's you'll get a good rank from me as long as you do not mess up. If you speak off of a laptop the highest rank I will give you is 6. (unless the room is not super competitive)

LD: Lincoln Douglas debate is definitely one of the hardest events to find major success in so props to you guys for picking up the event. I competed in LD at the local and state level but nothing beyond that. First things first I expect to be on the email chain every time there is one if the competitors are both okay with not seeing the case that's fine with me just remember that if you choose to speak fast. I am okay with spreading it will not doc speaker points for me as long as you slow down for taglines and author names. If you are competing against someone that would prefer you not to spread please consider that before you start the round the last thing we wanna do is scare people away from the activity, prioritizing the ballot above someone's well-being is not cool and I will reflect that in your speaker points. I get that rounds can be frustrating but please be respectful in round do not swear unless it is specific to the literature you are using. Finally on the argumentation side I will evaluate any argument that is not offensive. Racism, sexism, homophobia I will instantly drop and not flow the rest of the debate. I hate K's that have no link to the topic or your opponents case. If your running a competing model of debate strategy I will try to fully consider it but no promises. I personally appreciate theory arguments like T and condo so feel free to run them. Framing is important but if you have no offense as long as your opponent does a decent job establishing that they will probably win my ballot. LARPing is fine. Performance aff is fine just explain the significance of it in the 1AC not the 1AR. I do not like music in the background while I am flowing it distracts me and I'll start dancing when I should be judging. Finally I would say this for all of you that see me my name before judging. I would much rather debate/judge a traditional round than a progressive round because I believe they are more fun and less stressful. That does not mean you have to go trad but I thought y'all would like the heads up. Have never voted for disclosure and do not plan on it.

PF: I will judge PF almost the same way I judge LD with a few exceptions. K's are a no for me! (There's not enough time to explain the alt can't convince me otherwise.) I like framing in PF! I have voted for limited theory in PF but mostly just T.

Extemp: I competed in FX at the local level and DX at all levels. I try to keep up with significant news findings in both national and international news so do not BS or lie in round about a situation or crisis that is in your question chances are I'll catch it. With that being said things that lack objective truths such as "whether or not US impact in the Middle East has been positive" I will listen to multiple viewpoints as long as you have evidence backing your claims. Examples of good evidence for me include thinktanks, empirical studies, and experts regarding the field in question. Bad evidence includes opinion pages, encyclopedias, or highly controversial sites that generally misrepresent information because of bias. The most common ones I see presented too much are progon.org, Fox News, and CNN. Stick to neutral sources like NPR, Politico, or Carnegie. I am not afraid to vote people down for lying about sources if you forget an article do not BS and say some generic site like CNN I traditionally fact check all sources unless I miss the name of one. Dates, as long as you are close to the publishing date don't worry about it. I love great citations that explain author qualifications or how research is conducted.

OO: I have no competitive experience in OO but I have briefly coached the event and have had the privilege of being on a team with one of the best orators in the country. What I look for in a piece is something that has a very real impact and something that is relatable! That covers a significant number of topic areas so what will distance yourself from other speakers in the room for my ballot is presentation and analysis. I pay super close attention to tone, I love a speaker that can take me on an adventure using conversational tactics and then moving from conversational to funny, serious, compassionate, and other areas. I know this is not debate but I do expect at least some qualified evidence to back your claims. I do not think there is a 100% accurate formula in terms of speech structure but I tend to support speeches with a simple problem solution format as I think it makes the most sense for this type of event. Finally, I will always vote up the speaker that makes me think about the squo and what is wrong with it. If I have to question my actions or other people's actions as a result of the speech and the speech also gives me a way to solve those actions or lack of actions then you are in the right direction. OO's should not be interp pieces I do not like you pretending to be a character or having overly dramatic transitions.

Email: gardidk367@gmail.com

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

As a judge, I am looking first and foremost at speaking skill. A well planned and spoken speech ranks high on my radar. I also place value on evidence based speeches. Your evidence should be current and relevant. Confidence, kindness, and professionalism are key, as well. No spreading hate or spreading, period.

Cx:

Aff: Make sure to have an inherency otherwise you fall into the status quo and the whole point of being Aff is to be a part of the change, I won't hold it against you unless NEG mentions it. Defend your solvency, if your case has no solvency there is no reason to vote the AFF up. Argue against topicality and Ks, just because the NEG throws it at you doesn't mean you can't hit it out of the park. Just because an argument runs against you doesn't mean it will stick, if they can't explain its importance I won't flow it. If the NEG proposes a non-unique or non-linked DA, you still need to argue against it and show how it doesn't apply. If you are going to argue perm on a counter-plan, you need an explanation, not just claiming you will perm.

Neg: Make sure you can explain a topicality if you run one, if you can't elaborate on its importance, I won't flow it, same with Ks, counter plans, and DAs. Off-case arguments need to be complete or I won't highly take them into consideration. If you run a K and don't provide an alternative to the word you are criticizing, then I will consider it incomplete. Topicality needs to have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters, otherwise it will be considered incomplete. Counter plans need to have your plan stated with solvency and show how the case is net-beneficial. DA's need to be completely put together with a uniqueness, link, possibly an internal link, and an impact. If the DA isn't unique or specifically linked to the case and the AFF acknowledges it and adequately defends against it, I will flow it to the AFF. The impacts of DAs need to be more realistic. I will still flow the apocalypse, but it isn't unique. RUN ON-CASE. If you do not attack the solvency, inherency, or any advantages it makes it harder to see the flaws within the AFF's case.

Both CX & LD: No spreading, I would rather you give a couple of articulated points with good explanation and understanding behind them instead of word vomiting 10+ points with no explanation. I understand sometimes nerves can get the best of us while speaking, so try to do your best! Make sure to keep track of your timing, I will give a verbal stop when the time is reached. During the questioning periods, you may only answer questions if you are the one being cross-examined, and only ask questions if you are cross-examining. I understand sometimes it can be hard to not want to start an argument, but it won't be beneficial to the round. If it gets out of hand I will intervene. Elaborate on impacts. Why should I vote for you over the other team? Lastly, I will not tolerate bullying or disrespect if a competitor is going out of their way to be rude I will vote the team down.

Interp: make sure to have an introduction memorized. Hold your book properly if you use one, I should not be able to see you turn pages, and barely if so. POSTURE. If a timekeeper isn't present I will try my best to give signals. I will give a verbal stop when your time is up so you don't get DQ.

Extemp: If you are using a notecard, try your best to only glance at it and not read off of it. Make sure you say your topic (if you don't say it verbatim it is okay as long as it is close to the question, especially with lengthy topics), have three points, and at least one source to back up each point. Try your best to elaborate on each point and explain its importance. If you aren't good at intros it's okay, try your best. I wasn't good at them either and made it to nats.

PF:I will only judge what I can hear or understand. Therefore, spread at your own risk. Make sure that you are respectful during crossfire questioning and don’t cut off your opponents. Sign posting is appreciated to help me follow where you are in your speeches and to know if certain sections are being attacked or dropped. If you’re going to use theory arguments, you need to be able to explain and defend it well. If you do not attack a contention or important part of your opponent’s speech it will be considered against your team in my rfd. Realistic “now” and not “nuclear war” arguments or impacts are more beneficial to the round, this isn’t CX.

LD: Make sure that you are very clear about which section you are reading, aka signposting so that it is easier to flow and keep track of where you are in your speech. You can run theory, CP, and DA arguments, but I am not a fan of them. I will not vote down for drops unless the opposing team mentions it, otherwise, I will just give notes about it on your personal ballot. Make sure to show the significance of your framework, criteria, and contentions. Why should I view the round from your FRAME and VC over theirs? You can bring up definitions, but they are rarely a voter for me. Don't waste half of your speech arguing about DEFs. Logic arguments are valued equally as evidence cards, except if you're providing something statistical, then you should probably have a source. Voters and impact calc at end of rebuttal is important!

Hello! I debated for four years in high school and have been judging for seven years. Currently, I am in my second year as an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School.

I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate styles. As a debater, your job is to communicate your arguments clearly and persuasively—if I can’t follow your reasoning, it’s your responsibility, not mine.

General Philosophy

I view debate as an educational activity that prioritizes critical thinking, effective communication, and strategic engagement. My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round fairly, without imposing personal biases.

Debates should balance technical precision with accessibility. While I appreciate strategic complexity, clarity and persuasion remain essential.

Key Aspects of Evaluation

1.Framework

• Clearly establish a framework for the debate. This helps me understand how to evaluate the round.

• If no framework is provided, I will default to weighing impacts based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

2. Clash

• Direct engagement with opposing arguments is essential. A good debate involves refutation and comparison of ideas.

• Merely reiterating your case without engaging with your opponent’s arguments will weaken your position.

3. Impact Analysis

• Explain why your impacts matter within the context of the debate.

• Weigh impacts explicitly (e.g., through magnitude, probability, or timeframe) to guide my decision-making process.

4. Evidence and Logic

• Evidence should be accurate, relevant, and properly cited. Misrepresenting evidence will hurt your credibility.

• Logical consistency and coherence are just as important as evidence. Make sure your arguments follow a clear and reasonable structure.

5. Clarity and Organization

• Signpost your arguments clearly so I can follow your reasoning.

• Stay organized in your delivery, especially in later speeches when crystallizing the round.

6. Speaker Etiquette and Respect

• Maintain professionalism and respect throughout the round. Disrespectful behavior or tone will affect speaker points.

• Debate should be a constructive activity. Engage in a way that fosters mutual learning and growth.

Procedural Preferences 1. Dropped Arguments

• Dropped arguments are not automatically round-winning. You must explain why the dropped argument is significant and how it impacts the round.

2. New Arguments

• New arguments introduced in the final speeches will not be evaluated unless the format explicitly allows it (e.g., Worlds School Debate).

• Extensions must be clear and consistent with earlier speeches.

3. Evidence Standards

• Be prepared to provide evidence if requested. Refusal to share evidence or misrepresenting sources will negatively impact your speaks and possibly your overall standing in the round.

4. Speed and Accessibility

• I can follow speed, but clarity is essential. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot evaluate them.

• Debate is a communication event; your delivery should prioritize understanding over sheer volume.

5. Framework and Weighing

• Clearly articulate your weighing mechanisms throughout the round.

• If no weighing is done, I will default to my own evaluation, but this will make your case less persuasive.

Event-Specific Preferences

I have more in depth paradigms for the events linked at the bottom of the paradigm page

1. Policy Debate

• I am comfortable with technical arguments such as kritiks, topicality, and theory, but they must be well-explained and linked to the resolution.

• Impact calculus is crucial. Make sure to compare your impacts to your opponent’s explicitly.

2. Lincoln-Douglas Debate

• Value and criterion debates are important but should not overshadow the substantive arguments.

• Philosophical arguments are welcome but must be accessible and applied to the resolution.

3. Public Forum Debate

• Focus on clarity, big-picture analysis, and accessibility. PF is meant to be audience-friendly.

• Avoid spreading or overly technical jargon. Engage in direct clash and emphasize impact weighing.

4. World Schools Debate

• Persuasion, style, and structure are just as important as content.

• Team dynamics and strategic roles matter. Make sure your speeches complement each other.

5. Congressional Debate

• Clash is critical; reference previous arguments and specific speakers.

• Delivery, organization, and the ability to adapt to the debate are key factors in my evaluation.

Speaker Points Criteria

• Clarity: Are your arguments easy to follow and well-structured?

• Engagement: Do you interact effectively with your opponent’s arguments?

• Strategy: Are your speeches cohesive and aligned with your overall strategy?

• Delivery: Is your tone persuasive, professional, and engaging?

• Speaker points will range between 27-30, with higher points awarded for outstanding strategy, engagement, and delivery.

Final Notes

• Debate should be an enjoyable and educational activity. Focus on creating a meaningful and respectful exchange of ideas.

• My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round, not to impose my personal beliefs or preferences.

• Have fun, and remember that the skills you develop in debate go far beyond winning individual rounds.

• DON’T BE RUDE

• I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS

• It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage

• Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues

• I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage

• Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.

• Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

• Ethics and Respect:
  If I observe a debater exploiting a less experienced opponent to boost their ego, I will not hesitate to drop their speaks to the lowest possible, assign them a loss regardless of the flow, and inform their coach. Such behavior is unethical and detracts from the educational value of debate, which should be a space for growth and learning. Everyone deserves respect in the round, regardless of skill level or experience.

• Progressive Arguments:
  While I usually prefer traditional arguments, I’m open to progressive arguments if they are well-constructed, clearly explained, and relevant. However, I’ve seen many cases where these arguments are poorly executed, unclear, or run simply for the sake of being progressive. If you choose to run progressive arguments, ensure you fully understand them and can articulate their significance effectively. Poorly run progressive cases will not be well-received.

• Expectations:

• Pre-Flowing: Do not ask me to pre-flow your case. You should know it well enough to present confidently without needing my assistance beforehand.

• Judging Style: I’m equally comfortable with big-picture overviews or line-by-line analysis. Just make sure your arguments are clear and structured.

• Weighing and Impact Calculus: Always provide impact calculus and weigh your arguments for me. This is essential for guiding my decision.

• Theory and Arguments: I dislike frivolous theory—run it only when it’s necessary and justified. Don’t present arguments you don’t fully understand or cannot defend under cross-examination.

• Case Preparation and Presentation:

• Do not ask me to pre-flow your case. You should already know it.

• I can judge rounds on either big-picture analysis or line-by-line. Choose the style that best supports your argument.

• Always include impact calculus and weigh your arguments clearly.

• I dislike frivolous theory. Only run theory if it’s necessary and justified.

• Don’t present arguments or evidence you don’t fully understand.

• Please stand when speaking

• make sure you weigh for me
• make sure you are doing the work for the judge
• don't ask me if you can skip grand cross in PF the answer is no it's a part of the round

• Spreading:

• Debate is a communication event. Even if I can understand speed, DO NOT SPREAD. I cannot flow what I cannot comprehend, and I will not rely on your speech doc unless there is an evidence-related issue.

• Integrity:

• Do not fabricate sources. If I suspect you are making up evidence, I will fact-check it and contact your coach and the tournament director.

• Educational Priority:

• I prioritize the educational value of debate over competitiveness. If you spread out a novice team, use overly vague terminology, or act dismissively, I will give you an L and minimum speaks. Debate should foster critical thinking, respect, and communication skills.

• Disclosure:

• I do not disclose decisions. All feedback will be provided on the ballot. Please do not ask me to disclose.

• Education Over Competition:
  I prioritize debate as an educational activity rather than purely a competitive one. If you spread your opponent out of the round, especially a novice team, are intentionally vague with your vocabulary, or act dismissive, rude, or uncooperative, I will assign you a loss and give you the minimum speaks. Debate is about fostering critical thinking, communication, and respect, not exploiting others for a competitive edge. Local tournaments, in particular, are opportunities for growth and should nurture nuanced, thoughtful, and educated participants.

• Final Note:
  Be respectful, aim for clarity, and, above all, have fun. Debate is a space to learn, challenge ideas, and grow—let’s keep it that way.

Event-Specific Preferences Policy Debate

• I’m comfortable with technical arguments (e.g., kritiks, topicality, theory) if they are well-explained and linked to the resolution.
• Impact calculus is critical—explicitly compare your impacts to your opponent’s.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

• Value and criterion debates are important but shouldn’t overshadow substantive arguments.
• Philosophical arguments are welcome but must be accessible and relevant to the resolution.

Public Forum Debate

• Clarity, big-picture analysis, and accessibility are key.
• Avoid spreading or relying on technical jargon—PF should be audience-friendly.
• Direct clash and effective impact weighing are essential.

World Schools Debate

• Persuasion, style, and structure are as important as content.
• Team dynamics and strategic roles should complement each other.

Congressional Debate

• Content>presentation, Congress is a debate event and needs to be treated as such, don't just give a speech just to give a speech.
• Clash is critical. Reference prior arguments and specific speakers directly.
• Avoid repetitive speeches; focus on adding new insights to the discussion.
• Delivery, organization, and adaptability are key factors in my evaluation.

Extemporaneous Speaking (Extemp)

• Answer the question directly—failing to do so will hurt your rank.
• Speeches should be well-organized, with a strong hook and clear structure.
• Fabricated sources will result in penalties. Integrity is non-negotiable.

Interpretation Events (Interp)

• Good blocking, clear character transitions, and distinct portrayals are essential.
• Emotion is important, but avoid overacting—subtlety and nuance are often more impactful.

Original Oratory (OO)

• A strong oratory should educate and inspire.
• Start with a catchy AGD, provide clear solutions, and end with a powerful call to action.
• Choose unique topics to stand out.

Informative Speaking (Info)

• Info is distinct from OO—do not present an OO in an Info round.
• Focus on societal implications and use creative visuals.

Expectations and Final Notes

• Debate should be an educational and respectful activity. I prioritize growth over competitiveness.
• I do not tolerate discriminatory language, fabricated evidence, or unethical behavior. Violations will result in a loss and the lowest speaks.
• Do not spread excessively. Debate is a communication event, and your delivery must prioritize clarity.
• Make my job easy—weigh your impacts and clearly explain why you’re winning the round.

Finally, have fun! Debate is a space for learning, challenging ideas, and growth. Let’s keep it that way.

PF

LD

Congress

Policy

Extemp

Conflicts: Blanson CTE, Avalos P-TECH

Hi!! I primarily competed in LD in high school at Cabot High School and then in Parliamentary Debate at Arkansas State. I no longer debate but now judge periodically. I have many specific viewpoints on debate but do not desire you to be confined to me. Too many times in competition did I intentionally run (or in most cases not run) cases that were catered to who my judge was. Speech and Debate is supposed to be a safe educational activity to express yourself. So have fun. I want you to enjoy the round and not resent having a specific judge. Of course, I do have viewpoints based on my own experience but at the end of the day, it's not right for you to have to fit my box. Run what you want, as long as it's not harmful to others, and enjoy.

Arkansas Debaters- I am not "traditional." Do not fear, I will give you a sizable RFD as a method to improve your craft. You do not have to dumb it down, change the wording, or anything else odd like that. You can run positions others might not allow (CP, T, K, Disads.) Just know what you're talking about. Don't run something just to do it, understand the material you are about to tell me. Be creative and engaging with both sides of the flow. But, do not desensitize yourself to very real things in this world just to win the ballot.

Clarity over speed always. Quality outweighs quantity always. Analysis and explanation are more important than many small cards. Please tell me where you are on the flow. I live for a good line-by-line.

Please be cautious of discussing extremely sensitive material and think of how it could affect those in the room. This is not one of the cases where forgiveness is easier to give than permission.

Respect peoples identities

I want to be on the email chain: briana13griffin@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them/she/her

Note: Due to my busy lifestyle, I do not have a ton of background knowledge on these topics. So please do not assume I know all of your literature immediately.

I am an experienced speech and Congress coach, and a former competitor.

In Congress, I value respect and courtesy, delivery, an analysis of real-world impacts, evidence and clash - so unless you are the first speech, you need to show me that you are listening and responding to the other speeches in the round. I don't want to hear the same arguments restated and rehashed at the end of the round - give me some new ideas, or some summative analysis. Even if you give a fantastically delivered and well cited speech, if you aren't trying to ask good questions at every opportunity throughout the round, I'm not going to rank you highly. It is, after all, a debate event.

In Lincoln Douglas and in other styles of debate, please don't treat debate like a game. I am very traditional, and treating it like a game with progressive argumentation, performance Ks, K Affs, and RVIs harms those in small schools who don’t have the advantage of many team members to teach them the game, and it creates more inequities in debate. I listen carefully, write down excessive amounts of information and I vote off my flow so if you want my ballot, give a strong final speech that addresses, crystallizes and weighs the key arguments in the round. Show that you were listening to and have evidence to counter arguments presented by your opponent(s). These speeches demonstrate your ability to think and interact with your opponents’ case, much more so than your ability to read a prepared case, that you may or may not have written yourself. Don’t spread. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I can’t flow your case. And no one spreads in real life. Off time road maps are a waste of time. Just as a good extemp speaker should not have to read me the prompt before they start the speech, I should be able to follow your road map within your speech.

In all debate events, and in life, the most important thing is to be kind.

· I am a guest judge.

· I look for strong points that are relevant to the argument you’re trying to make, as well as addressing any valid arguments against your points.

· Be sure to speak clearly, take your time, prove your point, and enjoy!

DEBATE: Please speak clearly and not too fast. I value evidence especially for bold arguments, refutation of opponents arguments, and respect given to fellow competitors.

SPEECH: Prove your interpretation to me, I go into every round with no agenda, and take my perspective out.

Hi! I am Beatrice Handlin (She/Her). I am a former speech competitor, current assistant coach, and judge.

Leslie Harden Greer Judging Disclosure:

I take the responsibility of judging seriously and believe in rendering fair decisions based on a neutral perspective. I approach each round with an open mind, eliminating bias and holding no preconceived ideas about the outcome. I can lean affirmative or negative with equal propensity, and teams should strive to persuade me with their arguments.

I bring 24 years of experience as an English, drama, debate, and communication teacher, and have also coached speech and forensics, directed theatre, and coached mock trial and student congress. My approach to judging is influenced by these years of involvement in the education and forensics community.

Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Communication is Key: I prioritize clear communication over rapid delivery. (It’s as if I can hear the quiet sobbing of the policy debaters reading this.) Effective communication is vital for conveying arguments successfully. I prefer a clear and eloquent presentation of issues in the round. Effective communication is crucial in persuading me of the merits of your arguments.

2. Play Professional: I place a high value on sportsmanship and decorum in debate. Respectful conduct is essential for a productive debate.

3. Affirmative Burden: The affirmative plan should fulfill all of their burdens. If the negative demonstrates that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected.

4. Quality Evidence: I appreciate well-articulated arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Well-researched and substantiated arguments are more persuasive in my evaluation.

5. Focus on Disadvantages and Counter-Plans: I often give weight to disadvantages and counter-plans. While I may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments, I assess the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages.

6. Respect for Judges: I expect debaters to recognize that judges are reasonably intelligent, well-informed members of society. Debaters should present their case comprehensively and avoid assuming that judges lack the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments.

In summary, my judging philosophy centers on fairness, clear communication, and rigorous argument evaluation. I encourage debaters to present their cases effectively and persuasively, regardless of their positions, and I assess each round impartially. Good luck, and I look forward to a productive and engaging debate.

Experience: I've been a coach for three years; two out of the three years I have qualified competitors in LD to NSDA Nationals. I don't consider myself a lay judge by any means nor do I totally ascribe to the qualities of a circuit judge. I like to think of myself as a happy in between. I have grown an affinity for LD over other styles. I understand jargon, but overuse will result in lower speaker points.

General Philosophy:
I consider myself a tabula rasa judge so I really try to evaluate rounds based on the arguments presented rather than my personal opinions. I don't mind the presentation of arguments that I don't personally ascribe to. With that being said, I do it should be well articulated and supported with proper links and evidence. I don't like when students just say things to say them. I like unique arguments, so don't be afraid to try running something new if you have it prepared.

- Weighing is key. I appreciate strong impact calculus—tell me why your framework or K matters more than your opponent’s arguments.

- I highly value good warranting—assertions without support won’t get much weight.

- I won’t intervene. If you want me to evaluate something, make sure you explain why it matters in the round.

- I appreciate a refutation that is just that. Don't give me your constructive. I've already heard it. I am looking for direct clash with your opponents case.

Framework:
I will evaluate framework debates seriously, and consider them too essential. If a side doesn't present a FW, then I will evaluate based on their opponents or if neither side presents a FW then I default to the logic of queen Beyonce. I don't vote down if competitors use Util, but I do think its lazy and appreciate variety. I prefer framework clash—if your opponent presents a competing framework, engage with it rather than just reasserting your own.I will award speaker points for unique or nontypical/nontraditional FW. I won't vote on it, unless its properly supported. SO MAKE IT MAKE SENSE. PLEASE.

Speed:
I can handle moderate (like very moderate) spreading. Clarity is key! If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow it. Spreading, that severely inhibits my ability to understand case will result in an automatic L.

K's:

I will vote on Kritiks as long as they are well-warranted, contextualized, and linked to the resolution. Please don't run a K because it sounds good; if you don't understand it or can tie it back then you've just wasted everyones time. Present a K that engage with the resolution and challenge assumptions baked into the debate space, again not a K for K's sake. Vague and generic links don't work for me.

Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted, etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.

PF:

I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during the case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.

If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.

I will vote on a warranted argument regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.

In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to pref me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.

Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.

I am a parent judge. I have primarily judged speech. I have judged at the local and national level.

Speech:

I expect speeches to be well organized, clearly delivered, state a thesis early on and utilize a roadmap. Additionally, speakers should be dynamic and engaging and incorporate conclusions that effectively finish the speech.

Congress:

I am relatively new to judging congress. I appreciate organized, thoughtful speeches that move the debate along. I am familiar with debate; therefore, I expect members of the congress to respond to arguments presented by their fellow representatives/ senators.

When looking at a performance the biggest area I look into is commitment to the text. Is the subject matter taken beyond the surface level and is there critical thinking used through out the process. Which is evident by their perofmance.

I look to see if the performer has control of the audience.

I like seeing believability and authenticity. Something that goes beyond what is written.

I look for a clean speech that has vocal variety and does not sound over- rehearsed. Rather an organic piece that comes from the heart and not a paper.

All tactics will vary as the piece unfolds and I enjoy the unpredictability of it. Just like in life.

Hello! Good luck and I look forward to watching you debate!

One of my huge paradigm is that I am pretty anti-spreading. I can listen and keepup - but I don't like it. I think a talented debater can make their case, in an articulate way, without needing to rapid fire information. Please make sure to speak loudly and clearly, so I can follow along with your debate case and can hear the impact of your arguments. Other than that - have fun! Be kind! Fight hard! Enjoy! :)

My name is Spencer Humphreys. I am a 5 year head coach with 4 years experience competing in Humorous interpretation, one year competing in Dramatic interp and Duo interp on the high school and college level. When judging interpretation events I focus on distinct voices, facial expressions to match the emotion you are trying to convey with each character, and clean blocking.

I do not consider cartwheels and flips "creative blocking".

Debate is foremost a persuasive activity where being strategic means developing clear, clever, and organized solutions to resolve the issues put forward by the topic and the round. In front of me, you should read whatever argument you feel that you are most persuasive on, interested in, and proud of. The more that argument clashes with your opponent, the better the debate.

Frame the debate in the final rebuttals. Do your research. Look, sound and act like you're winning till somebody tells you different.

I am a blank slate and objective for every debate. I will base my decisions on which team was the most persuasive in their arguments, whatever those arguments may be. Were your arguments relevant and did they further your contentions? Did you use cross effectively (were you able to poke holes in the persuasiveness of your opponents arguments)? Were your arguments and attacks cohesive throughout the debate, or did you bounce all over the place? Did I get a sense that you really understood the topic? Did you use evidence? Did you say "like" or "um" a million times? All of those things factor into my decisions.

I LOVE hearing the evidence you prepared. I want to hear how your evidence backs up the facts you are trying to assert. Without evidence, I may assume you are making stuff up which could lose you points.

Time management and knowing how to effectively argue each round is important. For instance, it is not proper to bring up new evidence and arguments during Final Focus. Additionally, if you struggle with time management, I will probably notice. Make sure that you have a good grasp on where you are at in the debate.

LOOK UP! If you have researched your topic well, there is no reason that you should be buried in your phone, ipad, or computer. You should use those tools as guidelines and to keep you on track, but I want to feel that you have a good understanding of what you are arguing. That enhances your persuasiveness to me.

Do's:

- Warrant every claim you make

- Signpost

- Weigh (start in rebuttal if possible)

- Line-by-Line in summary and final focus

- Make analytical responses coupled with evidence, rather than just reading cards

Don'ts:

- Poorly paraphrase evidence

- Speed as a tool of exclusion

- Use statistics or evidence that you can't explain

New judge here! I don’t have many specifics, please just be courteous and have fun!

Spreading is not allowed and will be penalized.

I competed in LD for 4 years in HS at duPont Manual, but am now 4 years out of debate. This means I will flow, but I can't take super fast spreading and I need everything (especially progressive argumentation) to be clearly explained. Probably can't evaluate theory properly. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

The following will be the rules/key principles I will use to judge. Please read them all, but for online tournaments be sure to read number 4.

If the speech calls for it then the following rules may be adjusted if required by the speech. For example, if your speech requires a few moments of yelling or mumbling, I will know that it is to add effect to speech. Do not talk too fast, or too slow. I will recognize it if you are stalling for time.

1. Modulation. If you speak quietly or without confidence do not expect to get a good rank. At the same time, if you yell or talk too loud it is equally unacceptable. Do not talk too fast, or too slow. I will recognize it if you are stalling for time.

2. Enunciation. Make sure to enunciate all of your words. If I do not understand what you say it is likely you will be given a lower rank and speaker points will be deducted.

3. Emphasis. The right amount of emphasis in the right places can make your speech stand out. This goes hand in hand with modulation and good emphasis will always increase your speaker points. Do not overdo the emphasis. Stressing every word will only serve to make me annoyed rather than convincing me to give you a better rank. Just like all the other rules - moderation.

4. Online Tournament Specifics. I understand if you have tech issues. Being late because of tech will not affect your rank or speaker points in any way. Try your best to get a space to present with a good amount of room and good lighting, but if you are unable to I will understand, and will only take off points in the most extreme circumstances. For example, if you have very little room but still make an effort with hand gestures and doing what space allows, then do not worry about it. But if you stand perfectly still without any motion and it is clear that there is little effort being put, then I will still mark you down. Make sure your camera works before coming to the tournament. I can't judge you if your video is off. If your video/audio lags or freezes for a couple of moments then don't worry about it. Don't worry if there is unavoidable background noise. Only if it becomes extremely hard to judge will I take points off. All in all, just try your best to get optimal presenting conditions, and if you can't, then don't sweat it and try your best anyway.

5. Please no excessive gratitude or the like. If you keep saying thank you or things like that it will serve no purpose except getting me annoyed and wasting time. That being said, please be polite, just make sure not to overdo it.

6. I will not take off too many points for time. NSDA rules say that if you miss the time limit by more than 30 seconds you cannot get first. That being said, if you hit all the other points missing the grace period will not hurt your speaker points that much. Please try to adhere to the time limit because if there are others who spoke just as well as you, they will be ranked above you, whereas if you had stuck to the time limit it would have been much closer and may have gone in other ways. Also, note that other judges may not appreciate shorter/longer speeches and they may rank you below anyone else who had a speech of the correct time.

7. Be confident and have fun with it!

I am a former policy debater and current speech and debate coach. I coach policy, LD, and PF. I am a flow judge. I want to see good communication in round.

Content warnings for SA or self harm please.

Email: tofunmi.jewesimi@gmail.com

Hi I'm Tofunmi (she/her), I competed in several years of middle school and high school speech (DI, POI, INFO, OO,,,, the list goes on but I basically did everything). HOWEVER, I don't have that much debate experience so go easy on me. I have zero tolerance for rude competitors. Be sure to use people's preferred pronouns, and overall, be respectful. I will be docking points if I see rude behavior from competitors. Debate should be a safe space, so if you have any concerns, please contact me.

INTERP:

In all, looking for clear plot and good characterization. Really put me in the world of your piece through blocking and characterization. I want to see you connect with your piece

I love subtlety of emotion in interp events (except HI ofc)

I like to see binder craft in POI

For HI, don't be gimmicky. Any racism/sexism/anything along the sorts automatically puts you at the bottom of the room.

I don't really time unless other judges would prefer to, just do your best!

PUBLIC SPEAKING:

Boards aren't required in info, but unless your reason for not using boards is because that's what works best for your piece (e.g., the ASL piece at 2021 nationals), I prefer pieces with boards

Make sure your speech is well structured and easy to follow through

Make sure you pace yourself, and stay engaging through tone variety throughout your speech

WSD:

Please adhere worlds norms. I will definitely dock points if you don't. (take 1-2 POIs, no spreading, etc.)

The team that'll maintain clarity throughout the round usually wins my ballot. Be sure to have explicit organization with signposting. If you can clearly illustrate what your world looks like and compare it with the other side of the house It will help me weigh the round.

Be sure to characterize each of the actors and stakeholders in the round and how it fits into your arguments and how it affects your world in the round.

I'm expecting explicit worlds weighing for clash throughout the later speeches, specifically outline what prop and opp look like on your side of the house and explicitly show me as the judge the net harms and benefits.

Style isn't a major concern for me, but there should generally be a good balance of the team on average maintaining similar style, content, and strategy.

Avoid tokenizing marginalized groups or exploiting statistics of deaths or illness for the sake of the ballot, impact weigh with consciousness.

PF/LD:

Signpost + avoid spreading super fast (you can still talk fast, but I'm going to vote off of clarity)

Have organized argumentation + explicit explanations. I'm fine with technical terms, but use them correctly (i.e use fiat or uniqueness correctly)

Have clear warrants (hows + the whys) and how it links to your claim

Whoever shows clear links to not only your claim, but your impacts and explicitly weighs those impacts will ultimately win my ballot.

EXTEMP:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

Strong organization (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

Hello, my name is Anyia (uh-ney-uh),

I am IE and Speech judge and I don't have many rules.

• Please make sure you have the right piece to perform
• Please make sure your piece doesn't go over the time because I do give a verbal stop ( I hate to be rude)
• Whenever someone is performing their piece be respectful to them and listen because it does seem rude and inappropriate to be on your phone doing round
• Only communicate with me if you have a question, please don't do small talk with the judge

Those are my rules. Please respect them. Thank you.

Judging I look for: speech suitability to the speaker, performance technique, creativity, understanding of the material.

I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguments and communicate effectively. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your argument and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. Being able to back up your points with substantial and current evidence is a major factor. Please note that evidence sharing will cut into your prep time. We need to keep the round and tournament running on time as much as possible. Being truthful when pointing out flaws in your opponents case, don't make things up just to frustrate them. Keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!

Treat me as a flay judge, I'll be flowing but I'll also be noting your presentation of arguments, confidence, and assertiveness. 

As a coach, I enjoy judging speech events but have a fair amount of experience judging PF and LD. I prefer traditional debate rounds and vote based on who simplifies the main ideas. I enjoy tactical clashes in rounds.

Parker Klyn, Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA)

Call me Parker, Mr. Klyn, or judge, whichever you're most comfortable with.

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

**********

Judging Philosophy

Tech over truth. The only arguments I won't vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad." I am happy to adjudicate the round the competitors want to have, whatever that looks like. Judges have a moral obligation to evaluate debates as fairly as possible and any intervention at all does a profound disservice to the hard work and preparation of the students in this wonderful activity.

Write my ballot for me (utilize clear judge instruction) in the final speeches. Offense/defense, the flow determines all, go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I do not flow off the doc.

Outside of that, to cast a ballot in your favor, I need two things. First, I need complete extensions of whatever argument you're going for in each speech. Second, I need to be able to articulate the link story that resolves your offense, whatever that offense might look like. If one or both of those requirements are not met, I am comfortable holding the line even if those arguments are "won" on the flow.

LD Prefs:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

**********

About Me

I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

I love judging. It makes me a better coach. You will always have my full attention in-round and I will do everything I possibly can to adjudicate the round fairly and completely. Ask as many questions before/after the round as you like.

Debate is the best part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to do this as my calling and I'm proud of you for doing it too. Debate has allowed an awkward kid like me who grew up in Grinnell, IA (population: 9,000) to flourish as an educator and coach. I'm an open book: if there's anything I can do to help you learn, just ask. I value the educational aspect of debate far beyond any competitive result. If you want to read some of my opinions/takes on debate click here.

COME LEARN DEBATE FROM ME! NDF: Public Forum – Summit Debate. We have a stellar staff including Bashir Eltyeb (Iowa City West, TOC semifinalist), Michi Synn (Canyon Crest, dozens of bids), Devin Lester (Lakeville North, 3x TOC), and Ingrid Alg-Liening (Theodore Roosevelt, 3x Gold TOC). We support students of all experience levels, from brand-new novices to national circuit contenders. If you have any questions about camp, come talk to me (preferably after my ballot has been submitted).

My name is Chandu and I'm a sophomore in college.
I've judged for Speech and Debate on and off for about a year with me mainly doing LD.

My only real thing is that you don't speak super-fast. I don't have many other requests past that. If you need some kind of accommodation, just tell me before the round so that I can figure it out.
Thanks

Hello,

Thanks for the opportunity of letting me be the judge for this special event.

I look forward to hearing your ideas regarding various debate topics.

As a judge, my favorite part is to see how you can be innovative, authentic and add an element of surprise all while using the guidelines of your competition format. The important aspects from my viewpoint are originality, confidence and innovation.

Good luck!

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

Have fun and be energetic. Let me know that you want to be here.

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

The Zen Buddhist gives the hot dog cart vendor $5 for a $3 hot dog. He asks the vendor, "Where's my change?"

The vendor says, "True change comes from within. Now go be the change you want to see in the world."

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore, I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

SPREADING IS STUPID.

I prefer actual conversational debate. Please use speechdrop.

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

1. I have a moderate amount of experience as a  judge. Try not to run procedurals unless absolutely necessary.

2. Avoid spreading and keep your arguments as neat as possible.

3. It is helpful to me if you use sign posts.

4. I will be awarding points for eloquence.

hi guys, i know im a little late on this. im currently studying at the university of houston, class of 2026! i have some experience with speech in debate, so i like to judge on my free time. i take some time with my feedback (written), so my deepest apologies if it's not available right away.

im fairly new at this, so it is greatly appreciated when the motion is clearly stated as well as your substantials.

i don't mind if you speak fast because i know you guys are under a timer, but if you speak too fast to the point where i cannot understand, it will cost you speaker points.

my decision will be based on who i think best delivered their argument and supporting information. same for non-debate competitors, my decision will be based on your ability to deliver your speech. imo, these decisions are very subjective.

i wish you guys the best of luck, and hope my decisions and feedback help you guys out.

happy holidays :)

In Public Forum and Extemp: I value delivery & analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I want to know the significance of your topic and what are the impacts of your arguments, tell me why it matters. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Understand that you are Debating not Arguing, this is an important distinction that must be known by each debater!

In Congressional Debate: I value the natural delivery of points and impacts and reasonable positions. I look for acknowledgment of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. A lack of clash is frowned upon. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In DI, HI, DUO, Poetry, and Prose: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure of the piece and mindful storytelling!

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

Spoken Word: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure, organization, clear theme, and mindful storytelling!

Hi everyone,

I am a new parent judge and English is not my first language, so I would appreciate it if you went slow and kept the jargon to the minimum. Please give me a big picture of what is happening in the round and explain very clearly why you are winning compared to the opponents. 

Good luck to all debaters! 

Equity and Fairness

• This is my number one priority. Please notify me (if you feel comfortable doing so) if you feel discriminated against, uncomfortable with someone or something, or need help.

Speech/Interp

- I am okay with you timing yourself and will not penalize you for glancing at your clock from time to time (as long as it does not heavily impede your performance) if you are an online competitor.

- Depending on the event, I would like a cohesive story that compels me to feel a certain way (sad, mad, caring, aware of an issue, happy, etc.)

- Hand gestures and walking appropriately are a must (walking between points, appropriate hand gestures during scenes/arguments, etc.)

- Extemp: refer to my congress paradigm for how I like argumentation in this context, I appreciate humorous/informative introductions and conclusions that wrap around to it. Walking from point to point is very important in exempt, same with recent sources.

- Interp/OO: I want to feel motivated after hearing your speech (do so with passion in your tone, dramatic/overemphasized facial expression and gestures, etc.)

- If your speech includes an argument, see my congress paradigm and the constructive portion of my debate paradigm.

- I understand and will work through technical difficulties with you! I am committed to upholding equity in rounds, and if there is a way I can help with that, please let me know!

World Schools, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas

- I want to see warrant level refutation in the majority of refutation points you have (claim level will be discarded on the flow and data level refutation should clearly explain why their data is flawed/not representative of the analysis they are attaching to it).

- Don't spread :)

- LD and PF: you can use technical jargon with me. I ask that you don't if you know you have a lay judge on a panel with me (again, for accessibility). WSD: this is a more relaxed debate format and tech isn't as important for me when I vote.

- Cross: I judge using cross (and POIs for WSD). I won't ignore this and I want to see really thought-provoking and challenging questions. I will follow your question in terms of noticing when you set traps. Don't use this as an opportunity for extra speaking time though, make sure the questioning gets to the point. Also, be polite!

- Constructive material: Little pre-refutation on the aff, please. Neg is okay to have refutation in the first constructive speech, but I still want the vast majority of the speech to be constructive. Please try and connect your constructive material to your opponents (blend your arguments with refutation of theirs- I LOVE when debaters cross apply).

- I flow everything, so please be organized in every speech and make it clear where you are (roadmap and taglines please). I expect clear voters for the final speech in around for both sides and a clear understanding of what you are doing in a speech. (Ex: "I'm going to do a line-by-line, first addressing my opponent's constructive, then their refutation of my own arguments, followed by the round's voters"; then during the speech, you can say, "moving on to their rebuttals of my first constructive"). Make sure you give a quick summary of your opponents' argument before you refute it though.

- Impacts/Impact Calculus: I'm fair game for all impact jargon. Make sure when you are weighing you bring in quantification (if applicable) for magnitude/severity and you clearly explain based on a weighing mechanism (probability, severity, magnitude, etc.) why your argument wins.

- Argument format: Claim, Warrant, Data, Impact. If you miss any of those, I will likely drop your argument.

- Data: I prefer quantification when they are applicable. Please state at least the month and year of cards (if you can) and the institution they are from. I treat evidence challenges seriously, so don't hesitate to call an opponent out if you can't find their card or think it is faked/unfairly misrepresented. I also can smell when sources are bad (especially if it's a topic I have debated before), so please do not make up or misquote sources for your own sake.

- There is so much more I can say, but the TLDR is that I'm down for advanced debate stuff (speed, jargon) and that I value good and thorough refutation above most things.

Congress

- Most importantly, I VALUE REFUTATION SPEECHES. Judges in congress too easily disregard late-round ref/crystal speeches. For this reason (and because it takes major skill to do this) I emphasize ref/crystal speeches. If you give a good one, you will be rewarded heavily in my rankings.

- I want to see all of your skills, so don't just fill one role during the round(don't only give ref speeches or only constructive).

-Quality is better than quantity for questions(I listen to them)

- POs: I will be keeping recency and precedence for questioning (if it's direct) and speeches. I like good POs. If you are considering POing, make sure you know how to run an amendment properly.

- Organization: Constructive speeches should usually have this format: Introduction, 2 points (claim, warrant, data, analysis, data, impact), and conclusion. Make sure I can understandably follow your arguments.

- Refutation: Same as in my debate paradigm, but if this is ref being added to a constructive speech, make sure you integrate this into your points. If you give a point similar to someone on the other side, I expect you to refute them in order for your point to have validity.

- Half-refutation speeches are great, so is impact calculus

- While I am a much more debate-oriented judge, please have solid and rhetorical introductions and conclusions. Speak at a nice pace (I will understand you if you go fast, but you shouldn't in Congress) and try to mitigate fluency breaks.

- Walking: Walk from your introductions to your points and back for your conclusions. Please don't sway if you can.

- A lot of the same stances for debate and congress, so please read my other paradigm too (the difference with Congress is I also judge based on speaking ability pretty much).

Looking forward to seeing you perform/debate!

I am a parent volunteer judge. My primary format is speech. I also have experiences judging PF.

I’m an experienced parent judge. I’m unfamiliar with progressive arguments so run k’s and theory at your own digression. I value clear, logical arguments and appreciate solid clash. I’m ok with speed but please keep spreading to a min. If I have to refer to a document in order to understand what you’re saying, you’re probably going too fast.

As a judge who primarily coaches speech, debaters should know the following about my paradigm:

• I appreciate clear and strong evidence for any and all claims. Personal anecdotes are effective at garnering empathy but do very little to strengthen a point. Proper sourcing from credible sources (authors and dates) are effective for me.
• I like learning about the contexts of resolutions. Tying your framework to existing examples or case studies might help me visualize your argument better.
• I like clear analysis and speakers that demonstrate active listening in their rebuttals.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking and debate company. And I have judged many rounds of speech and debate events and I love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

I vote for the debate based on the reasonableness of the contentions, how the debtors defend their points and how they attack their opponent’s points , and how their speaking skills are in order to successfully deliver the message to the audience (such as enunciation , tones and clarity) .

In debate I look for clash within a round, I think it prevents the round from coming down to a "he said, she said" argument. I also like seeing detailed explanations behind why an opposing sides argument is flawed. These detailed arguments prove to me that the student understands the base of the argument. I in general, like students to be as detailed as possible when they make their arguments. It is important to avoid making vague arguments. I like clearly stated impacts in a round, but I also need to be given a weighing mechanism to evaluate the impacts. I think it is also important that students are speaking clearly, in order to make understanding their case and points easy. I like clear impacts in the round, but I also want to see a weighing mechanism of how to evaluate said impacts. I fine with you talking fast but there is a clear line between talking fast and spreading.

Make sure your arguments are fully fleshed out. Don’t be vague, be as specific as possible.

in speaking events, I pay a lot of attention to speaking style. I feel that your style should be clear and fluid in order for the speech to have clarity. Content is also really important, I look for detailed analysis on topics, which shows me that the student fully understands the topic. I like speaking events where it is clear that the speaker is finding ways to engage their audience.

When it comes to interp events, I expect the performers to have fully formed characters and showcase believable interactions. Emotions can be hard to capture, and I look for students who are able to fully convince me that they are feeling these emotions. I think that performances should be dynamic. When pacing is stagnant the entire performance I feel that it becomes difficult to be invested in the story that is trying to told with their performance.

I am not fond of spreading. I look forward to a clean debate.

Hi!

I look forward to judging your round. I am a "lay" judge, so please do not spread.

For debate: I appreciate clear and concise arguments, so I can flow more effectively. Impact calculus is very important. I also need both sides to talk about how they are going to weigh the round. Above all, please be respectful and make it an educational debate. Congratulations and good luck!

For speech: I give a lot of emphasis to originality, relevance of topic and quality of speech. Please make sure you test your sound and image with a friend, coach or family member connected virtually when you practice for online events. Good luck-know that you are awesome just for participating! 

Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.

Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.

Otherwise, good luck! You got this!

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

Dale McCall, Of Elephants and Onions, Rostrum (n.d.) (available at https://pbcfl.net/wp-content/uploads/Rostrum-Article-Of-Elephants-and-Onions.pdf).

Key Points (it's honestly nothing):

- Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub-points in your main points])

- Bring the VOLUME, not the PACE! In other words, try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!

- Repetitive contentions are allowed any time/any day!

- Do your thing. Just keep your flow going and do your best; anything works! Depict good communication skills and try to elaborate as much as you can on your arguments!

- Be nice! :) Any rudeness, discrimination, or any negative comments will NOT be dismissed and will be used AGAINST you during your rounds. (Keep in mind, this may be an automatic WIN for the opponent).

- I will use arguments, preparation, and speaking skills made to make my decision. Please make sure to participate at your best effort.

ALWAYS REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN!

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. janettmartinez83@gmail.com

DO NOT Be: rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I've found I'm a pretty expressive judge, and if i am confused or can't understand you my face will make that clear.

Have fun, be clear, be clever.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

I consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical).

Frameworks should always be extended.If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(...card) means we outweigh on...,” then move on to the next point. I love details and context, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and impact that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

World Schools

I truly love world school as an event. It is my favorite event to coach and I've been coaching worlds since 2018. I focus heavily on the event’s rubric to guide the ballot; however it ultimately is a debate event so remember to focus on the warranting and implication of your arguments. I do think there is a lot of room for stylistic flair that can add to a worlds round that can carry down the bench throughout the round. I see a lot of value in POIs for both sides - for the asking side to break up the flow of the debate and for the receiving side to clearly contextualize an answer that helps guide them to their next point of clash.

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

tl;dr: I coach speech primarily and when needed, I judge debate; I don't mind speed and tech, but I should be able to follow the argument without reading along. Evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

You can share cases with me, please go ahead. I may not read the case along with you as you present it, but will use it as a reference.

I am also inviting you and your coach (please, obtain their permission first) to email me for anything you need. I would be happy to clarify my RFD, to answer any questions about my paradigm, or even if you feel unsafe in a round, I will do everything in my power to help you.

On to the good stuff:

________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? One that is clear. "I have a card" is not clear, nor is it persuasive. Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence!

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! I am not anti-speed, but speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. Speed for argument depth is great, but I recommend signaling or slowing down to make the tags and theories clear so I can write them down. I am not a silent judge. I will say something in between speeches if I cannot understand you, but if I cannot write down your argument in the flow, then guess what? The other person wins because I could hear them. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Traditional or Progressive? I'll be honest, I have leaned towards more traditional when it comes to LD in the past, but the past few years I have become more inclined to some fun progressive debates. I do believe that LD at its core is a value debate. If you are going to run a progressive case, be sure it still fits the idea of a value debate on THIS resolution, not the one you wish NSDA voted for, but THIS resolution.

5. To K or Not to K? Why not? Challenge the system, make the debate interesting and captivating, BUT also remember what I said in number 4. This is a value debate and should ultimately be about the resolution at hand. If you want to run a K about how your opponent's shoes are unlaced; therefore, they are unprofessional, I really think you could do better.

6. Finally, be kind. The worse thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off and while it will not affect what I vote on, it will affect how much attention I can give you.

cosby '21 fsu '24

currently a coach at Bergen Debate Club

put me on the email chain jackmerkel57@gmail.com

3 years pf (Qualled to TOC, States, Broke at many Nat Circuit Tourneys), 2 year NFA-LD (Qualled to NFA Nats 2x - Octos 2024)

important stuff

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are

PF Stuff

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.

prog stuff

see NFA-LD section, tldr open to most prog stuff except trix which im just never voting for. if you have more specific questions just ask before the round

most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible

NFA-LD

Case-Yes topical plan affs. I am probably the best at judging this style, with that being said non-t/k affs are fine, just a higher threshold to win my ballot.

T-Came from PF so never debated T before NFA, as a result not as good of a T judge compared to more established LD/Policy judges. Prob lean aff in most cases on T but will obv vote on it if the neg provides good warranting and definitions as to why its not T. Overall tho found T pretty boring and probably went for it less than 10% of the time so take that as you will.

DA-Yes please, I love a good disad that is creative in its link from the aff and has good weighing against the aff scenarios. Probably the most fun kind of debate to judge.

CP-Never really read or went for these, that being said I love a good/strategic cp that can solve the aff and has unique net benefits. Just explain how the cp solves the aff and why its competitive.

K-Read a lot more of these my last year debating, mainly read security but have experience running Cap and Psycho (Lacan/Matheson). I struggle a bit on higher phil like Baudy but I can prob still evaluate it. In addition performance/identity Ks are fine, obv dont have much experience running these but can still evaluate them. Idc if your alt isn't a material action, just describe what the alt world looks like whether its a mindset shift, rejection ect. On framing prove why your rotb matters and why I shouldn't weigh the aff, interact with your opponents fairness/education/predictability claims and prove why I should prefer your interpretations, weigh pre vs post fiat implications ect. "Perm do both" isn't a response, explain why the aff and alt are not mutually exclusive and explain how the aff and alt can function together and why that solves better.

Theory-I honestly like theory, obv as stated above didn't come from a LD/Policy background so don't have as much experience debating/evaluating procedural theory but have debated theory enough that its still fine to run. I love disclosure theory and just think its prob a true argument on both aff and neg so feel free to run this.

Misc- Speed is fine, I personally never really spread but I can evaluate it. Speaks are stupid and I think judging speaking ability is the most pointless thing in the activity, read 30 speaks theory and Ill give both debaters highest speaks allowed by the tournament.

I believe that every student has the potential to excel in speech and debate. I believe that constructive criticism is how we get better, and after reflecting it, it helps to push us to our next best performance.

IE:

I look for Students to show the hard work into their selection. (are you memorized, is the character fleshed out?)

I like to see polished pieces (not rough drafts)

Students should show they have an understanding of the selection they are presenting, by delivering a thoughtful introduction for their piece.

Selection should be entertaining and also have merit.

I want to be able to sit back and watch you tell your story.

Author's intent is important, we should use our selections to tell the story the author has intended.

Exempt:

Please provide an roadmap that organizes your speech in your intro, tell us where we are going and then support it in the subparagraphs, be sure to use scholarly sources

I competed in speech in high school and have been judging speech events for 8 years. I am an assistant speech coach, and therefore I am not a flow judge.

Overall (Speech):Speech is a game of engagement with the audience, and your efforts should be towards engaging the audience with the message of your piece. My ranks are always based primarily on this. Of course, there are many tools to engage an audience, and your choice to use them and your effectiveness with them will vary.

Oral Interpretation: In interpretation events (HI, DI, DA, DUO, POI, PR, PO), I am looking for a performance that creates a significant personal or social meaning from the literature chosen. I am also looking for a performance that shows emotional and tonal complexity and a range that is both suitable for the piece and is demonstrative of the skills of the interper.

There should also be intentionality in the decisions made in the interpretation of the piece. For example, all the blocking employed in the piece should have a purpose and should not seem haphazardly included in the performance. This also goes for what is included in the cutting of the piece, for the words spoken, the emotions, sound effects, etc. conveyed should all contribute to the message you are trying to convey in your interpretation.

Public Address: In Public Address or Platform events (IX/FX, USX/DX, OO, INFO), I am looking for speeches that add novelty and insight to the topic of the speech. Making the topic relevant and understandable to a general audience is necessary for success in these speeches.

Speeches in these categories are more effective and engaging when they employ a variety of pacing and tone that convey to the audience the significance and emotional stakes of the points you make. On top of clear speaking and style, one needs to create the engagement for the audience with their voice through these tools. In general a conversation

Speeches should be well organized and easy to follow for the audience. They should have clear but original signposting to help the audience keep track of where they are in the speech.

Congress:

In congressional debate I'm really looking at the analysis of the argument and the ability to create a logical and well-backed chain of arguments to why we should pass or fail. Generally awareness of the round is highly valued, and I want arguments from competitors to be well addressed. Obviously, fluency and rhetorical impact are important as well, and I'm not a huge fan of Jargon in Congress. Speeches should generally be broadly approachable.

The people who will score high in the round are going to bring in novel arguments and ideas, and dive into the language and the implications of the bills as well as the claims of their competitors. Ask good questions! Be a balanced speaker.

Don't take being P.O. for granted, you still have to present yourself among the top in the round. Judges should seldom have to get involved.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I'm a speech coach, and this is not my preferred event. That being said, I am rather traditional when it comes to judging LD with heavy emphasis on the battle of values and achievement of the value criterion through your use of your evidence.

I have some debate experience through high school, but consider me more of a lay/UIL circuit judge.

Speed is okay if you are understandable, but I should not have to read along to understand you, if I can't flow it, it didn't happen. Elements of progressive debate such as theory and K are fine but have to be well justified within the context of the debate, otherwise, I'm not sure it'll make it to my flow.

Speaks are awarded on quality of debate based on speaking and presentation with 28 being the average debate performance, lower being, well, lower, and being among the best I've seen will be awarded a 29-29.5. If you are somewhere in between you will be awarded somewhere in between.

Tabula Rasa

Road maps are always on the clock.

General:

I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional style debate with logical analysis over a technical debate with poorly explained cards. I do NOT prefer spreading. If I do not understand what you said, then I would not be able to flow or give you credit for those arguments. I prefer high-impact & high-probable arguments with a strong link structure. Make sure you provide framework and crystallize impact. Break it down and tell me what the most important voting issues are.

I will not look at cards unless it is heavily contested or the team asks me to call for one. Clash is king in the round and I fully expect direct refutations and spirited, clever, cross fire sessions.

I expect you to be courteous to your team mates and opponents.

PF:

Okay with Ks and Theory. Make it good or I will be less inclined to vote on it (structure it properly and explain it well in the context of the round).

No Tricks please.

LD:

I understand the mechanics of value/criterion debate and expect the debater to use the established criterion to measure the value. Crystallize the debate and clearly articulate voting issues. If you are using technical jargon, be sure to explain them in the round.

Hi everyone!

I’m Stephanie and my background was primarily prepared speaking. 

IEs

I tend to be very critical of topics and this is what I will mostly rank on. However, I always like to see new and unique approaches so make this fun! For the info people, I will also take your boards into account and I judge based on if you interact with them and if they add to your speech. I also listen to what your sources are and I’d like to see y’all citing something more credible than a mainstream news source.

One last thing for the orators… your solutions are the most important part of your entire speech and I want to see nuanced solutions that create tangible change. I love hearing about organizations that are actively working to fix the problem. 

I’m excited to be judging your round and I look forward to hearing all your topics!

Debate

I love hearing nuanced and intricate arguments that apply to current events. I also want to see y’all tying everything back to framework… framework is really important! 

I don’t mind fast speaking, but please don’t spread. Other than that I tend to enjoy traditional style debate more and I will give you higher speaks if you follow that format. 

Put me on the email chain: stephaniemurraydebate@gmail.com

Best of luck and see you in round!

1. If you use language that is NOT appropriate in a classroom, you will automatically get minimum points.
2. I am easily convinced by "common sense", logical arguments.
3. I value clarity of the argument over theoretical constructs.
4. I value convincing arguments over stylistic elements.
5. I value strength of the argument over aggressive, lack of substance arguments

No harmful or exclusionary language/actions are permitted

email/questions: lilybnelson@gmail.com

competed in PF and Parliamentary.

Pronouns: she/her

Now, time to kick some AFF and break a NEG

General

-be respectful (PEOPLE ARE NOT A MEANS TO YOUR ENDS)

-have sides ready if a coin toss

-don’t talk over one another in cx/be hostile (different from assertive)

-I disclose unless told otherwise

Specifics

-Extend into Summary/FF, this is the offense I will vote off of

-weigh + impact calc is crucial for getting my ballot

-collapse

-signpost

-I won't flow cx, if a concession or something important takes place, bring it up in speech so I can flow it

-Cite the authors/sources/dates

-I don’t love paraphrasing but you won't lose my ballot if you do... Just don't be abusive.

-I won't call for cards unless you tell me

If EVER I am to judge you in policy: go to tab and request a new judge (You will see me in tab as well crying and flailing G2's across the room because I don’t want this either). I respect it, but not my cup of tea.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

I am a traditional judge who is pretty comfortable with a lot of what you could run including a lot of progressive arguments( ie. disads, kritiks, and counterplans) but I am not that comfortable with spreading. If you decide to spread I might miss something and won't consider it. The one progressive argument that I am not that familar with is theory so you can run it but you need to explain it really well. Overall though if you can explain and defend your argument well I can follow it.

Please no spreading.

Offer roadmaps when possible.

Please don’t spread. Please be kind/polite to your opponent; you can be assertive and confident without being rude.

Value is essential—convince me that your value is more important than your opponent’s, and convince me that your side better upholds that value (even better if you can also convince me your side also better upholds your opponent’s value, too).

I am a parent judge with over 8 years of experience in LD, PF, Parli, Policy, and Congress debates, as well as individual events. For debates, my primary focus is on the logical coherence of arguments, which should be backed by solid evidence. I prefer clear speaking to spreading and believe in the importance of maintaining respect towards opponents throughout the round.

I mostly did PF in HS.

email: just_mar25@yahoo.com

read bolded for a quick rundown if you're unwilling to go through the whole paradigm.

1. Truth>Tech. That being said, I will not prescribe my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance/bad faith arguments. If the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me.

2. On Speed/Spreading - Speed is fine but it must be purposeful. Speed is not purposeful if you're unclear and lack diction (I will yell 'clear' or 'louder' if I struggle but if I need to keep doing that I'm going to nuke your speaks). Speed is not purposeful if all you're doing is introducing blippy arguments in hopes that one makes it across and wins you the round (you could literally just read more cards on legitimate arguments to strengthen your links instead of the blips). Speed is not purposeful if you're actively disenfranchising the other team by spreading (you do NOT need to spread versus a novice team, just out-debate them). Just because I might have your case doesn't mean it's all on my flow, I am not as familiar as you are with your own literature. If you're incomprehensible all you're doing is making me uninterested.

3. On Ks - Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my understandings of terms of art/common terms from your authors, whose viewpoints I am likely unfamiliar with. Just because you're running doesn't a K doesn't mean you don't have to DEBATE and explain why you're winning on the K flow. Yeah if the K goes unresponded then its a winning argument but if you don't extend/explain to me why the K wins (aff or neg) beyond "they had no response to the K" then presume I drop the K. Extend the K.

4. On Weighing - Rhetoric impacts are bad arguments. Explain/Weigh why your impacts are impactful. Don't just tell me 'poverty bad', explain why poverty is bad and what poverty actually causes. You can't outweigh on "Scope". There is no implication to what "Scope" means unless you give it context. Impact calculus takes into account Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe. Implicate what your advocacy has in terms of contextualized warranting versus just yelling out "scope" and praying it works out (it won't).

5. On Evidence Sharing - Just use an e-mail chain/Speechdrop. Please don't be the reason the tournament is running 30min-1hr longer than needed. I'm not saying you have to send over your cases (PF), I know that the norm on that is still being established (in PF) but no judge wants to watch you stand awkwardly over someone's shoulder while waiting for a card, just send it electronically and that way judges can have it too if it becomes a point of contention. If a card you called out for is miscut/misleading and this is enough to win you the round TELL ME THIS. TELL ME TO READ THE CARD BEFORE I MAKE MY DECISION BECAUSE IT TURNS THE ROUND. Don't get mad at me after the round because you didn't explicitly tell me to read a card.

6. On New Arguments - I try my hardest to give debaters as much agency as possible to actually debate. That being said, DO NOT introduce new arguments in the last speech of the debate, I will - at best - ignore them or - at worst - vote you down if the team after you argues that the introduction is a voting issue (fairness/time, etc.) This happens enough that it needs its own section.

7. On Framework - I will default to a utilitarian framework to weigh unless given an alternative by either team. In terms of defaulting to utilitarianism, unless a team in the round offers an alternative framework then this is generally what people would end up arguing under anyway (I literally don't trust teams to weigh appropriately so I'll just save us all the time and say this in my paradigm to at the very least mentally prepare you to weigh in some capacity). You can lose the framework debate and still win the round. Winning framework does not inherently mean you win the round. It is entirely possible to lose (or concede) the framework debate and still win. Framework is about who operates better under that given paradigm.

8. On Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire. If anything happens during Cross that you feel is relevant to winning then refer to it in your next speech so it is on paper. This doesn't mean saying something like "In Cross they said Nukes aren't real so they lose C2." I want you to tell me the other team conceded the link on C2 so I can put it on my flow (SIGNPOST WHERE THE RELEVANT CROSS INTERACTION SHOULD/WOULD BE ON MY FLOW). Aff always gets first question. Why are we doing the whole "may I have first question" song and dance still?

9. On Extensions - Summary and Final Focus should be aligned - whatever you extend in Final Focus should also have been present in Summary. I don't believe defense is sticky. You should still extend defense on an argument unless the other sides explicitly kicks out.

10. On Tricks - Don't. Deliberate attempts to subvert clash by lying, misleading, hiding arguments, being unethical will be poorly received. What're you trying to prove by doing this? That you can't win a round by actually debating? I'll nuke your speaks since I believe this actually "kills debate". To be clear, a funny tagline is funny and okay, but you know when something is a pun and when something is deliberately misleading.

11. Don't be rude - Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you. There are more important things in life than winning while also being mean to other human beings. We're all trying to partake in something that we enjoy/makes us happy. Don't be the reason someone has a terrible day.

12.Post-rounding - Post-rounding is educational. Be polite/curious - I’m not going to change my decision. Ask to learn more about why I wasn’t persuaded, but there is no debate between you and me.

Former Parlimentary Debate competitor at Cameron University (2005-2007). Coach PF- 5+ years LD - 3 years. Basically I understand policy, but I don’t like judging it, necessarily.

I will entertain any arguments in-round as long as they are developed with appropriate impacts/voters. If you want to argue topicality for an entire round, fine (I love words. Words are important). Just tell me why it's crucial to do so. Kritiks, sure! Just tell me why I need to vote here first. Is there abuse in-round? Tell me where, and specifically how it harms you/the activity, etc. and why that matters. This is your round to strategize in however you see fit; I don't have any real predisposed dislike for any argument. However, poor arguments are still poor arguments and will not win. Irrelevant arguments won't win either, no matter how fancy they sound.

Clear, significant impacts make it easy for me to vote for you. Don't make me do the work for you or your team, because I won't.Sure, it would be nice to end the contention at "and this leads to more discrimination." Spell it out for me, otherwise I will shrug and say, "So what? Who cares?" Be sure to pull them through to your final speeches.

One thing that will work against you: Speed. I know you have a lot of material to cover, and often both teams will be fine with speedy arguments. I'm not going to vote against you for spite, but I WILL drop arguments on the flow. If you are okay with that, just be prepared for the vote to possibly not go your way... even if you put 87 responses on your opponent's disadvantage. I'm not a speed debater, so I won't be able to follow you. If you feel your opponents are using speed against you as a tactic, I will listen to a speed K and possibly vote on it... IF IT'S WELL DEVELOPED. As I said, I won't vote for a speed K simply because I don't prefer this style; Poorly developed arguments will not win me even if I tend to share your viewpoint. Bottom line: If you want to improve your chances of winning, don't speed one another out of the round-- you'll likely flow me out of the round too.

— I’ve gotten MUCH better over the years. I don’t encourage speed, still, but I’m pretty good at

getting it all down.

I do enjoy competitors who at least attempt to add some persuasive flare in their speeches, but I do NOT want you to focus on delivery at the expense of content and analysis.

If I do get stuck in an LD round, you must spend some time convincing me that your value and criteria are better than your opponents. I've had two sides argue with fantastic evidence to support their values, counter-values, with NO clash about which one is superior. I'm a libra, so it's already a task for me to try and choose between two equal, yet differing options. INCLUDE A FANTASTIC JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR VALUE IF YOU WANT TO WIN ME IN LD, and be sure your case actually supports your value and critera.

2024 UPDATE- If you decide to use terms like "structural violence," in value and criteria framework, DO THE WORK TO SHOW 1. What you mean by this and why it's the most important value in the round and 2. HOW YOUR CASE/ACTION/ADVOCACY DIRECTLY RESULTS IN THE DESIRED IMPACTS. You cannot simply say things that are debate buzzwords with an implied, "you know what I mean, right?"

Hello. I am a parent judge, hence I would appreciate a more lay/traditional round.

Please do not spread or speak fast.

In terms of arguments, please keep it traditional. I will not understand Kritiks, Theory, or LARP unless they're lay arguments. I'm not trying to be lame, I just won't be able to evaluate them well. Maybe one day I'll learn.

Most importantly, have fun with this! It's so incredible that you all are so young and able to grasp such complicated concepts.

I'm looking forward to watching some great debates.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA POLICY PARADIGM (INSERTED FOR BARKLEY FORUM 2025): I will flow and am cheerfully sympathetic to all kinds of arguments. Policy was my first home; I coached it exclusively for many decades; I have not coached it since 2014; excuse my rust.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org and nuevadocs@gmail.com] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Clarity and Structure: I value clear, well-organized arguments with strong impacts. Be explicit about your framework and how your contentions link to it.

Speed: I can handle moderate speed, but clarity is key. Slow down on tags, evidence, and critical points.

Evidence: Quality over quantity. Explain how your evidence supports your arguments and why it outweighs.

Weighing: I appreciate comparative weighing. Highlight why your impacts should take precedence over your opponent’s.

Respect and Decorum: Professionalism and respect between competitors are important. Maintain decorum throughout the round.

Speaker Points: Points are based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic execution. Creativity in argumentation is encouraged if it’s logical and well-supported.

I aim to be a neutral and open-minded judge. Persuade me through logic, evidence, and sound reasoning. Let me know if you have specific preferences or clarifications before the round begins.

Feel free to adjust the tone or details to better match your judging style!

I was a head coach for 9 years in Kansas and Missouri and an assistant coach for 5 years with debaters placing at state and qualifying to Nationals in Policy Debate, Domestic Extemp, and Student Congress. I also was a theatre director and have had state placing IE performances. I have a Master’s degree in Speech Communications and Persuasion and in Gifted Education, so I expect good quality effective communication with quality source materials and well constructed arguments. I prefer closed cross ex in all forms of debate.

In Policy Debate, I’m a combination of stock issues and policy maker. Topicality is a voter if properly supported. I do not vote for generic disadvantages unless there are specific and unique links to the case. I do not like or vote on K’s. The majority of the time I feel that they are just a time suck and that most debaters don’t truly understand the philosophies behind them. I prefer case and plan specific arguments that are fully researched.

In LD, I prefer quality arguments over quantity. I am willing to accept your lens to view the arguments and expect you to have a good working knowledge of the philosophy behind it. I want to hear thoughtful arguments that are not canned. I don't mind about a 6 on a scale of 10 speed wise. If I can't understand you to flow an argument then it is considered dropped.

In Congress, I am looking for well researched and well presented arguments. I want to see that you have a working knowledge of the legislative process and can use your persuasive arguments to help gain support from your peers.

In PFD and other forms of debate, I am looking for quality communication that does not sound annoying or knitpicky. I do not want to listen to you bicker with your opponent. I want to see you beat them with solid logic, evidence, and quality speaking skills.

Public Speaking Events- I want to see well organized and well researched speeches. I am looking for articulate speakers, who are able to carry the tone and clarity needed to develop better understanding in others. Breathe, don't speed through what you have to tell me. Be sure to cite sources. And I always enjoy a creative approach or a unique viewpoint.

Acting Events- I'm looking for performances that are well rehearsed without feeling contrived or fake. I want to watch a performance and see genuine emotion from the actors. Characters should be clear and easily distinguishable with voice and body. I like to see smooth transitions and/or page turns that flow easily and are easy to follow. In terms of the piece I want to see something that moves me whether to laughter or tears.

If you have questions about my judging preferences do not hesitate to ask.

I have over 22 years in speech and debate. I have experience judging every style of debate on both the state and national level.

I have not judged many debate rounds this year, so I prefer a moderate speed of speaking. In my opinion, speaking rate should be motivated by how much you have to say/cover (so if you need to speed it up...go for it!).

I don't usually flow cross examination, but will make notes of concessions and new critical points.

Just because you use a certain term does not mean that I believe your argument.

I am impressed by the use of argumentation skill not jargon.

I like when a debater is organized and signpost.

I expect for debaters to behave respectfully.

Rude, profane, and silly behavior will result in a loss.

I competed in Colorado at Fort Morgan High School in all three genres so I am familiar with the foundation of most events. I assist and judge whenever needed at FMHS and currently compete on the Forensics team at Hastings College.

Feel free to contact me. My email is Citlalyqu@gmail.com

____________________________________________________________________

General:

• Be respectful and kind to each other.
• Provide content warnings when needed before you begin speaking if necessary
• Argument/thesis must be clear and supported with evidence
• I want to know the significance of your topic in your intro
• Have fun and speak on things that YOU care about and are passionate about

Speech/Interp:

• As I stated, please provide a content warning on the video, board, before you speak, etc if necessary
• You could have the most beautiful voice and perfect blocking in the entire world, but if there isn't a clear argument/thesis in the intro unfortunately I will mark you down
• Commit to what you are saying. This is your chance to use 8-10 minutes to speak out on something meaningful to you, leave me with an impact.

Debate:

• If you spread I will likely mark you down. I want to understand your argument and feeding me with an overload of information at a fast rate does not make you good at debate.
• Debate is an act of persuasion. Convince me why you're right by giving me evidence and good quality arguments. Quality > Quantity.
• Be respectful towards each other!

Welcome to the competition! Debates and speeches are exceptional events and a fun way for students to engage discussing social, economic, and a wide range of topics.

I have been judging both speech and debate in the current stint for 3 years with 4 years of prior judging experience. I am a parent judge. I am a former competitor as well.

Please follow your methodology relevant to your event and respect your fellow competitors. All the best!

I am a parent judge. This is my first time judging.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

Assistant speech coach for five years, head coach for three.

Speech paradigms are tough because you can't change your piece on the fly but..

Rhetoric: I want to see your personality! I look for a balance of feeling like we're having a conversation while still being clean physically.

Interp: I'm going to look for the little things - clean transitions, clean blocking, clear characters.

Extemp: I'll flow your speech, so I'll look mostly at analysis. However, I look for a clean and easy to follow presentation as well. I also love to see your personality come through here.

Overall, I want to see you enjoying your performance!

PF:

Speed preference: Moderate

Voting: I like a balance of evidence and logic. If you don't explain why your evidence is important, it won't hold much weight with me.

Cross: Keep it polite

I'm a lay judge (my partner is a coach) and most of my experience is in Speech events, so thanks in advance for your patience!

I'd prefer no spreading--I'll do my best to keep up, but I'll let you know if you're going way too fast for me. No need to send me your case, but I may ask to see a card or two if I need more clarity. The specifics of setup don't really matter to me (whether you sit or stand when speaking, how you arrange desks, using your own timers etc.) but I do think the rounds are more effective when debaters are interfacing with their opponents rather than presenting directly to me.

Ultimately my decisions are made pretty simply--winning side is the one that's made the most clear and relevant claims and refuted their opponents consistently and memorably. I do my best to get a comprehensive flow, but it won't be perfect, so try to make your major points stick in my brain. You can run theory and K's if you like, but be advised that I'm not quite the target audience for those :)

I prefer not to disclose my decision, but it's all right to ask me other questions at the end of the round.

Be respectful and level-headed--repeated interruptions and condescension are my pet peeves. Every round is an opportunity to learn and make connections, not enemies.

If there's anything else you need to know, feel free to ask! I wish you the best of luck and hope you enjoy the competition.

I did not debate in high school or college, so I appreciate cogent, reasoned, clear, and persuasive speech more than technicalities and rhetoric. I do not flow/spread. Please be polite to each other and to me, talk slowly, and enunciate. Looking forward to judging your rounds.

I believe in the principles of judging that contribute to making students' debate experience fair, educational, and enjoyable. I plan to judge each debate based on the arguments and data presented, not my personal opinions or biases. I look for current and relevant data/information. I expect to hear well-thought-out arguments that are supported, presentations that are organized, and performances that engage. I do not expect to hear comments that belittle opponents (yes this has happened) and I do not think "the faster the better." As a judge, I believe that if you are in front of me - you have an opinion/information to share and I want to hear it.

Policy - I feel that sharing files makes us all better, it is about more than just the information in the files, but also about the attitude of community.

I have been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2005 as a competitor and a coach. While more of my time has been spent on the speech side of things, my primary events were Extemp and Impromptu. I have served as a debate coach for University High School in Normal, IL since the fall of 2015. I teach high school Oral Communication, Argumentation and Debate, Contemporary Rhetoric, and AP Language and Composition.

In terms of Public Forum Debate, I am looking for a combination of appeals to the average person as well as to a more nuanced audience. Progressive Debate strategies are OK, but the link to the resolution better be solid. I also am OK with some speed, but not full on spreading. If I can't hear/understand something, it doesn't make it on my flow. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF COMPLICATED ARGUMENTS, but you have to be able to explain them to a diverse audience. At the end of the day, links are everything! I need to see how your evidence actually links together and to your argument as a whole. I also want impact analysis. Explain to your judge(s) how and why your side will impact more lives, I won't do the work for you. If you are the second team to speak in a debate, I expect your Rebuttal to respond to the first team's Rebuttal as well as their case. Second summary is too late to bring in something new as your opponents will not have adequate time to respond. Please consider everyone impacted by a debate resolution. I do care if we are saving lives in the US or in another country. I am only a flow judge in the sense that if you do not mention something in your summary speech, I will not weigh it in my final decision, even if it is brought up in final focus. At the end of the day, I also want a professional debate. It is OK to get heated in the moment, but please refrain from crossing the line into completely unprofessional! Finally, in PF, please be ready to exchange evidence in a timely manner. (Oh, and I don't flow cross, so if something good is happening there, make sure you mention it in the next speech if you want me to weigh it).

In Speech, I am looking for the best combination of speaker and content. In Extemp, I am going to vote up students that answer the question and provide compelling evidence as to why that answer is true. I will vote those students up over the cleanest speakers every time if the cleanest speakers do not answer the question. In Oratory and Info, I am looking for an easy to follow structure and compelling delivery. I am OK with older sources as long as they are justified by the topic. In interp, I want to feel something. I typically vote up students that have a clear connection to their piece that connect with the audience in the room.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly so I may best understand all your arguments. Place importance on rebuttals and empirical evidence in debate. Also place importance on logic.

The speed of speech is not as important as your control and clarity. Roadmaps are great. It’s not necessary to tell me how to vote, show me that you are the clear choice based on compelling evidence and sound logic. Be courteous to your teammate and opponents, be professional, represent your school as they would want to be seen. I’ll be looking for your knowledge in building a strong case, use of great evidence, and your enjoyment of debate.

I’m sure many judges are more detailed and specific. I’m not going to tell you how to debate to win my vote - every team is unique and I don't have a favored 'type'. I do pay attention to speaking skills, but the way to my vote is strong persuasion based on a relevant and sound argument. A word about crossfires - ask questions that help your case. I know this sounds obvious, but it is not a time to sell your case - it is a time to expose holes or inconsistencies in your oppoment's arguments.

Best of luck - and no matter what, you're already a winner for choosing debate as your passion!

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

I am a head debate coach at East Ridge High School in Minnesota with 12 years of debate under my belt and 17 years of speech coaching / judging experience as well. I love both activities, and I love seeing creative / unique approaches to them. I've sent several students to Nationals in both speech and debate categories for the past several years.

In 'real life' I'm an intellectual property attorney. I love good arguments in all types of debate. But I will NOT make logic jumps for you. You need to do the legwork and lay out the argument for me, step by step. I LOVE legal arguments, but most of all I love a good Story. Frame your arguments for me. Make the impacts CLEAR. (e.g. in PF / LD - WEIGH them.) Tell me how and why to write my ballot for you and I probably will!

Voting Values
I vote on topicality in any type of debate that I judge. If your arguments are non-topical, and you get called on it, they will be struck from my flow. Everyone got the same resolution / bills, that's what I want to hear arguments about.

I am NOT a fan of Kritiks - you got the resolution ahead of time. Debate it.

SPEED

THIS IS A COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY. Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

If you make my hand cramp taking notes, I'll be crabby. I am a visual person and my notes are how I will judge the round. If I miss an argument because you were talking at light speed, that's your fault, not mine! :)

Attitude / Aggressiveness

100%, above all, you are human beings and citizens of the world. I expect you to act like it. I HATE rudeness or offensive behavior in any debate format. Be kind, be inclusive. By all means, be aggressive, but don't be rude.

Public Forum: I am a huge framework fan. You have the evidence, frame the story for me. If you give me a framework and explain why, under that framework, your evidence means I vote for you, I will. Don't make me do summersaults to get to a decision. If only one team gives me a framework, that's what I'll use.

Re: Summary / FF - I expect the debate to condense in the summary / final focus - and I expect you to condense the story accordingly. Look for places to cross-apply. I do need arguments to extend through every speech to vote for them - but I do not expect you to reiterate all evidence / analysis. Summarizing and weighing is fine for me.
WEIGH arguments for me. Especially if we're talking apples and oranges - are we comparing money to lives? Is there a Risk-Magnitude question I should be considering?

Re: new arguments in GC/FF - I won't weigh new ARGUMENTS, but I will consider new EVIDENCE / extensions.

Re: Argument / Style - I'm here to weigh your arguments. Style is only important to the extent you are understandable.

I generally don't buy nuclear war arguments. I don't believe any rational actor gets to nuclear war. I'll give you nuclear miscalc or accident, but it's a HIGH burden to convince me two heads of state will launch multiple warheads on purpose.

Lincoln-Douglas: If you give me a V/C pairing, I expect you to tie your arguments back to them. If your arguments don't tie back to your own V/C, I won't understand their purpose. This is a values debate. Justify the value that you choose, and then explain why your points best support your value.

Congress: I need a thesis statement in your speech, and signposting when you move from point to point. No thesis statement ==> I won't understand your speech structure ==> I won't follow it ==> you won't get ranked well. Speech structure is SO important to being persuasive!

That said, this is debate. Beautiful speeches, alone, belong in Speech categories. I expect to see that you can speak well, but I am not thrilled to listen to the same argument presented three times. I expect to see clash, I expect to see good Q&A. I love good rebuttal / crystallization speeches.

I DO rank successful POs - without good POs, there is no good Congressional Debate. If you PO well in front of me, you will be ranked well.

World Schools: This actually is my favorite form of debate. I want to see respectful debate, good use of POIs, and organized content. I've judge WSD at Nationals for the last several years and I do adhere to the WSD norms. Please do not give me "regular debate" speed - I want understandable, clear speeches.

In judging debates, I prioritize the effective use of facts and elaboration to construct clear and compelling arguments. Presenting well-supported points with detailed explanations demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic and enhances credibility. Strong arguments are built on a foundation of evidence, and logically structured to persuade and engage the audience. Clarity and coherence in argumentation are key factors I consider when evaluating debate performances, as they showcase the ability to communicate complex ideas persuasively.

I've been judging speech/debate since the beginning of the season.

I prefer a slower debate, as it allows for more enunciation and an overall clearer and coherent style of speaking. Being able to make eye contact as best as possible in this online format and using hand gestures helps connect me to your speech a lot more. Confidence is something I always look for, as you need to state your points like you agree with everything you're saying (even if you personally don't) because the confidence factor always make speeches a lot more engaging.

I would rather you go through just a few points in detail and analyze them, than speeding through many points without any explanation.

Furthermore, it is your burden to make your speech clear and understandable. If I miss an argument because you spoke too quickly and/or rushed through and I wasn't able to catch it, then you didn't make it.

Hello, I am a lay judge who is brand new in the debating world. Please speak slowly so I can understand your arguments.

I judged many different forensic events over the last two years, both online and in person. My favorites are POI and storytelling. I appreciate a well written and performed piece, particularly light-hearted ones. My least favorite event is Extempt - if I could follow politics and current events I'd be a debate judge! I will still try my best. I always find something positive to say and I try to offer constructive suggestions. I want to watch you learn and get better. I think debate and forensics can offer skills well beyond school. I am looking forward to another year.

I have been judging primarily debate events (except for Congress) for fifteen years, first as a parent of a debater and now as a coach's parent. I also judge speech events as needed. I have been judging in the NCFL for fifteen years and in the NSDA for the past four years. For debaters, watch the speed, please -- about 225 words per minute at maximum, and no spreading. Good sportsmanship is very important to me as a judge; please be polite. Good luck with your rounds!

I have been teaching/coaching for 26 years.

When it comes to speech events, I like content and evidence above jokes. Although, I can appreciate humor. Please have clear cut organization that's easy to follow, and make sure that delivery is as strong as the content.

As far as interp goes, I do like teasers, but not the ones that last 2 minutes and break me from the moment. Make sure that you have clear cut characters that are consistent. Tell your story, even in HI, there should always be a story. I don't like the wide use of space, but when done well and with a purpose, I can find it acceptable. Make sure you have emotional levels so that you're not screaming at me throughout the whole piece, and try not to rush either.

Affiliations:
2010-24: Lakeville North High School (MN)
2024-: Edina High School (MN)

Did Policy Debate in the late 90s & coached Policy and then later LD in the 00s. In that time, my students qualified to NSDA Nationals and the TOC. Since 2011 I have primarily coached limited prep and platform Speech events and some Congress. I taught at Gustavus Speech and PF camps when those were still around and have taught Extemp Speaking at ISD since 2018.

When I coached Debate, I preferred a faster, more technical approach. But time away from active coaching means I've not kept up with how the events have evolved. If fast and technical is your preferred style, I'll try to keep up but no guarantees. Podcasts at 2.5x aren't quite the same so please watch and adjust. I'm not cutting cards or actively coaching Debate so you may need to do more connecting of the dots to keep me on the same page as you. For familiarity and thresholds for types of arguments, please feel free to ask before the round.

Email chain: yatesh.singh@gmail.com

Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach

I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.

Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.

I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.

I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.

PLEASE DON'T SPREAD IN PF & LD.Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. Just because I am a traditional judge does not mean I won't evaluate or vote up progressive arguments. They just better be good. :)

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

Email for chain: jskordal@bentonvillek12.org

This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!

Speed is fine (but must be crystal clear for high speaks), jargon is fine. Whatever you put on the flow I will evaluate but prefer evidence to analytics.

I have judged for 10+years on the local Minnesota circuit and competed in LD before that. My knowledge of specific higher level national circuit strategies is limited as I haven't judged many national circuit rounds but I am confident that I can follow as long as you keep the round clear.

Please add me to any email chains: alsmit6512@gmail.com

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

tl;dr I've been coaching since 2011 and can handle any way you want to speak and debate. I encourage and support creativity as long as you follow the rules of the tournament, your league or the NSDA.

Since 2021 I've coached in Ohio, which uses Speechwire exclusively. So much of my judging record is not listed here.

*************************************

Please hit the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phones and other devices during the round so that your speeches are not disturbed by alarms for calls from your family and Slack notifications from your coach. I wear headphones and your timer going off sounds really loud.

Please "pre-flow" your cases before the round start time. Tournaments want us to start on time.

Write your own speeches please. I do not prefer to see multiple teams from the same school using the exact same speeches. It's a little plagiarism-y.

Ask me if I'm ready before you start speaking. I don't want to miss anything you say because I'm still writing notes. Actually ask me - please don't robotically ask "Judge ready? Opponent ready?" then start speaking before receiving an answer.

I'm big on the rules. NSDA rules and rules of the tournament, both of which I always review. Most of the shibboleths of our activity are not based in rules, but in preferences and best practices. The difference is that rules must be followed and preferences...not necessarily. The list of NSDA rules are relatively short - for each event there's not many of them, especially compared to the 100-page manuals for a sport. But preferences and best practices shift from region to region, and I recognize that.

I LOVE specific road maps that are actually useful, e.g. “First I’m going to refute their economics argument, then destroy their pollution impact, then give new evidence for our nuclear contention, then blow your mind with a new defense of our poverty contention.” I don’t like useless road maps. “I’m going to go down my opponent’s case, then mine.” Of course you are. Everyone does. Why waste time saying this?

Evidence requests are a question and should be asked during crossfire. This ends all confusion about whose time is used for evidence requests. I will adapt if the tournament's rules are different than this.

Congress

I give high points/ranks to competitors who speak well and argue well. If your speech is as good as those in extemp, I will rank you highly. At a certain point in the year, everyone doing Congress is at about the same level for their argumentation skills because everyone is using the same formula for each speech. Therefore, having high-level presentation skills is what separates the top 6 from the bottom 6 for me.

I am biased against speeches that, after the first few, don't rebut or support previous arguments. As a Congress coach, I've seen the student thought process: "Goshdangit I spent all that time before the tournament writing this sponsorship speech and I'm gonna goshdarn give it." Well...ignoring the other speakers and giving a speech that just repeats the arguments of previous speakers does NOT help you get higher scores from me.

Policy

Policy is rare in the 2 states where I've judged, so I haven’t judged it much. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win. I don’t read cases or evidence that you share - I judge based only on what you say so that there is no confusion about what was said vs what was written. I don’t mind spreading as long as you’re understandable, but I’m not a perfect flow-er so I’m going to miss some things and will depend on you to tell me what you think is important after the first constructives. I judge based on who was more persuasive as opposed to who covered more points - this usually means if you have some squirrelly argument I will ignore it and go with the arguments that makes more real-world sense. Speaking of squirrelly arguments - I am so sorry but "everything leads to nuclear war" is hack. We were saying the same thing in the 80’s and it feels played out. If it makes sense that something might lead to nuclear war, like militarization of the Arctic, then I’ll accept it. But when you try to say something like more laptop manufacturing in Malaysia or the military playing Fall Guys on Twitch will lead to nuclear war, you’re going to have to work REALLY HARD to get me to give that any credence. I do not turn my brain off during rounds - there's no such thing as tabula rasa.

Lincoln-Douglas

My LD preferences are pretty much the same as Policy above. There’s not a lot of progressive in my area, so I don’t know all the jargon. I don’t care if you do progressive or traditional, as long as I understand what you’re talking about. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

Public Forum

I have seen everything possible in Public Forum. I've coached hundreds of students. I've judged at hundreds of tournaments.

SPEECH/IE PREFERENCES

No forensbots. If you are giving us a speech that you've polished so much that it shines, make sure your eyes aren't dead. If this is literally the 50th round you've performed this piece, practice it with a friend and tell her to tell you truthfully if you look like a soulless automaton.

My entire life is spent watching young people speak. I notice everything: swaying back and forth; shifting foot to foot; grabbing the bottom of your blazer; pacing too much; purposeless, repetitive gestures. I was once in a national circuit final round in which I ranked a speaker 7 because she kept smacking her lips every other sentence. The other 2 judges didn't notice and each ranked her first. There is nothing wrong with any individual movement or tic, but if you repeat that movement too often, I will see it and tell you. Watch videos of yourself to notice and reduce your own unnoticed habits.

Please don't make fake changes of position. The purpose of changing positions is so that different parts of the audience can see you better. In front of a camera, this means you have ZERO need to change position. Stay centered in the frame just like a news reporter. Please don't do the golden triangle in front of a camera - people whose job is in front of a camera in real life don't do this. In-person in a normal classroom at a tournament, change position based on the people in the room. Don't go over there and talk to a fake audience if no one is actually sitting over there. Adjust your position changes to the actual people in the room you're in. Changing positions during your speech's transitions is WHEN you do it, NOT WHY.

Events I have judged but not enough to have preferences for:

BQ, Extemp Debate, original spoken word, duo improv, radio speaking, broadcast announcing, pro/con challenge, and world schools.

Events I haven’t judged:

Parliamentary, Mock Trial

My experience

High school coach and classroom Public Speaking teacher from 2011-2018, then 2021 to present. Have coached/taught: PF, LD, Congress, and all Speech events. Have coached students to TOC, NCFL and NSDA in PF, OO and POI. Have coached students to state championships for PF, LD, Congress, OO, POI, Extemp and Humorous.

Teacher since 2003.

Teaching private public speaking lessons to adults since 2019.

I judged at nearly a hundred online tournaments during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Online platforms I've judged on so far: Zoom, NSDA Campus, Accelevents, Classrooms.cloud, HopIn and Yaatly.

I've completed the NSDA/NFHS online judge training including the cultural competency section.

I know how to be a Parliamentarian for Student Congress.

I know how to be an Extemp proctor.

In high school I did policy and prose/poetry.

I speak Spanish and Portuguese.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year of judging. I will only vote for arguments that I will understand, So please be clear with your warranting - don’t just tell me that something will happen, tell me why it will happen.

Clearly explain your framework, why it should be used , and how I should weigh the round based off it.

I don't flow cross-examination.

Weigh Impacts, If you don't do it then I have to and you may not like the outcome.

Be polite and respectful always, If you cross the line I will drop you from the round solely for that reason and report to Tab.

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have coached teams in Oregon and Arizona over the past ten years, and I'm experienced with all the main formats of debate, particularly Oregon Parliamentary, Public Form, and LD.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD since 2015, judging it since 2009. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have limited experience with Policy as an adult.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Hello! I was a former competitor, and now I've turned to judging. During cross-examination, I always value questions that raise doubts about the opponent's case. I always applaud students who use all the time available for their cross-examination period and allocate each question economically. Students who also converse with the opponent rather than make declarative statements are always preferred.

For IEs, I will always applaud a well-delivered speech over a well-memorized one, and I am always a proponent of keeping each performance unique to the audience. Engage with more than just the judge, if possible, and try to keep everyone entertained.

Avoid at all costs: Tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, off-time roadmaps, time suck arguments.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, let's hear about the resolution. Ensure resolution ties. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts and link back to the standards in order to provide a well researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are simply assertions and will be treated as such. I am not a judge that will vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent.

Speed—I take notes and flow.  Speed of discussion should not be so fast as to lessen the judge’s ability to record. If it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but I will be tracking time as well.  I will let you know when time is up. 

RFD: It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I put great weight on effective rebuttals than constructive speeches.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I urge debaters to always put their best foot forward. Address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

I am a new parent judge. No spreading. Do not be rude.

Please stay focused on your topic and the time allotted. Be clear in establishing your point of view. Speak slowly and clearly. Do not be too loud to express your performance. Also, I would like to see students choose a topic out of their original ethnicity/race/religion, etc., and perform about something that they are not well aware of or have knowledge of but will have to research new things and learn to perform.

Don't be a bigot, tell me how you win the round, engage with your opponents arguments don't just talk passed them

I'm a coms judge mainly, so I appreciate a steady talking pace because I'm not conditioned yet to listen and process all of what the speaker says at faster paces. Other than that, I expect good volume, eye contact, body language, etc. When it comes to the arguments I dislike, I am not a fan of end of the world scenario arguments/extreme escalation arguments. I understand that some things could lead to that given the situation in the world today, so if those arguments are reasonably made, I expect a good link to that extreme escalation happening.

5 year speech and debate coach with an appreciation for well-tied arguments.

When in rounds: I appreciate live argumentation instead of reading blocks. A debater should know their arguments and not rely too heavily on notes; be confident in your research and position and you will have an upper hand.

I would rather see a few well-thought arguments vs. many barely covered perspectives, do not spread yourself too thin. Solidly backing your main contentions will ensure your argument comes off clear.

Lastly, be sure to address your opponent's arguments and try to avoid surface questions, when possible.

I competed in LD and extemp for a few years. I am familiar with both traditional and progressive styles of debate and am not inclined to automatically favor either approach, though I appreciate a good critical argument. I can follow spreading.

I appreciate elaboration on why particular impacts/values are relevant; i.e., if a certain policy would decrease crime, or boost the economy, I want to know why I should care about those things. If aff is more efficient, but neg is more egalitarian, I want to see a weighing mechanism at play; otherwise we are just two ships passing in the night.

If enormous impacts are introduced (i.e., 7 billion people will be plunged into poverty) this is fine, I just need compelling evidence for that claim.

That being said, I am very open to creative arguments and I am more than willing to listen to your unique approaches to the resolution!! I appreciate good framework debate.

The only unwavering expectation I hold is that you engage in good faith. I will never vote for an argument that sexism/racism/abuse is somehow a good thing. Do not attempt to distort your opponent's argument. Abuse is not tolerated.

Be respectful, engage in good faith, and do not let arguments go unanswered. Have fun!

email:

vasquezamandarenee@gmail.com

-- add me to the file share -- please send speeches --

CX/Policy:

No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments.

Speed : I don't care, just make sure I can understand if I don't have the doc. Signpost and clearly read tags. Also make sure if I'm on a panel to check the other judges' prefs on speed if other judges don't like it, it's probably in your best interest to talk slow. Watch me/my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I'm not following you, and the only saving grace is the speechdrop/file share.

SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. SIGNPOST THROUGHOUT THE ROUND

Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with (IE CP, K).

I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument. It lets me know you know what you just talked about.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING TEAM DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.

LD Debate

No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments. I will say that I don't have much experience for "progressive debate" so keep that in mind when developing arguments. If I can't understand it, I can't vote on it.

Speed : Know your circuit and the expectation. I don't want to hear spreading in a UIL round.

Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. Aff/Neg or Neg/Aff.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING SPEAKER DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

I will also add that VERBALLY SIGNPOSTING is big for me. Make the body points super clear. Also, I love when you tie your hook back into your conclusion. It makes the whole speech feel very well rounded.

Interp

I don't mind extensive blocking, nor do I mind profanity as long as it serves a dramatic purpose (basically don't cuss just to cuss). I also try to evaluate on "topicality". I need to understand in your intro how you link to the category you are reading. The more you can look up from your book the better! Don't completely ignore it, but I want to know you are familiar with your piece.

Overall, I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

Yo. I mostly competed PF on the local MN circuit and started circuit debate my senior year under Chaska OV. I grabbed a couple of bids and broke at TOC, NSDA, and NCFL my senior year.

Put me on the email chain and send speech docs to EkaanthSravan@gmail.com :)

Debate is a game. Warrant, Weigh, Win. Go wild, I will vote on anything that's not ____ist, ____phobic, or exclusionary

anything that is not responded to in the speech directly after the speech it was read in -barring first constructive- is conceded period.

I decide rounds by evaluating if terminal defense is read on whatever argument won the weighing debate.

I'm not kind with speaker points, I think most judges severely inflate them. If you're going for speaker awards, it's not enough to win, you have to win stylishly.

For a more detailed paradigm, other categories, novices, and speech click here and scroll.

Most importantly, remember to smile, joke around and have fun :) It's high school debate lol.

Oh and yes tricks are still very dumb

I am a parent judge. I don't know much about Speech and Debate but I will try my best to judge everyone. Please be kind if I have any questions.

PF: Do not spread. It makes it hard to judge everyone if I can't understand your points and to flow. Speak slow and clear. Be confident but not rude and ask good questions. I don't know what theory is so don't do that because I will get confused.

Help me if I have any questions because I don't know how PF rounds run exactly.

Speech: I will be ranking you on the actual performance. I will try my best to write comments but I am not very experienced at it. Speak clearly and make the characters noticeable if there is multiple characters. Good luck and have fun!

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

<if i judged you at peninsula and you would like to get more feedback, you can reach me at jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com>

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Congress, LD, PF - I can give adequate enough feedback, always sharpening my skills in these areas.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

I am a parent judge so please no spreading.

IE: I believe that whatever you can bring to your speech or performance that is unique and authentic, while drawing an audience in to be fully present with you displays a certain kind of creativity and skill to be appreciated.

Speech: Structure and content are in focus with an appreciation for originality when possible.

Interpretation: Flow of storyline, depth of character, authenticity, as well as the minute details you’ve added throughout your piece displays how much effort and thought have gone into your performance.

Above all else, I am interested in you showing me that you have listened to the opponent’s argument and shown me why your team has the superior plan, be it how we should orient ourselves in terms of our values, or how a government agency should carry out a specific proposal. I will be listening especially closely to the moments of clash. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability and quickly summarize who I think won the debate and why. I will be weighing logos over pathos, but I want to hear a bit of both.

Secondly, I want to hear appropriate modulation in tone, pacing, and volume. I am interested in clarity. As an English teacher, I am probably more interested in these elements of rhetoric and style then the average judge.

I want to hear a clear moral philosophy guiding your value debates and all arguments, be they based on value, policy, or history.

Across Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, and Public Forum, I want to hear credible sources, compelling warrants, and impacts that appeal to actual governing bodies and issues in the real world.

I will be listening closely to the clash. A winner will be the person who shows mastery over all the arguments in the topic’s orbit, and who puts that mastery to work by either developing a compelling and unique case or showing why the status quo and your counter-plan offer a better path forward.

Don’t be a jerk. I will be docking points if you are unnecessarily rude to the opposition. I have little tolerance for bigotry of any kind. Let’s make debate an activity that welcomes everyone, no matter their gender, socio-economic standing, race, or sexual orientation.

Some notes on specific events.

• Policy & Public Forum - While I understand it is the norm to “spread,” I am more interested in hearing quality evidence and arguments rather than quantity. If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I won’t consider the contention.

• Lincoln-Douglas - I’m aware that some like to steer the argument always toward their philosophical area of expertise. If you are interested in K-debate, please be prepared to explain your positions in plain English.

• Parliamentary - Be respectful; I’m not really interested in hearing any heckling. If it seems you are using POIs to disrupt, I will dock points. I care mostly that you are able to listen closely and counter the opponent’s argument than your ability to summarize research.

• Speech Events - I will place a higher value on style. I like a bit of humor, but be careful to not be offensive.

This is my eighth year being the head coach at Kenston High School in Cleveland, Ohio. I have been a lawyer for 33 years and still practice law. I competed for four years in high school (Centerville, Ohio - three years policy debate, one year LD and four years congress) and four years in college (Miami Univ. - two years policy and two years 2-person value debate (CEDA)). Impacts are important to me. I flow the debate vigorously. Please signpost and remain professional. Please don't talk over each other in crossfire. Pronouns: he/him. Email for any chains: svoudris@me.com

I judge based on organization & facts backed up by reliable sources.
Please speak clearly and at a regular pace. Be confident!!!!
p.s—NO pen clicking

The short but sweet version

Former Socal parliamentary debater and two time TOC qualifier. Tabula rasa. Theory is fine as long as it's not frivolous, not a fan of Kritiks. I prefer emphasis on the links rather than the sources. I weigh probability heavily, if you have an extinction impact, you need to have clear evidence or reasoning for exactly why this extinction impact is more than 1% likely. Speed is fine until it turns to spreading. I will protect the flow, but I understand if you want to POO to make sure I see the violation. Otherwise, I'm just here to watch a good debate.

More Specific Stuff Theory

I view debate as a game with the overall goal of education. The only way that education can occur is if there exists a way to have a fair debate. I'm especially responsive to topicality arguments and ground skew. Speed theory is also fine. I'm less inclined to vote on prep skew, there needs to be a legitimate grievance that isn't just "my opponents' plan isn't just the default argument to make." I'm not a fan of truth-testing. I will not vote on any argument that requires the opponents to have or have a specific buzzword(ex, didn't say link as part of their argument). I view that knowledge as exclusionary and not relevant to the debate, if they provided a link without explicitly stating it's a link, it's still a link.

Kritiks

Do not, under any circumstances, ask me if I'm familiar with the Kritik before you run it. Firstly, I don't know the Kritik, secondly I view that as an inherent attempt to violate tabula rasa, which I'm a big fan of. You're also gonna need to talk relatively slowly and clearly, I am not super experienced with Kritiks and hate flowing them quickly. Honestly, you're probably better off not running the Kritik.

Speed

Just don't spread please.

Speaks

I am pretty generous with speaks, I start at 28 and go up or down half points for if anything egregious happens. I leave myself about .5 based on my personal opinion of you. Clear, confident, and not overly fast speaking will definitely get you higher speaks. If you spread, it's gonna be hard for me to give you much above a 29, but if you're super clear I'd be willing to do it. If you have anything which you think could negatively affect your speaks(e.g. a stutter) and am worried I won't pick up on the fact that you have that condition, just mention it to me and I'll accommodate you in whatever way is necessary.

Default weighing

I am heavily invested in probability. If I had to give it a mathematical formula, I would say it's weight = probability^2 * magnitude * impact * timeframe. You absolutely need to convince me that this could happen. I prefer if the team collapses to one argument in the end, it makes my direct comparison easier. If I feel you won the round on something else, I'll obviously apply that first. I consider extinction impacts to have infinite magnitude, but at a certain point I may consider their probability to be 0.

DO's and DONT's: Do

Use logic heavy arguments with clear connections between your evidence and impacts.

Clearly state your magnitude, impact, and time frame(you don't need to use those exact words though).

Ask frequent POI's if applicable.

Don't

Bully your opponents for not knowing a specific part of a debate framework.

Go for loosely linked extinction impacts.

Spread, run Kritk's, or use frivolous theory.

Picture of My Cat

Picture of my cat.

I'm a parent judge that has been judging debate for two years. I try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability.

Guidelines:

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly. Signpost your speeches.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone who's giving a speech off. I will cut them off if they keep talking for way too long.

I stop listening when you go over time.

I prefer impacts with a clear link chain over world war three/extinction/nuclear war impacts. Don't sacrifice logic for magnitude. PLEASE.

Have fun!

My Background
I have an extensive background in competitive speech and debate, with experience in policy debate (CX), oratory, and legislative debate at both high school and collegiate levels. I've been to camps and enjoy new trends and seeing how this experience has evolved. My graduate studies focused on policy analysis and rhetorical strategies employed by young debaters. Competitive debate shaped my understanding of argumentation, strategy, and critical thinking, and I bring that perspective into judging. I believe debate is a uniquely rewarding activity that fosters intellectual growth and should remain both challenging and enjoyable.

My public speaking approach:

I do not expect public speaking perfection. If you are working on your public speaking skills, you can absolutely tip the scales with your argumentation and intellect. This is a technique that you should be practicing more than a spread/speed flow. I don't mind a spread - and practiced spread debate myself - but remember -- if you can't back up that approach with a lot of intellectual discipline, it will fail. I will see right through it.

I don't care what you wear, how you sit, if you stand. I want to see "a mind at work."

You can send me your case. My email is coringilbert@gmail.com Why would you do this? Because you just want to save time. Because you've crafted a case that will dominate the discussion and you are focused on stock issues and wish to empower me to dig in to prep.

General Paradigm

Anything is valid if you signpost, signal and stick to your framework. Don't try to do too much. I appreciate attention to the stock issues, but I appreciate the evolving nature of this activity and if you choose to adjust to T/R, gaming model, or offer a kritik -- do so with confidence and walk the judge(s) fully through the model you are using. Strive to make sense. Work to be crystal clear, as the round moves on, what elements are being dropped by the other side.

Theory: I'm open to them, but you had better bring the thunder in terms of providing clear rationales for each element of the theory. DO NOT ASSUME that your theory will be acceptable. Theoretical debate frames have to float and if you present one, it's got to be focused on a traditional debate outcome. Your judges (myself included) expect to be able to explain clearly a rationale for a decision on the ballot. Read the room. If your theory is ineffective -- don't be afraid to punt.

If I hear an argument that is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or Anti-Semitic -- you will lose. Similarly, I have no issue with passion, healthy intellectual aggression, and even a little passive-aggressive gamesmanship. But candor should never be confused with condescension.

I love a clean flow at the end of the day. Give me a reason to cross out arguments that have been covered, circle things left untouched and structure a ballot with insight on how you might improve.

Congressional Debate

Congress, while functional debate, is just as significantly role playing. Take the role. Serve the part. This increases professionalism and individuality within the round. I prefer quality over quantity and communication must be elemental to the round. It the quality here blended with unique arguments that leads to clash.

Theatrical Individual Events - DI/HI/Duet/DUO/POI/Prose/Poetry

Be in the moment. Engage your judge and audience. Be confident. Perform with focus on your verbal presentation blended with your physicality. I look for proper inflection, diction, and enunciation alongside other elements of characterization. Balance your time with the story arc you are attempting to establish - help me visualize your character's world and the thematic meaning you are highlighting. Have you created a reflection of the mood and essence intended by the author(s)? Be sure to include an appropriately crafted introduction. I enjoy a well designed teaser before entering into your introduction. In partner events the introduction should be equally balanced. I equally enjoy well crafted settings through movement and pantomime. Throughout the round remain respectful of the performances in your room.

Forensic Individual Events - OO/INF/USX/IX

A professional presentation is anticipated ranging from mannerisms within your speech towards vocabulary choice, organization, handling of presentation topic (this includes props in Informative) to general presentation techniques of pace, diction, projection and general enunciation. I look for a well developed and organized concept supported by appropriate evidence, statistics, and personal anecdotes. A balanced use of time in appreciated as your present your introduction, points and conclusion. Inform, persuade and entertain. I enjoy effective use of rhetorical devices. This includes both historical and pop cultural allusions, alliteration and the rule of three. Sound devices enhance the quality of a presentation and make your statements memorable. Eye contact shows confidence. Rhetorical situations should include the full rhetorical square and nit simply the triangle - use ethos, pathos, logos and kairos.

I did public forum all throughout high school, so i'd say i have a pretty good feel of the debate AND the rules.

be mature, please don’t be hateful. you need to respect each other to have an effective debate.

1. Please please please include me in any evidence chains. You can use the doc share on tabroom or you can add me in an email chain if you have one. With that being said, I will read the entire card... so if it's misconstrued, i will know and note it on the ballot. kwalterich72@gmail.com
2. make sure your evidence and points are absolutely clear !!! all speeches/new evidence needs to be put in speech drop or whatever link chain you create.
3. spreading is fine as long as links can be easily understood

I am a parent judge whose past experience is primarily in speech. Delivery is very important to me, but I will be taking notes. Make it interesting. I don't want to be bored. I hope to enjoy a respectful and educational round, good luck and have fun!

General Philosophy
As a judge, I prioritize fairness, clarity, and engagement. My role is to evaluate arguments and performances based on their merits rather than personal biases. I value well-structured arguments, clear delivery, and strategic choices that demonstrate a deep understanding of the event’s format.

Speech (Interp, Extemp, Oratory, etc.)
• Delivery & Engagement
• Confidence, vocal variety, and body language enhance the speech.
• Eye contact and audience connection are valued.
• Content & Structure
• A clear thesis and logical organization are essential.
• Originality and creativity in interpretation or argumentation stand out.
• Emotional & Intellectual Impact
• Persuasive and evocative performances resonate.
• Balance emotional appeal with substantive analysis.
Final Notes
• Speaker Points: I typically award based on clarity, strategy, and engagement.
• Round Conduct: Respect and professionalism are expected at all times.
• Decision Rationale: I will provide thorough feedback and RFDs (Reason for Decision) to help competitors improve. It is not appropriate to curse excessively or speak on a subject that is not age appropriate for high school students. A personal connection to your piece is very important.
Feel free to adapt your style, but make sure I understand why you’re winning the round. Let me know if you have any specific preferences before the round!

Hello! I'm in the Nationals 2024 judging pool for both LD and speech, so here's some info on both:

LD Paradigm:

I’ve coached and judged speech for 7 years, but this is my first year coaching debate post-COVID. I’ve mostly judged PFD this year, but I'm still pretty new. My NSDA district is small and the national qualifier is the only opportunity that students have to try LD. I only mention that to let you know up front that my experience with LD is unfortunately very limited. In preparation for Nats, I’m doing my best to learn as much as I can.

Typical “new guy” preferences - Explicitly stating the value and criterion is helpful. Set up a solid foundation in constructive. Keep reinforcing key points and making things easy to understand. I prefer conversational speed. Impact is key - why do your arguments matter? How are individual people affected by this? Can you explain your points in a way that is accessible to a general audience, not just experienced debate judges? Spell it out and let me know how you want me to weigh the round.

Stuff that is annoying - Time yourselves. Stay within your time limits. I'm also running a timer, but in some local debates, I've had to stop (usually new) debaters that just want to keep talking beyond their assigned time for whatever reason. Your judge should be focused on listening to arguments, taking notes, etc. not babysitting someone who doesn't know when their turn is over. Don't waste time during the debate arguing in circles over something like a piece of evidence or semantics. Usually, that's an indicator that you don't have anything substantial to say, so you're trying to deflect. When you ask your opponent a question in cross, let them actually answer you. Quality > Quantity because having 20 different arguments isn't impressive when you speed through them and only address things on the surface and then expect to win the round because your opponent didn't address subpoint e on your 5th contention.

Decorum - Have fun. Just like when I'm judging Extemp, I do appreciate humor and sassy quips from debaters, but this isn't a US presidential "debate." Keep it respectful.

Speech Paradigm:

If you feel the need to include one, go for it, but I don’t expect contestants to provide “content warnings” in the sad people events. I knew what I was getting into when I was assigned to judge that category. I’d hope your audience would feel the same way when deciding whether to watch or compete in something like DI or POI. With that out of the way:

DI - Characterization and authenticity are key to getting my 1, and it’s all in the little things. Those subtle facial expressions and strong acting choices really set good DI apart from mediocre DI. And for the love of whatever you believe in - please have levels to your character; I like when a performer has mastered both the highs and lows of their character’s emotions. Screaming and crying the whole time doesn’t impress me. Anyone can do that.

POI - This event has gotten a little stagnant for me lately because it feels like most POI contestants choose some simple variation of the same 5 or so topics. But you can still have an uncommon take on a common topic. I think of POI like a public address event, like the interp version of an OO - What is your thesis? Is it easily identifiable? What message are you trying to get across? But instead of writing 3 points and an intro/conclusion like you would in oratory, you’re cutting together literature that helps strengthen your argument and tells a cohesive story. Just like DI, strong characterization and authenticity win over all of the “POI-isms” that I often see when contestants are trying too hard to mimic NSDA finalists. Also - do something creative with the binder. Since the event rules force you to have it, use it as an extension of yourself rather than an object that is just in the way.

HI - You don’t have to stand on your head or do a triple axel to be good at HI. I see a lot of contestants rely on gimmicks and I’m not someone whose rankings are based on who can do the coolest tricks. For example, if I take away the backflip, does your piece still have an easy-to-follow storyline, clear and distinct characterization, and great variations in energy? Yes? Then you’ll be fine. Fast and over-the-top doesn’t automatically = top placement. When judging HI, I find that the "Was your piece actually humorous?" is normally my tiebreaker question.

Duo - Have you chosen a script that allows both partners to shine? When one person is given more opportunities within the piece to showcase their skills, it makes their partner stand out in a negative way because they aren't doing as much. I also look for which pair has taken the restrictions of duo (lack of physical/eye contact) and seen it not as a limitation on their performance, but instead as an opportunity to create something cool. Synchronized bits, creative staging, smooth blocking - top of the room every time.

Both Speech & Debate Events:

As a competitor, keep in mind that you are being informally judged from the moment we meet. Don't leave a bad impression. Be polite, but you don't need to be over-the-top about it. Remember that your judge does still exist even when someone isn't presenting, and we can still hear all of your personal conversations that you have with your fellow competitors. Don't be a weirdo. Obviously, it doesn't affect your ranking, but the things I've overheard competitors just freely chatting about within earshot while I have the fate of the round in my hands is...yikes. Same goes for when you exit the room. Walls are thin. I can still hear you. If you are unprepared for the round or think you messed up, don't let that leave your mouth. We are all our own worst critics, and chances are, your judge didn't notice that small slip-up you're apologizing for...until you bring it up in front of everyone. And if you're unprepared, it will be pretty obvious once you start speaking. No need to self-deprecate or fish for compliments.

Audience Etiquette - Your role as an audience member is to support the other competitors in the round by providing them with a respectful and attentive crowd. Drawing attention to yourself when you aren't the one performing is tacky. Stay off your phone during the round.

I tend to write/type a lot during the round. If you're in debate or public address, I'm probably flowing your speeches so I may not look directly at you all the time because I'm focused. Interp people - I promise I'm paying attention to all of the cool subtleties and blocking that you're doing. I'm just bad at eye contact, and I like giving good notes instead of "good job! 5"

I am a high school history teacher and. While I have never competed in Speech and Debate myself, I have judged in several tournaments now and while I am still learning about how arguments are structured, I've gotten a feel for what is expected and what I like to see. Above all I expect to see politeness and professionalism from debaters. Having a poor attitude towards your opponent undermines the hard work you put into your argument, and will majorly impact how I score you.

Similarly, I expect clarity. Intentionally speaking as fast as you can to fit in as many arguments as you can in your time will make me stop following your argument and stop my notes, which will then negatively impact how I score you. Please let your hard work show through with good pacing clarity.

PF and LD

General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.

Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.

Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.

LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.

I have been a coach for 50+ years and am favorable to traditional arguments. If you have a traditional case I would suggest reading it in front of me.

1. I won't evaluate non-topical arguments/performances etc. 
2. I do not like tricks and wont evaluate them.
3. I will evaluate kritiks as long as I understand how they function in the round.
4. If you want to spread I am ok with speed, however if I put my pen down I am not flowing.  You must be clear; I will be flowing from your speech not a doc.
5. If there is abuse in round just explain it in layman's terms and warrant it. I will not be a good judge for evaluating friv theory arguments.

As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.

In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.

With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.

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

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

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

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

I value truth and honesty in performance.

Hi, I'm Greg Zarbo,  This is my first time to have the honor to be a judge for a speech and debate tournament.  I've have vast experience presenting speeches public speeches.  I have been a member of Toastmasters and was an MC at conferences and presented at lunch and learns and corporate dinners, 

I'm a parent judge and have been judging since 2021.

I need to be able to understand you. I will judge your speaking abilities, logic throughout the case, and how much you know your topic. Don't just read off your computer screen. Understand your argument, listen to your opponent, and adapt your case.

I understand that sometimes the aff/neg may have a harder case to make and will not let that or my personal opinions sway who wins.

Be respectful of your opponent(s). While they are speaking you should be listening, taking notes, and/or preparing your arguments. 

I expect you to know the rules for your events. You can time yourself. I will time you, but will not stop you. If you go over by a few seconds that is fine, but more than that may cause you to lose points.

...

tldr: very lay judge, speak slow, be respectful, cross matters (i can elaborate why)

the length of this paradigm doesnot mean that i am a flow judge. do not be confused i am being very clear in the way i vote to prevent confusion.if you are confused in ANY way, PLEASE PLEASE ask me before the round.i am more lay than the average washington local judge and that's saying something

scroll down to important notes *there are asterisks

english is my second language, parent judge

do not use jargon unless you want me to be confused

please speak slow and enunciate-- slow

i mean it. if you see a confused look on my face you've done something wrong.

that said, make eye contact with me but absolutely do not yell at me-- this is a professional enviornment for education

if you are going over conversational speed, send a speech doc (idc if its constructive or rebuttal do not read fast if you cannot provide a speech doc). unless you want me to miss whatever you say.

idazhu@yahoo.com (also remind me to check my email when you send the case)

set up email chain before round--also include me in card chains

if one specific evidence becomes a major point of clash in the round, say "ida take a look at this" and let me know what to look for.

i would advise against running theory/ks because i barely understand pf as is although please have faith in me that i can recognize abusive debaters and will take action accordingly (going to tab, marking in ballot).

etc. cursing at your opponents.

i am giving up my time to judge so treat me and your opponents with respect as you would do so in a professional environment.

do not steal prep time PLEASE and do not lag at the beginning pf the round when setting up come prepared.

truth>tech unfortunately, squirrely impacts into nuke war or smth will probably have me confused

hint hint i am afinancial planner so numbers make a lot of sense to me

warrant out CLEARLY how you get to those numbers though..

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh i will not weigh on your behalf in my ballot.

i would advise weighing during rebuttal then summary then ff so it becomes rly clear to me how i should vote

i do not know what framework is, explain it to me (make sure i nod)

etc. "judge, you are going to be casting your vote on this round off of x. this is more important than larger numbers bc xyz. my opponents agreed/conceded to this in y speech. we are all on the same page for you to proceed to sign the ballot based off."

if ur gonna run fw, come to round early and explain to me what it means before round. again make sure i nod

be professional. i don't want to see a messy workspace with 897713 flow sheets everywhere or fiddling with clothes/hair, i believe that this reflects confidence

please approach me if u have an issue with this

probably collapse, i'm not keeping detailed flow so it's hard to keep track of so many arguments

obvs make sure ur ops dont have any residing turns on ur case

if ur the op, explain what a turn is before u say "turn"

most important***

cross matters a lot- if it is a wash or if you and your opponents don't clearly implicate how i should sign my ballot throughout your speeches (ff is not adequate) the round will come down to how you treat your opponents.there are three, total 9 minutes. i don't think that time should go to waste. every speaker has more than a whole speech's worth of time in cross. if u have additional qs about why i listen to cross, ask me before the round.

attitude and presentation of knowledge is important in my judging methodology.

be respectful to your opponents, let's have a calm round.

do not argue i get annoyed if i feel like i'm being yelled at

do NOT interrupt during cross. i can tell if your opponents are talking straight for 2 minutes and trust that i will dock them accordingly. if i pause your cross to tell you that i feel you consistently interrupt, that is the only warning i will give.other indicators will be my facial expression during the round

be professional- please don't eat during the round. i understand rounds run late and it's difficult to find a time to eat. this comes off as disrespectful towards your opponent and i as well as the sport of debate. if you have a genuine reason to eat,make it clear to me before the round.

please try not to be late-debate always makes speech run late so let's get it started asap

confidence wins- everyone has similar knowledge on topic, so i'll probably sign the ballot on whoever is able to best present and communicate to me (as well as adapting to my indicators) unless theres a distinct difference in skill level--i do take notes but i will not be able to catch quick "turns " "delinks" etc

1. don't throw out jargon or topic specific acronyms, explain it.

2. i will vote off if u give one turn, explain what a turn is, and exactly how it interacts with your opponent's arguments rather than if u dish out 15 turns at a speed i can't understand

not about quantity or tech, but about how i perceive the round, which is lay

3. i probably won't have a technical flow, but tell me to write something down "judge, make sure to note for your ballot (if u win or lose the round) that my opponents did xyz"

thank u for reading this long paradigm but trust these niche little things help you win the round, especially if the clash is unclear to me. i want u to be successful and judge adaptability is definitely a skill to acquire.

also keep in mind just because certain terminology was used in this paradigm does not mean i understand it. if u aren't sure, double check or err on the side of no. i used debate terms so you can easier understand how to adapt

if you are confused by my paradigm, ASK me about it before the round starts. my daughter wrote this

kk bye good luck<3

I'm a lay judge and have 3 years of judging experience. I'll be taking notes throughout the round, so be as clear, slow, and understandable as possible. I'm mostly tech > truth, but I won't vote on frivolous/squirrely args. I also won't vote on theory, K's, etc. Please be respectful throughout the round. If you catch miscut ev, point it out in a speech and I'll take it into consideration. (written by daughter)

For IEs:

This is my first time judging IEs (I usually judge PF)!