I am a former speech competitor of 3 years with no experience competing in or judging debate. I competed in INFO primarily and thus am only used to conversational delivery. I will factor delivery into speaker points alone and will not vote against a competitor for delivering at a reasonably rapid speed, so long as it does not prevent me from understanding what they are saying.

I will look for achievable and impactful frameworks supported by specific, relevant evidence, warranting, and clear analysis and will be taking limited notes during round -- limited so I can focus my attention and engagement on the round. I prefer empirical evidence and prefer a few well developed arguments over a higher quantity.

I will not tolerate disrespect during round. Be a good competitor.

Heidi Atkin she/her

Hello! I’m a judge for corner canyon high school, my son competes in policy this year. I have limited judging experience, mostly async speech events like lip synch and newscaster and some experience in judging OO, interp, impromptu, and extemp. I have never competed in speech and debate before.

Overall I really like voice inflection being used to show me how to feel, creative speech topics, and telling me why your speech matters.

you will make me happy if you use the word flabbergasted in your speech.

p.s. This paradigm was written by my son (a passionate 7 off policy debater, yall should join policy but like be worse than me so that I can beat you but also expand policy debate because it’s cool) so don’t assume I know what a paradigm is or what the rules of this event are

EMAIL: pattridg@asu.edu

Debate paradigm will be contextual to each form of debate. For positionality, I am a college speech coach (though I competed in high school debate and have judged debate at all levels of competition - it's just not my main thing), and I am a trans woman. If either of these things will bother you, strike me.

GENERAL: you may ask for any accommodations you like. Debate has historically upheld white supremacy, and making sure that rounds do not do that now requires active effort. Do not misgender me please, as me crying will probably not improve the round (unless it's a really good cry). The first time it happens, I won't drop you, but I will remind you. If you continue to misgender me, it will impact your ballot.

LD/Parli: spread is fine, love Ks, cool with Theory but actually tell me if you want me to vote on it. See below for "clear". I highly recommend explicitly stating how arguments link back to framework.

Policy: do whatever you want, but I reserve the right to say "clear" if I'm having trouble following, and will extend that right to both teams as well.

IPDA: fine with everything, but make sure your opponent is too. This is the kind of question to ask before prep starts, not after.

PF: don't flow through ink. Don't strawman your opponent's evidence or flow coverage (saying "they didn't address Contention 2 subpoint A" when they in fact did. You can tell me why they didn't address it in ways that mattered, and go in depth here, but don't conflate that with "they didn't address it"). The first time it happens, I will give you some leeway. The second time it happens, it will impact your speaker points. The third time it happens, you will be dropped. Clarity and clear links are valued.

I am a lay judge and English is not my first language. Please talk slowly and make your points clear. I prefer competitors not to raise their voice at me or their opponents. Please keep in mind that I am not a native speaker, so don't use complex words or phrases, use easy to understand language all audiences will understand. I like eye contact and dynamic tone/fluctuations in your voice/tone. I prefer you to not be too stiff, but not too dynamic in your body language. Please also try to convince me why I should side with you, not arguing against your opponent only. Please also be respectful to me and your opponents and no derogatory language will be accepted.

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 Keri (she/her); put me on the file share: keri.j.brown@gmail.com

Overall in every event, I'm looking for a round where debaters are respectful of each other and clearly outline every argument. If you are rude or I can't understand you, your speaker points will drop dramatically.

Policy: Please, make your speeches clear. This means do not spread. If I can't understand your argument, I won't flow it, and you very likely will lose. You should favor good, fleshed-out arguments over a hundred nitpicky things that your opponent can't respond to in time.

I have judged policy before, but jargon such as permutation, topicality, etc., are relatively unfamiliar to me so please give thorough explanations for all the nuances of your arguments.

The more progressive, the higher the bar. If you're going to run a fancy, complicated argument about capitalism, you're really going to need to flesh out why I should vote for it over the actual topic.

LD/PF: Progressive debates are not my thing. Traditional arguments would be best; pick a couple of good arguments to go with and clearly explain them. I will not tolerate spreading, and complicated jargon must be thoroughly elaborated upon.

I thank you for your bravery in public speaking. The variety of speech and debates is quite enjoyable for me. In my opinion speech and debate are about communicating clearly, effectively and efficiently through the use of words, verbal tones and body language.

In debates and extemporaneous speeches, I appreciate it when speakers begin by stating the question and by listing their main points before going in depth. I feel this helps the speaker keep a focus as well as prepares the audience to listen. I expect the main points to make logical sense as they are tied back to the original question and I expect them be supported by evidence.

In all speaking I expect clear, concise communication which is most likely to happen when the speaking speed does not exceed the listening speed. If a participant chooses to spread, then my listening skills are greatly diminished which results in me not being able to follow your reasoning and you will not be communicating your point.

Last, but not least, I expect all participants to treat each other with respect through both their words and actions. Disagreement is a big part of debates, but that is no reason to be denigrating to one another.

Delivery: smooth, confident, limit your stumbles.

Citations/Evidence: these are very important to me.

Dramatic delivery: a plus.

Logical flow to your speech or your argument: from beginning to end, did you sell me on your points, did you sell me on your solutions.

In debate: be civil, make your point, let them make theirs. This is speech and debate, not speech and bullying.
Talking faster does not gain you points with me - be clear, be concise…be persuasive!

I am a lay debate judge so please make sure your argument is comprehensible and understandable to a wide range of audiences. I do have speech experience so I will be taking into account your performance as well as your argumentation.

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

For DEBATE events, I focus on:

(1) Content - focus on topic; arguments organized; factual accuracy; point of view supported; references; support is germane to topic; counters arguments presented by opposing team.

(2) Delivery - confidence; appropriate/professional tone; eye contact; volume; speaking rate (absolutely no speaking at lightspeed); time management.

Special Note - A well-delivered argument with good use of the performative aspects of speech is ultimately more persuasive than the same argument delivered poorly. If you are reading specific text from authors as evidence is expected, be mindful of your speed, lightspeed recitation of evidence will not win your arguments for you. Rather, your analysis and discussion of evidence will be necessary. Also, aggressive questioning during cross is expected, but unnecessary facial expressions/eye rolling/noise making/negative demeanors are absolutely not okay.

++++++

For SPEECH events, I focus on:

(1) Content - entertaining; piece choice challenging and appropriate for competitions.

(2) Delivery - eye contact; volume; speaking rate; confidence.

Special Note - A well-delivered speech with good use of performative aspects is the key to breaking. Believe in your piece, let the judges feel you believe in your own piece.

++++++

You are all here to showcase your pieces, I look forward to enjoying them. Be respectful to each other and other teams, I value that greatly. I will mark you down for disrespectful, unprofessional, and inappropriate behaviors toward your competitors, and if you do that more than once, I will drop you.

My background: A former defense attorney with extensive litigation experience; and I am currently a senior corporate counsel with a local architecture engineering consulting company, together I have more than 20 years of legal experience.

I am a parent volunteer judge. I have judged a speech tournament recently. It'll be my first time judging Policy Debate so please don't spread.

Please prioritize clarity in your arguments and provide explanations of your positions. I prefer flowing with impactful arguments. I will give points based on clarity, content organization, and the impacts of your arguments.

Be respectful and confident :) Good luck!

For all forms of debate, I am basically a flow judge. That being said if you spread too fast I will not be able to get parts of your case on to my flow. In the end, be logical, make good cases and be respectful.

I don't time off time road maps as long as they are quick and efficient.

• Think fast and speak slow.

• Respect other people

• Make sense - please don't just speak; make sense when you do

Respect is greatly important to me, I will not tolerate any disrespect among all parties. I will dock points for any condescending remarks.

I do not prefer spreading. Card reading should be 3 minutes max.

Take a breath, don't overstress, and most importantly have fun! I know you'll do great :)

I am a certified theatre educator and director with over 15 years of directing experience.

1) Movement - how choreography is incorporated whether it is body language of different characters to make them stronger, or use of a black book creatively.

2) Fluid story - I should know from beginning to end the rising action, climax, falling action, and resolve in your story. If it is a POI, I should see the same thing in the cutting of the pieces.

3) Hidden message - from the teaser to the introduction, all the way to the end of the piece, I want to be able to understand the hidden message of why you picked this piece(s) to support something you are passionate about.

4) Characters - There should be distinguished characters in each of the pieces. If you have multiple characters in one piece, each one should have a different "story", body language and voice to tell them a part.

For LD:

1) Evidence - using evidence sufficiently to support the claims in your argument.

2) Argument - your argument has to make sense, meaning you can't just argue that your opponent is wrong because of everything you already said. In cross I expect a new form of argument that still supports your stance.

3) Claims - I should hear a speech in your debate that clearly states the issues and how you resolve it.

Argumentation and logic are far more important to me than gamesmanship. I realize that Debate has technique and rules and conventions, but the bill of sale was to teach students how to craft cohesive arguments and deliver them articulately. If your strategy is to exploit rules or score enough cheap points to win I will be unlikely to vote for you. If you spread, be sure you are good at it so that I can hear and understand you— my deep dark secret is that I am not great at hearing spreading, so if it's not coherent, I might miss your points. And I prefer to listen instead of reading your cards. If you run a K, it better be an extremely interesting one, or I will almost certainly vote it down.

I want to see real arguments being made in a passionate, logical, civil, and coherent manner. I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks. You can be fierce and aggressive, but attacking your opponent personally is not aggressive debate. And being passionate doesn't mean shouting (necessarily; I have seen shouting that was effective, but it's a subtle skill!). Arguments before cards, please. If your "case" is just reading a bunch of cards at me, I won't be very impressed.

We aren't here to play games, IMO. I want to see you tackling these issues for reals and using your voice to make good debate.

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!

Debate, for me, is a very powerful tool/activity that helps students in developing and honing their skills and confidence in public speaking and expressing their ideas cogently and eloquently in a limited amount of time. It is an activity where people put for the their arguments, either for or against, a particular topic and are able to defend their positions through well researched data. The person who is able to make their case, either for or against a topic, and back it up through their well thought out arguments ends up winning the round.

Kindly note the following about me:

I am relatively new to judging so am not a big fan of speed (spreading) - but as long as you are able to pace yourself properly, while staying on point with your arguments and back-up data, and are able to clearly articulate and put forth your arguments, I am fine.

Please do not be condescending in your interaction with your opponents (no scoffing or any other disparaging behavior - debates need to be civil - if I see this kind of behavior then you stand losing the round and I will inform your coach through the Tabroom and include my comment in the RFD) and do not be unnecessarily aggressive in your speeches (a little bit of emotion while making or defending your point is ok).

Cheerios, and best of luck!!

Happy debating ...

I’ve been coaching debate of all varieties for over 20 years now. I love this activity, and believe it teaches some important and useful skills.

What you want to know:

1. Speed is fine. Be clear.

2. Disclosure is preferable at circuit tournaments (I’m less concerned about it locally).

3. Progressive arguments, in general, are good by me. Some caveats:

A. I generally prefer to vote on substantive issues over procedural ones. My threshold for theory is fairly strict, and the abuse has to be pretty clear.
B. Tricks aren’t cute. They’re intellectually dishonest bad faith arguments that I think are bad for debate. Run them if you must, but I’m generally disinclined to reward them.
C. Kritiks based on identity arguments (fem rage/trans rage/etc.) are relevant and important, but if you do not identify with the positionality upon which the kritik is based, and are running the argument for its strategic value, you are doing a really bad thing by co-opting a discourse to which you have no right or claim, and commodifying it for wins. Do better.

4. Good impact analysis is important to me, explain clearly why you should win. Tell me the story you want me to believe.

5. Don’t tell lies. Bad debate math counts as lies. I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty.

6. Have fun, be kind and generous and charitable. This is a really rewarding game, even when you take an L. Enjoy it, and help others enjoy it too.

Edit for 2024: This applies largely to high school LD debate. I believe these things in general for all debate, but ask me if you have questions about specifics at a tournament. Thank you!

1. Relatively inexperienced at judging debate competitions

2. I appreciate fast thinkers who speak slowly

3. Facts and historical references are more convincing than opinions and speculations

4. A strong and well exposed argument carries more weight than several weak arguments exposed in a hurry

5. As a non-native speaker who studied ancient Greek and Latin in high school, I understand erudite words better than slang words, but I still prefer Aristophanes to Cicero.

Hello, my name is Nevan Hanford and I competed in the Arizona circuit in high school, participating in PF Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Congress. Overall, I believe speech and debate is about rhetorical, argumentative, and logical skills - please keep those in the fore front of your mind for any given event. I have preferences listed below for PF, Extemp, and Congress, take a brief look at your event. Please ask questions before and after round if you have any and email me if you would like more feedback (also add me to email chain) at njhanford@berkeley.edu

PF Preferences

PF debate is, was, and always will be a debate centered around a general audience. It is my philosophy that PF should be a debate understood and weighed upon through this lens. Therefore, please clearly and persuasively argue why you should win a given round.

1. I can handle moderate speeds, please don't go over 250 wpm, spreading will ultimately make it harder to communicate and understand arguments, so take that as you will.
2. I will vote upon any contention clearly warranted and with links. At the end of the day, I am a flow judge and will vote upon which arguments flow through. It is your job as debaters to extend the arguments you want voted upon. Anything dropped in summary will not be voted upon.
3. Cards/Evidence: Calling cards is an important aspect of debate, I may call cards throughout and after debate. If a card looks suspicious, please tell me that in your speeches and why I shouldn't vote off that evidence. I don't like to intervene, but if needed, at the end of round I will call any cards I don't buy, but you need to call out the oppositions cards!
4. Etiquette: Please be respectful to each other. I don't mind argumentative cross fires, but if it becomes unnecessarily aggressive, crossfire becomes unproductive. I prefer speakers to stand during speeches, excluding grand cross.
5. Crossfire: I will listen to cross, however will not flow anything unless extended. Bring up anything you want flowed through during cross in the next speech. DO NOT say your opponent conceded if they didn't actually concede to anything - yelling my opponent conceded doesn't mean they did.
6. Weighing: Please weigh your arguments against your opponents - this doesn't mean bigger numbers are always better - I will vote on the validity of the argument in addition to the weighing mechanism you provide.
7. Speaker points: I won't ever give below 27 speaker points unless your disrespectful in round, that being said, I will always give more speaker points for better speaking ability. Extra speaks if you make me laugh in round.

Congress Preferences

Congress is about engaging and collective argumentation amongst the house. That being said:

1. Speeches should be extemporaneously given with the help of legal notepad. Pre-written speeches will be ranked lower.
2. Please do not repeat old arguments, congress is about interactive debate - every speech following authorship should contain refutations of the opposing sides arguments.
3. Congress is supposed to be fun - I love when debaters have fun intros to their speeches, please feel free to.
4. Evidence: Speeches should contain evidence, however, congress is not PF or LD. Please do not cite evidence as cards - you should be interlacing your arguments with your evidence. Ex: "A recent report from the NY Times found ..." NOT "Carr 15 finds..."
5. PO: I will be more than willing to rank PO high if they either a) have excellent command of procedure or b) volunteer when more veteran debaters refuse to PO
6. Please don't have more than 3 speeches in a row on one side - then it is no longer a debate. If you planned on giving an affirmative but there is no negation - flip!

Extemp Preferences

Extemp is my favorite event to judge - it is also often the toughest to judge. When I did extemp, I often didn't know what criteria judges were ranking by. The following is what I will be using in rankings:

1. Analysis: Extemp is not about reporting on evidence, it is about analyzing evidence in relation to the question. Given this, don't get too far away from the question - stay on topic. Analysis should be the majority of your speech, don't just state evidence and move on. Use evidence as examples to answer the question.
2. Delivery: This includes projection, eye contact, physical pacing, tone, volume, enunciation, etc... Using a notecard is apart of this event; however, don't let it take away from your delivery. You should be looking at your notecard no more than 10% of the time, I recommend using a notecard for your evidence source and date
3. Evidence: Please do not make-up or misconstrue evidence, not only is this highly unethical, if I find out your evidence doesn't exist, you will be dropped in my rankings. Please cite your evidence; however, if you don't remember a date or publication - don't make one up. Cite evidence as if you were speaking to a general audience, use common sense - if it is a report, tell me the organization; a research paper, the author; an article, the publication company.

I love extemp: be confident and have fun!

Hi, I competed in speech for all four years of high school. I've now judged/coached for about 5 years! :) Here's what I have (in terms of my rules) to say about speech and debate:

For everyone: please don't try to shake my hand (it wont affect your score, i get its for being nice and thanking me for judging your round) but idk where your hands have been.

SPEECH: Have fun, don't be nervous, and do you best. I judge fully based off the performance. If you go over the grace period of your performance, cool, but like, know you can't be ranked the 1. I love topics of public health, healthcare, child/maternal health, and health equity.

DEBATE: I am a lay judge, however I've now been judging traditional debate for 3 years (mostly PF and LD, BQ, but I know it's not traditional debate lol). Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. If you want me to disclose, I can. However, I will not disclose during elimination/outrounds!

Please make sure you can take your own times! I will be taking my time from now on to make sure the round runs as fairly and efficiently.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I can understand your sources (Name, Date) plzzz

Have your cards ready and set to go, in case I want to see them!

Checking and reading cards is not a part of prep time, but if you go over like 2 1/2 min or more, I'll start counting it towards your prep time.

Have fun, be cool, make me laugh, you could get extra pts, idk (life is short, yolo). Also, no sexism, racism, or any kind of hatred because it will lead you into an auto-drop. ALSO, yes to the email chain! abhern12@asu.edu

CONGRESS: I love clash! Speak eloquently and loudly please! Answer all of your questions succinctly as you can during CX! If you make me laugh in the round, that could possibly help lol. Please keep the debate as creative and interesting towards the bills you want to pass. Repeating arguments are irrelevant, please always add a new/interesting point during your speeches :) Have fun too! :) (if u talk about public health, delivery of healthcare systems, access/utilization of healthcare, child/maternal health, or health inequity and disparities, maybe you might catch my eye and get ranked idk) ((public health is cool))

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

I did LD for 2 years and Policy for 2 in high school, I'm good with progressive debate (but please provide definitions for any less common terms you'll use frequently). I'm okay with fast speech, but please don't spread. Please signpost and extend your arguments, cards, etc by name so I can flow them more easily. I don't flow cross. It's up to you to time yourself, I'll only keep track of prep. My email is moralofthefable@gmail.com for the email chain. If you say "watermelon" in your speech I will give you 1 bonus speaker point, thank you for actually reading paradigms!

I weigh T > K > case. I think that extinction impacts are bad and ruining policy debate by overshadowing real, tangible impacts, so I probably won't vote on magnitude alone. I hate PICs, please don't run one, I won't vote on it. If you run a K, it has to link or I won't buy it. If your opponent says something dumb, call them out or I have to flow it. Tech > truth unless it is actively harmful/violent. Any bigoted arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism etc.) WILL get you dropped and reported to your coach.

Remember, the most important thing here is to have fun!! Make sure you're taking care of yourselves!

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me in round, if you see me wandering around, or over email! I'm always happy to yap about policy <3

Lay judge. I like iced coffee (white-chocolate).

Hello,

I am Yogapriya Kumaravel. I represent Dougherty Valley High School.

Even though my children do debate I have judged very few rounds but I will take notes and do my best.

I strongly value evidence.

Speech:

Impromptu:

• presentation is very important
• judge based on how well topic is incorporated in speech
• effectiveness of analysis will be considered

Humorous Interp:

• should feel real and not forced

Dramatic Interp:

• facial expression and voice inflection are very important for dramatic interp
• strong emotional connection to words being spoken

Debate is meant to be inclusive do not do anything that counteracts that or I will want to drop you. So that means be polite, cross can be competitive just don't be an a-hole.

As for debate specific things,

I did PF for four years at BASIS Peoria and I'm a 2nd year out. I have no actual topic knowledge though.

Please respond to things in the first speech you can that means no new frontlines in second summary/first FF. Card reading is off time, but do not abuse it.

Summary please extend things as cleanly as possible. The more shady an extension gets in summary the greater chance I miss it or don't count it as a real extension and drop it from your FF. The messier the debate gets the more chance I vote off whatever is cleanest and well-explained/well-extended.

Probability/strength of link weighing is usually fake LOL.

Warrants are REALLY REALLY important and trump unexplained card reading any day.

Ask me if you have questions about anything else.

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.

I am a parent judge, speak slowly and clearly and explain all your arguments efficiently. Avoid using debate jargon.

I'm a limited prep coach now, and in high school, I predominantly competed in extemp with the occasional PF and BQ.

I like a good framework and relevant and strong evidence. I also strongly value a well-structured speech & the ability to defend it well. I love me a good off-time road map but please follow it in your speech.

PF:

I typically count reading cards that were called as part of prep time, but that's mainly for the sake of keeping rounds running on-time and not spending forever in a round because of card calling.

I WANT TO HEAR A WEIGHING OF THE ROUND IN SUMMARY & FINAL FOCUS SPEECHES. Otherwise you're leaving me to weigh the round for you and nobody wants that.

LD:

As long as you are clear, I have no preference for what you run. I will vote off what you give me. With that in mind, be very careful about running FW debates unless you have a specific reason to do so because I have seen it get messy quickly when students don't run it well.

I hate spreading. To me, a good debater does not need to rely on speed in order to win a round, and spreading makes the event less accessible overall. I can handle pretty fast speeds of talking, so don't feel like you have to go conversational, but if you're sacrificing enunciation for speed, that's where I draw the line.

Add me to the email chain at amy.lindteigen@gmail.com :)

Hello, I am a parent judge who is not experienced in judging debate; I primarily judge in speech.

Please do not flow, and please do not run non-topical arguments such as Ks and theories.

Hi Debaters.

I am an English and public speaking teacher, as well as a speech coach at Fenwick High School. I also judge Public Forum debate. As a judge, I look for speech clarity, logic, and organization. I look for a quality argument, preferring evidence backed reasoning over hypothetical scenarios. Watch spreading so that it doesn't backfire. If mumbled with lack of articulation, I won't be able to critique an argument I can't understand. Be respectful at all times, and show your passion for debate.

My rankings:

27 points - Average event and competition

28 points - Above Average, well prepared, and presented well

29 points - Excellent presentation and well thought out speech or case

30 points - Reserved for top tier competitors who have what is needed to win

What I look for in competitors:

- Clear speech, easily understood

- Respect to other competitors, judge, other spectators, and the room

- Work is focused in the room

- Questions are asked when a direction is needed

What I will not stand for:

- Personal attacks on other competitors (debates)

-Side comments before, during, and after rounds or performances

- Calling into question the rights of someone to exist

-I will not judge or acknowledge Theory Debates.

This is what I would like: Please state your claims clearly and meaningfully. If you use jargon please clarify. Explain clearly why your claim is relevant. Explain why your claims supersede over your competitors, or in other words show a grasp of your competitor's claims. I appreciate the proper evidence behind your claims. Please paste your cards into the chat when requested by your competitor. Please stay within these bounds to maximize points.

Hi!! My name's Sarah and I'm currently a college student. I did speech and debate all throughout high school, specifically in LD and Interp events. I also co-captained LD for my last two years of high school.

Debate:

-I am tabula rasa!

-I am comfortable with any type of case; I just ask for you to put me in the email chain/send what you're reading to smaisha285@gmail.com. This is really helpful for me to follow along if it is Non-T or you're spreading

-You have definitely heard this saying multiple times, but I want you to basically write my ballot for me. Especially, tell me why your points are correct AND better than your opponents. With that being said, PLEASEEEE impact weigh and extend/cross apply arguments (don't shadow-extend tho, I want to see proper reasoning).

-No, I don't flow cross-ex

-Obviously, be nice to your opponents. If I see or am made known of any form of discrimination from you as a competitor, you will get an automatic zero and will be reported. Speech and Debate is supposed to be an educational experience available for everyone, so please treat everyone with respect even if the argument gets heated.

-Speaker points are earned based on how well you can present your argument/sway the judge, and also your intonation and the way you present your points. However, be sure not to focus on one more than the other

Speech:

-I am more than happy to provide time signals; let me know what you need before you speak

-Interp events: I want to see blocking!!

-Blackbook events: don't just use your book as something you read your script off of

Any other questions you have please email at smaisha285@gmail.com or ask me before round

Hello!

I have been judging PF this past year. I am knowledgeable in Public Forum Debate and Lincoln Douglas. As far as speaking preferences go, please try to keep it relatively slow, and don't spread. Make arguments clear to me and if you want me to believe something you say, explain why I should, don't just state I should believe your point. NO THEORIES OR Ks!! I will not be flowing cross-examination, but I will be paying attention and writing down key arguments, so please keep that in mind. Please time your own speeches, and keep yourself accountable.

If you have any questions on my speaking or judging preferences, feel free to ask in round.

The most important thing is that debaters stay respectful and have fun.

I have judged debate before but I am not an experienced policy judge so speak slow and show me clear arguments. I have background knowledge about policy but in order for me to vote into things like topicality. Terms like Perm, mutually exclusive or conditionality or condo (any theory terms ect) will need to be explained (very well) in round. I wouldn't run theory/topicality arguments unless you this it is very likely you will go for them in the final speech. Whoever proves their point best wins. Case debate is good.

First time judging, go slow and clear

Hello! My name is Nivedita Nandurkar! I'm a parent judge, and judging speech tournament for the past two years. Please speak as clearly as possible, and let me know if you need any time signals. Thank you and good luck!

As a former speech and debate student myself (25 years ago) I am excited to see what you have to share in today's world!  I enjoy listening to new ideas and hearing how the younger generation views and sees the world and how you would present your ideas and opinions to my generation.  I am very open minded and whether I agree with your points or not, I do want to hear you speak clearly and concisely and not rush yourself whenever possible.  I am also more swayed by factual information that can be backed up (and Ill check when I can).  Whether I agree with you or not I will not judge you based on my personal beliefs but how you present yourself and your information to me.  I look forward to meeting you and hearing what you have to say!     

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to look at my paradigm. First and foremost, I am a parent judge.

Debate:

Please speak clearly and slowly (no spreading). I will judge based on what flows through to the end of the round, so please weigh in on your last few speeches. I will write down as much as I possibly can so please speak clearly and concisely so I do not get confused when deciding and doing my RFD. Please be respectful not just to me but to your opponents as well, and last but not least have fun.

Speech:

I am not a tech judge, however, I might leave feedback for improvements, and I will still leave an RFD and explain why I ranked people the way I did.

- I'm a lay judge, so please don't spread

- Traditional debate, phil arguments, and policy arguments (plans/counterplans) are all fine with the caveat that I will not vote on an argument if I don't understand it, so make sure to warrant and implicate everything well.

- Explain why the arguments you're making matter in the round. Saying "extend x card" means nothing to me if you don't tell me why I should vote on it. Key voters, impact weighing, and good crystallization are all very important to me in your last speech.

-

I competed on the local circuit in pf in high school. I’m not a fan of spreading nor am I a fan of off-time road maps. If you need it for yourself, do it, but don’t do it for me.

I won't pay attention to your cross, that's just for you.

I will disclose if you ask (in most instances).

Please be respectful to your opponents, I will doc speaks.

Hello everyone, I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging Congress and Speech . Please speak clearly and support your arguments with data and facts. Good luck!

Hi! I’m Maddie, I was a competitor all through high school. I have done PF, interp, but mainly info. Although I’ve done debate I’m not really a flow judge, so please make sure your arguments are clear, that is very important to me. If I’m confused on a point because it was not made clear I most likely won’t weigh it. Talk at a normal speed please, that always helps confusion! Thanks for reading and good luck!

Hello, my name is Morgan. I have been judging speech and debate for the last two years but was never a debater myself. Please talk clearly and at a reasonable pace. Make sure your arguments aren’t confusing, I cannot judge something I can’t understand. I flow during debates and will refer back to that in order to leave good feedback. Good luck!

I am a first time Speech judge with experience as a competitor in Extemp and Big Questions Debate.

I will try my best to follow everything said even if speech is fast or shaky so don't overanalyze or stress about your natural speaking rhythm. I value the content of a speech but I believe presentation can elevate or reshape the interpretation of the speech and I will judge accordingly. I appreciate when a speech addresses its topic appropriately with cohesiveness throughout. I value authenticity and conviction when speaking and I urge you to speak from your own beliefs and interpretations.

I am Parent Judge and I have experience in judging LD and PF for about 3 years. I like crisp and clear speaking during debate. Fast or slow does not matter as long as I can understand. I prefer to listen to actual facts rather than just theory. Please be respectful of your opponents. Off-time roadmaps helps me while judging and I believe will help the candidates also from speaker point of view.

Please introduce yourself and introduce topic in 1-2 sentence .

Arguments- Back them up with good evidence, data , analysis.

Cross fire- Be respectful and stick to the points

Speaker points - Clear concise with moderate pace speaking , good performance in crossfire will get highest speaker points.

Enjoy debate and have fun.

Please reach out to me if you have any questions.

I value logical and evidence based arguments. Please don't spread--especially if you want me to hear or flow your argument.

I enjoy clear, succinct arguments.

Think fast speak slow.

Volume and tone matter.

Respectfully communicate.

I am a parent judge, and I am fairly new to judging speech and debate.

Speech
Speak clearly. Ensure your character transitions are distinguishable and breakouts identifiable.
I value a speech that keeps me engaged.

Debate
Speak clearly. Do not spread.
Be respectful. Do not yell or be abusive.
Identify contentions clearly. Number them so that I can keep track. Use signposting. Stay organized.

I coach Extemp and Congress at Bellarmine and also have experience with Policy and Original Advocacy.

If I am your judge in an Interp round: I'm sorry. I don't know much about the events and honestly, much of the way I judge simply has to do with whether I am interested in the story you are telling. I am not good at evaluating blocking and so forth. It does seem to me that having multiple characters adds a degree of difficulty, so that tends to go a long way with me.

For INFO/Expos: I really want to LEARN something from your speech. You might have kind of a run-of-the-mill topic with lovely VA's and dynamic delivery, but if the content is pretty bland and I am not learning anything, then I will rank you low. I tend not to get too snowed by nice VA's. Some kids come from more money than others and if a student has a really original idea with strong research behind it, I don't want to penalize them for not having the money or access to a program that can help them get great VA's. I will say, though, that you really should not have a speech of nothing but content. That is HARD to sit through for 10 minutes. Aim to inject some humor or levity where you can.

When it comes to things like Oratory and Advocacy, I like to see RESEARCH and EVIDENCE. Your OO or OA should not be like a DI or HI. I am interested in your reasoning and analysis. Please don't try to cover for lack of empirics and analytical rigor by resorting to excessive pathos.

The event with which I have the most experience is Extemp. I love Extemp. However, I deplore the manner in which final rounds of Extemp at Nats have devolved into stand-up comedy routines. I find that more and more students say very little, they just say it in a very entertaining way. Extemp is an event where you should have an argument, you should have evidence, you should rely upon a range of sources. Students should have a sophisticated argument based upon multiple sources (1 per point...um, no) that are accurately cited. Don't say that the Washington Post had an article on something. Tell me WHEN it had the article. In addition, I am quite pleased to see students stretch beyond standard sources like the NYT, WSJ, Economist, etc. When you show me that you are relying upon sources beyond those that everyone uses, I think that reflects well upon you. Bear in mind: the topics you are speaking about are by and large serious. So students who are smarmy and pleased with themselves and their puns really rub me the wrong way. Finally, I fundamentally reject the movement to enable competitors to bring a notecard or the outline into the room with them to rely upon when delivering. This a tough event. It has many moving parts. The best extempers can handle all of them, including memorization, well. I will in all likelihood not rank you in the top half of the room if you are using a notecard or your outline.

If I am judging you in Policy debate, you should know that I rarely vote on T. I don't mind a good K, but you need to understand the author. If you are just reading cards that your coach cut for you, the round is not terribly interesting because you don't understand what you are talking about. I can handle medium speed, largely because I find spreading to be really unpleasant to listen to. Plus, if debate is an academic activity, then I am not sure what the value of talking crazy fast is. Please, please, please: do not make me listen to multiple speeches about whether or not the round is educational. That is my nightmare. You have a resolution, you have a topic. ENGAGE WITH IT. But when you dance around with T too much or go nuts about the round not being educational, I truly feel like my time is being wasted. Also, I get that there is often the incentive to go to extinction and nuclear holocaust, etc. But I encourage you to consider whether that always makes any sense. Sometimes debaters go from zero to extinction so quickly as to be farcical. I don't mind CP, framework or generic DA's, not a big fan of conditionality. If I think of anything else, I'll add to this. Basically, I want to see the students wrestle with ideas and do so in a mature, polite manner. Finally, if you and your partner are clearly crushing the other team, there is no need to be arrogant about it. I have no problem with low point wins if you are incapable of showing respect.

1. I'm a community judge (used to be parent judge, but all my kids are in college now).

2. I've judged a Debate round once (LD Quarters, 2022-23 AZ State Championships)

3. I've judged Congress once (2021-22 AZ State Championships)

4. So that leaves IE/Speech, which I started judging in 2018.

I have judged Speech at all levels, from the local AZ circuit, to National tournaments, to breakout rounds at Nationals.

What I'm looking for:

SHORT VERSION: Be prepared. Be confident. Be good. Make it easy for me to rank you higher instead of lower.

LONG VERSION below...

OO/INFO:

IMPORTANCE: Is the topic significant? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?

RELATABILITY: Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by their topic? (OO) Is the rhetoric of the speech inclusive? (INFO) Does the speaker do a good job informing?

ORIGINALITY: Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?

POI:

PROGRAMMING: Were at least two of the three genres of literature (Poetry/Prose/Drama) used in the program? Did all of the literature contribute to the theme or argument? Did the flow of the performance make sense? Was there a balance among genres in the performance?

BLOCKING: Can you tell what the performer was doing in each scene? Was it clear what selection the performer was using in each section? Did the performer maintain control of the manuscript at all times? Was the movement motivated in the performance?

CHARACTERIZATION: Did each selection have distinct and engaging characters? Did the performance match the genre (e.g., did the performer emphasize poetic elements when performing a Poetry selection)? Was the performance dynamic?

DI/HI/DUO:

CHARACTERIZATION: Is each character well-developed? Is each character relatable? Does a character’s response seem believable given the situation being portrayed?

BLOCKING: Can you tell what the performer is doing in the scene? Is it clear what character(s) they are playing? Is the movement motivated?

CUTTING: Do you understand what is happening? Is the story line easy to follow? Does the sequence of events make sense?

PROSE/POETRY:

PERFORMANCE: Is the presenter comfortable and commanding in the space? Does the presenter’s use of physicality, facial expression, and gestures enhance the performance?

VOCALIZATION: Does the presenter bring the words to life? In Prose: does the presenter’s use of vocal qualities like diction, pausing, and volume advance the narrative? In Poetry: does the presenter’s use of vocal qualities like rhythm, pacing, and volume advance the performance?

CUTTING: Is the theme or narrative easy to follow throughout the selection of literature? Does the selection flow well and make sense in terms of how it’s developed?

STORYTELLING:

TONE: Does the performer's voice align with the type of story they've chosen to tell? Is it clear this story would be suitable for children to hear?

EXPRESSIVENESS: Does the presenter bring the words to life using effective techniques to convey appropriate emotion? Do the presenter’s facial expressions aid the overall delivery of the presentation? Does the presenter seem engaged in the literature?

RELATABILITY: Is the presenter delivering the story in a manner that would engage young children? Does the presenter effectively establish a connection to the audience? Is eye contact used to engage the audience?

This is my first year judging. I graduated in 2023 after competing in Speech for 5 years, during which I was a state champion in AZ, a semifinalist at Nats, and a captain of our team's first state championship my senior year. I am familiar with all IE categories and have competed in many of them, both in the AZ circuit and national tournaments.

I have no experience with Debate.

What I'm looking for:

SHORT VERSION: Be prepared. Be confident. Be good. Make it easy for me to rank you higher instead of lower.

LONG VERSION below...

OO/INFO:

IMPORTANCE: Is the topic significant? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?

RELATABILITY: Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by their topic? (OO) Is the rhetoric of the speech inclusive? (INFO) Does the speaker do a good job informing?

ORIGINALITY: Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?

POI:

PROGRAMMING: Were at least two of the three genres of literature (Poetry/Prose/Drama) used in the program? Did all of the literature contribute to the theme or argument? Did the flow of the performance make sense? Was there a balance among genres in the performance?

BLOCKING: Can you tell what the performer was doing in each scene? Was it clear what selection the performer was using in each section? Did the performer maintain control of the manuscript at all times? Was the movement motivated in the performance?

CHARACTERIZATION: Did each selection have distinct and engaging characters? Did the performance match the genre (e.g., did the performer emphasize poetic elements when performing a Poetry selection)? Was the performance dynamic?

DI/HI/DUO:

CHARACTERIZATION: Is each character well-developed? Is each character relatable? Does a character’s response seem believable given the situation being portrayed?

BLOCKING: Can you tell what the performer is doing in the scene? Is it clear what character(s) they are playing? Is the movement motivated?

CUTTING: Do you understand what is happening? Is the story line easy to follow? Does the sequence of events make sense?

PROSE/POETRY:

PERFORMANCE: Is the presenter comfortable and commanding in the space? Does the presenter’s use of physicality, facial expression, and gestures enhance the performance?

VOCALIZATION: Does the presenter bring the words to life? In Prose: does the presenter’s use of vocal qualities like diction, pausing, and volume advance the narrative? In Poetry: does the presenter’s use of vocal qualities like rhythm, pacing, and volume advance the performance?

CUTTING: Is the theme or narrative easy to follow throughout the selection of literature? Does the selection flow well and make sense in terms of how it’s developed?

STORYTELLING:

TONE: Does the performer's voice align with the type of story they've chosen to tell? Is it clear this story would be suitable for children to hear?

EXPRESSIVENESS: Does the presenter bring the words to life using effective techniques to convey appropriate emotion? Do the presenter’s facial expressions aid the overall delivery of the presentation? Does the presenter seem engaged in the literature?

RELATABILITY: Is the presenter delivering the story in a manner that would engage young children? Does the presenter effectively establish a connection to the audience? Is eye contact used to engage the audience?

Perform to the best of your abilities. Good luck!

Will give an oral paradigm in round :)

Please be respectful and have fun!

Experience: 8 Years Competing & 4 Years Judging

Competitors should hold themselves to a high standard of etiquette.

Reasonable arguments are the best kind of arguments.

Social justice is favored.

Your judge does not shake hands.

Speech alumni (Platform and Interp).

Please make sure everything is very clear (sign-posting, road maps, etc.).

Don't speak too fast.

Best case scenario: you write my RFD for me :)

Respect everyone's pronouns, respect your opponents, respect your judge(s).

Looking forward ta a good round!

My paradigm is long, but I will break it down by category to hopefully save you some time. TLDR version is: I love forensics. It is intended to change, not stay the same. So show me something that makes me believe in the future of the activity just a little more, and I will do what I can to ensure it gets the recognition it deserves.

My Background

My background ranges across debate, speech, and congress. I completed for 8 years, with four years in High School mostly focused on debate and interp, and then four years in college mainly focused on limited prep, interp, and public address. I've won two state championships in Arizona (Public Forum Debate in 2013 and Duo in 2014) and I'm a three time AFA-NIET finalist on the college circuit (Informative in 2016, with Informative and Persuasion in 2018). I coached for UT Austin's speech team after finishing out my competition years, and I'm currently the head coach at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix where I've been serving since the fall of 2019. At this point in my career, I have either coached or done every event but Policy. Nothing against Policy, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Individual Events Paradigms

Drama

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Presentation of a consistent and grounded environment

3. Control of movement to blocking in your environment

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Duo

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Articulation of a clear relationship which develops across the performance

2. Clarity of subtextual meaning

3. Showcase of coordinated blocking that helps suspend disbelief

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Extemp

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive answer to the question

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your answer

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Humor, Prose, & Storytelling

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of differentiation between characters through voice, gestures, and facial expressions

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the story

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Impromptu

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive thesis to the prompt

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your thesis

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Informative

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Presence of structure couched in significance and relevance of the topic

2. Clearly defined topic scope

3. Analysis that continually punctuates the urgency of the argument

4. Engaging visuals to showcase significant details within the speech

5. Conversational, poised, and confident delivery

Original Oratory

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of urgency behind the solutions presented

2. Quality of consistent structure

3. Uniqueness of the topic

4. Tangibility of solutions

5. Showcase of controlled, poised, confident delivery

Poetry & POI

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of a clear build and climax within the performance

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the text

4. Clear differentiation of characters (Poetry specific: if multi-voice program)

5. Organization of the narrative to create a dramatic arc

Pro/Con Challenge

In this round, I ranked you according to the following qualities in rank order of significance:

1. Adherence to the Resolution in Argumentation

2. Balance between Affirmative and Negative Sides (i.e. not Straw-manning yourself)

3. Organizational Structure of Cases

4. Sophistication of Rhetoric

5. Showcase of Confident, Conversational Delivery

Debate Paradigms

Debate General

Biggest items for me in debate are that I'm a flow judge who will make very few value judgements without you asking me to within the scope of the round, and I have a few admittedly petty grievances around time. So...

• Be sure to signpost
• Weigh and identify clearly your weighing mechanisms
• I'll say "clear" twice, and then I'm dropping my pen if I still can't tell what you're saying.
• Good debate requires good diction. Do a pen drill. Take prep and do it in the middle of the round if you have to. But please speak with the intention to be understood.
• I control the clock, so: 1) The time starts when you start talking and 2) When that time is up, I'm putting down my pen.
• I think off-time roadmaps are kinda a waste of time. I get why they happen and that I'm on the losing side of this argument. But if you're reading this and would like me to appreciate your style of debate slightly more, don't do off-time roadmaps.
• If you call for many cards in a debate, I do expect that you are going to use that for something in the round. Please do not call for cards frivolously, as I would like to keep the schedule running on time.

Auto-drops for me are pretty limited, but mostly pertain to saying or doing anything particularly derogatory towards your opponent. Forensics in general should be a space where everyone feels comfortable, and is not limited from feeling so because of their identity. It therefore really doesn't much matter to me if you just clearly won the round. If you are rude to your opponent, I will drop you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Specific

• Tech. Though I come predominantly from a PF background, I'm perfectly fine with you running more technical arguments. You just need to give me 1) The educational purpose of the ballot backed by a warrant and 2) The ability to take large portions of the debate outside the scope of the round without ignoring your opponents arguments or straw manning them. A K isn't a cop-out to repeat the same argument over and over again. You need to prove to us why your Kritik of the resolution is worth more than the resolution itself.
• Framework. If you concede framework, you need to own it and carry it to the end of the debate. I would advise against switching gears midway through and deciding you'd like the round to value a new framework right when you start weighing.

Public Forum Debate Specific

• Impacts. Vital in this event is your ability to properly link (and that does mean really warranting them, don't just read off 8 cards and call it a day) your impacts and terminalize them as early as possible within the round. It's very difficult to be on the winning side of a PF round with any ambiguity around your impacts and how you access them.
• Weighing. Actually do this. Summary and FF to me are not best used for additional front lining. Summary should be no more than 50% front lining, and FF shouldn't include much at all. 2 Worlds is probably my favorite to listen to in order to best crystalize the round, but feel free to show me something cooler and I will probably like it.

Congressional Debate Specific

• Repetitive Debate. My favorite part of this event is actually watching a debate advance over the course of the session. So rather than repeating after each other, do summaries, respond directly to others, and build on prior arguments, especially if you're the one keeping us on this piece of legislation by asking others to vote against moving the previous question.

LD/PF Overview:

I am a debate coach and therefore comfortable with both progressive and traditional styles of debate. However, if you decide to go progressive, you must still clearly be topical and clearly have traditional elements like a value and a criterion in LD. In addition, you must still argue your opponents traditional case in a traditional way when you rebuttal.

I like to list things I do not like, so that you can avoid them:

· Telling a judge they can “drop the debate” or that “you can’t allow that argument.” I’ll be the judge, thank you. Please, do not ever tell a judge what to do or don’t do. You should explain your argument in such a way that I feel compelled to do so on my own volition.

· Language that is too aggressive, because assertion is okay but aggression is demeaning and degrades the integrity of debate. For example using phrases such as “are you aware that” for the beginning of a question suggests you think you research more than your opponent. In addition, when debaters say, “my opponent never did…” and then list something their opponent did do, it’s a loss of points for the speaker because I mark that as not paying attention to your opponent. Other phrases that suggest their arguments are “oblivious” or “asinine” or “ignorant” –Don’t suggest your opponent is lacking in any form.

· I dislike when the rebuttals are purely pre-loaded (some blocking is fine) but when your rebuttal is not specific to your opponent’s case and only defends yours against a general argument, I will not count that as a case defense.

· Battles over evidence are borderline pointless. Definitely point out evidence that is misrepresented, outdated, or otherwise taken out of context. Please do not make one piece of evidence last the entire debate. Mention it once, state you’d like to contest it, and let the judge (me) read the evidence at the end of the round. Most of the time it is not evidence that wins my vote, but the explanation and impact. To me, impact is most valuable. Do you know why any of this matters to anyone? Can you explain this in an attainable way for anyone, not just a debate judge? That’s how you prove to me that your argument is holistic and true.

LD/PF Paradigm:
I expect you to time one another, verbally so that I can note when we are over or under.
If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will consider this in my vote. Evidence should be organized and known well-enough to reference quickly.
If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, I will take this out in speaker points. I may also let it sway my vote, because ad hominem is a fallacy, and I like my debates to remain logical.

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

• I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
• Do not steal prep time.
• Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
• Weigh.

SPEAKS: High speaker points are earned and not given.

Make it the best debate possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.