Please don't offer to shake hands with me. I appreciate the gesture of respect - so just smile and say your name/number for me so I'm sure I'm on the right page.

Please speak up!

Relatively new at policy debate, 3rd meet judging debate but I have been involved in the activity for 9 years.

I am more inclined to listened to arguments in a counter-plan than kritik.

I want to see how things can be fixed.

If you're talking too fast I will say "clear", if I put my pen down, that means I cannot process, consider, and provide feedback at the rate that you are speaking.

I debated policy in high school and in college in from 1988-1994. I have coached policy, LD, public forum and now Congressional debate. Because of my policy roots substantiating your argument with evidence and refutation are important to debate. I fundamentally see Congressional debate as debate not as another form of extemp.

I am a high school graduate from Technology High School in Newark. I have also debated for a total of 5 years. I’ve debated at many tournaments (Yale, Harvard, Bronx, etc).
I am a Kritikal judge.
if there are any other questions feel free to email me at acostalberto94@gmail.com
Arguments

Framework
You need to make this the most important argument in the round. For me at least. You loss framework, than you have a really high chance of lossing the round (depends on how far you are on the framework flow)

Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them. If your opponent does drop this argument then bring it up so you can reap the benefits of their mistake.

Speed
I fine with it. I just ask that you slow down on the tags and the main warrants of the arg. If I can’t hear after I say clear three times I will only flow what I hear.

Theory
I like it and I know about it, but I am not going to do the work for you. Just because you say theory and extend it doesn’t mean that you explained ite. There needs to be a clear explanation on the theory flow what is the abuse that happens in the round and why it is important. Theory for me out ranks all others (not because it is an easy way out) because I feel that this argument are the actual rules of the debate round on what can and can’t be done by each team.

C/X
It is open I don’t flow it, but I do listen to it, and it can change my decision.

2NR/2AR
I flow it, but I mostly like to listen to it. This is the crux of the round. I need you to tell me why you should win (by explaining your arguments in the most detail that you can in the time period) and what arguments that your opponent dropped. (the reason for this is that a lot of teams really don’t do this any more so better to feel safe then sorry).

Jargon
I understand all of the debate jargon (since I did us most of them anyway) just that if there are any new ones that you think that I didn’t hear about then explain it to me.

Affirmatives
Topical affs are great, but I really enjoy hearing a critical debate with a critical affs, but with these kinds aff’s come with great responsibility. There needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis onto why your aff solves for what it solves, how it is a prereq. To the k and other args. A lot of debaters really just read evidence after evidence, i instead like to hear how the aff actually interacts with other arguments what is the actual connection. The critical aff can be the most dangerous weapon in any debate round if used properly. Performance affs are fine just explain the framework in great detail and why I should reject the resolution (if that is the case) in your own words or how you are topical.

Negative

Topicality

This can be a very powerful critical argument if used properly, but not many teams use this argument. I will vote on t if there is clear violation before the round is even finished (unless there is framework or theory). This is an argument that I like but not love like others

Counterplan
This is an argument that is very confusing for me, if you are going to run it explain what the plan does and how it doesn’t steal aff ground (unless theory is involved). If there is a critical counterplan involved explain how it is different from a k. other then that I don’t like counterplans too much, but I would vote on it.

Da
This is really a straightforward argument; I really didn’t see any variations of this argument in my debating career. If there are then I welcome them, but I really don’t have anything else to say about them.

K
Finally to the one argument that all teams want to know about. I love this argument, however I find that a lot of teams really don’t explain this argument in great detail. They just leave the k up in the air for the judge to interpret it in there own way. I know enough about the most common k’s that I can understand them, but again if I need to decide what your k is talking about you may not like what I think. Some of the other arguments that I’m not to familiar with I will listen to but there needs to be more of a keen eye in the explanation for those kinds of arguments.

I'm a traditional judge with over 30 years of coaching all events. I am currently teaching a new Debate course at Center Academy for Success.

I have coached debate for 20 years. I have coached multiple state champions and National qualifiers. I like to see strong clash in the round and prefer the traditional style of should/would argumentation in LD. I don't like to see policy plans and K in LD. I don't mind them in CX, but do not like to see generic argumentation that you pull out round after round. That being said, I will adapt to you - your job is to make sure you define the framework of the round. Don't assume I have read your advocacy authors. Spell it out.

Slow down if you want me to flow it. There is a big difference between hearing and being able to process the information that is being presented.

Semantics are important. Rhetoric is important. A strong speaker with solid word choice is always going to score better than a spewing gasper. Analysis presented well, weighs as much as evidence that is not supported with argumentation.

I LOVE CONGRESS! and speaking events, and actors, and readers, and the forensic community. Don't be a jerk and we'll get along just swell.

As a Speech IE judge, I look for authenticity, originality, and precision. Clean and polished performances are key to a powerful performance, along with great insight from the introduction. I look for clear distinctions between the characters that are being portrayed which would require copious time spent defining each character's diction, body language and movements.

Debate Events- I am not too knowledgable on the specifics, but I look for clear, precise and factual speaking points.

I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.

Ok with speed just be clear. Will put down my pen and stop flowing if you are going to fast.

Please be respectful during cross.

Parent judge

Be respectful to competitors and others

Content is heavily valued for extemp

Aloha! I've been a coach for 6 years now for both PF and LD, and I am also a former competitor in PF.

If there's an email chain being created, please add me: rebecca.afalava@gmail.com

A few things that I'd like you to know:

• At best, I consider myself to be a semi-lay judge since I've been working in the judges' lounge for the past few years.
• Try to keep jargon to a minimum and be clear about your arguments and analyses. I'm not too familiar with kritiks, counterplans, etc.
• I'm not really a fan of offtime roadmaps. If you do use them, please keep them brief.
• I do flow the rounds - try not to spread if at all possible. If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing!

Lastly, I highly value respect and civility in rounds. Have fun!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

As a speech and debate judge, my paradigm centers around confident speaking, fairness, impartiality, critical thinking, effective communication, ethics, and constructive feedback. I am passionate about growth and development of participants, fostering an environment that nurtures intellectual curiosity, analytical thinking, and the art of persuasive communication. I remain committed to upholding these ideals and providing fair and insightful evaluations in every round I judge.

To win my ballot, you will need to speak at a rate that I can understand what you are saying. In addition, please make sure that your arguments are backed with evidence, but are not absent logic.

Hello!!

While I have experience in debate, most of my career is Speech oriented, so I HIGHLY value signposting and clarity! To me, what wins the round is IMPACTS and clear, logical arguments.

Happy debating!

I like to flow every debate I watch to make sure the burden of rejoinder is clearly identifiable, but I will not flow a dropped argument without being told. You should be flowing as well. If it is not CX, then I don't want you to spread. I don't mind speaking fast but I want to really hear your arguments and have time for you to persuade me.

Kindness and tone go a long way. If you are belittling someone else it does not help to prove your point. There is a difference between being assertive and flat-out demeaning.

In Congress, I am not a fan of rehash - I want to hear rebuttals and debate, not a new speech that doesn't address what the aff and neg speakers have brought to the chamber. I think it is completely appropriate to respond in your speeches to arguments by referencing the name of the representative/senator as long as you are tasteful. It helps me keep up with the round.

How you treat your PO and your attitude towards them also go into judging you as a competitor. If you have problems, you have every right to call a point of order, but being snide and hostile makes you look weak.

In IPDA, the resolution is paramount. You must show, using the weighing mechanism, how your case and arguments outweigh your opponents. In questioning, please refrain from dismissing each other or being overtly aggressive. Remember I am flowing but you have to direct my attention and give me a road map.

I have not judged CX in ages. But many moons ago, I was a CXer and I can flow. I don't perceive that I will be judging CX at any point.

As for Forensics events go - I was also a Forensics kid and have been a Theatre Director, Dancer and Interper for over 29 years. I am looking for solid real performances where the intent is routed in thought. I do not like when emotion is faked or pushed. Please perform from a place of honesty. All movement should be motivated and character driven. Variety and the ability to demonstrate clear distinct characters is essential. In OO, Extemp or Info - These are Speech events. Sometimes performers add more interp friendly content into their performances. This is where I am quite stern. There is a fine line between performing and speaking, please remember I enjoy the fact that these are SPEECH events. You are actually speaking to the audience, not performing for us. Remember that.

Corporate executive by day; speech coach, judge and mentor after hours. I've spent 20 years in corporate America listening to my share of dreadful presentations. I can always spot those who have NSDA experience because they keep me engaged throughout the presentation. As a judge, I'm looking for polished presentations that elevate the discussion.

I am committed to providing honest, constructive feedback, allowing students to develop their presentations effectively.

I have a very low tolerance for poor audience behavior. That includes, but is not limited to, the use of electronic devices while others are speaking.

My paradigm for judging:

Decorum required at all times.

Do not yell at me- We are in a small room and I don't need you to yell to get your point across. I have been involved in Speech and Debate for 20 years- I competed in debate and interp in middle school, high school, and collegiate level. I have been coaching this activity for 8 years. I like cool, calm, collected- not loud and chaotic.

I will flow the round- if I don't look up often, I am not ignoring you- just listening and checking the flow.

Your job is to present ideas, arguments, and rebuttals in a professional manner. Debaters should educate the judges, and have thorough background knowledge of the topic. You should also have fun- show off your hard work and represent your school/state well!

Please do not use full prep time if you do not need it! It is a waste of time to run out the clock if you are ready to speak.

Excited to judge your round!

I am an old school traditional judge.

In Congress - If you ask for an in house recess to pad a speech or to address the chamber because no one is speaking - DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK! Nothing annoys congress judges more than 15 minutes of caucusing and getting splits, only for no one to be ready. The PO should be running the round and is perfectly capable of admonishing those who are not ready to speak. Otherwise, I like a good intro with a 2 pt preview and good, creative arguments that show critical thinking. Be active in the round and ask good questions.

PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.

LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.

I have been a middle school coach for speech and debate for the last 8 years. I do NOT judge PFD/LD/CX/WSD on a weekly or even monthly basis. I follow the original idea that PFD is supposed to be kept to a conversational pace, where we could grab anyone off the street to be able to judge your round.

Things you should be aware of if I am judging you:

1. Do not speed through your case/speeches. If you do, I will miss multiple things and if I cannot understand what you are saying I will give the win to your opponents. If speeding is required to get through your case, this is where you learn how to change it up (adapt to your judge).
2. Do not be rude to your opponents OR to your teammate. Making rude comments/gestures/body movements is not acceptable. Your speaks will go down if you are rude.
3. I have my own way of flowing and will do my best to make sure I get everything, including dropped/unanswered contentions. Please, please, please do not lie about what your opponents did/did not say.
4. I like evidence being used to be from reputable sources.
5. Do not run a case that has NOTHING to do with the topic (those of you trying to bring LD into PFD, no "K"s)!

Background

I’ve been a debate coach since 2011, first at the middle school level, then managing debate operations as an assistant principal, and since 2020doing what I love as the proud coach of Everglades HS forensics from Miramar, FL. I have a B.A. in English / B.S. in Biology and a Masters in Ed. Leadership. I’ve judged everything from locals to NSDA Nationals. Four time NSDA national finalist coach. NSDA Speech school of excellence 2023. Follow us on IG @evergaldesdebate

Rule #1 – Play Nice.

If cross gets ugly and rude, I will destroy your speaker points. Debate is about building community and showing others that we don’t have to be as vile and divisive as those holding political office. Seriously, you all are the future. Make it awesome.

Argumentation & Evidence

I will be flowing your arguments and I do not want to be part of an email chain. I will judge off your flow. Having said that, please sign-post and don’t spread. I’m fine with rapid talking, but honestly, it is all about quality of argumentation over quantity.

Having solid warrants is great; but warrants without extension or analytical impact is fail. Just because you can rattle off stat after stat doesn’t show me you are an excellent debater and should win a round.

While it is very doubtful that I will be calling for cards, make sure you have exchanged cards with your opponents prior to the round so we don’t need to waste time with that in session. If you are unable to provide a requested card within 15 seconds, speaker points will drop and I will strike that piece of evidence from your argument.

Lincoln Douglas

I've seen a trend recently where competitors try to spread five or six contentions. If you elect to do this, be prepared for me to either a) review written case (time permitting before decision deadline) or b) not penalize your opponent for "dropping" Cs. Again, quality over quantity for me as a judge.

I am comfortable with counter-plans in most cases; however, I don't coach kritik's or "Ks" specifically; although I do my best to read the literature contained in topical case briefs. While I would never outright fail a position for running a "K", you will more than likely need to be super-awesome to win as I prefer traditional LD rounds. If you plan to run straight theory, please strike me.

World Schools Debate (WSD)

I'm thrilled to see WSD being brought to more and more tournaments. Having said that, many don't have a clear understanding of the format. Please make sure you have reviewed the NSDA guidelines, FFL Rules (if Florida), and / or tournament specific rule-set for the event.

As a judge, great cases for me will begin with defining and contextualizing the motion from the prop / opp's position. Furthermore, if the motion does not specifically give us what "this house" represents, define / clarify it for me. Make sure you introduce a clear, believable framework,before beginning the body of your case. As the case moves forward, all substansives, observations, and evaluations should be presented with specific, concrete examples. I don't by hyperbolic, generic, or slopply linked pieces of evidence. Having said that, do not turn WSD into a PF round, I'm really not interested in seeing how many cards you can (prepared motion) throw into your case.

As the round moves on, both sides have a duty to settle the framework debate, by either furthering clash over framework or moving on and accepting your opponent's framework. Don't weight til the reply speech to attempt to resolve framework issues or I will ignore your response and pref the team that provided a clear framework weighing mechanism earlier in the round.

Having listened to all three speakers, your content score will be reflective of how well your team not only presented your case, but how you chose to respond to your opponent's position. Again, I prefer specifics with well-thought out analytics, then simple summary of an opponent's substansive and then telling me (with non-specific or simply summarized evidence) how they fail to meet the metric of your framework. Dig deeper then that.

To earn maximun style points from me as a judge, speakers should be engaging and passionate about their assigned position. The speaking delivery style of this event is much closer to OO and Congress then it is to more traditional debate formats. Inclusion of rhetorical devices, proper speaking tone / inflection, and stage presence will have a huge impact on my ballot. Also, if you spend your time with your head in your case and not engaging with the round, you'll bore me and your speaks will suffer.

For strategy points, make sure to make use of PoIs outside of protected time. This should be spread around the team and not just be one person. Furthermore, how you respond to PoIs to further develop clash within the debate and use as a opportunity shift course mid-speech is total win.

Judging

I give significant weight to how debaters handle cross, summary, and final focus (PF) or rebuttal in LD. I’m sure you all have meticulously prepared constructives / cases and rebuttals. However, I want to see what you can do when presented with your opponent’s case that is unique and entertaining.

Please make sure to weigh your arguments; but do so with thorough explanation. Please don’t tell me “aff outweighs on magnitude of impact” and leave it at that.

Also, if you've read this far, congrats! You get to hear my judging pet-peve - climate / nuclear war / extinction arguments. They feel like such an easy out. I'll certainly consider them, but I'm thinking we can be more original than that.

I will disclose results at the end of the round as per tournament directions on disclosure. Feedback will be on ballot, and if I have time and you'd like oral feedback (if disclosure is allowed) I will give oral FB.

Bonus Points

If you can slide in a reference to any of the following, I’ll give your speaker points a little bump:

- Rick and Morty - Must be a Season 7 Reference ... or something involving Mr. Nimbus.

- Bad / Silly / Campy Horror Movies

- Why Dune was seriously phenomenal and your expectations or thoughts on Part II (Either movie, or better yet, the novel)

I like to be entertained. This is my weekend I’m giving up so you all can participate in a great tournament. Make me laugh and keep me engaged when you speak and the world will be an almost beautiful place.

I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

Hi. I have been judging Speech and Debate on and off the last several years. This is my first time judging nationals and policy.

I debated for four years, 3 of which were in policy.

I do not enjoy spreading, If I cannot understand you I will not flow. Speak like a normal human being, if a lay judge couldn’t understand you then you are going to fast.

I don't flow CX. It is a time for you to learn from your opponents. If you use CX to try to further your arguments that won't help you. If something comes up in CX, it is NOT on the flow.

If you can’t debate for a lay judge you shouldn’t be debating at all.

jackrabbitt64@gmail.com

Hey, I am Derek. I debated policy for four years at Truman High School in Missouri and formerly debated at Missouri State University.

Here are my random thoughts on debate

I am willing and ready to hear most arguments as long as they are not denigrating or discriminatory. These are prohibited!

Most of my debate career was spent going for policy arguments but the later end of my college career has been spent reading critical arguments. That being said I am experienced with hearing both and think there are educational benefits to both.

You should feel comfortable reading whatever argument gives you the best chance to win or the most personal satisfaction (the thing we forget most about debate is that it is supposed to be fun!). Although I may not be familiar with every acronym in your policy aff or buzz word in your kritik, I mostly base my decisions on the flow and how well things are explained. So please do a great job of explaining and contextualizing and you will like the outcome!

My decisions will revolve around the question of which team forwards a better version or understanding of the world. I am primarily tech over truth unless it is egregious (in most of these instances the argument is not worthy of response anyways).

Specific thoughts

Policy Affs: I like both large, heart of the topic affs, and smaller, left leaning affs. Internal links being specific as possible is good.

K Affs: Explain what it is about the topic you are critiquing and why that critique is good. Also heavily lean into the thesis level understanding of the kritik rather than smaller specific parts which is what I feel drives a good kritikal affirmative.

DAs: The more specific the better. Topic DAs are great too but contextualize it to the aff you are debating. I will be able to tell if you are reading the same generic link block you read your last four neg rounds. Impact calculus is where I will draw my conclusions if the link or uniqueness debates are a wash so turns case args are valued highly.

CPs: I am a fan of a great DA CP combo! Please have solvency advocate unless there is some specific reason you do not need one. Just win that it is theoretically justified, it solves the part of the aff it has to solve to win the debate, and a risk of a net benefit. If you solve all of the aff you do not need to go to case in the 2NR. Affs must win at least a solvency deficit that has an impact and some form of offense is great too! Your best bet is to minimize the risk of the net benefit and win a deficit (carded ones are great)

Ks: I love a great one off debate but a kritik also read with other off is cool too. The more you dive into the aff and their cards to prove your links, the better. Winning that your impact and impact framing outweighs is crucial. Above all else, give me judge instructions heavily. Tell me how to base my decision and how it should be different from how I normally frame decisions (this applies to all types of debates but specifically this style). You do not need to win an alternative but you should probably tell me if you are kicking it, if I should, under what conditions I should, etc.

T: You are probably more educated on how to win these debates than I am if you are going for it in the 2NR. I usually think teams that win these debates have long lists of cases that would be topical under the affirmative's interpretation that are not allowed under yours. This is good. You must win an impact above all else. Why is it important if a team is not reading a topical aff and how does it undermine your competitive incentive to debate.

FW: If you are going for FW you have to win the impact level more than anything else. Do not waste time reading definitions that get you no offense. You should also probably go to case to minimize impact turns that will most likely be there. To beat FW, make sure you have a solid counter-interp that is able to minimize all the limits and ground offense (or turn them) from FW teams. Win a large impact turn that outweighs the impacts of FW. Both teams should be telling me why their arg comes before their opponents (like "Theory before content" or "content informs theory")

Theory: Condo is usually good! I do not like contradicting condo positions but as long as they are multiple cohesive worlds I do not see a problem. PICs and PIKs are good so long as they are getting rid of a part of the affirmative. For whatever theory you are going for please have an interp!

Please be nice to everyone and have fun! I think I wasted away a lot of my debate career stressing and putting too much pressure on myself. Don't make the same mistake!

I wish to be viewing docs while I am judging so please add me to whatever evidence sharing mechanism you use! My email is derekallgood7@gmail.com

Good Debate!

Hey y’all. My name’s Matt, I competed in congress for 2 years in high school and I’ve been judging tournaments for about the same amount of time. Basically I’ve been in a lot of congress rounds so don’t worry, I know how this works. When I’m judging a round, I’m mainly looking for who can advance the debate the most or otherwise contribute the most to the round as a whole. Whoever can give me the most solid, impactful, well explained point and contextualize it to the round is going to stand out to me the most. That means if you’re speaking early, set the framework for your side to follow and for the debate as a whole to follow. If you can effectively do this, you’ll get ranked well. If you’re speaking later in the round, make share you make your arguments more responsive so the debate can be furthered, incorporate refutation so I know why your points are better, and are your point make sense in the context of other points I’ve heard in the round so far so it’s easy for me to understand. Clean, professional speaking will benefit you but it’s not the deciding factor for your rank. Important to note, I also appreciate a good presiding officer. If you are well versed in procedures and run the round smoothly, you’ll rank well with me, and if I feel you’ve contributed more than anyone else, you’ll rank REALLY well with me. That about does it for me, great luck in round everyone, I look forward to seeing you all compete.

my email address is:

Talmstedt@fjuhsd.org

Please include me on email evidence chains and case sharing.

For WSD, I will focus more on the Style aspect. WSD, I feel, is not a regular debate round, but a way to promote and share your ideas. If a team starts talking about why they won and not showing me, and the other team is showing me, I'll lean towards the other. If you're making me laugh, you are doing something right. I've judged tons of speech, PF, LD, and Policy, so I can handle anything ya got.

I am a head coach of a Speech and Debate Team. When it comes to PF & LD, I am lay judge but can understand tech-type jargon. I do not flow, but take shorthand notes. If you give me a verbal outline, I can track it.

These are do’s and Don’t for me judging your round:

• Please do not use ‘K’’s to win your round, or run anything progressive, as you probably won’t win.

• I appreciate off time road maps. Sign Posting is also very helpful for me to track your arguments

• I will defer to the tournament organizers as to disclosure at the end of the round. If there are no instructions, I will disclose at the end of the round

• A disrespectful team will most often lose the round

• Trigger warnings are appreciated, but must be followed if asked to

• I default to most lives affected/saved if no other framework is presented

• Please do not spread, I asked nicely.

• Make link chains as clear as possible, with clear warranting, especially when they are lengthy

• Evidence is important. Accurate evidence is even better. Valuable evidence is best. This means if your opponent is using faulty or poor evidence call them out on it. Thus, ask for evidence.

• As a lay judge, crossfire allows me to see the caliber of each team. Respectful, meaningful, and purposeful crossfire will help me decide the victor of the round.

• Post round questions are helpful for my growth as a judge, so please ask for reasoning. However, your obligation is to beat your opponent, not argue with the judge, so clarifying questions will be entertained, but attempts to change my mind will not.

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

UW'23

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: prabhat@interlakedebate.org

LD Paradigm

I prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

Cross Examination

Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

I am the head Speech, Debate, and Congress coach at Horace High School, ND.

I have a background in English, Speech, and Theatre Education.

Debate:

Decorum matters, so be polite to your opponents, including in the questioning period. You can be firm in cross while being polite, but there is a line that you shouldn't cross during cross.

Make my job of flowing easy, signpost accordingly and don't rush through your contention taglines.

If you speak so fast that I can't understand your argument and flow your argument, I will have a hard time giving you the win.

I will not make links for you.

If you open your speech with a preview of what you are talking about, I expect the preview to be reflective of what you talk about. Example, if you say you are giving voters, you should give clear voters instead of just talking down the flow.

PF: PF isn't Policy. Also, I'm not sure why people keep trying to add frameworks into PF cases, but they won't play into how the round is weighed on the ballot unless both teams willingly accept the framework.

A good first neg in LD will use their time equally between attacking the Aff case and setting up the neg case; 5:30 setting up the Neg case and 1:30 attacking the Aff case is not using time equally in my eyes. The same idea goes for PF.

I like to hear the voters. Don't just say that something flows to your side though, give the rational and link it for me.

Congress:

Delivery and presentation are musts for me: eye contact, conversational tone, posture, and not just reading off computer or notepad.

I will flow your argument, but I will not make the links for you unless they are incredibly obvious.

Be brave and have fun in the session; this is a social activity. I want to see students willing to get up for authorship. If no one is willing to speak or run for PO that's your cue to be a leader.

Even the second aff/ first neg can, and often should, have elements of refutation in there. For the first 2/3-3/4 of speeches, I expect to see clash, but also new arguments being brought in. This is an activity that requires not only research, but also depth of research. Don't get up there and say that the aff or neg has already brought up a point, but not explored it enough, unless you can back it up with new analysis or additional research. The last few speeches should wrap up the debate, especially if debate has been limited and you know that you are one of the last speeches.

Don't play games and try and make the PO look bad unless they have actually made a mistake. Decorum is at the heart of congressional debate and must be respected. Do not be rude or belittling to your competition; you may be the best speaker in the room, but you will lose favor quickly by not respecting your competition and the activity.

Speech number is irrelevant; however, you had better have a good reason for not speaking on each piece of legislation. Quality of speeches, quality of questions, and quality of overall interaction in the chamber is what will get you the ballot from me.

I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

In my day job I am a teacher of teachers (specifically teachers of mathematics), where my self-stated goal is to lead people to love others through teaching. I enjoy a good discussion but cannot tolerate a lack of respect during the sharing of ideas/perspectives. I will be leaning on the intent for the speech/debate/event and how participants are being instructed to speak and/or interact and the ideas that are presented and I will evaluate according to the stated indicators for that particular event. For debate events, I am looking for logical arguments that are presented in accessible language during (and not outside) of the time allotted for the speeches/conversation. For speech events, I am looking for accessible language and/or understandable talk.

Some experience has shown me that when I am asked to give overly elaborate time indicators (every minute of a ten minute timing period) I am somewhat distracted in making sure I am giving those signals then paying attention to the performance, which is tough especially for the beginning of a performance when context and orientation are being established. I would suggest timing signals that start with under 5 minutes remaining in a speech event...just my opinion to put the best light on the performance.

- good with speed

- fine with progressive (low tolerance for frivolous theory)

- fine with disclosure

- flow judge (former LD debator)

- give verbal feedback and fine with questions

- can be harsh (sorry, not intentional)

if you get me in LD somehow god help you

(on a serious note just explain things well and everything will be okay)

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

Head coach with 28 years experience. Entirely a policymaker who just wants what is *realistically* best for our nation and world.

1. I vote on your analysis of the evidence read in round, not on the evidence itself. Cards are jigsaw pieces, and it is your job to show me how they connect. I will not intervene and fill in the gaps with my own analysis about why a card or argument matters.

2. I do not do well with speeding and spreading; you may have to make a decision between impressing the other team or winning this round. I know that you have worked incredibly hard to get to this round, and I really want to understand you and your arguments. Please know that I cannot vote on arguments I cannot understand. Your brilliance is best revealed by the words I do understand, not the ones I do not.

3. Treat me as a member of congress who is evaluating a policy proposal for our nation.

4. All arguments are fair game, but if you cannot convince me of them (rather than just reading them), I'm as likely to vote on inherency as I am a kritik.

I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, l'd like it to be clearly purposeful and clean. Most importantly, have fun.

In platform events I like you have unique analyses of your topics with clear implications. Again, above all else, just have fun.

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

Coach at Edina 22-24

NDT/CEDA debater at Iowa 23-??, (formerly Minnesota 21-23), HS Policy debater at Edina (2016-21).

he/him

Yes, I want to be on the chain - umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

There's no record of me on the wiki from 2021-23 due to some of the stuff going on last year with fascists on tabroom. That said, if you're interested in reading trans/queer stuff, email me or find me at a tournament and I can send you lit recs, affs I've read in the past, and/or good youtube videos of high quality debates in this corner of the library.

If you are debating in front of me and feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or have another need, please let me know at some point and I will do my best to support you and meet your needs in that moment!

I also usually carry things like Advil, masks and bandaids at tournaments, especially when coaching - if you need anything, come find me.

TL;DR - Prefs

When judging high school, I see my primary role as that of an educator. I take seriously the responsibility that comes with being entrusted with someone else's students. Making the activity accessible for minoritized students matters very much to me. I therefore aim to give decision and comments in line with this.

I have all the technical debate knowledge necessary to judge the arguments you read. However, I am less familiar with policy-style arguments because I have been a one-off K + K aff debater for around five-six years now, both in high school and college debate.

I judge mostly clash and KvK debates, but I coach teams who read arguments across the debate spectrum and have enough experience to understand the meta and function of policy-style arguments.

General - Preround

Speaks challenge:

• Specific extensions: if you, at some point during a debate, identify a card, extend it by quoting a line from the card that contains a warrant for why the claim the card is making is true, and explain how that warrant interacts with the answer that the other team has made to your argument and why I should prefer your warrant, I will give you +0.2 speaks.
• Final rebuttal overviews: if the first thing out of your mouth in the 2NR or 2AR makes a good-faith attempt to fill in the following sentence template by identifying why you win the debate, **regardless of if you actually win the debate**, I will give you +0.2 speaks. "We win the debate because [X argument] [OUTWEIGHS or TURNS THEIR OFFENSE or whatever else applies]. Their best argument is [Y argument], but even if they win that, we still win because [explanation]."

Speaks anti-challenge:
Current high school debate has a block reliance problem. Obviously the 2AC and 2NC/1NR are speeches that are conducive to reading lots of blocks - that's totally fine! I understand that blocks are useful tools that have strategic applicability!

That said, I can also tell when blocks have no applicability to the debate at hand and are a substitution for reactive and critical thinking. If you are simply reading from a backfile at the expense of reactive and critical thinking, with no contextualization to the debate, particularly in final rebuttals, this saddens me, and will impact your speaks.

Argumentative choices:

I will try my very best to vote on the arguments made on the flow, as all good judges do. Adapt at your own risk, which is to say, probably don't. I'd rather see you do what you do best than see you try to run a K without knowing how.

I'd like to think that the Ks I am most well-read on tend to be material and have real-world applications and conclusions. Examples and counterexamples are helpful in these debates and often carry a lot of weight when done well - I will reward good examples with good speaks! I find that pomo-type lit bases are less intuitive for me to understand, which means that examples and thorough, logical explanations can be more important if that's your jam.

I am increasingly disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a core strategy. This issue is probably too complex to adequately express in a paradigm. One thing that I can convey clearly: I am even more disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a timeskew or throwaway. If you do this in front of me, you will get a 25 and I will initiate a discussion about why that is a tokenizing and harmful practice.

Speed/Clarity:

Current high school debate has a spreading clarity problem. I flow by ear, and if I can't hear you, I will clear you three times, and then I will put my hands in the air to signal that I am not flowing because I cannot hear you.

Judge instruction:

Always good. I will flow and follow uncontested judge instruction, which includes sentences like "all we have to win is X", "we don't have to win that X", "start evaluating the debate with X", "prioritize empirics", etc. It would behoove you to flow and answer the judge instruction your opponents make if you think their instruction bodes poorly for you winning the debate.

Sneaky behavior:

I've noticed a trend where debaters are worried to be straight-up because they believe there is a competitive edge to being sneaky. A non-exhaustive list of what this might look like --

• reading a bunch of offcase that you can't explain in CX for "timeskew"
• procrastinating on giving an order to not reveal your strategic choices for a few extra seconds
• not opensourcing (when there isn't a good reason - think, personal content in a performance)
• lying or changing up disclosure of past 2NRs to trick the other team into thinking you'll read something that you have no intention of reading.

This does not make for good and high quality debates. Please do what you can to make the community better - in other words, do not do this.

Some of these things - misdisclosure in particular - come across as mean; it's hurtful to feel like another team is running circles around you and laughing at you while they do it.

Finally, sneaky behavior does not go unnoticed by judges. It makes it seem like you're unconfident that you will win the debate and need every possible, which lends itself to low speaks.

The speaks boost over the course of a tournament will do much more in helping you clear than whatever tiny advantage you get from the other team being slightly more unprepared.

Evidence ethics:

Evidence ethics challenges are round-ending - if you initiate one, I will ask if you intend to stake the debate on it. If you say yes, I will use either the tournament rules (if they outline a process), or NSDA guidelines (if tournament rules do not outline a process) to adjudicate the challenge. If you say no, I'll strike the argument and the debate can continue as normal.

Policy Minnesota Locals (Not national-circuit tournaments):

Speaks Incentives:

I'm so glad you're reading my paradigm! Yay! If you let me know that you've read my paradigm at some point before the debate starts, and remind me to do so, I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

If you are from a school who does not currently have a wiki, and you want help setting one up, I will help you set it up after my RFD and give you a 30 for posting cites for the round on it. If your coaches don't want you to do this, I will default to their veto, but in general, I think that disclosure will help improve the quality of and continue to build the well-being of local debate!

Independently, if you are from a school who does currently have a wiki, I will give you +0.5 speaker points for posting cites - you should tell me this after the debate is done, because I will otherwise very likely forget.

Debate Content:

When you extend cards to respond to the other team's cards or analytics, you don't have to remember what the author's name is - "1AC 4" is sufficient to tell me which one it was - but you most certainly do have to... actually extend it, by explaining the arguments that it makes and the warrants. I have noticed a trend where debaters will say things like "they say no solvency, but we do solve - extend all of our solvency cards, moving on". Please don't do this, because I will not grant you work that you didn't do over work that the other team did.

Primarily National Circuit Debaters at Locals:

If you are typically a national circuit debater, but you are using local circuit tournaments as a time to "meme" or mess around, this will make me very sad. I fundamentally believe that strengthening quality of debate on the local circuit can set the conditions for a better national circuit with lots of teams from MN competing at high levels. Please contribute to this if you can by respecting local debate. Happy to chat about my thoughts after rounds or at tournaments, because I think that I had a lack of understanding of this concept when I was debating in HS!

LD:

K - 1

LARP - 1

Phil/Tricks/Theory - pref me at your own risk, I guess?

I led lab at NSD philly last summer. I dabble in coaching national-circuit LD.

Nevertheless, while I'm confident in my ability to adjudicate anything that would appear in a policy debate according to community norms, I fear that my decisions in phil or tricks rounds may not follow convention simply because I have no understanding of what convention for those styles is.

If I'm judging you and that's your jam, go for it, but heavy judge instruction and a bit more explanation than normal will go far in making sure that my decision lines up with your intentions on the flow.

Go read the section on debate's clarity problem. For some reason, this is particularly bad in LD. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, I cannot flow them, and thus they will not make it into my decision, which nobody wants.

If you read critical disabilities studies, awesome. I'm here for it. On the other hand, if you read that absurdly offensive Mollow aff... I guess, please reach out for lit recommendations?? Just don't read that aff in front of me or anyone else. If you don't know what this means, it doesn't apply to you.

Finally, when you disclose an aff as "new", that means that every single card in the affirmative has literally never been read by you, teammates, or prepgroupmates before. Things that "new" does not mean:

• this aff has not been read on this topic, but has otherwise been read by me or teammates/prepgroupmates on other topics
• this aff has one new card, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
• this aff has new tags or new highlighting, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
• this aff has been read by others who have access to the same files like teammates/prepgroupmates (ever), even if I have never read it.

The practice of disclosing "new" gives large schools and people with the privilege of hiring private coaching or joining prep groups an even larger advantage.

Therefore, if I am judging a round where the aff was disclosed as "new" and I am given proof of that it, as well as proof that the aff is not truly new but instead one of the four categories above, I will give the aff team a 25 regardless of who wins the debate.

PF:

Like LD, I have very limited experience judging PF.

Because I come from a policy background, I will evaluate the debate on the flow, so dropped args = true. Like with LD, I have non-existent knowledge about community norms for judging events that aren't policy.

Send your cards.

I will boost speaks for teams who send their evidence to the email chain before giving your speech without the opponent asking.

For teams who do not send their evidence to the email chain before the speech starts, if the opponent points it out and also sends their own cards to the chain before giving their speeches, I will take speaks away from the non-card-sending team and give them to the card-sending team.

Independent from the above, I will not stand for educational dishonesty (blatant misrepresentation of evidence, et cetera). If this becomes an issue in the debate, the team who committed the violation will receive an L and lowest possible speaks - don't test me on this. If it doesn't come up in the debate, but I notice that it has happened on my own, I don't feel comfortable throwing away the flow of the round, but I will still give that team the lowest possible speaks and take any other action that I deem necessary given the context of the round.

I judge based on how well you understand what you're saying, how clearly you communicate it, and how you control the energy of the room. I want students to strive for a balanced skillset. I will make decisions based on technicalities but I reward those who are learning how to master communication that is occurring between speaker and judge and audience.

I want to be informed, persuaded, and entertained. I will entertain every argument but I want it to have a purpose in the round. I also enjoy absurdist arguments if you can make them link. I don't enjoy watching an adult kick a toddler though-if you have clearly outmatched your opponent, you don't have to keep kicking them. I like competitors to be good sports and hate T as a time skew. The best debaters aren't afraid to actually engage their opponents.

I can follow spreading just fine but if you aren't articulate I'm likely going to zone out. I do not have a good poker face so you will be able to see exactly what I'm thinking.

All of that being said I have been either a competitor, coach, or consultant for speech and debate since 1997. I currently coach at Tulsa Community College, Edison Prep HS and Edison Prep MS and coach every event available in AFA, NFA, and PKD. I also have a student who has competed on the NDT circuit. I was hired by NSDA in 2023 to judge at nationals.

In college, I competed in limited prep policy (NPDA), IPDA (limited prep public forum), extemp, impromptu, POI, Poetry, Prose, and Dramatic Interp. I was a 5-time oklahoma state champion in college and 1st ranked seed at nationals in Team IPDA, a top speaker at IPDA nationals. I was also a national champion in DI.

In high school I competed in nearly everything. I won over 150 awards (competed in champs a lot) and was the first quad ruby from Mounds HS (the highest rank at the timeI graduated). I was also the first student in the 27 year history (at that time) of the Bethany Tournament to win top debater, top speaker, and top IE competitor. I was state champ in OO, 3rd in LD, and 3rd in DD in 2001 and 2nd in Monologe at state in 2000.

I love this activity and am willing to give feedback and advice to any student who wants it.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS/PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional Judge or Philosophical

No spreading.

A Road Map is extremely helpful.

Fulfill the burdens.

POLICY

If Spreading you need to be clear or I will dock you for unfairness and not consider information that was mumbled.

Fulfill the burdens.

Prefer Probability over Magnitude cases. If it's highly improbable, most likely will lose (Here's looking at you, extinction cases)

K's need to be probable and backed with empirical data, assumptions in your K's will be negative towards your score. Analytical warrants are decent as initial Rebuttals but need to be empirically extended afterward.

Be creative if you can, but also be realistic...you're debating policies that are essential in real-world scenarios...not fictional universes.

As a former National Forensic League State Champion (Debate, Poetry, Dramatic Interp & Impromptu Speaking), I appreciate the hard work that all of the participants have invested in their preparations to date. As a parent of a debater/speech participant, I also recognize the selfless support that coaches and parents have made to allow their students to excel and achieve.

Speech and debate prepares orators that will move nations towards greatness while collaborating to craft policy that will solve the world's toughest humanitarian challenges. I take participants' work seriously and expect you to do the same by aiming to do your very best and continuously improve from round to round, tournament to tournament. It is with this mindset that I carefully provide thoughtful feedback on every ballot, which I hope you find valuable.

I respect your work, fellow judges and expect all participants to show the same respect for each other, before, during, after and behind closed doors.

It is a privilege to be a tournament judge.

As the parent of 3 speech and debaters, I have judged for a total of 12 years. In deciding who wins a round I value communication and logic. A conversational speed of speech allows judges to understand your words and to process your ideas and your logic. Avoid jargon (both speech & debate jargon AND jargon that relates to the topic) and

Don't make your judge(s) work. Your logic should be front and center and clear; judges shouldn't have to look for it. I'm looking for a "red thread of logic". The other side of the debate will attempt to cut your thread of logic and you will attempt to knot those ends to reconnect your thread. Sometimes speech and debaters cut their own thread (not enunciating, speaking too quickly, swallowing taglines, using jargon and acronyms). Debaters, your responsibility is to present ideas and supporting evidence and to help me understand your case. It is not a judge's responsibility to "figure out" your case and logic (or lack thereof).

Off-time Road Maps: In Policy, yes, please provide one. In all other forms of debate, please do NOT. Quality debaters typically tend to work it seamlessly into their speeches.

Timing: Please time yourself and the others, which frees me to focus my energies on judging the debate.

Prep Time: Please request to use prep time. Time yourself and let me know either how much time you used or how much time you have remaining. I'll confirm that. This allows you to use prep time without someone interrupting you to tell you how much time you've used.

Policy Debaters: While I have judged policy and am a competent judge; however, I am not a confident policy judge. Competent, yes; confident, no. When using policy jargon, I find it helpful to be reminded to what it refers. I do NOT consult evidence you provide via email or some such. I judge solely on the evidence you state in speeches and then only to the extent I comprehend your words and process your ideas. After all, I can't judge based on what I do not understand.)

Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information

TLDR:

Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments.

Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc.

Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc.

I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com

Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:

Reps/K: 1

T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)

Larp: 1-3

Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics)

Tricks: strike

Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args.

Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story.

General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy.

How I view rounds:

Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind)

Reps

T

Theory

K

Substance

My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps

Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence.

Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC.

K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well.

T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them.

Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them.

1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing.

DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead.

Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris.

Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice.

CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick.

Long U/V: Go for it.

Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment).

30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism

29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service.

29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round.

28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for.

28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate.

27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together.

27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot.

26: You are not nice.

- Be confident in round

- Be respectful of your opponents

- Please speak slow and clear

San Diego State University Comm major

Current Trojan Debate Squad member (Policy Debate) 23/ '24

NDT / CEDA qual

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I qualified for nationals three times in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, just gotta win proven or potential abuse. Proven abuse is definitely an easier way to get the ballot than potential for me.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value. If you give me another framing argument up top on what my role of the ballot is I will default to whichever side wins framing though.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

I am very new to the judging scene this spring but excited to hear how our rising generation communicates with a respect for hearing all voices. As an elementary teacher I am a life long learner and look forward to hearing how our youth learn from experiences and listening to each other without interruption. Please keep the speed at arelatively universal to respect my novice judging as I value what you say. I enjoy somerhetoric - Congratulations on your journey!

Istealprep@gmail.com AND BabciiDebate@gmail.com

It is pronounced Bab (ki) not Bab (chee).

I debated for 2 years at Wichita State and 2 years at JCCC.

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. You do not get to handwave arguments away because they are "troll" or "science fiction". If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will keep a strict flow and decide the debate based on that flow and nothing else.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team. If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. You forfeited the right to say that when you disagreed that we are all here playing a game where we pretend to be the USFG evaluating policy proposals. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will not burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

TVA's matter a lot to me. I think well deployed TVAs are nearly unbeatable.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text. Otherwise it seems nearly impossible for me to vote against the perm in 99% of these debates.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground, and I think it would benefit affirmatives to do this when they just want to go for extinction outweighs and/or negs when they are confident they can outweigh the affirmative.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence quality tends to matter more in T debates for me than most. Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate. That being said I am more than willing to vote on the 2 card T subsets shell that just sits on debatability outweighs, but evidence never hurts.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

Mixed thoughts about judge kick. It’s probably fine but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If you can't win against a 2AC that straight turned a DA then you should lose or put in a 1NC CP that fiats out of the straight turn.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that than a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

last random note

I understand why we stopped because of Covid, but I miss handshakes. I would be very happy if this came back.

yes email chain - babciidebate@gmail.com

judge for mill valley, westwood, and wichita east

TLDR- i debate at wichita state in college and used to debate at jccc, i do mostly policy stuff in college, fine with k's on both the aff and neg

top level

debate is a game and educational activity, it ought to be fair but there are other considerations as well

do what you do best! this is advice for both content and form

arguments need to have a claim and a warrant - this includes evidence - christmas tree highlighting of scary words is not an impact argument

k on the aff

Be related to the topic or don't, just have a solid defense of what you want to defend and why i should vote for it

i am agnostic on what is the best impact for framework or the best way to answer framework. this is not me trying to be tabula rasa, but simply a lack of framework 2nrs in my career and thus a lack of conclusive opinions on the subject. whatever you can explain the best and tell a coherent story with is the one you should go with

method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. you should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text

K on the neg

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech

most teams f/w interps usually aren't mutually exclusive with each other

unless told otherwise i will default to utilitarian calculus - which means the burden is typically on the negative to posit an alterantive view of ethics and impact calculus

Topicality

interp quality obviously matters but only insofar as it is impacted out and compared to other reasons i should value an interp

i usually default to competiting interps as reasonability is often packaged as a reason why limits are bad - you should just make that argument - saying the aff should get a lot of affs to pick from and the neg should just do more research isnt that hard of a sell imo

CP

will default to judge kick unless the 1ar says something about it - the 2ar is not the time to start the judge kick debate

i honestly have no clue how anyone evaluates cp's besides sufficeincy framing and i have yet to hear a alternative way to evalaute them

everything is legit until someone says it isn't in which case it becomes a debate - create competition as you may

DA

1nc's need to be full arguments with uniqueness, link, and impact - if one of these is missing the 2ac has my full authority to say "not an argument im not answering it until it is" and i will allow the 1ar to make as many new arguments as they want against the da

Link turns case is infinitely more important than you think it is, terminal impact turns case is infinitely less important than you think it is

there is not 'always a risk' - there is 'always a risk' of just about anything thats called randomness

misc

speaker points are my decision and i will not listen to arguments about them

a lot of how i think about debate is influenced by justin stanley, matthew vega, and phil samuels

"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. I also appreciate being given a heads up on trigger warnings. If you are not sure if it counts as a trigger warning, just keep in mind that anything involving suicide, rape, abuse, miscarriage, abortion, etc. is a trigger for me. For Debate events, 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!"

My name is Manoj Bagul and I’ve been judging Congress for the past three years.

In judging I look for THREE main things.

• First, logical argumentation. If you want to get a point across, it has to make sense and have flow otherwise it will be very diffcult for me to rank properly.
• Second, have evidence that ACTUALLY supports your analysis. Oftentimes, I hear evidence and analysis that does not match up with one another and it feels like you put them together just for the sake of it. Along with that, please cite your evidence so that you can prove its authenticity and credibility.
• Finally, this event is congressional DEBATE not speech. This means two things. First, you should be mentioning other speakers after the first affirmative speech. Second, your questioning blocks are super important so please answer them well and you will get bumped up.

I look forward to great debate, good luck everyone!

I believe that every student has the potential to excel in speech and debate.

I look for Students that show hard work and understanding of their IE selections.

I like to see them polished/ no rough drafts

Students should show they have an understanding of the selection they are presenting.

Selection should be entertaining and also have merit.

I have no pref for oratory and info. I want a solid selection with evidence to support it.

virtual should be the same as in person style wise other wise I feel it isn't fair.

teasers should hook us and make us want to listen. intros are for information only and shouldn't be acted out. that is where you get to be you.

blocking and movement is as important a the verbal parts for the performance. they should augment each other

show me interesting characters. subtext and such.

I am not here to judge the author or the choice of selection. I am here to judge the performance.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

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

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I'm a fairly new judge, so please stay away from any debate jargon or talking fast. Please time yourselves during speeches and prep time. Tell me how to vote, judge, and weigh the round. In the end, I will vote for which side makes the most sense to me and has the most important impact. I don't know K's, theory, or topicality, so if you are going to run one of them, make sure to explain it very well and tell me how it impacts the round and my vote. I judge rounds based on how persuasive the teams are, and how well they respond to counter-arguments. I've judged LD and PF, but not policy so make sure to explain things and not use jargon. Most of all please be kind to the other team and have fun!

Bro. Stephen Balletta's Judging Paradigm

I believe that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication.  This general statement applies to all the various branches of high-school debate (Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, etc.) in which one can participate, at least in my view.  I want to hear the debaters think on their feet, and I want to hear every word that each debater says.  Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, or esoteric arguments that try to short-circuit the resolution.  I have a rather limited tolerance for jargon.  In my view, a few strong arguments defended well outweigh a mound of argumentation and evidence rattled off so quickly that one cannot be reasonably expected to hear and digest it all, let alone refute it.

In my view, a good debate should be a respectful exchange of ideas, delivered at a pace so that a reasonably well-educated judge -- even a first-time judge -- should be able to weigh the arguments presented and determine a winner.  In line with this overall principle, I do not look favorably on a hostile, rude, or supercilious attitude on the part of the debaters.

Speak clearly; argue intelligently; disagree agreeably; and persuade by a combination of evidence, reasoning, and analysis.  Debate is not a matter of game theory; it is not the realm of self-appointed specialists or elites.  A good debate should be accessible to a college-educated adult who is not among the elite or the initiated of the speech-and-debate world.

If you are familiar with the style of debate promoted by the Ronald Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series, then you will know exactly what I am looking for.

Thanks!

I am a debate parent. I will keep and open mind and not bring my prior bias or knowledge of a topic into my decision. The style I prefer is to speak slowly and clearly and present well organized, clear arguments with evidence and cite sources and dates. Please emphasize the important arguments that you really want me to hear and be sure to address and counter argue each of your opponents positions. When asking questions please remain respectful, you can be confident but not cocky.

I am an experienced parent judge (3+ years) and most familiar with traditional debate but if it is within the rules I will do my best to judge it fairly. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. You'll get dropped and the appropriate tournament officials will be notified if you say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Good luck and have fun!

I expect debaters to give informed and well-presented speeches that demonstrate critical thought of the subject matter. I do not appreciate debaters that are overtly aggressive and who do not let their opponents finish their points.

Additionally pace yourself as you speak, if you speak too quickly I will stop trying to follow the logic of your argument.

Fine with most arguments. K's are fine, just make sure to explain them.

I dislike dropped arguments. If you intentionally drop an argument. Mention it.

I default to Stock Issues, Aff must win all Arguments to win unless I am presented with different framework.

Not the fastest at flowing so i prefer no spreading. that said you can still speak quickly but i have to have enough time to write it down

Any other clarifications or questions you have you can ask me before the round but I am generally pretty cool w/ whatever.

Flay judge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

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

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

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

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

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

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

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

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

- Be polite!

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

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

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

I want to see the best round that you’ve gotat your ability level.

Novice Teams:

• Don’t stress! I love to see young debaters trying their best.
• Stick to the basics- Present your case well. Flow effectively. Try to address all your opponents’ points. Practice speaking with enthusiasm and confidence.
• CLASH! Listen to what your opponents are saying. Adjust your arguments so you’re talking specificallyabout the way your opponent presented their case. The more you can respond to what was said in this specific round as opposed to parroting general counter-arguments you’ve prepared, the better a debater you will be!
• Only spread if you really can do it.
• Use each round to practice skills you’ve been working on recently. Especially if you’ve gotten consistent feedback from judges or coaches, use this round to apply that feedback and see if you can perform better than the last round.
• Be respectful.
• Have fun.

Varsity/Experienced Teams:

• Show me what you got.
• Pick your strat based on the team you’re up against.
• When picking which case you run: I have no preference between truthful verses creative.
• If you’ve got a crazy case to run that will crush the meta, do it! Just make sure you have enough evidence and are familiar enough with your argument that you can pivot deftly to tough questions in cross or intense scrutiny as you collapse.
• If it’s a topic that simply insists on the meta, use it. I don’t care if we’ve seen the arguments a million times during a tournament if they’re effective. Argue it well and, if you’re bored, do it with flare.
• If you can spread and that will make the debate better, do it. If spreading makes you unintelligible, don’t. Emphasis
• While I like to see an attempt to line-by-line every point that’s brought up in case, as the round continues, I prefer meaningful clash on issues that grow relevant in the round OVER an unending fight on the veracity of each and every sub-point.
• Therefore: collapse. (If your opponent leaves things in your speeches untouched, go ahead and extend them. In this case, I still think it’s nice if you highlight a key issue that emerges in the round for me to vote on. But I if you get to keep all your offense, go for a blowout.)
• I love sign-posting. Be clear about your story of the round. It saves me thinking time if you spell out for me who you think has solvency, uniqueness, more standing arguments, etc. But also explainwhy.
• K and Theory only if it’s super awesome. I hold a higher standard for K then regular adjudication.
• No disclosure theory. That’s my only hard pass.
• In general, I will try to judge the round on the terms YOU set.
• Finally, I learn from every round. I reiterate, show me what you got. YOU teach US how awesome and varied debate can be.

I was a policy debater for 3 years in high school and coached high school policy for 5 years through out college (in Montana). I'm excited to return to the debate world as a parent judge...things have changed a bit, but I really love it all.

l lean towards (and prefer) the stock issues. While I can go on a journey, if you use generic responses (K, Counter plans etc.) it could be more difficult for me to buy. I want to see organization, direct clash and I'll believe whatever you can substantiate with evidence or solid rationale. Debate can be intense, but please have some fun and be kind.

I need to understand what you're saying. I REALLY struggle to appreciate spreading. In my mind, it's quality over quantity. If I don't understand you (or I have to work too hard) it just won't be considered. So, if you attempt it, please, do it well. I'll flow and be aware of dropped arguments, so please pull them through.

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

Background - I was a policy debater at Rosemount high school for four years, including being a policy debate captain my junior and senior years. While at Rosemount, I debated at both local and national circuit tournaments. I am previously worked as a coach at Farmington High School in (you guessed it) Farmington Minnesota. Presently, I'm in Moorhead at MSUM. I have judged high school tournaments before, mostly policy, but also a tiny bit of LD and like two rounds of PF.

To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. ericabaumann27@gmail.com

My name is Erica. Please call me Erica.

I use they/them pronouns.

As far as other "pre-round" questions go: Speed is fine. Tag-team CX is fine (so long as you let your partner answer and ask their own questions.) If you are Maverick, please let me know, and we can come up with the appropriate accommodations for you.

General Philosophy: I believe debate is, at core, an intellectual game where nothing "real" happens. However, that game has to have rules in order for us to play the game, and those rules need to be fair. Left to my own devices, I am a liberal policy-maker where I will weigh advantages vs. disadvantages and where I will look at my flow to see which team provided the better REASONS to believe their interpretation of the story of the round. Also, simply because you read a card that is a page long does not mean that you have provided a warrant for your argument. You have simply read me a really long card. Just because you say something doesn't instantly make it true.

I believe it is your job to explain to me what the warrant is in the argument you are making. I am most impressed by debaters who take the time to explain their position, analyze how their position interacts with the other positions in the round, and why their interpretation of this interaction is superior.

I am a fan of debaters being good human beings. I think it should go without saying, but being kind, polite and remembering that we are all people goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were also inexperienced at one point.

In addition, I am telling you now: you need to respect the pronouns of the other people in the round. I will not stand for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, fatphobia or ableism in this space. I do not tolerate arguments that are harmful, disrespectful, malicious or any argument that has a directly adverse effect on your opponents. Period.

I will treat you with respect, and as so, I expect you to treat your opponents, your partner, and your judge (me), with respect.

Also Note:

While I am a policy-maker and they aren't my favorite, I will entertain most Ks. I am good with Cap/Neolib, Security, and the like. High theory K's are more iffy, not because I think they're stupid or invalid, but simply because I have difficulty understanding them. I will listen to them, but you had better do a really really good job of explaining them to me. I never really debated high theory Kritiks, so my knowledge of them is somewhat limited. Do with that information what you will.

Now, if you do run a K, please know what you're talking about. I take issue with debaters who simply read Ks to read Ks and who have zero understanding of the authors intent or ideology. I promise you, I can usually tell. Also, please don't try to guilt me into voting for your K because it is the "right thing to do", I really really don't vibe with that. Another big pet-peeve of mine is Ks that are full of flowery language and complex rhetoric but that do nothing. I believe that, if you do run a K, your alt has to have some kind of actual (tangible?) effect. I do accept mindset shifts (as they can potentially cause an actual change) but they need to have some kind of way to prove to me that said shift will take actually take place.

If you are running any identity-politics arguments, you need to be kind.

I like debaters who give me roadmaps. Please give me a roadmap.

Bonus points if you make me laugh.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask. I am always here to help!

Background:

• Head Coach--Farmington High School (2020-date)

• Co-JV/Varsity coach at Rosemount High School for 6 years (2014-2020)

• Head Coach--Forest Lake, MN (1995-2000)

• Assistant Coach--Mankato East (1993-1995)

• Concordia College (1989-1993) (NDT twice)

• Rosemount High School (1985-1989)

• Staff--Concordia College Debate Institute, Minnesota Debate and Advocacy Workshop (MDAW)

• Committee to develop the Novice Packet in Minnesota

To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. Ask me for my email.

Top Shelf:

Generally more tech>truth. I debated in a world where the K was brand new and my partner and I won a lot of rounds on rhetoric K’s. K’s that relate to more traditional political concepts make the most sense for me (Cap, Biopower, Neolib, Abolition, Feminism, IR, etc) in the context of a policy debate round. I was not a philosophy major and I don’t get all excited about the nuances of Baudrillard, or other high theory topics. Lots of big, academic words don’t impress me and honestly, I probably don’t understand them in the same way you do so if you choose to run args like that, know that I probably don’t interpret the distinctions you are making in the same way you do and I don’t really see how or why that arg is relevant to the debate round unless you explain it in real world (ie: the way non debate entrenched people) terms.

To be transparent, I am increasingly concerned that the debate space i being rarified to a degree that is irresponsible academically. All too often I see high school debaters simply parroting the phrasing and thought processes of their coaches about very complex and nuanced philosophical concepts. I teach high school students every day. There is a developmental and congnitive difference between high school and college students. I am not inclined to believe that the debate I see on these topics is created by the debater, but rather by the coach. That is problematic to me.

Other thoughts...

Policy maker at heart--I’d rather think about the consequences of plan than about academic discussion of high theory

If I don’t understand your argument, I don’t want to vote on it. Signposting will probably help you here.

If I can’t understand you (spreading, etc), I can’t vote on it

I won‘t judge kick for you. It was your strategy, not mine.

In this technological world, Disclosure Theory args strike me as a whine unless there is some sort of egregious situation that occurs.

I am a teacher and I look at debate through that lens. Education is the main reason why I do this activity.

I believe that the argument construction provided by Toulmin (claim/data/warrant) is the bedrock upon which competitive debate has been built.

I don't like judge intervention, you should be telling me how to vote in the final two rebuttals.

Online debate: I coached and ran tournaments during COVID. I do know that smart debaters will sacrifice a degree or two of speed in order to improve the clarity. I will tell you if you are not clear. I don’t want folks talking over each other during cross-ex. I will be patient with tech, but also mindful that we have a schedule and it is best to stick to that. If tech issues become extreme, I’ll ask the tab room how they want to proceed. I will probably not have my camera on so get verbal confirmation that I am there and ready to go before you start speaking.

I am also a fan of debaters being good human beings. Being kind, polite and remembering that we are all humans goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were inexperienced at one point, as well. Additionally, I believe people should be consistent, both in terms of their arguments and, in the world of the K, in their advocacy. Post-Rounding me is also not cool. My decision is my decision and that will be your privilege when you are a judge.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask.

For extemp and public address, I prefer that students use a conversational style. I prefer that they use evidence as needed. I prefer they not try and name numerous sources, but be honest in what they are using. I like a roadmap they refer to for each point.

For interp, I like a meaningful teaser that sets the world they are creating and tries to introduce as many characters as possible. I think introductions should be short and sweet and be more personal. I think blocking and movement should be used to enhance the story, but is not necessary. I really look for fully developed characters that really listen and react to each other. For author's intent, I think it is okay to re-interpret a piece. I don't have a real issue with a curse word if it is used purposefully.

My top voting issues-

#1- Do not speak too fast and speak clearly! If I can’t understand you, how am I supposed to vote for you?

#2- Show respect to your competitors! If you ask a question, let them answer it. Your non-verbal language also shows respect, so be cautious of how you react.

#3- Give me voters- a summary of what took place shows me you know what you are talking about.

My Background-

My daughter did Policy (CX) debate and that is when I learned I do NOT like speed-reading cases. I have been coaching since 2017 and still feel like a new speech & debate coach.

If you want anything more specific, ask before the round starts.

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.

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

: My Credentials :] :

I debated LD all four years in South Dakota. I have judged LD and PF now for 4 years.

: General Info for All :

For speed, on a scale of 1(slow)-10(fast) I sit at a 5. If you go faster, as long as you are understandable and clear I won't get upset.

Don't be rude in round. If I see the debate turn into an attack on other opponents, I will vote you down. That is not the purpose of debate.

SIGNPOST. This is necessary for all types of debate I judge, greatly appreciated if I see clear signposting of points and arguments.

: LD :

I am pretty traditional, but if you debate circuit/policy arguments I will still vote for you as long as you make your arguments clear - if I'm judging you at a South Dakota tournament please avoid policy arguments :)

Need to see a value/criterion clash of some sort. That is a big factor in my decision and who best links to morality.

I will vote on line by line, but for the last Affirmative speech I prefer hearing Points of Crystallization or clear Voters. Tell me exactly why you win.

: PF :

As long as you give straight forward explanations of your points and arguments, you should be good. Don't give 'fluff' information, I can tell if you are not responding to an argument or an opponent's point.

Give me main Voters during your summary and final focus (this should be self explanatory but sometimes people don't do this).

: Policy :

I know the layout and arguments, but I am not well versed in critiks or higher level tech arguments. I have a very basic understanding of when I debated it my freshman year. However, if you make arguments clear I will still vote on them.

Actors: I like when “interpretations” have a clear and developed thesis. Not just the statement but through out it’s clear. But also good performance is good. If you go for stylized it better be thematic.

Speakers: Engage with the assumptions. Talk good. No nuclear war.

I prefer the round stay policy driven, if you do anything meta it better be well organized.

Speaking well includes word choice and the attitude with which you address your opponents. Don't be mean or condescending. They learned this last week, you learned it four days ago.

Introduction:

I have coached high school speech and debate since Fall 2011 at Ladue Horton Watkins High School in Saint Louis, Missouri. Our program has Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Policy Debate, and Public Forum Debate. I have judged all three types of debate at local invitationals, invitationals throughout the state, the MSHSAA State Tournament, NCFL Grand National Tournament, and NSDA National Tournament. I did not compete in high school or college. I coach and judge on a primarily lay circuit. I have also judged Extemporaneous Debate and Congressional Debate.

Overview:

I view judging as an integral part of coaching. Quality debate rounds in front of knowledgeable judges is key to growth for competitors and judging rounds is a valuable learning opportunity for coaches. My personal coaching judging philosophy is rooted in fun, education, and personal growth. My goal is for each round to be fun and educational for all participants while providing personal growth opportunities for each competitor during and after the round. My commitment to you is that I will provide a ballot giving feedback to each debater that addresses speaking and argumentation and I will give a clear RFD.

Ethics:

Being an ethical competitor is the most important thing you can do in the round. An unethical competitor will NOT win my ballot, regardless of the arguments in the round. Older and more experienced competitors have an educational obligation to younger and less experienced competitors. I expect all evidence in the round to be used in a way that reflects the intent of the author. Dishonest highlighting, summarizing, and/or paraphrasing is an immediate loss. The text and general meaning of evidence must be accurately represented in a round. I do not like calling for evidence but will if I need it in order to resolve an issue in the round. If you are rude in any way, you will lose speaker rankings/points and, depending on the nature of the misconduct, possibly the round. I expect a professional, mature, and kind round. Do not yell at each other and all debaters should refrain from any attacks on their opponents – keep responses based on the arguments and evidence in the round. As my students will tell you, I do not tolerate any use of profanity in an educational space.

I would like to note that harassment, bullying, and discriminatory behaviors of any type will not be tolerated. Should I see those behaviors in or out of round, I will address them. If it is in a round, it will be reflected on the ballot and the team or individual engaging in such behaviors can expect a loss. I will also address this behavior with your coach. I believe that speech and debate should be a safe space for every person and it is the communal responsibility of all of us to guarantee that.

This is also a moment to note that your behavior in and out of round is seen and heard at tournaments. I would encourage all competitors to behave in an ethical manner at all times. Unethical behavior outside of round does affect how people in the community view you – whether this is right or wrong, it is something for all competitors to consider. Think about what you want your reputation in the debate community to be and act accordingly. You are representing your team, our speech and debate community, and this activity at all times. Please hold yourself to the highest standard possible at tournaments. I strongly believe in growth and second chances so if you make a mistake, please take time to reflect, apologize, and then change your actions moving forward.

Communication:

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity; therefore, communication should be your most important consideration in the round. I expect debaters to speak at a conversational rate or a bit faster – I do not appreciate nor do I follow spreading. If you are speaking faster than you are able to clearly communicate, then you need to slow down. I will not interrupt you during a round but will stop flowing if I cannot flow or understand what you are saying. Reading piles of evidence without having analysis is not good communication. I do not believe students need a card for every single idea presented in a round – I expect students to think and bring their own ideas into the round. You should thoroughly understand all arguments you make in a round. Speaking and the ability to knowledgeably communicate arguments in the round are key to winning my ballot.

General Information:

I will keep track of time for speeches and prep time. Competitors are welcome and encouraged to keep their own time during the round; however, my time will be the official time. It is understandable that partners will need to communicate with each other during the round; however, the volume should be low enough that you do not interrupt the speaker. Your prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer and hand it to your opponent. You should not waste time between speeches. Please keep in mind that a tournament has many moving parts and rounds being completed efficiently is key to keeping tournaments running on schedule. To that end, when your prep time is over, please be ready to speak within a few seconds of getting to the front of the room – organizing speeches, etc. should be taken care of before ending prep time.

I do not flow authors for evidence – when you say “extend our Smith card”, I have no idea what you mean. YOU need to extend the ARGUMENT – I should not be asked to extend evidence. I do pay attention to the dates of evidence and will prioritize more recent evidence in most cases; however, there are some exceptions to this general rule. I pay attention to the credentials of authors and the sources being used in a round.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I appreciate a values-based debate rooted in philosophy. The values/framework debate is incredibly important in the round. I am willing to listen to more progressive arguments, provided the value/framework debate is present. Dictionary.com is not a strong source for definitions in L-D – I would prefer legal or philosophical definitions. I believe L-D is arguing what ought to be, not what is. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

Policy Debate:

I generally expect the affirmative team to present a topical plan. However, I am willing to listen to critical and performance affirmative plans provided the team can give a solid explanation as to why I should vote for them in the context of that debate round. If you are running a critical argument, then I expect you to be “all in” – meaning you don’t get to run a critical argument on one flow and then ignore it on other flows. If you are making a critical argument, then you need to be a fierce and passionate advocate for that stance throughout the round and bring the critical arguments into the rest of the round. I am also willing to listen to critical and performance arguments on the negative side of the flow. I expect debaters to tell me the role of the ballot in the round. I do not love counter plans or topicality arguments. If you are running topicality arguments, then I would expect that you cannot address on-case arguments…if you have a ton of prepared arguments for their case, then do not run topicality. Extra topicality and effects topicality can be very interesting arguments. Regardless of the arguments you run, please have a strong understanding of those arguments and be able to explain them without reading cards. Organized and structured speeches are key to a successful round – I expect a roadmap before each speech (except the 1AC) and clear signposting within each speech. I do not enjoy open-cross and will not permit it if I am the only judge in the room. On a panel, I will defer to the majority opinion; however, please know that I have very real concerns about a team that lacks trust or confidence to the point that the partner must intervene in cross-ex. I will default to policymaker but am willing to judge using a framework you give me provided the argument is clear in the round.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is about current(ish) events so I expect arguments to take place in the context of the current world order. I do not want to see a 45-minute debate about evidence – arguments should focus on the big picture ideas in the round. I expect there to be balance in crossfire, which requires a give and take on the part of all competitors. I do not want Public Forum to be Policy Debate, so the ability to give a line-by-line argument is less important to me than being able to effectively summarize key ideas in the round and weigh the two sides. Roadmaps are not necessary and will not be given off-time – if you start to give a roadmap, then I will start your time.

Hello!

I'm Jayden and I am a prevuous head coach. I coached LD, POL, LEGI, PF, Interp., and Short Prep events. However, I specialize in LD. I was a varsity debater all 4 years of high school. I competed primarily in LD and was fortunate enough to qualify for nationals twice (my junior and senior years). At my junior year nationals, I actually placed in the top 28. I also debate at the collegiate level. Therefore, I am a very knowledgeable flow judge. I keep a detailed flow and will likely give the win to the competitor who wins on the flow (for LD this is very much tied to your value/criterion). Also, one of my pet peeves is sliming (bringing up new evidence or points in the final speech of the round). The only exception to me voting with the flow, is conduct. If you are mean, demeaning, etc. to your opponent, you can expect to lose the ballot. With that said, I will not vote you down for being aggressive or stern unless it crosses the line of being demeaning or mean. However, I highly doubt it will come to that. Speech and debate is an amazing activities, but that can only be true if our competitors hold up to that standard and have a consequence when they don't. Thanks for reading about me and if you have any questions, please ask.

Thanks!

Jayden

Hello! I am the Pittsburgh Central Catholic Head Speech Coach with 5 years of experience judging all speech events. If you have any questions about your ballot, my email is pjb82@pitt.edu

If you want some feedback after round, just ask!

If you're an Extemper and you just so happen to have found my paradigm and I'm judging you, this is what you should do:

Make sure you include context in your introduction - don't waste our limited time by making irrelevant connections to pop culture. Explain the context of the question (why are we talking about it today?) and any definitions, technical terms, and historical information I may need to fully understand your answer to the question.

Diversify your sources. Use reputable sources only - if I don't know what it is I'll probably look it up after round. Avoid think tanks. Warrant your claims (remind me why your evidence matters in light of the question itself, not just that particular point).

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

I am a parent of a competitor and a lay judge. Speak at a pace a layperson can understand and process. Avoid using jargon so that I can hear and understand your argument. Clearly spell out the issues I am deciding the round on. Refrain from being any kind of -ist or phobic. Be proud of yourselves and enjoy this experience.

Congressional Debate--I expect your speeches to address the major issues addressed by the legislation or the concerns raised by the assumed passage of the legislation. I look for speeches that are continuing to advance the debate, not just re-hash points already brought up by previous speakers. Please follow parliamentary procedure. It really is not that hard.

POs should keep the chamber moving efficiently and professionally. Maximizing speech time and cross-x time plays a huge role in my evaluation of a presiding officer. I also expect much consistency from a PO in rulings and recognition of speakers.

Lastly, have fun. This is a fun event. Use humor where appropriate. Enjoy your time in these chambers.

Policy Debate--I'm that judge you wish you did not get. I am old school and I don't like speed.

I graduated from Norman North in 2019 and OU in 2022 with dual degrees in political science and professional writing. I am an English teacher and debate coach at US Grant High School and a two-time published poet.

From 2012-2019, I competed in PF, LD, Congress, and all IEs. LD and Congress are by far my favorites. I've been to regionals, state, Nats, and TOC.

I have judged in the West OK circuit since January 2023 and was a coach and judge for Norman/Norman North at Nationals 2023.

Being a respectful, charismatic speaker is most important. The most persuasive speakers are expert storytellers. I'll happily choose the more compelling storyteller over the person with the most cards. Crack a joke. Show personality.

PF should be treated on balance, so I will carefully follow where there is clash of arguments. I want to see offense and defense. I will treat LD similarly, but FW will always matter more in LD.

In LD, if you do not have a FW, then I will default to your opponent's. If you do not make it applicable to your own case, then the opponent will win on that voting issue. If you both have a FW, I want you to tell me where your FW interacts with the other. Does it encompass theirs? Does it narrow the scope? Why does that matter?

I also like to see creative arguments. Bring a fresh perspective. Big K fan when done right, but my preference will always be for traditional LD debate.

TLDR:

PF: 1. speaking 2. clash of impacts 3. FW (maybe)

LD: 1. speaking 2. FW clash 3. impacts, I debate trad, but theory is fun sometimes.

Things to avoid and other notes:

Ad hominems.

Straw man arguments.

Inundating your opponent with evidence and telling me "Judge, they dropped my 2nd and 43rd responses you must vote on that." (I will not vote on that.)

Adaptability is critical to success. So while certain strategies/etc are allowed and often welcome in the nat circuit, I will expect competitors to adapt to their judges' paradigms. Learning how to read a room is a valuable skill. Good luck to all competitors and don't forget to have fun!

I like big picture tie ins

I like sign posting

Not a fan of speaking over each other in cross

Hello! I am a parent judge supporting my oldest son's speech aspirations. Now in my 7th year as a speech parent, judge, and sorta coach I have judged 100+ rounds and hundreds of presentations across middle school and high school competitions - primarily in OO, HI, DI, Duo and more. I judged the NSDA nationals DI finals in 2022 which was an incredible round and experience. I also judged the middle school NSDA final round for storytelling in 2019 along with plenty of state and nat quals through the years. Across various events, here are my thoughts as applicable for your event...

I hope to be persuaded by your thesis or argument

I want to be engaged and moved by your presentation

Your characters should be fully developed and come through clearly and distinctly

Use sources responsibly to complement your work without overwhelming with stats and figures

Show creativity and something novel relative to other competitors

Most of all, own your work, have fun, and know that you are a winner just by competing. Thank you!

Congress- Speeches should be delivered at a rate of speed that a casual listener would be able to understand and follow the argumentation. Evidence is necessary and should support every argument in a speech. In order to stand out and rank higher, written speeches should be adapted to include clash from previous speeches and offer something new to the debate. Debaters should offer speeches that forward the debate and do not simply rehash previously stated arguments. A PO should run a transparent and efficient round with a clearly offered way to track precedence and recency.

Extemp- State the topic word for word verbatim, I am looking for strong argumentation to support your answer as well as current and credible evidence. Competitors who have an in depth analysis of the topic will rank higher, fluff and generic answers will rank lower. This is a speaking event and you need to have conversational speed as well as humor to do well. Funny and pop culture AGDs are my favorite.

LD- I am an old school trad judge. I can keep up with moderate speed but if you start spreading and I put my pen down you are not in a good spot. If I can't flow I can't judge you. K and theory aren't my favorite but simple and common K like ROB I am familiar with, extinction arguments are my least favorite, they seem lazy unless you have a really compelling and interesting argument to go with it. Judge adaptation is crucial in LD success. I am not the most tech oriented judge so if you are pulling tricks make them clear and easy to follow for me, I am open to weird stuff but it had better be accessible to me.

For (DI, DUO) - Subtlety is the key, I don't need you to scream and shout to get emotion across. I'm not against screaming, but it should be during appropriate moments during the piece and build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For (HI, DUO) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality. I prefer POI to read like an OO with someone else's words, give me a really concrete problem solution.

UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Feel free to ask me any questions or clarifications about my paradigm at any time!

**My biggest preference is to be a good member of the round. No phones during rounds. You could be the best speaker or performer but if you spend the rest of the round being disrespectful to your fellow competitors, I will take that into account.

EXTEMP SPEAKERS MAY NOT TIME THEMSELVES.

No phones will be permitted within a speaker's sightline.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

I coach Congress at Loyola School and competed in Congress. It was not my main category.

Many of the style notes for policy (below) apply to Congress as well.

1. A note of personal preference: if I see you on social media, snapchat, tiktok, instagram, etc. during a round, I will not rank you and report to tab as necessary. I will almost always share this at the beginning of the session. This is a firm, irrevocable line for me and I don't care if you're the best speaker in the room.

2. If you are joining Congress from another form of debate - remember that there are no email chains, judges do not have your sources, and there are no cards. Cite, explain, and analyze all your data accordingly.

3. PO - please ensure all your tech is set up before you start. I would prefer you take the extra minute to get yourself in order rather than rushing and spending the rest of the session scrambling. A smooth and precise PO is better than a quick and messy PO. Please share your preferred method for tracking speeches, recency, etc. and keep it fully available throughout the entire session. Have a plan in case there is no wifi/wifi is bad. The time to learn how to PO on paper is not while you are in the middle of being the PO.The PO is always in the running for top rank and has earned the 1 on my ballot in the past. The PO has also been dropped from my ballot should disaster strike.

4. When I competed, girls were discouraged and dismissed in Congress. I am very happy to see that this is changing, although it is not perfect. I expect all chambers to be run equitably with respect shown for all speakers.

5. Be mindful of the cycle of debate. Presenting a rehashed constructive on the sixth cycle of debate is not productive. Your goal should be furthering the quality of the debate.

6. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech. Bad faith questions reflect poorly on you. Be mindful of how you speak to one another.

7. Love a good crystal however, don't just recap the round and sit down. Extend your side's arguments and refute opposing arguments. Offer your own analysis. A good crystal should be the cherry on top of a debate not just an intermission.

8. I like to see a variety of speeches. Only giving sponsorships or crystals does not show me diversity in your debating abilities.

POLICY/CX/DEBATE PARADIGM:

I coached policy debate at Success Academy. I did not compete in policy as a student.

A note for high school JV/varsity competitors: my paradigm is geared towards the kids I coached/judged - middle school novices. However, a lot of this applies to high school novice debate and debate in general.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech.

4. 99% of T arguments are not convincing and unless the aff is wildly untopical, I will not vote on it. I will almost always default to reasonability, unless you can give me a fantastic reason not to.

5. Spreading is only as good as your clarity. If you are incoherent, you are not making an argument. Four excellent arguments is stronger than eight okay arguments. I err on the side of what serves the most productive, educational debate.

6. Speak like you care about what you're talking about. Inflection will boost your speaker points. Studies have shown that communication is 55% body language, 38% tone of voice, and 7% words only. Keep that in mind as you give your speeches.

7. Above all else, be kind to each other. Demonstrate respect in the way you listen and respond to your opponents' arguments.

8. Any kind of "death good" or "rights bad" argument will get you an automatic L. I'm not here for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. or any other oppressive frameworks of thought.

9. Argumentative clarity > technical flair. Debate can be elegant. Complex topics can be explained in concise language. I will often defer to the team who demonstrates the most effective understanding of the subject matter. Kritiks are welcome only if you deeply understand them.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters.Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

My pronouns are he/him.

Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.

Spring 2023 Update:

- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.

- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.

- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.

Some general thoughts:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.

- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

P.S. All this extinction stuff is just debaters trolling, right?

Anthony Berryhill (MBA, M.Phil., M.A., CSM, CSPO) | Judge Paradigm- updated 9/2/2023
email (for speech docs): anthony@elitecollegehacker.com

Experience:

• Professional background: Former Vice President of Learning (executive) at PIMCO, a leading fixed income firm. Stanford (BA) and Yale (PhD Candidate) alumnus--both in political science with a focus on contemporary political theory
• Current job: Running college admissions company (MBA/MD/PhD/undergrad) at www.elitecollegehacker.com.
• Recent Debate Career Highlights: Coach of 3 national champions (College PF, HS LD @ 2019 NCFL, HS PF - International TOC) | 6x LD Wording Committee member | NSDA Final Round Judge (Policy 2022, LD 2019-2022) | Former Managing Director at VBI | LD (TOC-NSDA-NCFL)/Extemp (NCFL)/Congress (NSDA Senate+NCFL) Qualified student @ Isidore Newman (1996-2000)

How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convinces me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater.

Style info:

Good debate is good debate - I have judged late TOC and NSDA elims of all styles and historically have very successfully coached traditional, policy, performance (at the LD TOC), and K debaters.

I strongly prefer debates about the topic, but can be convinced otherwise if you pull it off well.

Speed is ok if you are clear, avoid monotone, and if you include me on the speech docs.

How to win my ballot and get high points (preferences):

1. I strongly prefer debaters who do the work to cross apply, connect arguments together, extend evidence, signpost, and keep the flow clean. These students get wins and 29.5s+ with shocking consistency.
2. I look for the easiest, most clear way to vote, so I can minimize/avoid intervention (within reason). I am not a judge who will reconstruct a round and read cards for 30 min after a debate. That's the debaters' job. The more work you do to write the ballot, the more weight I will give to your interpretations and positions.
3. In-round analysis and smart strategy counts: Weighing, closing doors (telling me where you can lose and doing the hard work in detail to stop me from doing so), crystallization, and extensions will help you sway the ballot to your side.
4. Clarity matters: I am biased toward debaters who do the work to explain very complicated ideas in a simple, clear, and accessible way. As a former PhD in critical theory @ Yale, I appreciate good argumentation, depth, and skill at explanation.

What I strongly dislike/what you will want to avoid:

1. High Mental/Cognitive load/confusion -> judge intervention: It is in your interest to collapse arguments down in order to reduce how much I have to evaluate or consider. Otherwise, I get to be dangerously creative and decide how I want to vote, which I'd rather not do.

2. Misbehavior in rounds and debate politics. I judge by the "any given sunday" principle. I do not hack--and have never--hacked for anyone, any position, or at any time. Therefore any debater can win in front of me if they adapt. Make sure to avoid behavior that is out of bounds (swearing, use of inappropriate words, and other actions that parents/principals would disapprove).

3. A note about theory and identity arguments. If you need theory or identity based arguments, go for it. HOWEVER, frivolous theory or blippy arguments are not strategic in front of me.

Also, as one of the first students in circuit LD to run heavily race/gender based arguments (in the late 90s) I'm especially sensitive to students treating these arguments with the seriousness they demand.

Therefore, if you run identity arguments, please do not treat these as strategic pawns to be deployed without regard to ethics (i.e., I've seen some folks use racially insensitive language as a strategy, lie about misgendering/pronouns to trap opponents, claim that only people of a certain race can make certain positions, etc.) As an intersectionalist by training, I'm opposed to essentialism, stereotyping, and authenticity policing. Let's do none of that please.

Good luck!

Speech & Interp Coach at Carroll High School in Corpus Christi, TX

SPEECH: My stylistic preferences for speakers lean towards a more personal and conversational delivery as opposed to the overly formal and stilted. Formal delivery is great and can be effective, but as a judge I don't care for speaker styles that make me feel like I am being "talked at." as opposed to being "talked to." In terms of the amount of evidence, I prefer at least one cited article per main point in the speech; more would be best. Cited articles should help support the points made. I prefer speakers to incorporate movement to help highlight the points of the speech and create a flow. This goes for most, if not all speech events.

INTERP: As far as interpretation events, I am HUGE on storytelling. The teasers should grab the audience's attention and establish clear characters and setting. I like an intro to be conversational and explain how the themes of the piece relate to us a society. I also like for some sort of personal connection to the piece to be stated. Blocking should supplement the storytelling effectively and not be distracting. Prose & Poetry performers specifically should not use binders as props and only move from the waist up to stay grounded; other interp events are free to move and explore creativity in their movement!

Characters should be carefully crafted and explored in interpretation events. I prefer characters to be well established in the teaser, but still grow and evolve throughout up until the conclusion of the piece. Clear and distinct characters are also essential in storytelling like interp events. I believe the author's intent should be clear and pieces should be appropriate for the performer. I have no issue with cursing in pieces as long as it is tasteful in delivery and not excessive. As long as mature content is handled gracefully in performance, I do not mind.

Throughout speaking events it is crucial that you always maintain the attention of your audience using organization, relatability, and a suitable platform. The delivery should be clear, concise, and feel conversational. Speeches should be well-organized so that the audience can follow along easily, and they should include sources to help establish credibility. Last but not least, speaking occasions should involve a range of vocal tones, facial expressions, and purposeful gestures.

When it comes to interpretation, I value natural acting, purposeful blocking, and experiencing the true emotion. The characters' feelings should be conveyed to the spectator. I also assess the characters' authenticity.

During the debate, you should have clear explanations so that I can follow along with the scenario you've developed. I do not approve when you are unpleasant or hostile to your opponent, and I do not approve when excess vice is propagated. It's challenging for me to absorb your ideas if I can't grasp what you are saying. Whoever has the strongest case will win, regardless of how many arguments they can provide.

I'm a parent judge who has spent the last two years judging PF and LD. I'm an attorney and litigator and, as a result, particularly value your frameworks, clarity, and argumentation over technicalities regarding flow. In addition, I'd prefer you remain topical and I have limited interest in theory. In other words, while I will track points made and dropped, and consider them, I'd prefer you point such matters out once (and argue for the point's importance) and then return to your overall argument, and I'd prefer that the debate remain focused on the topic at hand and not spin out into unrelated areas. A novel argument is great, but an unrelated argument is not going to win me over.

I enjoy a good crossfire, but I won't vote on cross unless it's brought up in a summative speech. I get frustrated with debaters that have effective crossfires that aren't utilized - please remember to do that. Also, being aggressive is great, but don't cross the line into being inappropriate, rude, mean, etc.

I indicated this above but I love a good framework and the ability to stick to it. If you are able to respond to your opponents argument, or learn something in cross, and fit that rebuttal or information into your framework - or a natural extension thereof - I will be an admiring judge.

Finally, please do not speak to fast. Share your information, but remember you're trying to convince me of your argument.

Time Debating:4 years in High School on the local Las Vegas circuit and some on the national circuit. 3 years of LD and 1 year of Varsity Policy.
School Debated for:Canyon Springs High School
Number of Years Judging: 16 years as a competitor, judge, and part-time coach

I am pastor in Tucson, AZ. As it pertains to debate, I am a debate coach that highly values debate fundamentals and the execution of them. I spent about six years doing military intelligence for the Navy, so I am well versed in foreign policy and it’s effect in the world. Lastly, I was studying to become a lawyer before becoming a pastor, so I highly value evidence and sound argumentation. With that said, I value sound argument over fundamentals. I care more that you took the time to dive deep into the “why” of an argument than if you ran a counterplan correctly. I am here to judge how you critically think and not necessarily how you execute the round, though the fundamentals are still important.

I have spent some time judging all kinds of debate, but my expertise resides in LD and CX. In general, I am judge that will pull the trigger on just about anything as long as it's believable. If you can't convince me, then I won't vote for the argument. Here are the basics I expect from every round:

1. I demand at least three voters from both the AFF and NEG. If you don't give me any then I will be forced to utilize judge intervention which I hate to do.

2. I am big on education. Debate is not a game of chess. It is a discussion of issues relevant to our society. Treat it as such.

3. Respect of one another is very important to me. Though it won't cause me to drop you, blatant disrespect will result in lower speaks.

4. You must make your cards easily available if anyone asks for them.

5. Time yourselves. I will hold you to your own integrity.

6. Absolutely no coarse language. I must say this because I have judged and coached in a secular realm.

7. Cross-examination can make or break you. However, I ask that you do your best to maintain a level of decorum during CX. Please guard your facial expressions. Also, guard your questioning as to not attack or belittle the other person. It is easy to do these things without intending to and will result in lower speaker points.

To make things clear with speed, my ear isn't as well trained for it as other judges are. Though I will accept speed in the round, there is such a thing as too fast for me. I prefer clarity over speed. During the round, slow down on the tags and cites. When reading the card, speed as fast as you please. However, if you want me to get something down that is very important, its safer to slow down on it. If you get too fast or unclear, I will yell SLOW once. If you do it again, I will say it again. If you do it a third time, I will flamboyantly drop my pen signaling that I have stopped flowing. If the argument doesn't get on my flow, it doesn't exist. So meet me halfway with speed, and we will be fine.

I do evidence call at the end of the round. Depending on what voters you decide to give me, prepare all the cards that go along with those voters. At the end of the round I will ask for those cards and I will read them for validity. I have dropped a team that debated better than the other all because their card's date didn't precede the their opponent's. I am nitpicky about evidence, so make sure your cards are relevant.

I do not blindly extend without a reason why. Please give me solid reasons as to why extending a card is important. Also, just because person drops and argument doesn't mean that they should lose. Dropped arguments happen all the time, so give me a real reason why a particular argument that was dropped should be valued.

I cannot say this enough, but DO NOT run 10 or 12 offcase just to kick out of them in block. I cannot stand it when teams that have the advantage of speed use it to abuse the affirmative. Do it and I will drop your speaks. That is one of my biggest pet peeves in the world.

My specific thresholds for arguments:

AC: I know it's very novice, but the affirmative plan must have a clear plantext. I've ran into debates where the plantext was unclear and made the debate very sloppy. On solvency, I presume NEG until the AFF proves they solve. I am very big on the stock issues. If the AFF cannot win all of the stock issues, they won't win the round.

Counterplans: When the negative runs a counterplan, I will immediately presume AFF. This means that NEG must prove that CP will solve the advantages better than plan. If the NEG decides to kick the CP at any point in the round, then I won't hold presumption against them. It is important that you have a valid net-benefit and a COMPETITIVE counterplan text.

Kritiks: I am weary of allowing kritiks because I've had too many competitors either run it wrong or run something so complex that it isn't understandable. Bottomline, if you run one, run it correctly and explain it well. Otherwise, I might have a hard time voting on it.

Disads: No credible link= no disad. I refuse to pull the trigger on it if you can't convince me of the link. However, if the AFF drops the link and you prove that it is important enough to vote on I will pull the trigger.

Theory: I personally despise theory. I ran it in high school, but learned to hate it because most of the time in turned to pointless bickering. If there is potential for abuse, you better prove it or I will dismiss it. With that said, I have voted a team down simply because thier strat created the potential for abuse, regardless of whether the team in that round was abused or not.

Topicality: I was T shark in high school, so run this argument right. Please don't run a shell that is very weak. If the AFF is non-topical, then prove it. Otherwise, accept that the AFF topical and pick a new strat. T is an independent voter for me. If I see that the AFF is non-topical and the NEG brings it up through the round, I vote NEG immediately.

For LD:

I have seen and competed in LD rounds that became one-man policy rounds. I think that while they were fun to compete in, they do not have their place in LD. This style of debate was made for a reason, and I value the integrity of the style.

It is mandatory that both the affirmative and the negative have a clear Value and Criterion in their case. This is for clarity in the round.

Affirmative has the burden of proof, while the Negative has the burden of clash. Failure to do this can result in you losing the round, no matter how good you debated.

This is just a basic idea of what I like to see and not see in a policy and LD round. It certainly does not encompass the entirety of my philosophy, therefore if you have further questions that weren't answered here I am more than happy to answer them in the round.

Frequent judge of PF. 3rd year coach of HS Congress, HS BQ, and MS Congress. Studying finance @ ASU

VPF Paradigm

*If email chain is set up add: tomelibil@gmail.com - I won't read off of your speech doc though, so go slow enough for me to normally flow.

90% flow 10% lay. Progressive stuff is ok, but I have very little experience with it, so it needs to be crystal clear. Speech orders make my flow better. The stronger link chain, from claim all the way to impact, wins the round. If they're equal strength I go off weighing. Make extensions and weighing clear! I always give an RFD time permitting.

JV/Novice PF & BQ Paradigm

50% flow 50% lay. Sitting/standing doesn't matter. Preferably look at either me or your flow/computer when talking, not your opponent. If you give me a "brief off time road map" and it's longer than 15 seconds, you will lose speaks. A passionate debate is ok, but genuine anger/insults aren't. Time your own speeches and prep. Please don't state your name and the topic at the start of every speech. Generally I evaluate novices more Truth>Tech except for in late out rounds. If you notice anything that puts into question the fairness of the round, alert me at the soonest reasonable moment. If anything immediately threatens your safety, alert me immediately. I typically disclose.

Congress Paradigm

I judge congress equally as both a speech and debate event. Uniqueness is hugely important, and the time in the round you speak must match the speech you give. All the things on presentation are important - volume, stature, passion, speed and pausing, and enunciation. Generally prefer late round speeches to early round.

PO's: Don't make errors, be fast, and be clear. Follow standard proceedings and control the chamber whilst being respectful. Cut off people effectively and on time. I've never dropped a PO but never given a 1 either.

I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

Primarily, I consider "clash," or direct engagement with the opposing argument and defense of one's own.

Equally though, I value coherence, or the logical consistency and organization of an argument, as well as the support of objective facts from credible sources.

Of secondary importance I look for civil, respectful demeanor, and delivery that is accurate, grammatical, confident, and expressive. Please don't speak so quickly that I can't take notes.

I prefer an argument built on solid evidence and reasoning, rather than one hung on formalities or technicalities. Whoever presents the most convincing case wins the round.

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

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

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

PF 1. obviously clash is a must. I prefer all debaters take part in grand cross fire, but will judge on case by case. Clear impacts and weighing mechanism.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

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

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

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

Oratory

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

POI

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

HI, DI

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

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

Prose, Poetry

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

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

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

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

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

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.com. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

I will assess the quality and relevance of the arguments presented by both the affirmative and negative teams. I am looking for arguments that are well-researched, logically structured, and supported by credible sources.

I expect to see meaningful clash between the two sides. Teams must be engaging with each other's arguments and addressing the key points raised by their opponents.

If you are spreading, I expect you to share your speech document with your opponent and all judges so that we may all follow your arguments.

LD: I prefer traditional debate for LD, because the entire point of this debate is to be values oriented and philosophical. That being said, I prefer and enjoy hearing nuanced and different types of argument. Stock debate gets boring, and those who are able to string together new ideas and successful tie them to the value and criterion are the most successful. I prefer you stay away from spreading. Speaking quality matters in LD. Speaking rate can be fast, but not the extent that the event has evolved to.

CX: Tabula Rasa. I am an open book. Tell me how to vote. I enjoyed varied arguments and will let your plans and their subsequent defense stand on there own merit. Spreading is acceptable, but shouldn't get out of control to where we are (quite literally) talking at one another.

Speech: I appreciate different approaches, but enjoy those who are able organize themselves and follow the typical conventions of quality speaking.

Congress/PF: Argument is 60% and Speaking is 40%. Your ability to draw in the audience is important in this event and speaking ability should play especially important.

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Policy Debate -- State 2023-2024:

I've only judged one tournament on this resolution so my topic knowledge is limited. Just slow down a bit when explaining warrants etc.

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

My name is Ceres Botkin (they/them). I'm a junior at the University of Kansas. I debated for four years at Mill Valley High School.

Email: ceres.x.botkinATgmail.com

Even though I've debated for 4 years, I haven't judged much on this resolution. Other than that, I'm pretty standard as a judge. I lean tech > truth but can be convinced otherwise. I'll vote on anything assuming that it's not racist/sexist/-phobic etc you get the picture. Please send me the speech doc especially if you want to go faster and please slow down for tags and analytics (especially if they are not in the speech doc). Because it has been a while, please don't spread the fastest you can.

K: I really only ran Cap/Neolib K back in the day so, although I’ve gone up against other K’s and have read a bit of critical theory, I don’t have that much experience in the art of K’s. That isn’t to say you shouldn’t run them, just do a bit more explaining if you do.

If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

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

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

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

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



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Preferences for arguments:

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

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

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

I am a fairly traditional judge with three years of experience (mainly LD, but also Congress and some PF). I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast to try and jam up their opponents.

I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

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

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

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

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

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

I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!

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

I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense that supports framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

Content warnings are appreciated when appropriate.

Teasers should set the mood for the piece and not be too lengthy.

Intros need to continue to prepare the audience for the piece by setting the appropriate tone as well as to give important exposition. A sharp or clever intro that is well constructed can be the determining factor in scoring among two equally done pieces.

Blocking and movement should be clear, well defined, and motivated. Clever or creative staging is appreciated. Unclear or unspecific pantomime, upstaging, or weird angles that prevent seeing the actor's faces should be avoided.

Characterization should be consistent and easy to follow if performing multiple characters. Pops should be clean. Vocal characterization should be suggestive of the character and not an opportunity to showcase cartoon voices/cliche characters (the surfer, the New Yorker, the Brit, the Aussie, etc.) unless warranted by the script/story.

The binder is NOT a prop other than in POI. Movement below the waist (steps) should be clear and motivated as well as minimal.

Author's Intent and/or Appropriateness of Literature- How do I feel about an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material (appropriateness)? That's a big NO for me if it's offensive more than it is creative. (Miracle Worker as an HI, or The Lovely Bones, or anything like that is offensive to me. The topics in those pieces aren't meant to be funny and do go against the author's intent.) Mature content if it's handled well and suits the piece doesn't bother me- if it's excessive or for shock value, then I may not like it. It really depends on the piece and the performer; I'm not really conservative but I've seen some material that I definitely wouldn't coach or have ranked down because I felt like it was too much.

For Speech Events OO/INFO– I love that Orator’s Triangle! It helps me follow the structure of your speech. I weigh the written speech (construction/logic/novelty/grammar/humor) equally with the presentation of the speech. I personally don’t like laminated stuff on Info boards (because of the glare.) I loooove creative/inventive Info props!

I am a lay judge and I am excited to be working with students in Interp. I am not qualified to judge in Debate or LD.

Dakota Breen has been the head speech coach of West Fargo High School since 2013.

For interpretation events, she looks for the performer(s) ability to bring their characters to life through voice, movement, and emotion brought to delivery.

For public address, she looks for the speaker's ability to craft a meaningful message that is relevant, relatable, and original. Language and structure are important.

For extemporaneous, she looks for the speaker's ability to answer the question clearly for an audience who may not know much on the topic they have chosen. Delivery is equally important.

cjbriggs001@gmail.com

I am a Two Diamond Coach with 14 years of coaching experience and am the 2020 NSDA Educator of the Year.

I approach most rounds with a tabula rasa mind set. However, I tend to favor traditional approaches to arguments. I want to see debates about the topics, not debates about the rules of debate.

With Policy rounds, in general, its not about the number of cards you read, its about whether or not you can share the analysis/synthesis of those cards in context to the round. Some speed is fine, but I don't see a place for all-out spreading & will stop tracking the flow if your speech becomes incomprehensible. Policy is about making informed decisions, not about who can read the fastest.

When it comes to LD, the value and value criteria matter & contentions should support/prove the weight of your v/vc. Impact analysis is crucial.

In PF, I want to see a round that evaluates various entry points to the topic & values the things that makes PF unique from the other debate events. I prefer not to see PF turned into a watered down version of policy.

For BQ, I prefer rounds that include evidence based claims and assertions. Definitions debates are great, but make sure you explain WHY your definition should be accepted and preferred.

Generally, I like those who respect the confines of the given resolutions while also thinking outside the box. I expect competitors to be civil and kind to one another- even when things get tense. Arguments/comments should be about the round, not about the opponents abilities.

If you have other questions, please ask before the round starts.

The first thing debaters seem to ask: what is your debate backround:
- Competitor: I competed primarily in policy debate in both HS (lay judge circuit) & college (during CEDA/NDT merger). In HS, I also did a little DX/USX and LD. In college, I sometimes did Extemp, Persuase, & Inform.
- Coach: I have coached policy teams (on the nat circuit, lay judge circuits, and in a UDL). I have coached LD, Congress, Extemp, platform speaking, & interp (on the nat circuit & lay judge circuits). I have also coached College NPDA, speech, interp, & British Parli (aka- world's style)
- Other: I've taught workshops for a number or organizations (NAUDL, NSDA, AZSCA, ASAA, STAM, IDEA, FLTRP), and I've written four texts including Policy Debate: A Guide for High School and College Debaters for Southern Illinois University Press as well as Transcending the Game: Debate, Education, and Society.

The vast majority of this is for Policy Debate. This, obviously has nothing to do with how I judge BP/WUDC, and to a lesser degree formats like LD. If you have questions, I'm happy to chat.

Cliff Notes Version (expanded explanations below):
- Default Paradigm: Policymaker
- Speed: Fine... but not necessary. Slow & smart can beat fast & mediocre, meaning speed is a tool not a strategy.
- Clarity: A Must... If I can't understand you, it doesn't make my flow. Not on my flow, it can't impact my decision.
- Speech Docs: Not necessary for me. I keep a pretty good flow (fast or slow).
- Cards/Analytics are more important to me than tags & sources, especially when ev is overtagged.
- Please signpost clearly... not by author but by roadmap... Ob 1 B [for example on case]; 2AC #5 [for example on off case]... I primarily flow tags and internal analysis rather than authors & dates because that's where the debate is happening.
- Ks: Good critical teams can easily win my ballot, but many run them as non-unique DAs and/or don't understand what they are reading, which makes it hard to pick up my ballot.
- PICs (of the topical & non-comp variety): Yes, I've voted for them. However... Strategically, I don't really understand why the Neg would choose to affirm the resolution in what amounts to a plan-plan debate, but if they can't explain why I should either, well...
- Theory: I'm game.
- Multiple Worlds: Weird. Lazy. Strategically Awkward. Confusing. Potentially Unfair.
- Nontraditional Debate (sometimes referenced as "Performance"): You do you... debate is here for all of us.
- Generic DAs: Useful & appropriate. (Specific links, obviously, make them better.)
- CPs: Can be great if the round warrants it. (Conditionality? Dispositionality? See Theory.)
- Defense: A solid defense can beat an offensive position. However, offense wins rounds.
- Pet Peeve: Debaters who don't understand their arguments and/or can't explain them in their own words. If it becomes clear you don't understand your own argument, it makes me question whether I can vote for it. In short, I have a hard time voting for a team/position when the debater doesn't appear to understand their own argument.

If you would like a more detailed philosophy, enjoy… It's getting lengthy, but I find really good teams want to know as much as possible about their judges' starting point.

I call myself a "modern policymaker." I prefer hearing debate in a policymaker framework; thus, that is my default paradigm. I do not hold pre-conceived notions over the acceptability of substantive arguments (unless it's offensive). It is possible to mold me into a different paradigm. However, it is the responsibility of the debaters to explain why my "view" is being shifted, along with "how" I am supposed to evaluate the round. If you don't explain, I will evaluate them within the context of my own understanding of debate (using the policymaker perspective). It should also be noted that a tagline is not the same as an explanation. The tag is a summary (aka - a claim) of an explanation (aka - a warrant).

Speed: Sure. I enjoy (prefer?) fast rounds. However, clarity is key. If you try to speak more quickly than you are capable, many judges cannot flow you. It is extremely rare for a debater to speak faster than I can flow; however, many debaters do not speak clearly enough for me to understand them. (I've sat behind many judges who do not ask you to be clear, but also aren't flowing your speeches. It is in your best interest to be clear.) Also, I don't believe that debate rounds have to be fast. I also don't think that a fast team necessarily beats a slow team. The quality of argumentation/engagement/framing is far more important than speed/delivery.

Speech Docs: I keep a pretty good flow, and I should be able to understand you no matter how fast you are speaking. If I can't understand you, then it's not on my flow. About the only time I request a speech doc is (1) if there is disagreement about the internal analysis on a card that I didn't quite get on my flow or if there has been enough disagreement that I question the accuracy of my flow, or (2) at online tournaments due to glitches/Internet issues that impact clarity but have nothing to do with the debaters themselves. Oh... pet peeve: When debaters respond to a Speech Doc rather than a speech OR read a pre-written Speech Doc that isn't responsive to the round. Bottom line: It's not my responsibility to read argumentative "papers" on the topic, but to listen attentively to the debate as it unfolds.

Evidence: It takes many forms. A quotation does not always beat a debater's analysis. Quite often, debaters quote evidence that makes additional unsubstantiated claims, authors who fail to develop a logical point, is horribly overtagged or mistagged, etc. Thus, a high school student is certainly capable of providing superior analysis as compared to that of his/her opponent's card. Responding simply with "do you have a card for that" or "I read a card and they just made a response" doesn't get you very far in the round, because I am listening to the analysis of both the debaters and the author. It is the debaters' responsibility to explain why one is superior to the other.

Signposting: Please. I would prefer that you use a hard count numbering system (or lettering system)… it's quick, it's easy, it's organized, it takes little time for me to write down "1" vs "Chandanabhumma '19." Signposting with "next," "second," "in addition," gets very confusing. Often, I don't realize when you have moved on to the next piece of ev until it's too late; thus, my flow gets muddled. Also, please don't signpost by referencing "my Smith in '04" card. Which Smith in '04 card? Often times, debaters have read multiple cards from the same author. Furthermore, my first two priorities in flowing are the tag line and analysis within the card… I rarely note the author unless it stands out for some reason.

Kritiks: I think many K debates are poorly understood and misapplied to the debate round. Many Neg teams seem to run them as nonunique disads in disguise. Therefore, policy responses seem compelling to me in those instances. It is possible to win my ballot with a critical Aff or Neg (and many have), but you should take the time to explain what your kritik means, how I am supposed to evaluate it in context with your opponent's debating efforts, what role I play in the world/debate/etc. Please don’t assume that I am familiar with your critical rhetoric (I probably am not)… that should go for all arguments. (It is a debater's responsibility to fill in gaps, not the judge's.) Please don't tell me that the "alternative" is the opposite viewpoint of the Aff and that I should reject the Aff (or Neg) in every instance because they represent the "evil" in the system. (Exception: a true moral/ethical position can ask me to reject every instance of something evil... racism, sexism, for example. Even then, your link and alt/framework must be clear.) You need to develop the advocacy of the alternative (and whether it operates pre- or post-fiat) so that I know what my ballot signifies and its relationship to the teams/cases/advocacies in the round.

PICs (of the topical, and non-competitive variety): I think they make rounds confusing... both teams share the same advocacy??? Where is the conflict, the controversy, the debate? Affs have a lot of room to claim that the PIC is the plan, that the CP proves the resolution true, etc. That said, you are welcome to debate the theory (see next section).

Theory : Whatever you want. I think it's great that debaters get to debate and define the rules of this activity. Just make sure you are debating each other and not engaged in a war of blip responses or taglines. (This may mean that you need to slow down and engage in lots of analysis.) If no one engages in a discussion of theory, I will be informed by "traditional debate theory" as viewed through the eyes of a modern policymaker. If you want to turn me into a pure stock issues judge, you need to do some significant work to tell me what that means and how the arguments are to be evaluated. On the flip side, if Aff wants me to reject the Neg explanation that competitiveness on a CP is irrelevant or that Topical CPs are legit, the Aff will have to do more than just say the CP is not competitive/the CP is topical… they'll have to explain why that matters. (If neither team provides analysis, I'll default to my "traditional debate theory in a modern policy context," and agree with the Aff that the CP is non-comp./topical and should be rejected.)
For some, this may lead you to ask, what are some of those traditional debate theory ideas?
- Affs have 5 stock issues. (I'm sure you all know them.)
- CPs have 4 stock issues (non-T, comp., solve Aff harm, & a net benefit)
- Function of the stock issues in a modern policymaker context: They form the building blocks of arguments. If one is absent, the argument can be deemed irrelevant to the outcome of the debate. In short, it's like proving that a DA lacks a link, lacks an impact, or is non-unique… Thus, it ceases to be weighed in the decision calculus.
- Am I tied to these stock issues & functions? Absolutely not, you can mold me/change my perspective, but you must explain/provide analysis about how I should evaluate the debate and be prepared to engage in a theory debate.

Multiple Worlds: I think this strategy makes the round confusing. What does the Neg advocate? Personally, I think smart debaters should be able to point out contradictions and use that to their own strategic advantage. At the same time, I'm open to hearing the theory debate (see section above). After all, I am interested in seeing if you are doing it because there is a strategically sound explanation for it, because you can defend its legitimacy, or because you were lazy & didn't realize that you were contradicting yourself. (Oh, btw, if the Neg can have multiple worlds, I think an Aff could potentially advocate multiple worlds in response. If you disagree, that sounds like another realm of theory debate that can take place.)

Nontraditional Debating (sometimes called "Performance"): I don't believe there is a "right way to debate." For years, I thought performance was destroying debate, was abusive, etc. Then, debaters opened my eyes to the role of nontradtional approaches in debate, and I became intrigued by the idea. I've had several lengthy discussions with nontraditional debaters and seen some exceptional use of nontraditional approaches to the activity. In other words, debaters opened my eyes and educated me. If you continue to do that, I'm completely down with nontraditional approaches. However, some caveats or insights (into my brain) follow...
1) Getting me to vote on the Framework… team X is bad because they debate one way or present a certain way, is probably a tough sell… for either team. (Exception: If their approach to the debate is clearly giving you a link to an argument, that's different.)
2) If your performative approach to the activity -- whether it be line-by-line, poetry, music, narrative, spoken word, etc. -- is more compelling and persuasive when examining the issues, you will likely win.

Politics DAs: There is a time & place... political backlash, elections, etc. However, it seems that most Politics DAs run today are rooted in political capital (as it relates to congress); this seems odd to me since fiat should get the Aff past this reality. That's why the resolution is about what the USFG should do. Of course, fiat doesn't get you past individual actors or voting blocks in congress. Thus, a story hinging on a certain subcommittee, committee chair, majority leader, or group of legislators are ripe for the picking. (Again, I'm open to debate on the theory about how fiat effects the link story.)

Defense: Why can't defense beat a card/argument? Hint: Of course, it can. That said, playing defense against an argument can beat that argument, but you will still need offense somewhere else in order to win the round.

Other:

Pre-written Position Overviews: Please don't read them, unless there is a very good reason to do so. I won't flow them, unless it's obvious that it was necessary. Overviews are "introductions" not arguments, meaning I will happily listen to it for any context it provides, but it won't be on my flow. I am not referring to a 10-20 second conceptualization of the argument or a brief explanation of how it fits into the round. I am referring to the practice of reading 1-3 minute overviews with multiple cards. Generally, they don't have anything to do with the responses of your opponents. Often, they reference (or cross apply or answer) ev that may or may not have been read in this particular round. Almost never do debaters use them effectively by cross-applying them to specific responses of their opponents or developing the internal link story or impact scenarios of their own positions, which makes the round messy.

CX: Is a time for debaters to seek clarification from one another… in an effort to achieve "gooder debate." As long as you don't get rude, I don't care what you do in CX. I don't flow CX, but I do keep an open ear, because I think you should be held to your answer; a shifting target is not representative of "gooder debate." (Note: That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to a good disco.)

2NRs/2ARs: Write the RFD. Don't leave it up to me. You should spell out the round. Compare the arguments. Compare the relative efforts between the two sides. Engage in impact comparisons. (But, don't neglect the line-by-line. Much of these comparisons can be inherently obvious as you work your way down the line-by-line, but an excellent 2NR/2AR saves the last 45-75 seconds to write the RFD for the judge.)

Speaker Points: Obviously, this is pretty subjective. I assign speaks based on how well you accomplished the duties/needs of your particular speeches... did you do what was necessary to put your team in contention for the ballot. Yes, some things like clarity will come into play, as well, since that informs how good my flow is. As far as the speaker point range: I judge on a number of circuits with different standards. The functional range in Alaska, for example, is 20-30 with a 25 being an average debater... thus, the vast majority of speaks I assign are in the 23-27 range. However, at NSDA/NCFL/NAUDL, the functional range seems to be 25-30 with an average debater being around a 27.5. Thus, most speaks I assign at nationals are in the 26.5-29 range. I obviously have been changing this as the circuit demands. One of the first things I ask the ballot table any time I judge at a tournament that I haven't been too recently is, "What is the functional range of speaker points here?"

Most importantly, Have Fun!

Debate paradigm:

For all formats, I focus on solid argumentation and skillful use of rhetoric. Framework is important to me. Tell me how you plan to win your argument and follow through. I do not usually favor competitors who try avoiding the topic by focusing on loosely connected tangents or technicalities. When giving voters, I do not enjoy hearing a list of individual points won. Instead, I favor big-picture summaries of what you have accomplished in the debate focused on how each individual argument supports your side of the resolution. Avoid the over-use of debate-specific terms, like which points "flow through". You should be able to tell me in lay terminology how you've won this debate. Especially be careful of claiming your opponent "dropped your case" or similar claims. If you claim this and it isn't true, this will affect my decision.

Speak clearly and with sufficient volume that I do not need to guess what you said. Courtesy towards your opponent is important to me. You should be able to argue without resorting to name-calling or caustic accusations. Communication skills matter as well. If I feel opponents are rhetorically matched, nonverbal and vocal communication skills may break the tie for me.

Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge enough to enjoy the competition. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy, too!

Format-specific paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas:

Value and criterion debate are crucial. I will heavily consider those competitors who successfully advocate their value and criterion over their opponent’s. One can lose the flow but win the value/criterion debate and still win the round.

I only partially flow, and I only judge partially based on the flow. A dropped argument is still considered poor argumentation to me, but not all arguments carry the same weight, and just because a contention is glossed over does not mean the entire debate was lost. I will expect more rhetorically sound, evidence-based contentions to be the priority.

Some competitors try adapting strategies from other debate formats to LD, such as running kritik or spreading. I do not favor such strategies. I focus on the moral argumentation, on rhetorically sound argumentation of the assigned topic, and on clear, professional communication skills.

I am a parent judge. I competed in speech and debate all through high school and college. I did some LD debate and some CEDA, but I focused a lot of my time on platform speech events (original oratory, informative, communication analysis, extemp, impromptu, poetry, and duo). I am a lawyer by profession and currently serve as a justice on a state supreme court. So, I evaluate arguments on their merit, but I also value communication skills. I’m not a huge fan of topicality arguments and certainly do not see a topicality as being jurisdictional in the sense that it deprives a judge of authority to judge a round. Someone would have to be taking some serious liberties with the resolution for me to vote on topicality grounds. I am also open to evaluating plans and counter-plans, and taking conflicting positions (when done clearly and when well-warranted) does not offend my sensibilities.

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery?

It's important that the extemp format is followed. I would prefer there be a min. of 2 sources per point. I prefer an AG that you can tie back to during each transition.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer?

Much like extemp at least 2-3 sources per point. I like the intro to be tied into the subject and your transitions link back to your AG.

Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events?

I love teasers! Make sure you intro truly introduce your piece and it isn't too long

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc.?

I prefer there to be lots of movement and blocking. Help me visualize where you are and who you are talking to.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)?

I'm not ok with vulgar pieces. I am ok with some profanity but not a lot.

WSD Judging

I'm looking for teams who can defend their case and attack their opponents. I expect you to use the proper terms (opp/prop/motions) You will lose points from me if you are rude in anyway. I'm looking for everyone to be good speakers and be able to explain their side in a way that makes sense and convinces me that you should win.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

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

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

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

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

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

Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

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

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

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

I have judged debate and forensics off and on for the last 7 years.

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.

I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.

I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.

\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.

I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.

Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.

I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.

How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.

I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.

On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.

Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.

I have debated since 8th grade, and now I am a college forensicator at Western Kentucky University. In high school, I competed in Policy Debate, Public Form, and Congressional Debate and also Interp events during the Forensics season.

Here is my Policy Debate Paradigm:

K's

- I was always a K debater, so I have a sweet spot for them. Make sure if you read a K you describe it well and explain the world of your alt.

Topicality

- Topicality is not a heavy voter for me. I'm not a fan of using it just for a time-filler. However, when running/answering T, please structure it correctly.

Speed

- Speed is not a big problem for me though I am not a huge fan of spreading. If you spread, make sure you explain your cards well and slow down for taglines and more important points

On-case Arguments

- Aff, these are very important to keep consistant throughout the round. Offense is just as important as defense.

- For the neg finding solvency deficits is a significant voter for me.

Other Off-Case Arguments

- I'm down to hear any disads, CPs, etc. as long as you prove their relevance in the round.

*If any team says anything racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudiced, etc. it will be an automatic loss.*

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS

Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

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.

Experience: competed in pf and policy, currently coach and run the NWFL Civics and Debate League as an ambassador coach.

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. I don't mind aggressive clash debate, but it must remain professional and nonpersonal.

Debate Policies:
I bring a flow pad into the room and you have to prove to me your side will create a better world than your opponent's. I am a flow judge, so be cautious of dropping points and make sure your crystallization is thorough- weigh evidence and contentions.

Speaker points come through in presentation and communication. Pay attention to hand gestures, body language, and eye contact. You CAN be the better speaker and the worse debater, they are two different scores for a reason.

Cross-examination will not be flowed or scored in judging, points must be brought up again in a speech to make the ballot. Does impact speaking points.
I lean slightly tech over truth, but extremes of that are a hard sell.

Dislikes:

Spreading is fine, but quantity does not make up for quality, analysis must be thorough.

Likes:

Stand during Cross. Look at me, not the opponent.

Love an off-time roadmap. Helps clarify the flow and clean up the organization.

All debate lies in Impacts and Clash. Prove to me why your world is better than the opponents.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Background: Head Coach at Robbinsdale Armstrong and Robbinsdale Cooper HS in Minnesota. There I coach LD, PF and Congressional Debate.

Most Important: Debate should be about comparing and weighing arguments. In LD (and optional in PF) there should be a criterion (standard) which argument are weighed through. The purpose of the criterion is to filter out arguments. So simply winning the criterion does not mean you win the debate. You should have arguments that link to the winning criterion and those arguments should be weighed against any opposing/linking arguments. If the debaters do not weigh the arguments, then you force the judge to do that weighing for you and that is never good.

Overall: Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. Speed within limits is ok. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you. No need to ask if I want to be on the email chain, job of debate is to communicate the evidence to me.

Congressional Debate: Read everything above because it is still valuable information. Congressional Debate is debate by nature. It is not a dueling oratory round. In general, the first cycle is there to set up arguments in the round. The author/sponsor speech should be polished. All other speeches should have elements of refutation to other students and arguments in the round. If you are giving a speech in the fourth cycle and never refer to another person's argument, you are not going to score well in front of me. Simply dropping a person's name isn't refutation. You should tell me why their argument is wrong. With evidence it is even better.

You should do everything in your power to not go back-to-back on the same side. I will flow little of a second speech back-to-back on the same side. If you are the third speaker on the same side in a row, I'm not flowing any of it. Debaters should be prepared to switch sides if necessary. Lastly, there is a trend for no one to give an author/sponsor speech as they are worried, they will not score well. That isn't true in front of me. All parts of the debate are important.

The questioning period is about defeating arguments not to make the person look good. Softball questions are not helpful to debate. Do it multiple times and expect your rank to go down. All aspects, your speech, the quality of sources, refutation and questioning all go into your final rank. Just because you speak the prettiest does not mean you are the champion. You should be able to author/sponsor, refute, crystalize, ask tough questions, and defend yourself in questioning throughout the debate. Do all in a session and you are in decent shape.

Presiding Officers (PO): The PO will start with a rank of six in all chambers for me. From there, you can work your way up or down based on your performance. PO's who are clearly favoring the same school or same circuit students will lose rank. A PO can absolutely receive the one in my ranks likewise they can be unranked if you make many errors.

The current trend is for "super wordy" PO's. You do not need to say things like "Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for 1 minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." If you add up the above through an entire session, that adds up to multiple speeches that were taken by the PO. Watch how many words you say between speeches, question blocks, etc. A great PO blends away in the room. Extra language like "The chair thanks you", "this is speech 22", etc. All of this is just filler words for the PO taking time away from the debate. Lastly, a "chair" doesn't have feelings. It is not rude to be efficient.

I track precedence/recency in all sessions. I keep a detailed flow in all rounds debate - Congress, LD and PF.

Disclosure: I typically do not give any oral critiques. All the information will be on the ballot.

Keep it logical - there should be a clear line from claims through warrants to impacts. Warrants should come from viable, verifiable sources, which might include philosophers for LD.

LD should clearly link every contention to the value and VC. If you can prove that your opponent's contentions fit your value and VC, bonus points.

Although I am an experienced judge, and I can handle *some* speed, that should not be the primary vehicle of a debater. This is about communication, not who can cram the most words into their constructive. If I can't understand you, I can't give you the win; when you spread, I cannot keep up mentally or physically as I flow, thus, I cannot understand your points and whether they meet the criteria of logic and reason. Use your time in the constructive well to give me your best claims, warrants, and impacts for your side of the debate. Learn how to summarize and "fold" your arguments as you continue the round so that you don't have to feel inclined to spread. Remember: you are trying to convince me, and I have to be able to understand you to be convinced that you have the better arguments.

I use an electronic spreadsheet to flow the round. Please don't tell me your opponent dropped something unless you are absolutely positive they did - I am flowing, so I have a record of the round. I will use what I record about your claims, warrants, and impacts (and how well you supported and used your value and VC in LD) to decide the round.

Keep it respectful. This is about civic discourse, not shaming, humiliating, embarrassing, or otherwise putting down your opponent. Such behavior will cost you the round, and I will report it to the tournament host.

I will not disclose unless told specifically by tournament staff to do so. Don't ask.

My name is Michael Buck and I am a Congressional and World Schools debate coach from Indiana. I have experience coaching Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have been a debate coach since 2015. I also have experience coaching public address speech events.

I am a traditional judge. I look for impacts and how your case connects to the resolution or legislation. I do not like spreading. Persuade me on the merits of your case. I look for classic elements of debate.

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!

This is my fourth year judging--I enjoy it and am so impressed with all the competitors.

I'm glad to judge across all speech and debate disciplines.

I base my winners on clarity, organization, dynamic speaking, engagement with/commitment to the topic, and respectfulness toward peers. Thank you.

Intro on myself:

I debated Policy my entire high school career at Lawrence High. (2009-2012)

I currently coach Speech and Debate in Missouri.

General:

Read as fast as you want, but please slow down on citations, tags, and blocks so I can keep track of them. My general rule of thumb though is that if I can’t understand you then I can’t vote for you.

Don’t speak over your opponent. It isn’t constructive to the debate nor will it be tolerated. It should also go without saying that if you’re rude in general to the opposing team that it will not be looked kindly upon.

Cutting evidence (e.g. making the font size .1 or taking out things all together) to make your argument sound better is considered cheating in my eyes. Don’t do it.

Speaks are not decided based on speed or presentation alone, but moreover your effectiveness as a debater to convince me of your arguments.

I will keep time and follow NSDA guidelines for grace periods or the lack thereof.

Arguments:

I can handle most arguments. I tend to default as a policy maker. If you choose to run a policy argument just make sure that it is explained well enough as to why I should be voting for it. Other than that I am pretty open to anything you want to run.

K’s- I am not a big fan of Kritiks. I am not saying that you shouldn’t run them, just be aware that you will need to explain it (why I should vote for it) to me very well if you want me to consider it.

Lastly, and most importantly… Have FUN!

Best of luck!

Paradigm for Congressional Debate- David Burnett

To me, Congressional Debate is a beautiful combination of the best qualities of all things speech and debate. From the theatric element of presentation and strong, impactful delivery to excellent points of contention and clash, the skilled congressional debater must strike a balance between presentation and statistics.

What do I look for when judging?

1. Impact

Who does this bill hurt? Who does it help? Why is there a sense of urgency to pass or fail this legislation. While this may sound simple, too many speeches get bogged down with piles of fluff or dry statistics. Above all, you are there to legislate. The mark of all great legislators is the ability to strike a common tone with their audience and work together with other legislators to create solutions and lasting change.

2. Congressional Decorum

Direct questioning is not the time for PF-style shouting matches. Additionally, PF and Policy jargon take away from the 'Congressional' element of the event. Yes, we all want great attacks across the 'flow' and for the 'Affirmative' to point out the 'drops' of the 'Negative' side. While those terms certainly frame and inform congressional debate, we should still present it for what it is- super high-quality debate in the style of the United States Congress. Pass, fail, my constituents, my district, etc. all add to the charm of this wonderful event.

3. Unique and exciting information

Above all, I hope each speaker brings great information to the floor and avoids repeating anyone's point unless they intend to clash with it or expand upon it.

Have fun and be kind to one another!

I debated 3 years in high school, and have 5 years coaching experience. I am the current assistant coach at Mountain View High School in Idaho. Most of my focus is on policy debate. When it comes to evaluating the round of any style of debate, I am a tabs judge. If you tell me how to vote, that's the way I will vote. I want you all to debate the best way you do and not try and adapt to what I like. If you can explain to me why you should win the debate, you will win the debate.

With that being said, I have a harder time seeing why running a Kritik should win you my ballot. I do default more to a policy framework. If you can take the time to tell me why you win, then run a K. However, I do tend to see more of a reason to vote for a policy argument. I also love to vote on Theory and Topicality. If you can show abuse in this round, then you have my ballot. Please feel free to ask me any specific questions at the beginning of the round.

I’m a first year head coach. With my team, I’m largely focused on public address events but I also enjoy debate.

My professional background is in communications which influences my judging in any event. This means I’m looking for clarity and I want you to engage me with your speech. Please do not spread. I strongly prefer conversational cadence.

Analysis is important. I appreciate a clear explanation of your position, good organization with signposting, description of impacts and clash. I expect you to keep your own time.

Be professional. Be nice. Have fun.

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

I am the Director of Interp and Oratory/Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director prior to specializing in Speech and Debate.

Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Wimberley (TX)

First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.

Congress

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Interp:

I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to really connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, environment should be clear and blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this with in the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you really connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to character, and share that with the audience.

Public Speaking:

Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, it is important that your content is accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.

PF:

• I try to flow, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.

• Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.

• Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.

• I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.

• Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.

• If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.

• Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.

PF/LD Paradigms

I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be sure to focus on cross-examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.

On an aside, I do like debaters to keep it professional. I like it when people stand for cross-examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents' speeches but also to their team member's speeches.

Congress Paradigms

I look for competitors who are prepared to speak on any topic - especially if they have prepared to speak on both sides of the topic. I look for quality speeches that add value to the debate; if we're four cycles in and you aren't bringing new information, crystallizing information we've heard, or providing a new rebuttal then it's easy for your speech to get lost amongst the masses. Activity in the chamber is good - I'm looking for you to be engaged in listening to other speeches, asking valuable questions, and working together to run a fair and efficient chamber.

Interp Paradigms

I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.

For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.

For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, and well-defined points supported by a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.

General note for everyone - I have a really bad thinking face and I'm going to look confused and upset. I'm not - don't take it personally! It's just my face and I don't really have a whole lot of control over that. Plenty of times I've had my own students tell me they were sure I hated what they were doing and then I was very complimentary of their work. So I promise you my face has nothing against you! It's just a grumpy face.

Coach focusing on interp and speech address events.

Twenty years of coaching speech and debate (LD, PF, and Policy) mostly in Colorado, but last six years in Florida.

Two Colorado PF State Champions, as well as a team that finished 4th in NSDA Nationals. Look for quality arguments that have clean internal links and impacts. I look for teams that know how to properly weigh the opposing positions, and can identify the most impactful arguments that have surfaced in the round. Flow judge, but I can only flow what I can hear, so excessive speed will cost you. The winning team will know how to use each different speech in PF according to its designed intent (e.g. a Final Focus should not look like a frantic line-by-line rebuttal).

Coached state LD champ in Colorado and several NSDA national qualifiers in LD. Fairly traditional in LD judging. Will weigh competing values, but cases must clearly link to value being proposed/defended. Definitely a flow judge, but all arguments are not created equally. Looking for good analysis, and will definitely look for clear links. For that reason, spread is not generally going to impress me as I value quality over quantity. Some speed is fine, but most debaters think they are clearer at speed than they are, and if you fail to clearly communicate your argument, I can't properly flow it. Most kritiks are pretty poorly constructed, and I can only recall picking up a team based on their K one or two times. Debaters like to ask if I will vote on Theory arguments. The simple answer is that it depends on the theory and how well its run.

Also judge WSD. I generally like this form. The key to winning is well constructed argumentation, with proper warrants for your claims (empirical evidence or through logic, both count). This is a unique form and I expect you to use your time well in the way you structure your speeches, build on previous arguments (don't just repeat), and clearly demonstrate how your arguments refute or subsume your opponents. Delivery should be more 'congressional' than that of a spread debater. Quality, not quantity, of argument wins here. Use your POIs well. They are an interesting strategic device.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

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

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

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

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

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

If you choose to spread make sure you emphasize your most important pieces like your advantages and plans. I do prefer that you don't spread.

I don't mind if cross is heated but keep it ethical and under control.

I am a parent judge with two years judging LD. While I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread, that's your decision, but keep in mind if I cannot track what you're saying, that won't be to your advantage. In fairness, I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.

I take a lot of notes and will be heads down - but I will be very engaged. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.

You can sit or stand, either are fine.

If time approaches, I usually let you finish your thought up to about :10 seconds. If you start a new thought after time has elapsed, I'll end that segment. I will not take points off for that.

If you ask for X minutes for prep time, I'll let you know when that time has elapsed. However, it's your time, so if you want to keep going that's perfectly fine.

Unless we're in higher levels of competition with multiple judges, I won't reveal my decision or give feedback after the round, but I do make every effort to leave notes in tabroom for the round and each individual.

I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent

Please speak loud and clear. Also, please be civil towards your opponent(s).

Specifically for LD: I'm fine with Progressive Arguments (Counter plans, Disadvantages, Kritiks, theory, etc.), just be reasonable and explain it clearly so that I can understand what you are saying. For theory, please make sure it is an actual abuse in the round.

Lay Judge!

Longtime Speech Coach, focused on excellent delivery and professionalism.

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

For the past thirty years, I have been judging individual events.

For interpretation events and duo, I value natural, motivated, and believable characterizations. All movement should be motivated, not just visually stimulating without real purpose. The key to believable characterization is an internalization of the motivations that manifest themselves through the nonverbal communication channels. Performances that cause me to reflect upon what I have seen/ heard long after the event are indicative of a great, mature performer. (This should be applied to both humorous and dramatic pieces.)

When evaluating public address and limited prep events, I believe the content of the speech with credible sources should be paramount; however, the delivery and connection to the audience must also be present in order to captivate the audience. Support should delve beyond a superficial quotation or secondary source rendering; consequently, I find the unified approach to be far more powerful since it allows the speaker to develop the arguments further than a three part line of reasoning approach (especially in extemporaneous and impromptu speaking). Again, the speaker needs to cultivate a relationship with the audience in order for the content to be effective.

When evaluating debate, the focus should be the strength and depth of both sides of the argument. Fallacies and flawed policies should be exposed. A skilled speaker/ team can conduct himself or herself professionally and analytically without the rapid fire of spreading. The argument should not be made at the expense of the relationship with the audience. I follow a leader who inspires and talks to/ with me, not at me. Points that are hard to flow are not points at all.

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Policy/CX Debate:

I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. The following is personal preference, but one thing that irks me as a judge is teams that kick arguments that they are winning or that there is good debate on, only kick arguments if you're absolutely sure the argument will have no impact on the round at all. Also, when you kick an argument, please be explicit about kicking the argument and don't "silent kick" an argument.

Style and Delivery Preferences:

I want to be able to understand every word you say. I will award higher speaker points to debaters that speak the most fluently, with the fewest mistakes, as long as I understand them.

Hi--thanks for looking me up!

I'm a debate parent, a career English and Ethnic Studies professor, and a former member of the USC Debate Squad. My events were duo interp. and the "After Dinner Speech" (i.e., precursor to TED talk with goals to entertain and instruct). This is my 3rd year judging and I have voted with the majority in 85% of debate elim rounds.

Debate: I will flow your case and vote on the strength of it as a whole (no petty line-by-line here). My academic background is in rhetoric, so I like good evidence and precise word choice; it follows that I see overstatement as intellectually sloppy, annoying, and sometimes a critical error (looking at you, extinction-level arguments!). The best debaters will use superb sources and be vigilant about their opponents' blocks for the same. Cross is a strategic opportunity to open holes or create a path for your own case, so "repeat this" questions that primarily offer your opponent more airtime reflect poorly on you. Tone matters, so cross can be aggressive but not demeaning or bullying. Logical links should be made often and with crystal clarity. Real-world examples that are not cliche and offer you an opportunity to "make real" your framework and showcase the depth and adeptness of your thinking are always impressive.

Don'ts: I am totally unimpressed and dispirited by teams that share or use common cases. In my field we call it plagiarism and consider it illegal. Therefore, duplicate cases will be judged with great disadvantage. (Opponents are advised to drill down and demand logical links and sophisticated explanations from different points of view that folks who copy cases often cannot provide.)

Spreading: I am not (yet) convinced that spreading works. I see it as a flashy (and cheap) excuse for not doing the harder intellectual work of analysis and concision that debate, at its best, demands. Please don't waste my time and yours by subscribing to this rhetorical game that undermines the essential and transferable skills at the heart of this amazing program.

Furthermore, I am offended by the practice of sending written cases since I believe it compromises the careful listening and oral argument abilities that debate is designed to cultivate in real time. Please don't ask me if I'd like to be sent your case--you will be revealing that you haven't read my paradigm.

IEs: I believe in genre categories, so a Dec should sound like a speech and not a DI. HI should be LOL funny instead of weird/odd. Interp speeches should be cut to highlight a clear plot arc with tension, depth, and a satisfying conclusion. Sources matter and should be clearly and respectfully credited. Platform speeches should sound professional and resist drama creep.

I don't profess to be "right," but I believe that earnest feedback is a gift; I will do my best to be diligent and offer you what I can. I am grateful to learn something from you in nearly every round I have the pleasure of hearing (thank you!).

Most importantly, I celebrate you! I'm impressed that you've made the choice to participate in Speech and Debate, and I believe that your hard work here will benefit every aspect of your future. Many of you are already more advanced than my freshmen and sophomores in the CSU. It's such a pleasure to listen to you and to watch you grow over the seasons! :) Let's go!

Prof. Cassel

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Hello my name is Shannon Catlin. I have judged debate for the last four years, while also participating as a debater in my high school career. When I sit down to a debate I prefer to hear evidence based proof with a footprint to back your sources. I also look for if a debater understands what they are presenting, explaining in your own terms.

I like to see what your policy is and how your plan of action will work with proof and funding. I watch for confident body language and being able to make eye contact with your peers.

I will allow spectators if the participants also agree, however they will not be allowed electronic devises.

Let's have s great debate.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

When it comes to interpretation events, I am drawn to performances that marry the synergy between literature, fully crafted performances, and effective blocking. I'll be looking for a well-crafted and engaging message that not only captivates the audience but also demonstrates a deep appreciation for the literary nuances in your chosen material. Ensure your content is not just spoken but embodied, utilizing effective blocking to enhance the visual dimension of your performance. Your delivery remains pivotal, so articulate your words with confidence, using your voice, body language, and strategic blocking to create a cohesive and immersive presentation. Pay attention to pacing and timing for a seamless and dynamic flow. Tell me a story, take me on a journey, and make me feel something!

A successful debate performance is one that is easily intelligible and persuasive to a general audience, listeners who are not trained in the arcana of debate terminology, and does so with a rate of delivery that is spirited but does not draw attention to itself by its speed.

Persuasion comes from a Latin word meaning "thoroughly sweet". Being persuasive allows the speaker to challenge the opinions of an audience by a fusion of rigorous logic and an oratorical style that does not offend but which urges the listener to buy into the speaker's take on the great issues of our day..

Br. Anthony K. Cavet

Catholic Memorial School

West Roxbury MA

Nov 19, 2020

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.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

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: 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.

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

I am a parent judge whose son competes in Congressional debate. I have judged a few tournaments, specifically in congress.

Below are some things I want to see:

1. confidence and clarity when speaking

2. do not be rude to your fellow competitors

3. make your argument as clear and easy to understand as possible

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 judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

Nagesh Cherukuri

First time judging

Preferences:

Speech:

• please be kind to one another during the round
• please provide your title and author before you being speaking
• please do not ask for time signals: you are all varsity and seasoned speakers, you should not need these
• if you forget your speech, you will not be permitted to restart, please keep going
• also, do not walk in while someone is performing, wait for the speaker to finish

Debate:

• please speak slowly, no spreading
• simplify your arguments before explaining them during rebuttal
• please be kind to one another during the round

For me Academic Speech & Debate is all about learning. I am a parent volunteer judge. I have judged a couple of speech tournaments for past 2 years. In a debate I am looking for significant and relevant arguments that stand to fact checking. Please do not spread. This is very important. Speak at conversational pace so that I can follow your arguments. I have very basic understanding of debate jargons so avoid them. I want to focus on your debate round so each team should keep their own time. Please be extremely polite and respectful to everyone in the room. Good luck and have fun!

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

Public Forum:

Parent judging with minimal experience — be understanding and adapt to that. That means going slower, using logical arguments that don’t follow crazy reasoning, not using debate jargon, and being respectful in round. I’ll try to make the best decision possible based off the importance and weighing to arguments and you're reasoning for why I should vote for you. Remember, the clearer you are, the more likely you are to get my ballot.

Quick note: for cross x, I will listen but not flow. If you want me to note something, mention it in the next speech.

Congress:

Make your argumentation and impacts very clear. Reference other people in the round - clash is good!

Hello, I am a parent judge but I am semi-familiar with the debate circuit, but mainly PF. Treat me like a lay judge, though.

Add me to the chain: yeonkcho@gmail.com

Couple prefs:
1. Trad/larp
2. Phil
3. K (cap, security, etc. just the simple ones), aff Ks
Strike: tricks, weird aff ks (high theory), friv theory

Tech > truth

Speed:
Don’t spread, please. It kind of decks all the benefits of debate as a portable skill. I’ll boost your speaks if you win while being clear/slow

Evidence:
Don’t clip. Check evidence of your opponent. I’ll vote on ivi/dtd if you tell me.

CPs:
I like a good CP, but just make sure to warrant this out really well. I’m skewed a little bit more towards perm, but if you win on the CP I’m happy to vote on it

T
I’m not very familiar with very tricky/progressive debates. Try, if possible, to keep it trad

Theory:
Not really familiar, but I will vote on it. I default no i
K:
I’m kind of familiar with the common Ks, but please explain it well. In your 1NR, read a brief overview of what the k does. If it’s K v Phil, explain clearly why K > Phil of vice versa. K v Ks hurt my brain.

Aff Ks:
You can run it, but I’m super unfamiliar with them. I’ll be happy to vote on them if you explain them really well, though, and leverage it out over your opponents.

Hello,

I will pay attention to your presentation skills and understanding of the topic. My comments will be mainly on your strengths and areas of improvement.

Your clear thinking, good speaking, and exciting presentation will make you a strong speaker.

All the best!

Who am I:

I am the head speech & debate coach at Idaho Falls HS. I've been a head coach for 10 years, and also competed in high school and college.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) Win the flow. If you drop an issue in a speech, do not bring it back up. In PF, dropped arguments are technically ok (you gotta summarize after all). Just make sure to communicate to me on why it is good/bad/unimportant that an argument was dropped.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is regular conversational speed, but I understand when you have to pick it up a bit. Not a fan of spreading.

6) Comms: The more I coach and teach, the more I find myself being persuaded by stronger and more polished speakers. Don't forget about good speaking techniques!

CONGRESS:

Good congress involves speaking extemporaneously, using evidence and analysis, and having excellent speaking skills. I will rank you higher if you are kind, yet strong in your quesitoning answers. Good congress people should be present throughout the round the round through both speeches and questions. I recognize that preset recency can be difficult, so make sure you are both asking questions, and raising your placard to speak often!

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate, but i'm open to progressive ideas (or CPs). Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large weighing mechanism for me, so make sure I know why I should prefer your V/CR and how you use that to win the round.

K's/Theory

I don't prefer Ks, but recognize the need for theory at times. I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Plan's/Counterplans

I'm much more accepting of CPs than Ks in LD. I understand when a CP is necessary to run as the neg.

POLICY DEBATE:

I tend to be a more traditional-style policy judge, as in I judge following traditional rules. However, I'm still very open to arguments. I don't love Ks, mostly because I think debating the heart of the topic is important. I love a good T shell when the aff isn't topical (you won't find me penalizing you for T...unless you run a million as a time suck. Then I might not like it). Line-by-line and sign posting are key. I would say I'm about a 5 out of 10 on a speed scale for policy. If you go too quickly, you will notice me flowing less, so be aware.

PF DEBATE:

I love good public forum debate! I think good PF is a balance between amazing argumentation (line-by-line, direct clash, etc.) and killer speaking skills. I think good teamwork with your partner is very important. Treat your partner like a person who deserves respect. Both partners should be involved in Grand Cross. I prefer crystalization over line-by-line in the summary, but I won't punish you for a line-by-line refutation summary. Weighing is crucial in PF. Tell me WHY I should prefer your arguments and impacts so that I don't have to intervene with my own thoughts during deliberation. Debaters that don't tell the judge exactly what to vote on andwhy are just inviting the judge to choose whatever they want, leading to intervention.

Calling for evidence during in-person rounds

From the judge---

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

From your opponent---

I will not time you to give evidence to your opponents, but I will time you if you start reading the evidence and analyzing it. I believe that should be done in prep. If you are taking too long to find/give evidence to your opponents, I will start your prep time. So be quick!

Have an excellent round!! Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round starts!

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

Berkeley is an exciting time! Have fun, and make smart decisions! I can keep up with speed, but be fair to other debaters.

The ability to craft an argument towards your judges is a critical skill, and so checking paradigms is a good start. Mine are simple — be kind, be realistic, and be better than your opponent.

If not nice, be decent. No name calling or intentional interruptions.

If not realistic, be unrealistic within reason. Try not to speak in absolutes like “There is no way impact X could happen because my 1 card refutes” or “my impacts of nuclear fallout absolutely flow through with 100% certainty in 5 years.”

Falsified evidence is also not cool! Don’t do that!

If you’re not better than your opponent, you’ll probably lose the round. Unless they are needlessly rude and unrealistic (see above).

I can keep up with any type of debate, but I'm not going to judge you strictly tech over truth. I won't make arguments for your opponent, but I'm not gonna let you say the sky is red, and make your opponent prove the sky is blue, because that undermines the quality of debate. Being accurate is an important part of winning.

My email for evidence sharing is loganchr@usc.edu

Also, I won't take points off, but avoid off-time roadmaps. Use the time that the NSDA gives you in your speech to outline your speech.

Primarily, I am a coach and educator. I have always felt strongly that debate is a contest of ideas and communication skills. I have no preferences in the round; however, if you speak so quickly that your ideas are diminished, I will have a hard time voting for you, especially if your opponent is more articulate (even with weaker arguments).
I vote on whatever I found to be effective in the round. The more specific your arguments are to what happens in the debate, the greater your chances of earning my ballot. I’m looking for clash and reward debaters who work to ensure it is achieved.

I am philosophically opposed to disclosing my ballot at the end of the round. I will only offer oral critique if I saw something that I think I could share to help you with the remaining rounds in the tournament (adjusting your case, how you could have argued more effectively, etc.). Everything else I am thinking during the round I will note on the ballot.

Please add me on the email chain: amandaciocca@gmail.com

I feel like this is important to add at the top bc no one reads paradigms anymore: OPINIONS ON 1AC DISCLO AND TRICKS HAVE CHANGED

Most of you are familiar with my judging preferences but just a little background on me. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I worked at TDC over the summer and I privately coach some kiddos so I've been active in the activity. I also am the co-founder of the Latine and Hispanic Debate Foundation, follow us on ig @landhdebatefoundation

Im most comfortable with K's, K v T-fwk, LARP, and some phil, slightly more comfy evaling substantive theory debates.

Favorite things I've read/ judged: Borderlands, any Anzaldúa position, Crenshaw, Latine IdPol, Intersectional Fem, Set Col, Black Fem, Queer Pess, and NonT K Affs v T-fwk/Cap.

Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, Jack Ave, Elijah Pitt, Lily Guizat, and Isaac Chao.

Standing conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Clear Lake RM, Heights CT, Heritage Independent WT, Clear Springs EG, Lincoln East BH

Pref guide:

K: 1

LARP: 1

Phil: 2/3 (more comfy w Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Butler)

Trad: 3

Theory: 2

Tricks: 4

________________________________________________

LD Specs:

Does Amanda vote you down for being mean? This seems to be a question floating around so I'll just say this: any blatant verbal discrimination/harassment of an opponent will get you an L 20. I don't tolerate in-round violence, I will stop the round and will ask you to leave the room. HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!! The round is no place for hate.

Theory: I bumped theory from a 3 to 2 because I've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells! I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

LARP-I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :)) Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.

Phil-I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.

Tricks- LOVE K TRICKS BRING THEM BACK! Have voted on Indexicals and Solipsism. This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

Please add me to the email chain dciocca@columbushs.com

I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.

Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic

Counter-plans: All good.

Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.

Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.

DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here

T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.

Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.

Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.

Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed

I prefer debate that is suitable for a courtroom. Professional, clear, and well organized. Usually frameworks are a waste of time.

By event type, you can see my general thought process below:

Congress:

I value the PO (having been one myself in the past) and consistently rank excellence in PO over excellent in round speakers, as the PO is "on" for an entire session, rather than just for a few minutes over a couple of hours. If you are seasoned in congress, I would expect that you run for PO, it is your way to give back to the event, while still giving you plenty of opportunity to win your chamber. For PO's: please be loud enough to be heard in the back of the room (where I will generally be), and DO NOT POINT your gavel at the participants - for me, it is a cardinal sin of a PO (you WILL be deducted for it!)

After the first speech on each side, remember your burden - there should be a recognition that you will need to further your side of the argument, and also defend against the other side to be truly effective. There is an extemporaneous element to speeches that should be evident, rather than reading only a canned speech. I do expect a full citation on all sources. During cross, I do look for a speaker to be able to defend their aff/neg contentions - the inability to do so will hurt you in scoring of the session (I use cross as my tiebreaker with speakers - so I am listening!). At the end of the day, congress is meant to be conversational and persuasive, articulating the possibility of change - it is not necessarily meant to change the world in 90 minutes. Have some fun with this - you did a large amount of preparation for this event (up to 10 billis, aff/neg for all and cards for quick prep). The hard part is done in advance - the speeches are the end result. BONUS POINTS for you if you can make the room laugh during the round.

Impromptu

I am super open to the creative side of this event. It is the only event that does not allow for a preplanned presentation, has almost no prep, yet expects you to still make sense of a completely random topic, meme, or idea. Those that tend to do well with me will not only use their allotted time (within margin is ok), but tells me a story about their topic that is easy to follow, has structure, and gives me something to think about. Originality in this event is rewarded, and bonus points for you if you have jokes during your delivery (it is super hard to do, and shows you to be comfortable in one of the most uncomfortable environments on the circuit).

Extemp

This is, and always has been, my favorite event! I value the analysis and warranting of a topic over a volume of evidence your speech. Draw me the map of the topic, why you are choosing your direction and how you are supporting your ideas. I will find it difficult to rank you highly if all that you do is throw out card after card throughout the presentation. Remember, there is a presentation element to this event - there should not be a need for more than 4 or 5 sources, as they are meant to be supportive of your spin on the topic, not the crux of the argument. Presentation quality is a HUGE factor - and is most likely my tiebreaker in many rounds. Lay out the ideas in order and summarize at the end. Leave me something to remember you by - what sets you apart in round, how do I justify giving you the 1?

LD

DO NOT SPREAD in this event. I have expectations that LD is a more traditional debate format, where the conversational nature of the event is to persuade me to believe in your conclusions, so I expect a traditional case. There should not be progressives, kritiks or counterplans in an LD round - if you want to play that way - you should look at competing in policy, not LD. I rely on framework to evaluate the round and value warranting and analysis over volumes of evidence. The articulation of the value definition, your analytical ability and weight of your argument in the framework of the case are primary ballot drivers.

As a judge, I rely on the debaters to handle and treat their evidence properly. Do not cut off a card to make it fit your point. If the whole card actually means something else, find a proper card to support your contention. If there are questions about use of evidence and I ask for your card, you should be very concerned. I assume all debaters will make ethical use of evidence. That said, I will follow tournament procedures for any and all violations and will immediately drop a competitor who misuses evidence. This format is meant to be a conversational exchange of the ideas at hand, not an exercise in debate theory or technical games. If you wish to explore those options in round, it is highly unlikely that you will earn my ballot.

Policy

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage. For this reason, I am not a huge proponent of the spread format. Overall, spread rounds make debate inaccessible for the general public, diminishes the impact of your arguments, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging this type of round, and though I CAN flow it all, I am generally not going to reward you for trying to spread your opponent out of the round. (Exception - National Invitational Tournaments - spread debate is the expectation at the highest level of competition. You should be able to spread properly if you are entering a high end invitational - this is the time when you should truly let it all go!).

I WILL NOT BE ON AN EMAIL CHAIN! Policy debate is meant to be an oral argument about a proposed POLICY, so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. Run whatever you want. K's, CP's, DA's, conditionality are all fair game. If you choose to spread and you are inaudible, I won't get your insights on the ffow - which has dire consequences for your side of the case. There is plenty of time (8 minutes) in a constructive to put out a variety of supports to your case, DA's, CP's, K's and the like. If you choose to spread, tread carefully.

Evidence Violations: While I am not going to be on your email chain, If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuits and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. Make sure your card says what is says - if you cut it off, and I notice, and if the full card is not advancing the same argument as the partial you are using - that is an evidence violation. If I am asking to review a card (or cards) at the end of the round, that is a bad omen!

Cross examination/fire: I do flow this! While you may see me checking over my flow during this time - I am still paying attention. This portion of the round is meant to be a period for you to clarify ideas and defend your statements, not do another rebuttal. No tag teaming in cross! The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way. 2) I want to see each individual's skill in questioning and defending, tag teaming allows you to hide a poor cross ex member, rather than them getting better at this function of the debate.

Signposts, Weighing, Solvency, Impacts, Extensions and 1R/2R: Please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On C2, "specific warrant", we have "x number" of responses". If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible - if I can't match it to my flow easily, it is a wasted idea or argument. If you are going to address an argument as a whole, tell me (us), and tell me why that should be enough. You still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something - I am not just going to automatically flow that through, that is your responsibility. Pull dropped items forward by telling me why they matter - You MUST extend in every speech. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over your opponent. A note on impacts - while it may be fun to have everything end with nuclear war, that type of impact is not going to sway me. Be realistic, a harm that is viable and a likely outcome is much more impactful than counting up dead bodies in a worst case scenario.

BQ & PF:

Similar to LD philosophy above. No need to try and get too exotic or fast.

I judge on a 7 stock issues paradigm (Harms, Significance, Inherency, Workability, Solvency, Advantages, and Topicality). Affirmitive must uphold all 7 issues to carry the day.

Debate is a competition that takes place through the spoken word, all speeches must be delivered at a pace and in a matter so as to render them intelligible to the judge in real time or they don't go on the flow.

Kritiks are a very weak form debating, generally a last priority for evaluating my decision. Kritiks claiming exclusive access to any arguments or issues will be rejected outright.

Theory arguments are acceptable within the bounds of the paradigm if they have some bearing on the round, but they must be an accompaniment to, rather than a substitute for, debating the substantive issues of the resolution. (ie. Arguing perm theory in order to run a counterplan)

I am willing to vote on topicality if and when it genuinely applies, but keep in mind most teams have had the foresight to write topical plans, so if you are running topicality every round that is a sign of a problem with you not your opponents.

I value good analysis and higher order thinking, clever use of arguments (turns, re-frameworking the round, identifying internal inconsistency in an opponent’s position, etc.) is better than spewing cards and expecting me to vote on them.

I have coached high school debate for twenty-seven years. If you are a progressive (role of the ballot, no value structure, and kritiks) LD debater then please strike me.

Things I like: value clash, signposting, effective time allocation, impact calculus, and rebuttals that focus on analytical comparisons of the arguments (and evidence) rather that repeating your claims or more cards.

I am a parent judge. No spreading, speak clearly.

I prefer traditional debate.

Assume that I know nothing about the topic. Your job is to educate me about the topic and share all relevant details etc in order for me to judge properly.

Evidence is big, I try my best to flow.

Don't use too much debate jargon.

When debating, make sure to refer to the impact and key voters to facilitate clear understanding for me, and what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

email for email chains - Kathleen.clark1@gmail.com

Meghan Clark (she/her)

Experience:

–competed in LD on the Texas UIL circuit

–coached LD for 7 years, policy for 5, also on the Texas UIL circuit

–currently coach extemp/platform events at Plano West

PF:

--I am a fairly typical flay judge.

--Truth over tech. I do not particularly like kritiks or other non-resolution based arguments (not a huge fan of progressive debate). Don’t run theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, etc. - I have zero interest in judging this. I strongly dislike frivolous theory arguments and tricks. Don’t run them.

--Make sure that you extend your arguments and signpost clearly. No sticky defense.

--I care a good deal about weighing impacts in the back half of the round. Make sure you do this. Don’t introduce new arguments in the second half of the round, and I don’t want arguments that consist of three blippy arguments with buzzwords. I would vastly prefer substantive weighing of impacts. I generally default to probability over magnitude.

--I care about quality rather than quantity of evidence. You must have clear taglines for your evidence. Don’t paraphrase.

--Make sure you are courteous to opponents and don’t speak over them during crossfire. I expect professionalism, respect and civility towards me and towards your opponents. If you are verbally or non-verbally showing disrespect towards your opponents or me, expect to lose speaker points. It goes without saying that you should not be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/etc. in any way during the round.

--I do not like spreading. PF should be accessible to a wide audience, and spreading makes that difficult. Speak at a normal rate of speed if you expect me to flow your argument. Extreme speed will most likely result in lower speaks. If I call “clear,” slow down.

--In final focus, make the case for why you deserve my vote - don’t demand my vote.

--Strike me if you’re reading a meme or social experiment case.

--Stick to the time structure - no skipping grand cross for PF.

--If a card is heavily disputed during round, I will call for it.

Congress Paradigm for 2023 TOC:

Delivery: delivery will be a factor in my decision, but only a moderate one. Ideally, speakers adapt to their audience, have poise and confidence, and consider word choice carefully. Two notes I write for congressional speakers often are: 1) Stop yelling at me (please adjust your tone to be appropriate for this environment, and 2) please use a tone appropriate for the topic of debate.

Evidence usage: evidence weighs strongly in my decisions. I'm not only interested in the quality of the evidence, but I'm interested in how you use and analyze it. More is not always better.

Analysis: analysis may be the largest factor in my decisions for rankings in Congress. I really like to see debaters thinking critically, weighing arguments well, and finding nuanced ways to discuss legislation. Speakers who simply expand on arguments already made are going to struggle to do well on my ballot.

Decorum: be respectful, be kind, and follow the rules. I assume you will do this, but if you don't, that will not sit well with me.

I have coached Lincoln Douglass debate for 5 years. For me, excellent debaters are reasonable, efficient, articulate, logical, clear, audience focussed, fair, and adept at both offense and defense. Effective debaters provide a clear and direct weighing mechanism for why they are winning or have won the round, and they link back to the value criterion clearly and directly. I don't like fast debate. Debate in the real world for me as a human. I don't like tricks and manipulations. Debate your opponents' best arguments, represent them fairly, and use logic, analytics, and critical thinking to clash convincingly. Do the fundamentals well: good speaking skills, look to the audience, good sportspersonship, good clarity of enunciation, energy, posture, concrete framing, big picture framing, signposting, clash, clash, clash etc.

UPDATED FOR 2024

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ 2023 topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

I'm a two time national semifinalist from high school and in my 8th year coaching. I try to be tabula rasa, but I have a vast knowledge base and don't like being talked down to as a judge. I also have a pretty strong RBF and will visually react to what you are saying, so be aware that if you think I'm mad at you; chances are its just my face.

Call Africa a country and you will automatically get low speaker points. It's a continent and offensive to misidentify it. If you are going to refer to regions within the continent, label them appropriately. I understand if you can't pronounce the country/city correctly, but YouTube and Google exist. Please try your best to utilize these resources to improve proper pronunciation. If you're intentionally misrepresenting a demographic/word/culture for the purpose of humor, be mindful of offensive stereotypes. IF I'm bothered by it, you will see it reflected in your ballot; IF it's egregious enough to warrant a report to the tournament officials, I will allow the tournament officials to contact you/your coach directly.

If it appears that you don't fully understand the topic, I will do my best to give you resources to help you develop your understanding on your ballots (links, concepts, places to bolster research) but I won't allow it to impact my decision on the round unless it's blatantly false or has no evidence to support the claim.

Decorum matters. In digital format, this means being mindful of what you post in chat/what you put onto your onscreen camera. I don't downvote on dress/appearance; however I appreciate professional dress and being able to see a student's face when possible.

Speech

I love seeing animated and engaging speech pieces. I have a few areas I get nit picky about, but it's because I want to give you as much feedback as I can to help you improve.

IE's should have some popping/characterization if there are multiple characters being portrayed. If the digital format does NOT allow me (the judge/viewer) to see your whole body, it's makes the speech harder to judge.

Be mindful when presenting/filming of how your technology allows you to give the best speech possible. If your voice echoes in your video, consider resubmitting and/or moving to a different space for better audio quality.

Info/Oratory - Speeches with structure are favored. If your speech sounds like a stream of consciousness, it's really hard to follow the topic at hand and very hard to judge. If your visual aids have any sort of writing on them, either plan on reading/explaining the writing or don't have it at all. As a judge, if I'm trying to squint to read what's on your visual aids, then I'm probably missing some of your speech because I'm trying to read your boards.

If you/your coach feels that my advice does not work for you, please don't take it. You know your own circuit and if the advice would work for your local league. If there are specific questions, my email address is attached below for further clarification. Generally, I want to help you become a better competitor and if the advice I offer is something that will harm you, you shouldn't consider it.

Debate

Email clingern13@gmail.com to add me to the email chain.

Slippery slope arguments or ELEs are only realistic within the confines of a topical debate. This trend relies heavily on scare tactics I don't subscribe to as a debate coach or judge. I will downvote/give low speaks if your impacts lead to improbable outcomes. Ex: "You should vote for our plan to change the wording of this immigration reform bill because it will lead to global extinction if you do not..."

I like progressive debate, but if it gets too meta or narrows the debate to a specific thread, I will base the debate on what is relevant to the argument and topic at hand, especially if your opponent is presenting a more viable option.

I'm a PF/LD traditionalist. I dislike framework in LD; that is what the v/vc debate is. I love framework in PF, but if your framework is unnecessarily or unfairly limiting (abusive), it will work against you and your speaker points will correlate. I tend to vote on stock issues in CX.

If your very narrow interpretation is the only way to interpret the topic, therefore, you're right and win, I will not vote in your favor. It feels like you've found the one loophole to win and have ignored the spirit of the debate or the topic at hand. I like debate to address the topic's core, rather than a narrow and specific element. "A just government allows for civil disobedience" should not be debated on what a just government is; rather it should debate the merits of civil disobedience within a society.

Debate needs clash. If there is no clash between the two presented sides, I'm going to vote whichever side is better presented/is more viable under the topic. I will write down on my ballots if the debate held no clash in the RFD.

I don't flow any Cross Examination time, so if you want it to be on the flow, PLEASE bring it up during rebuttal speeches.

Signpost, go straight down the flow and TRY to minimize flow hopping. If you have a direct argument on your case that attacks/answers your opponent's case, state it at each interval where the argument would apply. Ex: "My c1 directly addresses their c2 sub a..." should be stated twice when you talk about BOTH your c1 AND their c2 sub a.

Extend your arguments and impacts, not your cards. Ex: "Extend Oxford here..."; tell me why "Oxford" is relevant, why it refutes the opposition's point and WHY IT MATTERS. My job as a judge is to base my decision on what you present and how you link it, not if my brain linked it for you. As a judge, I'm not going to make inference between your impacts and cards, you need to explicitly state them for them to be considered.

I can handle spreading, but try to avoid it because it's a bad habit. Be mindful of speed if you choose to not add me to the email chain. (TOC Specific)

If it appears you did not write your cases yourself (it's a team case, you bought the evidence or someone else gave you the information just prior to the round) I will assume you bought the case and don't know what you're talking about. I strongly dislike students that use prewritten cases and don't show mastery of the topic because looks like plagiarism. If you don't know what you're talking about and misunderstand the arguments, it will be obvious.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

please be nice to me, i am but a simple fool

but for realz y'all, this is early early in my debate judging career (aka the first one was princeton '22) so, in the words of adele, go eaaaaaasssssyyyyy on me

you have free will, but i do not know what a counterplan, a k, a disad, or theory are so don't expect me to understand those. i only know these words because my girlfriend know what they are and told me to write them

for everyone's convenience, please give roadmaps and sign posts as you go and speak at an understandable/intelligible speed. don't expect me to read your mind or do your work for you. that kind of defeats the purpose of this whole "debate" thing

if you're sharing cases, my email is lcoilparampil@gmail.com

if i give verbal RFDs, please write them as we go

Hi, I am a parent judge. Speak clearly and at a "real life" normal speed, as if you were trying to convince your parents or friends of something that was important to you. Don't spread.

State clearly your value and value criteria at the beginning. Link your arguments back to value/criteria.

Please speak to the resolution. Do not run a topical cases, or theory/trick cases.

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

Updated for the Legalization Topic 9/11/14

I do want on the e-mail chain: mmcoleman10@gmail.com

Debate Experience: Wichita State graduate 2009. We read a middle of the road straight up affirmative and won more debates on arguments like imperialsim good than should have been possible. However, on the negative roughly half of my 2NRs were a K (with the other half being some combination of T, politics/case etc.) so I believe firmly in argumentative flexibility and am comfortable voting for or against almost all arguments.

Judging Experience: 5-8 tournaments each year since graduating.

Most importantly: I do not work with a team currently so I have not done any topic research, my only involvement is judging a handful of tournaments each year. It would be in your best interest to not assume I have the intricacies of your PIC or T argument down and take some time explaining the basis of your arguments. If the first time I figure out what your CP does or what your violation is on T is after you give me the text after the debate, my motivation to vote for you is going to be pretty low. I am currently a practicing attorney so I may have some insight on the topic from that perspective, but I'll try to minimize what impact that has on my decisions outside of possibly some suggestions after the debate on how to make it more accurately reflect how the legal process works.

Ways to kill your speaker points/irritate me

1. Cheating - I mean this substantively not argumentatively. This can include stealing prep time, clipping cards, lying about disclosure etc. If people are jumping cards or waiting to get the flash drive and you are furiously typing away on your computer it's pretty obvious you are stealing prep and I will call you out on it.

2. Being unecessarily uptight/angry about everything. There's no need to treat every round like it's the finals of the NDT, try having some fun once in awhile I promise your points from me and others will go up as a result. I take debate seriously and enjoying being a part of debate, but you can be very competitive and still generally pleasant to be around at the same time. I have no problem if people want to make fun of an argument, but it's one thing to attack the quality of an argument and another entirely to attack the person reading those arguments.

3. Not letting the other person talk in cross-x. It irritates me greatly when one person answers and asks every single question on one team.

4. A lack of line-by-line debate. If your only reference to the previous speeches is some vague reference to "the link debate" you are going to be irritated with my decision. I'm only willing to put in the same amount of work that you are. This is not to say that I can't be persuaded to have a more holistic view of the debate, but if I can't tell what arguments you are answering I am certainly going to be sympathetic if the other team can't either. Also people over use the phrase "dropped/conceded" to the point that I'm not sure they mean anything anymore, I'm paying attention to the debate if something is conceded then certainly call the other team out, if they spent 2 minutes answering it skip the part of your block that says "they've conceded: . It just makes me feel that you aren't putting the same work that I am in paying attention to what is occurring in the debate.

5. If your speech/cx answers sound like a biblography. Having evidence and citations is important, but if all you can do is list a laundry list of citations without any explanation or application and then expect me to wade through it all in the end, well we're probably not going to get along. I do not tend to read many cards after a debate if any. I pretty quickly figure out where the important arguments (debaters that identify and highlight important arguments themselves and resolve those debates for me are going to be very far ahead) and then I will turn to arguments and evidentiary issues that are contested.

Ways to impress me

1. Having strategic vision among the different arguments in the debate. Nothing is better than having a debater realize that an answer on one sheet of paper is a double turn with a team's answer on another and be able to capitalize on it, bold moves like that are often rewarded with good points and wins if done correctly.

2. Using your cross-x well. Few people use this time well, but for me it's some of the most valuable speech time and it can make a big difference in the outcome of debates if used effectively.

3. Having a working knowledge of history. It's amazing to me how many arguments are just patently untrue that could be disproven with even a basic understanding of history, I think those are good arguments and often more powerful than the 10 word overhighlighted uniqueness card you were going to read instead.

Topicality

I enjoy a well crafted and strategic T argument. My biggest problem with these debates is the over emphasis on the limits/reasonability debate occuring in the abstract, usually at the expense of spending enough time talking about the particulars of the aff/neg interps their support in the literature, and how the particular interp interacts with the limits/reasonability debate. T cards rival politics uniqueness cards as the worst ones read in debate, and more time should be spent by both teams in pointing this out.

I think this topic provides an interesting opportunity for discussion with the absence of the federal government in the topic as far as what the Aff can and should be allowed to defend. I'm curious how both Affs and Negs will choose to adapt to this change.

Topicality - K Affs

I think you have to have a defense of the resolution, the manner in which that is done is up to the particular debate. Unfortunately I've been forced to vote on T = genocide more times than I'd like to admit, but Neg's refuse to answer it, no matter how terrible of an argument it is (and they don't get much worse). Critical Affs are likely to do the best in front of me the stronger their tie is to the resolution. The argument there is "no topical version of our aff" has always seemed to me to be a reason to vote Neg, not Aff. Stop making that argument, doing so is just an indication you haven't read or don't care what I put in here and it will be reflected in your points.

I don't ususally get more than one or two opportunities per year to judge debates centered around issues of race/sex/identity but try to be as open as I can to these types of debates when they do occur. I still would prefer these arguments have at least some tie to the resolution as I think this particular topic does allow for good discussion of a lot of these issues. I have generally found myself voting Aff in these types of debates, as the Negative either usually ignores the substance of the Aff argument or fails to explain adequately why both procedurally and substantively the way the Aff has chosen to approach the topic is bad. Debates about alternate ways in which these issues might be approached in terms of what Negatives should get to say against them compared to what the Aff should be forced to defend seem most relevant to me, and one that I find interesting to think about and will try hard to make an informed decision about.

Counterplans/Disads

I like this style of debate a lot. However, one thing I don't like is that I find myself increasingly voting on made up CPs that for some unknown reason link slightly less to politics, simply because Aff teams refuse to challenge this claim. To sum up, don't be afraid to make smart analytical arguments against all arguments in the debate it can only help you. I am among those that do believe in no risk either of an aff advantage or neg disad, but offense is always nice to have.

Affs also seem to give up too easily on theory arguments against certain process CPs (condition/consult etc.) and on the issue of the limits of conditionality (it does exist somewhere, but I can be persuaded that the number of neg CPs allowed can be high/low depending on the debate). In general though I do tend to lean neg on most theory issues and if you want to win those arguments in front of me 1) slow down and be comprehnsible 2) talk about how the particulars of the neg strategy affected you. For example conditionality might be good, but if it is a conditional international agent cp mixed with 2 or 3 other conditional arguments a more coherent discussion about how the strategy of the 1nc in general unduly harmed the Aff might be more effective than 3 or 4 separate theory arguments.

K's

I judge these debates a lot, particularly the clash of civilization debates (the result of judging exclusively in D3). Negative teams would do well to make their argument as particularized to the Aff as possible and explain their impact, and by impact I mean more than a vague use of the word "ethics" or "ontology" in terms of the Aff and how it would implicate the aff advantages. If you give a 2NC on a K and haven't discussed the Aff specifically you have put yourself in a bad position in the debate, apply your arguments to the Aff, or I'm going to be very hesitant to want to vote for you.

Additionally while I vote for it pretty often exploring the critical literature that isn't "the Cap K" would be pleasantly appreciated. I can only judge Gabe's old cap backfiles so many times before I get bored with it, and I'd say 3/4 of the debates I judge it seems to pop up. Be creative. Affs would be smart not to concede big picture issues like "no truth claims to the aff" or "ontology first." I vote for the K a lot and a large percentage of those debates are because people concede big picture issues. Also keep in mind that if you like impact turning the K I may be the judge for you.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

Kris Compton

Background & Coaching Information:

*2 Diamond Coach with over 25 years of experience coaching both public and private programs in Florida, Alabama and Texas.

*Experience coaching and judging all events

*Have had TFA finalists in multiple events, NSDA Nationals Semi and Finalists and have coached numerous Alabama State Champions in multiple of events

• 2023 NSDA Duo Interp Finals Judge
• *I have a true passion for the overall educational and life changing skills of speech and debate. I expect competitors to be respectful of all events and each other.

INFORMATIVE & ORATORY

Content & Visual aids

*A NEW perspective on a NEW topic or a refreshing and inspiring topic that is not overdone.

*Informative should not be persuasive in nature; your job is to inform not persuade

*The best oratories provide stories and a genuine moments within the speech. I should feel and see your heart in your speech.

*Research should enhance and advance information presented. Research should be relevant, current, and reliable

* For informative, Visual aids should not be a distraction but add to the quality of what is being said. The focus should be on the words spoken and not the visual aids. Just because you have strong visual aids is not the winning point for me; a well written memorable speech and performance weighs more heavily.

*Speech should be well organized, easy to follow, and engage the audience

Performance

*Professional and engaging. Performance should enhance natural strengths. Don't force cheesy humor.

*Natural movement and gestures; blocked and robotic movements sometimes can distract from the overall presentation

*Apply all the needed vocal variation that makes speeches engaging

*I want you to be genuine and real. I am not interested in fake and robotic performances. I cannot stress this enough. I don't care how polished you are if you are not real.

*I should be able to tell why this topic is important; passion is imperative. This should be obvious in every aspect of your performance.

IE ( HI, DI, PROSE, POETRY, POI, DUO)

*Creative, engaging, relevant, entertaining.

*Maturity and age appropriate.

*Follow the event rules

*Easy to follow; don't make me work to understand what is happening.

*Take me on a journey of emotions

*Characterization should be genuine and real.

*Blocking should enhance and add to the performance; not be used in place of good performance.

*When working with a partner, strengths should complement one another

*Sometimes simple moments in a performance are the most memorable. A certain look or gesture can be gut wrenching and draw an audience in. Those moments are more impressive than overblocked and overacting attempts of winning my vote.

*Same as speaking events, I value genuine and real performances. I'm not interested in polished robotic performances that have not heart.

PF

*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal. If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments.

*Respect in the round is essential. I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.

*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate.

*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.

*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.

*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)

*Impacts are essential. I don't care if you don't tell me why I should

* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.

* The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.

*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.

*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.

*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.

*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, butI will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.

*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow

*Words matter; word economy is essential. Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points

Extemporaneous Speaking

-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis

-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely

-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact

-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.

-The more current the information, the better.

-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.

-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything

-Professional presentation is incredibly important.

-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.

-Tone should fit the topic.

-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.

Congressional Debate

• I NEED CLASH.This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech. Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives.
• When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments.
• Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated.
• When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better.
• DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
• I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
• You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.

I am open to seeing a number of different tactics employed in a round. Give me a weighing mechanism, evidence, and strong impact calculus.

I value clarity and organization in your presentation or argument. I appreciate it when you keep things simple and straightforward and logical. I also value moderate pacing and volume (i.e. speak slowly and don't yell), a confident demeanor, clear enunciation, and courtesy to your opponent(s). The content of your speech obviously matters most, but style of delivery (e.g. pacing, tone, mien) does affect my judgment.

I have decades of experience producing and writing television programs and educational videos. I appreciate the power of well-chosen words delivered with just the right amount of passion. My work also includes media training at a major Washington, DC think tank, where I spend a lot of time interviewing global leaders in energy, security, environmental activism, politics, diplomacy, and more. You will earn top ranks in Extemp, OO, and Informative Speaking if your speech follows strong logic, goes beyond the obvious, and is free of errors, such as mispronunciations of countries and global leaders. Furthermore, I beg you, DO NOT come at me with corny puns. If you are discussing the invasion of Ukraine, do not tell me that we will first "blast" into the truth, and then "take aim" at new theories, before "Putin'" some solutions to the test. This type of writing will get you nowhere in the real world! Clever is good. Corny is bad. And while we're at it, when competing in Extemp, go into a deep dive on pop culture at the top ONLY if you have an excellent plan for how you plan to relate it to the topic. We do not need time-consuming analyses of Disney movies or boy bands before moving into news and politics. If performing DI, HI, or POI, you will rank well if you bring nuance. I seek highs, lows, and performances grounded in human behavior, even at their most intense moments.

I love judging these events because I am continually amazed at the intelligence and capability of Speech Kids. You are everything good about your generation.

I have not done debate in a bit but I was always a traditional LD debater and usually evaluate pretty heavily on framework. I do understand some more progressive args if done right and can keep up with a fair amount of speed within reason but keep in mind that speed will make it harder for me flow more progressive things

James Constantino

I judge LD more often than anything else. I was a CX debater in the early ‘90s, but I’m self-taught on LD. More recently, I have been active in judging Congress as well.

GENERAL NOTE
First, any type of behavior that I find abusive will probably lose you the round. Debate is about the free exchange of ideas, so if you try to win a round with through deception, constantly interrupting your opponent(s), or just making an attempt to erode the integrity of the event, I cannot accept your arguments.

I DO NOT want to be the one to make the decision about who wins a round; I want you to tell me why you won. This means it is your job to tell me the story of the round. Where was the clash? What were the voters? Why do your impacts outweigh theirs? Leave as little up to my discretion as possible. I will do my best not to have my own opinions and background knowledge influence who wins the round. Please meet me half way on this and make your win explicit.


FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and as I just explained, I don’t want to do that.


SPEED
I can handle moderate speed. I can follow a quickly read and enunciated speech, but if you slurring your words together, hyperventilating, or just being unclear, I will call “clear” twice: once to get you to adjust and a second time to remind you. After that, I will cease to flow and your opponent(s) is no longer responsible to address your incoherent arguments. Unintelligible spreading should only exist in a round where cases have been shared prior to the debate round.

REBUTTALS
It is a debater’s obligation to address both sides of the flow in rebuttal speeches. A debater that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as arguments that go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line work in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point. As stated above, YOU should be the one to tell me the main clash of the round and why you won.

SPEAKER POINTS
My scale is essentially as follows:

· 30 – Perfection/deeply impressive.

· 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy

· 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts

· 27 - Average

· 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways

· 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people

CONGRESS

I'm a bit old school here: Congress was a Speech event when I debated. That being said, I still expect warranted arguments which build upon or refute the arguments of other competitors. Outstanding representatives have a speaking style which sets them apart from their opponents.

He/Him

E-Mail: quinncarlo024@gmail.com

MSHS Asst. Coach 2y, (Policy 3y, PF 1y)

ASL Interpreting major @UNO (1st language: English)

Debate is about the people and the experience, so be kind.

In my days I used to run trad left affs, and Cap Ks. I trust you'll help me understand whatever you run.

LD: LAST EDITED 2/23/2024 LD is about philosophy for me. I suppose that makes me trad now... I feel old.

FW: Winning FW means I will evaluate the round through that lens. FW is not an independent voter.

SPREADING: If you spread use SpeechDrop, AND DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS.

Ks: I've found that it is more difficult for me to buy a K AFF than anything else. That being said, I would love to engage in a discussion on K subject matters outside of the round.

• ROB: Vote for the better debater- to me means I’m looking at who cross-applied evidence well, who didn’t drop anything, who carried cards through their speeches, and other techy stuff.

THEORY: DON'T use theory as a means to win a ballot. Run theory if there is a genuine equity issue within the round.

• Disclosure Theory: If there is no in-round abuse (de-linking out of args), and/or your opponent gives you their case via SpeechDrop, I'm unlikely to vote for you.
• Spreading Theory: If your opponent asks before the round if they can spread and/or invites you to tell them to slow down, I'm unlikely to vote for you.

T: I am less likely to buy that the AFF needs to defend a specific plan as opposed to the general Value/Ethics of the Topic. Because LD is different from Policy.

→ Don't use other people's disadvantages to win you a ballot. Advocating for the rights of minorities as a majority can be fine if it is done in good faith, and you understand your case. If you are cishet advocating for the rights of queer people without knowing what it means, that's sketch.

My pronouns are they/them/theirs. Please do not call me ma’am. I know it's a southern respect thing but it's icky to me. If you need a title for me, I unironically like being called judge, Judge Contreras is fine, just Contreras works too. My students call me Coach, and that's also fine. Teens, please don't call me El (that's one southernism I stand by!)

Affiliations:

Head Coach and social studies teacher at L.C. Anderson High School in Austin, TX since 2022.

San Marcos High School- I competed all four years in high school, I did extemp, congress, and UIL Policy.

Speech people!!!!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. I just won’t do that. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. Also, normalize giving content and trigger warnings before your performance!! Give people a chance to take care of themselves. If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!! I'm in a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

Debate comments (PF, LD, CX, World Schools)

Just disclose. I know LD's norm is sending 30 minutes before round, I think that's a great norm.

In PF, send case docs. Don't be secretive with your cards. Your opponents should not have to disclose a disability in order to get you to send docs. I also think sending a speech doc for rebuttal and summary is a good norm. This is not (necessarily) something I'll down you for but it could be, if you're intentionally being harmful.

I will evaluate anything as long as it's warranted and extended. I won't make arguments for you, tell me why and how you're winning. I'll vote tech over truth unless the truth overwhelms the tech. Sticky defense is so fake, extend your arguments if you want to win them. Unextended = dropped. Proper extensions, tag and cite, claim, warrant, impact!!

Both partners need to participate in grand cross. PF is a partner event! No, you can't skip grand cross. I'm listening to cross and waiting to hear the questions from cross brought into round.

Please do a www.speechdrop.net room, it is a fantastic site, and I will definitely pop in and read cards and cases if you have the speechdrop room set up. Always send case, always send speech docs. I am #notsponsored, just a fan! My email is down below.

Spell out all the abbreviations you use in round. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. People know what the UN is, the EU, etc, people may not know BRI, any random trade agreement, etc.

speed: You don't have to go at a conversational pace but nobody should be full-on-spreading in PF. When you're off the doc, you have to go slower. I try not to flow off the doc but I will use it as support if you're faster than I can follow. I'm not in a debate round to read off your case doc, I'm in round to hear YOU. Slow down on taglines, analytics, authors- basically anything you think is vital to my decision.

PF-specific comments:

• I'll vote on anything, not a huge fan of theory, not the best judge to evaluate theory
• i love frameworks! they should be well-developed. blippy frameworks don't win framework debates
• extensions are not just saying "Extend my contention 2", you must extend the card tag/cite and the claim, warrant, and impact! Let me hear the link chain again!!
• speaker points- these national tournaments keep giving me a rubric to use and I'm trying to apply that to all the realms I judge in. Points start at 28 and I adjust from there. Points will only be below a 27 if you did something harmful or rules/norms were horribly broken.
• PFers, please read cards with actual taglines. "furthermore", "and", are not taglines. A tag is the thesis of the card, it is the summary of the content. I've been seeing a lot of that lately- it's lazy and bad practice.

LD-specific:

• I don't judge LD often, not as comfortable with LD speeds but I'll use the doc
• I will evaluate k's, as long as they're well-developed and defended. i know theory is normative in LD and I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly and wisely. probably not the best judge for your theory debates
• consider me pretty lay, generally pretty trad. Read me a standard, read me a value, slow it down!!
• I know this event is generally more technical but again, don't assume I know what you're talking about!! spell out all your abbreviations, provide definitions (especially if you're reading a K), do your best to make the round and the space more accessible!
• pref me slightly better than a lay judge
• I come from pf so arguments such as kritiks and theory will make less sense to me butI’lltry my best to evaluate them

email- theedebatecoach@gmail.com

and

docs.anderson@gmail.com

please <3

This message is specifically for competitors in debate events; I value respect in the round. Please don’t be rude in front of me. It doesn’t make me laugh, it reminds me of uncomfortable/unpleasant rounds where my competitors were rude to me or my partner. That has no business in a debate space, please don’t bring that energy into a round. This goes double for people in privileged positions who make women and gender/racial minorities uncomfortable or unsafe in the debate space. Not only will I chew you out and tank your speaks, but I will also let your coach know about the harmful practices. it's on all of us to make the debate space inclusive and equitable.

TLDR- be nice, be kind, and be self-aware.

Congress comments:

I did congressional debate all four years I competed in high school, I really enjoyed it and love watching a good Congress round. I have a lot of respect for a strong PO and usually reward that with a higher ranking. POs that struggle with precedence, maintaining decorum, and Robert's rules of order will have that reflected in their rank.

Clash, clash, clash! Put the debate into congressional debate.

There's a line between sassy and rude. Tread it carefully.

General comments:

something that I genuinely appreciate in every event is a trigger warning before potentially triggering performances and speeches. controversially, I care about all of your experiences in a round and would like to give everyone an opportunity to opt out. If you’re a spectator or a competitor in a speech room, you deserve the opportunity to step out. If you’re competing in a debate round, you have every right to ask your competitors to read a version of their case that excludes the triggering material. As a judge, I reserve the right to step out/turn off my camera for a moment before you give your performance.

In a debate round, I’d appreciate that triggering material cut out. I don’t think intense/graphic depictions of human suffering add much to your overall case anyway, I’d rather you extend cards in that time or frontline or do anything besides exploit human suffering.

If I correct your pronunciation of a word in my ballot, it’s genuinely to educate you. It’s hard to know how to pronounce a word you’ve never heard aloud, just read (looking at you, Reuters!)

I have a degree in history, with a focus on Latin American history. Keep that in mind when discussing issues focused on Latin America. Feel free to ask me for a reading list to better understand conflicts, revolutions, and government suppression (including US intervention) in Guatemala, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, and more.

If you are spectating an event and are fully texting in front of me or attempting to talk to/distract a competitor, I’m going to ask you to leave. I will not warn you once, I have a zero-tolerance policy for disrespecting competitors or interfering with competition in that way.

I am a chaperone filling in to help in supplementals. I am a lay judge so no tomfoolery.

B.S. from Arizona State University in Spanish and minor in Family and Human Development.

I'm 100% a game judge, the flow is like a chess board and it is your job to navigate it with whatever tools you have at your disposal. You can run anything; Theory, Topicality, Ks, CP, DA/AD/Plans/KPlans but for all of those you need to give a "why" and impact calc for everything, fail to do that and you will lose the round.

That being said stock issues are inherent to an argument, if you don't solve for anything or you can't show significance then you will also lose. Topicality is loose for me but again if you fail to solve for something or show it's significance then you lose.

Spread as fast as you want, I was reading at 340 wpm once upon a memory. If you turn into a mumble rapper like Post Malone then you are not communicating effectively and you'll have stuff drop on the flow. Clear and fast is fine, murmuring quickly is not fine. When in doubt slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Too often debaters are reliant on judges reading their card for them to put them on the flow rather than conveying the information. If there is something in the debate that is the razors edge that will make or break the round then I will evaluate it but that is rarely ever the case (I have only seen it once, same source cut two different ways).

My default settings:

I will hear theory arguments if you are deeply against any of the following but otherwise this is how I vote.

Disclosure has to be consensual prior to the round but when you are giving the constructive what are you really gaining from not exchanging? Plus it is in the NSDA manual you have to produce evidence for your opponent at their request.

Aff gets fiat for world building otherwise the debate can't happen.

Neg gets conditionality to truth test with multiple worlds.

General sportsmanship should be observed. I was a debater, I promise you I know abuse when I see it. If your opponent checks it and you don't have some good reason for trying to push that envelope you'll lose. Be excellent to each other.

I do private coaching but I also care deeply about the debate community so please feel free to reach-out with questions after your rounds. mconvey1@jhu.edu

Private Coaching Link

https://www.citrononline.org/camps-and-coaching/p/private-coaching

B.S. Ecology from Arizona State University

M.L.S. Environmental Law from Sandra Day O'Connor Law College

M.S. Geospatial Intelligence from Johns Hopkins University

Debate Director of the Citron Online Speech and Debate District

Nats 23 Edits (for Policy)

• Once you start stacking offs, it's super important that you have enough command of your evidence to refer to cards by author name or another specific identifier (ie "the impact card in the X Disad). I can't keep track of where "the card that talks about Russia and China" is.
• I'll only vote on T if you justified the credibility of your interpretation. Your interp evidence can't just be a situation where a word or phrase was used in a different context because then there's no actual reason to vote for it (except for blatant topicality violations).
• This is a reiteration from my original paradigm, but statements like "our first advantage solves for the impacts in the DA" mean nothing to me unless you tell me why. Just a little lip service is enough, but I can't put that connection together myself because I would have to come to my own conclusions about the relationships between the evidence, which is a form of judge intervention.

Hello! I am a former LDer turned high school Coach turned Professor of public speaking. I'm more than a couple years out from my high school years at this point, but I've stayed active in the community. I competed on the local, state, and national circuit, and especially enjoyed the more technical debates because it was much easier to strategize and predict what the judge's decision would ultimately be based on the events of the round.

As a debate judge, I also take this more technical approach. Simply being a strong orator is not enough if you are not saying anything of substance and interacting with your opponent's case. I make my judgments based on what was said in the round. Nothing more, nothing less. I listen for argument interaction, explicit signposting and extensions, weighing of impacts, and so on. No ships passing in the night! Extending a conceded argument means nothing if you don't tell me why it matters. You have to tell me why your impact outweighs your opponent's, not just that it does. I might be able to make those assumptions on my own, but it holds no weight in the round unless you say it out loud! Give me voting issues. In a good debate, your final rebuttal speech should essentially write my decision for me.

I've heard all kinds of arguments and styles, I've used all kinds of arguments and styles, and I'm open to all kinds of arguments and styles (within a reasonable standard of human decency). As long as you can support and clearly state your main idea, I should be able to understand your goal in your speech/case.

For LD in particular, remember that it is a values-based debate. Nothing makes me more sad than a total disconnect between the framework and the contentions, followed by a complete abandonment of the values debate once the rebuttals begin. The values set the framing for the rest of the debate, and a strong grasp of the philosophical aspect of the debate will really make you stand out in my book. This doesn't apply to debates based on a framework of net benefits.

When time runs out, finish your sentence. My ONLY pet peeve as a judge is students calling out "that's time!" when their opponent runs out of time for their speech. I know the speech times, so do you, so does your opponent, and so do the other judges. Please be courteous and let them just wrap up their last sentence.

Don't give much weight to what my face looks like. As someone with ADHD, "active listening" looks much different for me. Rather than looking at you while nodding and smiling, I will likely be focused mainly on taking notes on my flow. It is really important to me that I judge a round fairly, and so I put most of my energy toward keeping track of what is said in round. I get distracted easily when I look you directly in the face (because faces move a lot!), so if you see me staring at the ground or at the wall behind you with a blank expression, don't be alarmed! I'm just listening very intently.

My infatuation with the speech and debate community is eternal, and I love to see students get better, grow, improve, and become more confident. Also, one of my best/worst traits is a need to be as thorough as possible. This means you will likely see tons of feedback/comments from me suggesting ways to improve. This is NOT an indicator of poor performance, even if there are many more comments on areas of improvement than on what you did well. I just try to use my experience in my position as a judge to be as helpful and thorough as I possibly can. However, a lot of the feedback I give is largely based on my personal speech/debate style and my coaching style, and so feel free to accept or reject these comments as they apply to you.

I'm happy you're here, and I'm happy to be here too! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have

Tim Cook, Salado HS

tim.cook@saladoisd.org

I debated in high school and college. I have been coaching for over 40 years.

TFA State

I will not tolerate speed! I will say clear and then stop flowing. If I don't flow it, you don't get it. I will not be flowing from a doc.

Don't run theory unless there is real in round abuse (Not a fan of theory).

K and other progressive arguments (Not a fan). Don't assume I am familiar with the lit on your K.

I am very traditional! Establish a framework and link offense back to it.

No flex-prep

Flashing part of prep time.

Congress

Prefer clash or topical AGD. Have 2 developed arguments with good evidence. Think think tanks.

Clash and no rehash essential.

Make me laugh! DO NOT BE RUDE OR OVERLY AGGRESSIVE. Have fun.

PO's must run efficient and fair rounds. Don’t make parliamentary mistakes.

Ask me more specific questions.

Speech/Extemp

I have coached multiple UIL State champions, TFA state finalist and TOC finalist.

Answer the question! Have a clear thesis and three germane points. Prefer quality over quantity of evidence. Love AGD to be weaved throughout the speech.

Prefer controlled gestures, not repetitive. Movement should have meaning.

Ask me more specific questions.

LD

Establish a framework and link offensive back. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature. The K needs to have a pragmatic alt. Theory needs a real abuse story.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

CX

My default paradigm is policy maker. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature.

The K needs to have a pragmatic alt.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

Clear refutations are key to winning the debate. Speed-talking and arrogance are frowned upon. Debates should be consistent from construction to final focus, ideally while supporting a clear framework. Use sign-posts throughout to avoid dropped contentions. Solid evidence should clearly link contentions to impacts. Be civil.

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

I am a veteran LD coach in Indiana. I teach history and philosophy.

I expect both sides of the debate to present a framework for consideration including a value structure and value criterion. I will not vote on dropped arguments unless it becomes a tie breaker or a dropped argument is essential to the overall round. In other words, spreading will not be an effective strategy.

I will not automatically vote down Ks or Theory, but they need to fit within your framework. Also, unlike Policy, I do not access a default to utility, so arguing exclusively based on impacts without first establishing utility in your framework does not automatically win in voters.

Don't make assumptions about concepts you introduce. If you are going to talk about justice, you need to provide a rational for your conception of justice and not assume that the judge and your competitor automatically agree on your understanding. You need to lay this out in your framework. If your opponent suggests Aristotle and you prefer Rawls, you need to make me care about your view for me to prefer it over the alternative.

Finally, on evidence I will not consider appeals to authority as evidence. I don't care if you quote 17 "experts" who agree with your opinion, that doesn't count as evidence. If you have no warrant and just try to gloss over that deficiency with appeals to authority, you have no argument. Internals matter, and quoted evidence needs to be substantive. If the facts aren't in question, reason trumps appeals.

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 26 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 20 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.

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.

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.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

Debaters:

I believe that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, discourse, and clear communication. I feel that this applies to all style of debate in which one can participate. I want to hear the debaters think on their feet, rebut any major point emphasized by their opponents and I need to hear every word that each debater says clearly.  Emphasis should be placed on enunciating properly and clearly.  I would prefer a pause and repeat rather than passing over a mispronunciation or indistinct phrase that impacts your argument.  I do not look favorably on speed reading or spread debating as I feel that is only an attempt to be judged for the number of points emphasized rather than the strength and basis of the points used in the argument. I think of it as "quality of argument is more important the quantity of argument". A few strong arguments defended well outweigh a mound of argumentation and evidence rattled off so rapidly that one cannot be reasonably expected to hear, digest and note it all, let alone counter all of the points.  I want to be able to keep up with you and take occasional notes as necessary.  We all hear much faster than we can type or write.

A debate should always be a respectful exchange of ideas, delivered at a pace so that a reasonably well-educated judge – even a first-time judge or parent/layman such as myself without any prior information on the subject– should be able to weigh the arguments presented and determine a winner. In line with this overall principle, I do not look favorably on a hostile, rude, or patronizing attitude on the part of the debaters towards their opponents.

Speak clearly; argue intelligently; disagree in a respectful tone and demeanor. I look for a combination of evidence, reasoning, and analysis. Do not reference articles or studies without the availability to provide these to the opponent or judges if requested.  If referenced make sure you argue why the study supports your argument, not just used as a reference. Just referencing a study without justifying it's use does not show deep thought and rationale in my opinion. I am not looking for a bibliography, I am looking for a foundation of your argument if referenced. A good debate should be understandable to a college-educated adult like myself who is not a certified judge with limited experience with the speech-and-debate environment.  All debaters, even those who lose should learn from the experience and want to continue this road of friendly but determined discourse. As a judge I feel I am here to highlight what I think you did effectively and where you could improve. My view is a rather novice one with limited experience in judging, but a view very familiar with passionate and professional discourse amongst colleagues.

Thank you and good luck!

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

I prefer that students debate in the way they feel most comfortable. My decision is based on who best upheld their V/C and who best countered claims made by the other team.

I have been a judge in some capacity (coach, hired) since 1998. I've seen many trends come and go. I used to be a traditionalist when it came to interp and blocking, but understand how the events have evolved and adapted my judging to suit what the community has deemed appropriate. However, here are some event specific elements of my paradigm.

Extemp - I believe that fundamentally, an extemp speech must be founded on answering the question that is posed. I think the unified analysis is the best way to support your thesis, but am open to other organizational methods. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. I know what's going on the in the world. Do not lie or embellish with me. It will not go well. I would rather have someone give their best try with a hard topic than to have someone make things up or misrepresent the facts of the matter. Especially with having access to the internet, there is no excuse for making things up in Extemp.

Informative - I have been around Informative speaking for a lot longer than it has been a TFA event. This event is one where you can do a speech about anything, but that doesn't mean you should do a speech about anything. It should be something where you are informing us about a topic with relevance to you (the speaker) and which you can "sell" to us as interesting and relevant to us. The quality of visual aides matter. Sloppy VAs speak volumes about the speech. Neat and clean VAs speak well and set a good impression. This should not be Infosuasion (meaning that it is a persuasive in tone, but using VAs). The best informatives have balance in them (pros and cons) and a lot of information that we wouldn't otherwise know but for this speech. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight.

Oratory - I think the best oratories are ones where they are relevant to everyone in the audience, as well as the speaker. Oratories that are overly-focused on the speaker tend to be exclusive and I think feed into the perception of this event as "bore-atory" I like advocacy focused on Problem - Cause - Solution or Problem - Cause - Impact or something similar. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. Personal examples are ok, but should not be the main part of the support for your speech. Research is important for good persuasion for a Logos person (that'd be me).

DI/HI - I lump these together because I view good interp from the same lens. I think that the best interpers make you forget that they're a high school student performing at a speech and debate contest. If it is serious, I want to feel like you set me in that scene and that you are your character(s). If it is funny, I want to see the scene play out with the humor being an integral part of the cutting and your performance. I think blocking is a compliment to the performance. It should not distract from it. The choice of literature matters. DIs should present a good exploration of the dramatic curve - in otherwords, don't stay at one level the whole time. Have some development from start to climax to conclusion. HIs should similarly utilize the dramatic curve to build to the climactic humorous scene or event. Audience appropriateness is also an element in my judging for these events. Both in the performance choices and in the literature selection.

POI - Notice I didn't lump POI with the other individual interps. While much of the same is true of the performance elements as those events, I fundamentally believe that POI must have a thematic argument that the program explores. It is not DI with a few poems thrown in. It is fundamentally different from the other interp events. The intro must establish what this argumentative framework is for me to really appreciate the thematic choice. I also believe that the best POIs are inclusive of the audience in terms of interest and relevance - similar to my thoughts on an OO. Book work should be complimentary and not distracting from the performance.

Duo/Duet - In addition to my thoughts on DI/HI, I think how the performers work together is essential to a great partnered interp event.

Impromptu - The speech must be based on the topic drawn. Please do not shoe-horn in a canned speech into whatever quote you drew. Use your knowledge. Distill a message from the quote/topic, take a position on the message, and back it up with examples. I think variety in example areas and mastery of what you're talking about are important. I think the best impromptu speakers used 1:00-1:30 of their prep time to leave 5:30-6:00 for the speech.

Prose - See my DI/HI and POI commentary.

I am a judge with eleven years of experience in Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, and Parliamentary Debate.

I am a flow judge that values precision of thought, argument structure, and word choice. I welcome authoritative sourcing in support of arguments but never an appeal to authority. I understand the tactical reason for speed but prefer to be convinced by the strength of the argument and the rhetorical elegance of the presentation.

As a teacher of history that thrives on disputation, I require a clash of ideas. I am philosophically fond the counterpunch and find a “turn” often to be the highlight of a debate. Find the flaw in your opponent’s argument and exploit it to your advantage.

In Public Forum and LD:

During cross, strive for a balance between contention and civility.

In Congress and Parliamentary Debate:

Regardless of the prep time, demonstrate a certain depth and breadth of content knowledge related to the bill or motion. Reasoned argument on behalf of the commonweal is preferred over moral preference and preening.

Disclosure (if permitted by tournament rules) is not a time for discussion or appeal.

I like to see a variety of sources in extemp. Don't just throw it in there to have it, make sure it helps paint the picture.

I like to see some type of extemp walk to help me visualize the speech more.

Threads not the most important to have in extemp, but there should be some solid transitions going into each point.

Significance in all speech events are super important to me. I need to know why I should listen to you.

If using language it really needs to have it's purpose.

Debate:

Talk Pretty

I enjoy role of the ballot and role of the judge you tell me how to vote on the round.

Run whatever as long as you can explain. Key word is EXPLAIN.

Don't be rude to one another or you will lose speaker points.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

In my 25th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit. Prior to that I worked as a public defender.Persuasion, clarity, and presentation matter to me. I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate. Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to. If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me. I will not vote off of something that I don't understand. You need to make my path to your ballot clear. I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.). My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned. I also am a big fan of disclosure. I think that it levels the playing field for all involved. Drops matter. Impacting is important. Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.

*For all email chains - email to jcrist1965@gmai.comand strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org - include both*

Though I am not a lay judge, I believe Public Forum debate should be accessible to lay judges. So don't go too fast. Be respectful. And make sure impacts are realistic; it doesn't take much for me to buy an argument that breaks a multi-step link chain. Finally, and most importantly, honesty matters. So make sure you represent your evidence accurately; I will drop teams that misrepresent evidence, and I'm willing to ask that they be disqualified too.

I am relatively new to judging.

PF: Please read slower than you would for a normal judge and prioritize weighing. I encourage you to drop arguments going into summary if you have one that is better than another. If you spread, I will give up trying to hear you. Running theory is ill-advised. I'm a parent judge.

Speech: I am a parent judge, so of course I am not going to be in the loop on all the technical aspects of your event. If you are the first speaker (or any speaker) in the room, you should probably tell me how timing will work as I do not know how you want it.

EXB (for Nats): Please slow down. Be realistic. Pick one or two points and don’t spread or I’ll down you. I’m not voting on extinction impacts unless it really makes sense. Time yourself. Evidence is good but cards don’t exist in Extemp Debate. Please be nice. I’m a parent judge.

I am a speech coach in Georgia. I competed in IEs but I can follow debate very well.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion - This is the unique feature of LD Debate.  Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF.  Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards. Compete in PF for the debate animal it is.  Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.  
• Speed -Since I did not debate in High School, I don't follow speed well. Speak at your own risk, but if I didn't hear it, I don't flow it.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side.  If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• I like clash.  Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen.  Keep your logical fallacies for your next round.  Rhetoric is an art.  
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.  
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules.  Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins.  I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges.  I disclose winner but not speaker points.
• Enjoy yourself.  Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over.  Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life.  Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.  
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

Looking for students who speak clearly and address all of opponents contentions.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

Philosophy:

As a parent judge, I am committed to providing a fair and unbiased evaluation of the arguments presented by both teams. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and the effective use of evidence in debates. My role is to assess the quality of the arguments and the debating skills displayed by the participants.

Experience:

I have experience judging debates for 1+ years. I have observed various debate formats and am familiar with the general rules and practices of competitive debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to objectively evaluate the arguments and evidence presented during the round. I do not have preconceived opinions about the topic and will base my decision solely on the merits of the arguments made during the debate.

Argumentation:

I appreciate well-structured arguments that are supported by evidence. Debaters should focus on providing clear contentions and solid reasoning.

Rebuttals:

Effective refutation is crucial. Debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments, identify points of clash, and provide a clear summary of their case in the final rebuttals.

Cross-Examination:

I expect cross-examination to be conducted respectfully and to serve as a tool for clarifying positions and uncovering weaknesses in arguments.

Time Management:

Debaters should adhere to time limits. I will keep track of time, but I expect participants to be responsible for managing their own time effectively.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, strategy, and overall performance. High speaker points will be awarded to debaters who demonstrate strong argumentation skills and effective communication.

Respect:

Respect for opponents, partners, and the judge is essential. Any form of disrespectful behavior will be penalized in my assessment.

Decision Making:

My decision will be based on the quality of the arguments presented in the round. I will carefully evaluate each team's contentions, evidence, and refutation before reaching a decision.

Preferences:

I do not have strong preferences regarding specific debate styles or content areas. My primary concern is the quality of the arguments and the debating skills displayed by the participants.

Final Thoughts:

Debate is an excellent opportunity for personal growth and intellectual development. I encourage all debaters to approach the round with enthusiasm, integrity, and a commitment to constructive discourse.

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.

I have been involved in speech and debate for 28 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 22 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time. The increase in prep was to accommodate filesharing, so you should be doing that during prep, not in addition to prep.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. IMO CP MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for several years. I expect professionalism and good argumentation.

I am the Speech/Debate teacher and coach at The Colony High School in Texas and although I've judged quite a few tournaments over the past two and a half years, I consider myself still learning about coaching and judging debate and interp events. I pledge to do my best to judge events fairly and accurately. I appreciate articulate and easy to understand speakers and do not like spreading. I may ask you to slow down if you are speaking too fast so that I may adequately judge your speech. I may disclose results to you after your performance or may choose for you to review my comments on Tabroom. I consider myself a coach first and judge second - so if you ask how you did after a round/performance, you will hear words of encouragement or gentle critique. I want a judge to do the same for my students.

Know that I am listening intently to your performance or for the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!

“As a coach member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence.”

As a science teacher, I function in a world based upon data and logic. My paradigm is based upon that experience and personal value system. Arguments establish validity through the proper use of data versus grandiose claims of support based upon claims with small value. Provided below is a list of how I evaluate arguments:

1. Is your position logical? Does it take into account as much evidence as possible? Does it ignore or dismiss the counter-argument? Absolutes, by my opinion, signify weak positions.
2. Does the the data support the argument? Is it significant enough to value when considering the position, or is it anecdotal?
3. How does your argument relate to the bigger picture? The small stories lead to the sum of the larger story? Where does the process lead?
4. How does your argument affect others? Are the sacrifices being presented enough to support your position? Have you considered the long term outcomes of your position? Does it favor those with power, wealth, and privilege versus the average person? Does it further marginalize those who have significantly less privilege? Does it widen the gaps?
5. From a stance of morality and ethical behavior, does your argument abandon those values? Is it the old "to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs" argument?
6. Is your position what is popular or what is right? Popularity is easy to follow, but is it what is best for all? Are you willing to make sacrifices to your position to strengthen its argument? Are you willing to reconsider the evidence presented as a counter to yours or do you dismiss it?

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Classic LD: Value, Criterion, Contentions

Rounds are evaluated with emphasis on the strongest logical arguments, sometimes supported with evidence.

I appreciate frameworks and burdens arguments that lay out the parameters of the debate - especially when you follow through with it, and it’s not just a 1x statement at the beginning of a speech never to be referenced again.

I enjoy well-thought out arguments, clash, organization, and arguments that continue to evolve throughout the round, not just repeated.

Spread and high speed are not tolerated. I will flow only what I can understand.

And while all of that might come off as a little grumpy, I assure you I am not. This is an enjoyable event, there are things that we can all learn from each other, and respect for your opponents, teammates and judges is a great starting point to have a good time, no matter the outcome. Have fun and learn something