Why does this feel like I'm filling out a profile for some creepy dating app? Hi, I'm Sarah, I like Pina coladas and getting caught in the rain.......... Seriously, I'm a fairly new judge so I appreciate clear communication. I enjoy healthy contentions and an occasional, "out of the box" suggestion will get you bonus points. Voters are also appreciated in that I can compare my notes to what you think your strongest points were. Remember that there is a fine line between being assertive and being aggressive. Make sure that you are confident in you resolutions but not arrogant or conceited. So far I have really enjoyed judging and watching the growth and self confidence that comes with the speech and debate program.

This paradigm will generally apply to Policy, LD, and PF. (and even BQ)

I will judge each round based on the arguments presented in that round. I am looking for good argumentation on each side. I want to see well constructed arguments that are relevant to the Resolution. If neither side brings up Value, Criterion, one of your contentions, etc don’t tell me it is a voter. Voters will be issues we have discussed within the debate. Arguments made will hold the most weight. If it isn’t a contested point in the debate, it likely won’t be a deciding issue. However, If no on case attacks were made, that lack of attacks could be a voter.

I want to see clash, but I expect you to remain civil and kind. Things I consider to be unsportsmanlike are eye-rolling, raising voices, being rude or intentionally obtuse. For example: Don’t make eye contact with the judge and roll your eyes when your opponent is speaking. Don’t scoff when your opponent says something you disagree with, don’t pump fists when your opponent says something that you can turn or that sets you up with a perfect argument. I should never feel like anyone, including myself, is being yelled at. If you are being asked a question that is damaging to your case- don’t ask for it to be rephrased 10 times- that just wastes time and alerts me that it damages your case. It draws more attention than quickly answering and moving to the next question. My recommendation: Find a way to answer it that doesn’t blow your case or find a way to answer it and move on.

I keep a detailed flow and will use that when determining the winner of the round. Signposting is preferred to Roadmap. I don't mind both, but sign posting is more important. Signposting each argument will be crucial to making sure your arguments end up where they belong, if you leave me guessing where the argument goes, it may not end up where you intend it. For example: "Moving on to Inherency/ Contention 1/Value, etc." That tells me where on the flow your evidence goes. If you tell me after then it is too late for me to flow it.

When refuting an attack made against your case, don’t just tell me to extend the argument from your case as your refutation. The point is under attack, so even if you are using the same argument/evidence/idea there is necessary argumentation needed from you to tell me WHY your evidence/idea/argument is the superior idea for that point. Telling me to extend something without doing the damage control after an attack is not repairing the damage done to your case. Even if you think the opponent’s argument is weak- repair and defend your position.

Logical reasoning has a strong place in debate, and I like to see your ideas logically presented, with supporting evidence. Make connections and well constructed arguments.

Crossfire and cross examination are integral parts of debate and I always like a well controlled cross period. I don’t typically flow cross, but I will be paying attention. If you make a strong point in cross, or set up a good argument, bring it up in your next speech or it won’t be a deciding factor.

Theory/Kritiks: I am a stock issues/resolution based judge. I want to see the resolution debated, running theory or kritiks is at your own risk. They will be received by me as you not having any relevant, on case arguments. I do not like them so I don’t recommend it. I can usually spot a disguised theory or kritik argument, so like I said- it’s a big risk.

Speaking quickly is ok, spreading is not. If you are speaking quickly, clear signposting and clear tag lines are essential. If you choose to speak quickly, I expect that you are able to clearly articulate each word-enunciate. If your words are a jumbled mess or become mispronounced due to speed, you shouldn't be speaking that quickly.

Regarding Tag-teaming during cross examination in policy and crossfire in PF (excluding grand crossfire)- Each person should be able to answer their own questions. Answering for your partner demonstrates a lack of faith in their ability/knowledge and doesn't present as a strong team of equals.

e-mail chain: dondraper021@gmail.com

garfield ‘19, uw '24

coach for garfield. i debated locally and nationally for 3 years, winning state my senior year. i was a k and k aff leaning debater (including performance debate), but i've had my fair share of running 6 plank adv counterplans and econ disads.

general

run anything you want. i don't play favorites when it comes to judging. i lean tech > truth, but context could change that.

i don’t have much formal knowledge of the topic, so be careful when spreading jargon or specific details.

if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round!

k aff + fw

absolutely go for it. with fw: impact turns, internal link turns, counter models of debate, f uck debate — u do u.

for framework, i tend to be more persuaded by arguments about skills and research than procedural fairness.

the k

if you wanna run the weirdest k in the world, go for it.

please don't have long overviews :( if you have to have them, just let me know before you start the speech.

theory

i'm open to any theory argument, but please explain why that should result in an L, no CP, etc. if it's in your 2ar/2nr, spend time on it please.

I will vote for whoever makes the most sense. I can't flow an argument I don't understand.

I like it when debaters use their own words to explain evidence and contentions, rather than just saying buzz words. If you can't explain your contention in your own words, then it makes me think you don't understand what you're saying yourself.

Most importantly, have fun and don't be mean to your opponents! It is possible to be assertive and confident without being condescending or arrogant!

Hello!

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

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

As an English and drama teacher, I am well versed in reading books and people. I have a lot of experience and knowledge in events that involve acting in one way or other.

As a judge for speech and debate, I do not pretend to be extremely well versed in the unique world of argumentation. What this means for you is that your are appealing to the "common man" for the most part. I will keep my ears open for reasonable arguments, but I simply won't be able to keep up if you speak as quickly as possible.

As an English and drama teacher, I am well versed in reading books and people. I have a lot of experience and knowledge in events that involve acting in one way or other.

As a judge for speech and debate, I do not pretend to be extremely well versed in the unique world of argumentation. What this means for you is that your are appealing to the "common man" for the most part. I will keep my ears open for reasonable arguments, but I simply won't be able to keep up if you speak as quickly as possible.

I'm newer to judging debate. But I am here to be fair, un-bias and as helpful as possible.

I am a conservative and support strong traditional values and ethics, but am open minded and I know everyone has a side......

What I look for during debates:

Strong framework -at the least have definitions and a weighing mechanism for the round.

Clash (be civil)- don't just ignore your opponents case.

Evidence to back up argumentation.

Articulate your point -you can go as fast as you want as long as I can understand you. Remember if I cannot understand you, I cannot judge what you are saying.

Be civil. Allowing an opponent to finish their response will never hurt you.

Persuade me...... Do you really feel it or just reading?

What I dislike:

Attacking your opponent as a person or otherwise acting like a jerk.

Filler words (um, like, uhh, )

What I look for during speeches:

Strong framework

Evidence

Articulation

Engagement with your audience (eye contact)

I like good strong evidence that backs up your claims.

Be respectful

Okay with speed but make sure you are understandable.

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

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

2x Nats Attendee in Policy

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

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

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

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

I am a 2nd year judge. If debaters talk too fast, I won't understand them. I lean towards logic and persuasion and evidence.

Charlotte Reid has been teaching for 17 years, but coaching debate for only 7 of them. While she has no specific preferences towards style, she is conservative and a traditionalist. She keeps a detailed flow, weighs arguments and their impacts, she doesn't like dropped arguments, she likes medium-high speed, clash, appreciates courtesy, and prioritizes clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate round!

Charlotte Reid has been teaching for 17 years, but coaching debate for only 7 of them. While she has no specific preferences towards style, she is conservative and a traditionalist. She keeps a detailed flow, weighs arguments and their impacts, she doesn't like dropped arguments, she likes medium-high speed, clash, appreciates courtesy, and prioritizes clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate round!

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

I am a communications judge. I focus on clarity, evidence and good speaking skills. Stay respectful and professional and have good clash. I did debate/speech all through high-school and am a experienced judge and Asst.Coach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote. If no framework is provided, I'll default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Theory I love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down.

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked. However, I will give verifiable birthday points and last senior tournament bumps at invitationals ONLY

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. If you don't, I default to cost-benefit (And that's boring as heck. So please give me something better). Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins