general:

I dont flow or count cross X thats for yall not me

if a question goes over time i will allow a quick and concise response

and as a heads up im a bit hard of hearing so if im looking away im pointing my ear to hear better im not ignoring you i promise

LD:

value: the upholding of your value over your appoint

Value criteria: a connecting theme between your point value and value criteria

as LD debater who wants to see the style grow if I see any unsportsmanly conduct I will stop flow and adjudicate the round the same moment excessive speed and use of "info bombing" ect. are considered as unsportsmanly conduct

Congress:

Congress is just as much about your research as your presentation ham it up be confident you are taking the role of a Congressmen embrace that energy also call out someone who if they said something that’s just especially if you can explain how wrong they were also if you have already heard your points said don’t just restate them expand on them

PF: tbd

BQ: tbd

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.

Hi everyone! I want to make sure you are all exceptionally prepared before round so I have included my paradigms below! If there are ANY questions about these, please ask me prior to your debate start and I am more than happy to elaborate!

Framework: As a judge, your job is to convince me to support whichever side you are on. I will bring no personal beliefs, biases, or extra knowledge beyond the basics into the round. Framework can be an important tool to frame my perspective of why I should be voting a certain way. If you choose to debate without your own framework and your opponent has one of their own, your case will be subjected to their framework and it will factor into my decision at the end of the round so be prepared to defend under different framework perspectives!

Clarity and Organization: I value clear and organized presentation of arguments. Debaters should articulate their points concisely, use effective signposting, and maintain a logical structure throughout the round. I am experienced in flows and use my computer so if I miss an argument due to spreading, it means you're probably going to fast (I type quick). As the round goes on, you should go down the flow and hit each sides points so that I have a clear view of the round at the end just by looking at my flow.

Evidence and Warranting: Evidence is crucial in supporting arguments. I expect debaters to provide credible sources to bolster their claims and to warrant their arguments with logical reasoning. Debaters should critically evaluate the quality of their evidence and explain how it directly supports their position. I prioritize substance over quantity when it comes to evidence, and I encourage debaters to engage in meaningful analysis rather than simply reciting sources.

Clash and Engagement: I value substantive clash between debaters. Debaters should engage directly with their opponents’ arguments, identify points of contention, and provide clear rebuttals supported by evidence. I encourage debaters to actively listen to their opponents and respond thoughtfully to their arguments, rather than relying solely on pre-scripted speeches or ignoring opposing positions. Every round is unique!

Respect and Decorum: Be kind and be respectful. I have a zero tolerance policy for disrespect both in and out of the rounds. Disrespectful and rude behavior could be grounds to downvote and will be noted in the decision.

Voting:I want to hear voters in your final speech. This could just be 3-4 things that you beat your opponent on during the round and why this should mean I vote for you at the end of the debate. I typically value things such as: why your contentions meet the framework better, impact analysis, dropped arguments, etc. but I leave this to you! Convince me!

Best of luck! And most important, have fun!

They/Them

I am a debater at the University of Arkansas. I did HS Forensics and Debate at Fayetteville High School and graduated in 2021. I mostly did Big Questions, Congress, and Public Forum.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out! greenlee.m.crow@gmail.com (add me to any email chains please)

Run whatever you want, as long as it's explained well and links.

Saying or running anything that's racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. will result in being voted down immediately.

Please don't be rude. It's okay to be aggressive, but there is a line.

Speaking quickly is fine, but please don’t spread.

General info:

Feel free to put me in the email chain but know that I will only flow what I hear you say in the round. I will give you a 10 second grace period at the end of each of your speeches. If you go over that I will drop you a speaker point. I won't flow cross-ex so if something important is said in cross, make sure to use it in one of your speeches.

Burdens are one of the biggest voters I use to adjudicate the round. As debaters, you should know that the Aff has the burden of proof and the Neg has the burden of clash and should be able to uphold these. The Aff will use on case arguments to prove their side and the Neg will use their on and off case arguments to clash with the Affirmative case. At the end of the round, I will decide who has achieved their burden best.

Framework is another important factor whether it be Value and Value Criterion(LD), Framework(PF/Policy), or a Weighing Mechanism(IPDA/BQ). I won't "flow" framework to one side or the other, I will flow the framework as either "upheld" or "fallen". At the end of the round, I will apply only the upheld framework(s) to both sides and decide who achieves it better.

Case Argumentation is an essential voter to emphasize on in the round. The Affirmative needs to present, uphold, and rebuild upon their on case argumentation in order to win the burden, the framework, and ultimately the round. The Negative should provide on case arguments that help them clash with the ideas and arguments that the Aff is presenting. The Aff can use off case arguments to rebuild and extend their points and the Neg can use them to clash with the Aff. Ideally, the strongest arguments have a claim, warrant, evidence, analysis, and impact. I will only flow an argument as dropped if someone points it out. If you are rebuilding, extending, or pointing out dropped arguments don't do the bare minimum, after you're done doing this take some time to explain why your arguments matter.

Miscellaneous: The Neg can use straight refusal but in order for this to work they must go line by line completely clashing with the Aff case. The Aff doesn't have any obligation to clash with the Negative case outside of the framework, they need only clash with the arguments they feel are important to the round. In your cross-ex, you have the control, if your opponent is eating up your time feel free to interrupt them so that you can move on to another question. If it is your opponent's cross-ex be respectful of them and their time, wasting your opponent's time in cross is just a good strategy but if they try to cut you off don't continue speaking or try to talk over them.

Lincoln Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge. I will not flow your Kritiks, Adds or Dis-Adds, or Theory Shells. If you want to use a Plan or Counterplan go ahead, but do not expect or imply that your opponent needs one to win the round. If your arguments are untopical I will not use them to weigh the round. Neither debater has an obligation to provide a Plan/Counterplan. Solvency is not an important factor in the round, so don't waste your time with it.

Pet Peeves: I am ok with speed but if you spread I will give you 20 speaker points. Do not try to put me or your opponent in a double bind that implies that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. If you lost, it was because either you failed to do your job as a debater or your opponent did a better job. With that being said, I will automatically vote you down if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I am a firm believer that debate is supposed to be fun and educational, we all get competitive but you are never justified in being rude to your opponent.

• This is the first time that I've judged this event.

I have been working with the debate team at our school for 4 year and judging for at least 3. I am a High School/College teacher in both US and World History. This means I am very well versed in history. I am well versed in research and bias of sources. In Debate rounds I want well researched cases with strong evidence. I also like connections, your evidence needs to connect to your points and support your claims, free floating evidence does not apply anywhere in the round. I expect a synopsis for voters as well, if you don't give me voters I will use my own observations to way the round, which may not be how you want me to vote. That being said, being too pushy may push me away from your position. Give voters that I can consider and persuade me why you should win on the logic and evidence of the case. I am not a fan of spreading. I would rather have you present a case with a few strong points than a lot of little ones. I do not like it when competitors are rude to one another. No matter how heated the battle or frustrated you get, politeness goes a long way with me.

Howdy!

I participated in policy debate while in high school, so my paradigms are:

(1) SIGNPOST!!!!! I know you are gonna talk at 400wpm, so if I don't catch your headline and it's not on my flow paper I will not weigh that argument;

(2) Carry over your arguments for rebuttal. I will not flow over your arguments, and if they are not carried over to the rebuttal I will assume you dropped those arguments;

(3) Clash. I do not want to sit there and listen to each team talk past eachother. Adress issues and confront them. If you do not have a source that directly clashes, then make an argument up. I will ask for sources and cases at the end if I feel it is necessary;

(4) I value rebuttals and closing statements more than the opening parts;

(5) Be courteous;

(6) Extra speaking points to teams that get up and dance before and after the rounds start;

(7) Introduce yourselves by coming up to me and shaking my hand.

I am a freshman at the University of Arkansas and competed for all four years of high school. My Experience is mainly in Public Forum, Congress, and some IPDA/ LD.

First and foremost I value respect in debate.  Homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, etc. are not tolerated in debate and will result in a downvote.

In Congress, I want to see an interaction between arguments and for competitors to actively address points from other representatives. Remember congress mashes speech and debate it's not just about what you say but also how you say it. As do most congress judges, I do not want to see a one-sided debate. If you step in to keep the flow of debate going it will not go unnoticed. Lastly, I'm a sucker for funny/ creative intros. again treat your fellow representatives with respect and have fun!

In PF/ IPDA I also want to see direct interaction of arguments don't just tell me your opponent is wrong, tell me why. Add nuance to your arguments. I should not have to connect the dots. Weighing!!! please weigh your arguments and again explain why they outweigh/ should be valued over your opponents. I do not judge questioning so if you want me to judge something based on a question/ answer make sure you bring it up in your speech. again no -phobias or -isms be respectful. Lastly, keep it fun and if you make me laugh I'll give you an extra speaker point!

In Lincoln Douglas I prefer Traditional but I can keep up with progressive. With that being said if you spread please send me a link to your case. I prefer line by line, but as long as you signpost it is not a huge issue (I keep a pretty detailed flow). I will not fill in gaps this goes for any style of debate if you want me to think it you need to say it I won't connect the dots for you. I typically vote Truth> tech but I am not hard set It really depends on the way the round is going and how the arguments are presented. V & VC are important to how I vote, however, if it is not being used much in the round (by both opponents I can look past it. Once again be respectful and have fun!

danielaudreycole@gmail.com

daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir

So who is this random guy?

POST JUDGING TWO CIRCUIT TOURNAMENTS THOUGHTS:

I don't know if I just did not care about it when I debated and judged regularly last year, or if there was some committee meeting where people decided just to toss evidence ethics completely out the window. It seems even worse than before. I saw a card that was tagged "Iran key for nuke war" then the card said in tiny unhighlighted font... "5 places where war could go nuclear." Authors, even at very credible websites write speculative pieces and opinion pieces that are being weaponized by debaters for cards with absolutely no regard to whether or not it is actually what the card says with context. Making something size 5 font does not make it go away if I catch anyone doing this... I will stop paying attention and drop you. No questions asked. I don't care if I'm the only one in the community that cares about this, if you can't be bothered to edit your case so it meets very high standards of evidence ethics, then PLEASE strike me.

Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)

I judge mostly these days for fun, and far less than I used to. I cover sports in my spare time for sports illustrated, Slow down from top speed.

Speaker Points: 30s for all, call me lazy but I've got enough crap to do as a judge, I'm not sorting through the minutia of what the difference is between a 30 and 29,6...

There are two major exceptions to this rule:

1. Unnecessary showmanship and/or general rudeness... Don't spread if you don't have to... Don't run 7 off if you don't have to... Don't cut your opponent off in cross every question... you know the usual stuff...
2. Evidence ethics... This is DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHER JUDGES... You should not highlight one sentence from the card and then make the rest of the text incredibly small to make the context of the card impossible to read. The general rule of thumb, is if the author of the article came in and listened to you read the card, would they feel comfortable with the way you have represented the card? If not, please recut..., I will drop your speaks to 27.5 without saying a word, your opponent does not even have to say anything (although if you stake the round on it, I am certainly willing to sign and deliver my ballot if you are correct). It won't change the rest of the debate, I won't even mention it in my RFD. Trust me, as someone who writes content that gets published online for a job, we do NOT write articles with debate in mind... cut them as such, do not cut a sentence out of an article, just because it is a fire link to your DA. (See longer rant above)

Pref Shortcuts(LD)-

LARP-1

(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2

Phil-3

K-4

Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)

This used to be a heck of a lot longer, I’m convinced that most of y’all didn’t read that disorganized mess. This is how you should think of me as a judge. A former policy debater that went strictly topic related T and Policy stuff and a few basic Ks. Slightly out of practice but judged 50+ circuit LD rounds last year.

Last updated 2/19/2023

2026 / University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Debated at Little Rock Central (AR), Policy and Congress

Put me on the email chain @ ellewalters2@gmail.com

tl;dr– Keep it interesting and don't be problematic

Congress

I am not here to listen to you play devil's advocate

There's a difference between taking unpopular ground (necessary) and saying things that are racist/classist/ableist/sexist/etc... (you're getting dropped). The marks of a good competitor are a) the ability to find creative argumentsfor an unpopular side and b) the ability to steer the chamber away from debating a bill that demands problematic speech on one side.

If you're planning to say something offensive/problematic just to get a speech in, you would probably be better off staying silent. In other words, check yourself.

That being said,

I like- clearly defined impacts and framework, unique intros, funny comments

I do not like- rehash, platitudes, stupid questions

I'm most concerned with hearing how your argument fits in the context of the round and the arguments of the speaker before you- my highest ranks go to speakers that give good refutation and weigh the round's impacts.Congress is only interesting and educational if you actually engage in debate,so that will always be most important when scoring and ranking.

Clarity, vocal variation, and engagement are also important. Blippy speakers are ok, but monotonous, incoherent or clearly scripted speakers are not

I don't flow questions, but I do take activity into account

Decorum is less important, proper parliamentary procedure is more important

Deductions–

If you're reading a speech straight/verbatim from paper or a computer for the majority of your speaking time, that's an automatic 2 pt. deduction.

If y'all say something silly like "I begin on my first word" it's an automatic 1 pt deduction

General (policy, ld, etc...)

I'm a much better judge for a K round than 6 off.

If the aff can prove they're reasonably topical, that's enough for me– I have high bar for voting the aff down on topicality alone. I'm much more interested in FW on the K than T or theory debates on the CP. (It's not like I have to be interested in your arguments to judge them, but I have a very short attention span. If I'm super into it, my decision will probably be a lot better.)

Fairness is a mid impact. Education almost always outweighs and I lean truth over tech.

At this point assume zero topic knowledge

I believe debate fundamentally is an exercise in persuasion. To prevail, the competitor must use logic and evidence to make a compelling argument and deliver the argument in a way that the audience can understand and relate to. Trying to speak at a quick pace to fit every argument in is likely to be less effective than focusing your limited time on the most persuasive arguments.