Private Business Owner, Former Director of Transportation and Logistics for a global company. 35+ years experience with prepared Public/Extemporaneous speaking.

Refined and targeted speaking points are important, statement of purpose/goal on the outset as well as the sub-categorical points/milestones as they will allow the judges to measure the progress and transition points.

If using any sort of statistical data, be prepared to provide the source and standards of measurements utilized. Throwing numbers that cannot be substantiated or that are based on conjecture and personal opinion without the ability for substantiation could cost you in a negative manner.

I am a federally certified process design facilitator, so I am predisposed to discovery of fine details that present themselves through omission or contrary chronological sequences. (basically if you skip something and then refer to it later or try to circle back to that omission, I am going to catch it.)

Speak clearly, If challenged be respectful and allow the opportunity to provide a clear/concise/coherent thought to be conveyed by both the opposition and yourself. Do not let emotional conflict or disagreement take control.

Adapt as necessary but resist the temptation of segways that will take you away from your primary topic/goal.

I am new to the debate structures utilized within these curriculums, however expansion on my earlier introduction, I have 5 years of experience within academic speaking environments and 30 years of high impact real world experience. With that said, my expectation is that you will be clear, concise, relevant to the topic of discussion and above all, respectful and professional.

If you have any questions, please ask prior to beginning the round.

The debate forum is for your fun and personal/professional development so good luck and enjoy!

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.

This will be my first time judging, so please no debate jargon. I'm coming to the tournament as a blank slate and will be looking for well-reasoned arguments supported by empirical evidence. I prefer clear and concise delivery and don't mind faster speaking as long as I'm able to understand you, no spreading please. Treating your opponent respectfully is very important to me, as I find it the most constructive way to have a discussion of differing opinions.

Ryan Butler, Judge

This is my first time judging, so thank you for bearing with me and allowing me the opportunity to judge. My background is that I am a husband, a dad of 3 kids, and a professional engineer by trade.

-I appreciate direct, precise and organized arguments.

-I prefer a moderate speaking pace--no spreading.

-Please treat both me and your opponent as if we are reasonably intelligent, productive and informed members of society.

-Claims and counterclaims should be backed with objective reason, not simply subjective opinion.

-Focus on seeing and presenting the broad argument, with specific relevant support points.

-Please avoid debate jargon as I do not know it.

-Enjoy yourself and have fun.

Thanks!

I am new to judging debate. This is my first time.

Please speak slow and clear.

Please be respectful to your opponent, and no slander.

Good luck and have fun!

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.

Hello! My name is Cinta Franco and I am super excited to be here today judging your round. I do not have much experience in the speech and debate world and am volunteering my time as a parent judge. Here are some of the things that I would like to see in round:
- Remain respectful at all times (any bigoted comments or hateful arguments will lead to an immediate loss)
- Please speak slowly–as I am relatively new, I want to be sure that I grasp everything you’re telling me. It will be extremely hard for me to follow if you choose to speak faster than an average pace. NO spreading!
- Direct me through your speeches. Do not expect me to follow along for you; this means having a roadmap and sticking to that roadmap through your speeches.
At the end of the day, this is a fun activity so make sure you do just that!

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

I did three years of high school debate last century; CX, which is now called Policy?  Or maybe it always was, but my mind is just gone.  Anyway, I know enough to make me dangerous, but if you start getting too technical, I may get a glazed look in my eyes, which means I went to my happy place.  Emphasize logic and reasoning as to why your argument is superior.  Evidence is good, but I don’t want to listen to article after article of fake news. (Just kidding.  Don’t go running off to your coach and tell on me.  I am not getting paid for this, so getting fired wouldn’t really hurt.  I would probably still have access to the judges lounge and all the free snacks.  Security is pretty lax.)

As you can tell, I have a sense of humor, and a pretty good one at that.  All my kids laugh at my jokes.  Then they ask me for money.  I will not give you money.  You will not give me money; unless it is off school property and I have my cardboard sign with me.  It’s okay to joke around, but it won’t help you win the debate.  It will help make life easier though.  After all, if we can’t laugh at others, who can we laugh at?

Okay, seriously, Confucius say good arguments are better than many arguments. (Don’t look that up, pretty sure he didn’t say that.)  I will flow to the best of my ability, but make sure to pull arguments even if they aren’t addressed.  If you fail to emphasize a winning argument in your closing, that means you probably didn’t identify it as important, which is a failure on your part.

I would prefer you speak clearly over quickly, but if you can do both, do it.  It’s probably a super power or some mutated DNA.  Just don’t crush my head with your mutant mind powers when you realize you are about to lose.

Have we reached the end of this already?  As a legal disclaimer, all the above is satire.  You can’t sue me because of it. It does have some pearls of wisdom, but it is up to you to dig them out and clean off the slimy, goopy stuff.  I don’t mind if you ask questions before the round, but no compliments, unless you really like the haircut.  Covid was hard on me.

I have my worldview, but it will only affect my judging in that I will honestly choose the team who I believe won the argument, even if I know that they are wrong.  In closing, as Patrick Swayze emphasized in Road House, “Be nice.”

Me: 

1st-Year Debate Coach

14-Year High School English Teacher (English 10 and Honors English 10)

Judging for Debate: 

Congress is what I have the most experience with outside of my English classroom. I like arguments that cite sources; some first-hand accounts are fine in supporting your case, but you need to have secondary sources that are timely and relevant. 

Speed of speaking - please keep it reasonable; fast is okay, but not to the point that it becomes difficult to understand the words you're saying. 

Clash and questioning - I love it when debaters show they are listening to what their opponent is saying by citing part of their opponent's speech in their questioning. Solid questioning that is open-ended and goes beyond a "yes" or a "no" answer helps to keep the debate flowing. 

Organization of speeches - Keeping the points clear and in the same order as listed in your claim. Just having a well-organized speech that doesn't veer off on tangents or unrelated concepts is always a plus. 

In general, showing respect to your opponent and using the experience to learn and grow as a debater. 

Hello! My name is Joshua Kay and I am super excited to be here today judging your round. I do not have much experience in the speech and debate world and am volunteering my time as a judge. Here are some of the things that I would like to see in round:

- Remain respectful at all times (any bigoted comments or hateful arguments will lead to an immediate loss)

- Please speak slowly–as I am relatively new, I want to be sure that I grasp everything you’re telling me. It will be extremely hard for me to follow if you choose to speak faster than an average pace. NO spreading!

- Direct me through your speeches. Do not expect me to follow along for you; this means having a roadmap and sticking to that roadmap through your speeches.

At the end of the day, this is a fun activity so make sure you do just that!

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Hello! My name is Yullyana Laguna and I am super excited to be here today judging your round. I do not have much experience in the speech and debate world and am volunteering my time as a judge. Here are some of the things that I would like to see in round:

- Remain respectful at all times (any bigoted comments or hateful arguments will lead to an immediate loss)
- Please speak slowly–as I am relatively new, I want to be sure that I grasp everything you’re telling me. It will be extremely hard for me to follow if you choose to speak faster than an average pace. NO spreading!
- Direct me through your speeches. Do not expect me to follow along for you; this means having a roadmap and sticking to that roadmap through your speeches.

At the end of the day, this is a fun activity so make sure you do just that!

Volunteer Debate Judge

This is my first time judging a debate. I am eager to hear different world views on a variety of topics.

I am a very non-confrontational person. Arguments make me extremely uncomfortable. Therefore, I appreciate competitors to not raise their voices or attack their opponent in any way. Make your points respectfully and calmly. Respond to any cross in the same fashion - though you are technically arguing opposing sides, I prefer it to feel more like a conversation than an argument. Instead of getting heated or frustrated against your opponent, continue to use tools to make YOUR point stronger.

As this is my first time judging, the more organized and clear you can be, the better I will follow and understand your points. Have a strong structure, use words that someone new will not be lost on, and speak deliberately.

Good luck - looking forward to it!

I am a traditional lay judge, nothing progressive. I have a son who does debate and I stay pretty well informed on most topics. I appreciate professionalism in rounds. I am okay if you talk fast, but I am not always good at listening fast. Just do your best and make good arguments.

Current Debate Coach at Bentonville High School. Forensics competitor in high school 2008-2012. Debate (mostly IPDA) competitor in college 2014-2016.

Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.

Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.

Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches

Spreading is fine! I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow.

Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominate speaking ability, emotion, stronger clash, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots. Definition debates are my least favorite thing ever! Clash with the content of your cases!

I judge primarily as tech over truth. If you say something that is outright NOT true, I cannot overlook that, but I leave my bias/knowledge at the door as much as is appropriate & will judge simply on what happens in-round.

Don't be afraid to make me laugh!! Bachelorette/Survivor references are always appreciated.

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading alone but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here. Don't try to run Progressive theory before the resolution or run Disclosure Theory, won't hold water with me.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

I'm a realitively new judge. This is only my second time at BWHS and 4th total time juding speech and debate. I am fair with my judgement and won't take sides based on my own preferences. I'm looking for people who have the best thought out questions and facts. My biggest pet peeve is spreading. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are saying it so fast, you will be docked.

Experience: (Competitor) Four years HS and national circuit and four years college (parli, LD, speech, and policy). I've been judging on and off since 2006 (up to COVID now hoping to judge as needed).

As much as possible, I try to be a tabula rasa judge; my goal is to be as open-minded as possible, and maximize ground for the debaters. I am open to on case arguments and off case positions including disads, T, counterplans, and kritiks, and I have cast ballots based on each of those arguments. Debaters are also welcome to argue what my judging philosophy should be - stock issue, policymaker, game player, etc. I do feel that judge adaptation is important.

Having said that, we all have biases. Here are mine:

1. Clash is the MOST important aspect of a policy debate round. The hardest rounds to judge (and the most boring!) are those in which one team dumps a block of cards, and the other team groups them and reads a response block. I much prefer debates about evidence quality and relevance, close textual analysis of a key card, and smart framing of how the cards interact and how I should weigh them.

2. I can and will flow, and it is unusual (though not impossible) for me to be spread out of a round. I will not yell clear, but I will put my pen down and stop flowing. Speed over clarity is not effective communication - and online debating only makes this more challenging.

3. Theory is a really interesting part of debate, and I’d like to hear your arguments. Please don’t blip through your T standards, K framework and theory, and CP perms; give these arguments the time they deserve. I am 20+ years removed from my high school debate career, and I'm not on the cutting edge of the latest debate arguments. If your argument is new and fancy, please take the time to explain it. I didn't debate K's myself, so that's probably where I need the most guidance on particularly esoteric arguments. And you should always assume I don't know the literature underlying your K.

5. The crucial parts of any disad debate are the link and uniqueness, focusing your efforts here will pay off (true for either team).

6. If you don’t argue to shift my paradigm, I’ll default to a policymaker and weigh advantages vs. disadvantages of the arguments in the round.

7. I rarely read evidence before casting my ballot; evidence really matters, but I need you to be able to make good arguments with your cards. I can recall asking for a card only once, when the entire round collapsed to one crucial card and each team offered a radically different interpretation of what the evidence said. (And if you ask me to read a card, I will.)

8. Passion and competitiveness are important, and so are civility and respect. If you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely. Debate is supposed to be educational and in theory a fun activity, these types of behaviors ruin debate and you will get comfortable with these habits that will not be tolerated in the real world!

I have been competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. However it has also been 20+ years since I competed, with the exception of work, sales, or at home with my wife. This is my second year judging. I specialize writing and telling stories to children, and conversational debate with respect to politics and religion.

Cosequently, speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Eye contact with those in the room can help sell your points. Make clear arguments and focus on line by line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team/individual with line by line argumentation.

Back your claims and counterclaims with solid arguments and supporting documentation. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims backed with more than your opinion.

Make sure you link your proposal to your arguments which should flow to resolution clearly. I do not want to hear how many cards you have or why I must judge in your favor. Rather, tell me about source and why they are relevant.

Forecast ..... where are you going

Make your point or argument

Signpost where we've been

Repeat ....

Link all in your resolution

These instructions flow to nearly every speech category.

While I can listen quickly, this can lose you points if you are unclear and your diction is not crisp. I have a 30% hearing loss in some ranges, so look at my face occasionally to determine if I look lost.

Be respectful. If you demean your competitor or use any Ad Hominen attacks you will lose points.

DONT USE JARGON OR ACRONYMS. Use complete terms. For Example: H.U.D. could mean "Heads up Display" or "Housing and Urban Development". (There are more meaning than these two.) DONT ASSUME I KNOW WHICH YOU MEAN. Some jargon has changed since I last competed.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

This is your debate or speach round so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!

I am a first time ever volunteer judge. Please keep your speaking clear, and do not go too fast.

I will be listening for organized, clear, concise speech. Be prepared. Try not just read from notes. Make eye contact and speak to the judges. Keeping your head down reading notes the entire time you are speaking will count against you.

Backup your claims. While I enjoy ideological and philosophical points that will get me thinking, I will judge more on fact-based arguments that can be validated.

Keep your debate focused on resolution. If your points are not linking to the resolution, they could be dismissed.

Be professional. Do not be demeaning or disrespectful to your opponent. Disagree in a respectful manner.

Do not use debate jargon. Speak to me as if I have never heard the word 'debate' before.

I am a first time volunteer judge. Please keep your speech clear, and do not go too fast.

I will be listening for organized, clear, concise speech. Be prepared. Try not to just read from notes the whole time. Make eye contact and speak to the judge. Keeping your head down reading notes the entire time you are speaking will count against you.

Backup your claims. While I enjoy ideological and philosophical points that will get me thinking, I will judge more on fact-based arguments that can be validated.

Keep your debate focused on resolution. If your points are not linking to the resolution, they could be dismissed.

Be professional. Do not be demeaning or disrespectful to your opponent. Disagree in a respectful manner.

Do not use debate jargon. Speak to me as if I have never heard the word 'debate' before.

I have been a professional negotiator and mediator for over a decade and with a extensive experience in commercial environments from sales, consulting, retail, and pharmaceuticals. I have trained and coach over 500+ executives across the world specializing in: Speaking, presentation skills, negotiation, sales training and development.

Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus online by line analysis. Make emphasizes when needed and eye contact will be important when making your points not only to me but more so to your counterpart. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with line-by-line argumentation as well as better presentation of the arguments. Un -organized and if I feel you are just reading a research document, this will cost you points.

Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion yet if your opinion is solid and you feel you have ground to convey it, please do so. I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and Organization is key to keep the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.

PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a professional public speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear yet I prefer you to emphasize points slowly and clear while adjusting your tone appropriately based on your arguments. If I miss your argument because you're not clear or just reading as quick as you can do past the round, it could cost you major points with me. Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution and framework.

If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.

Don't use debate jargon in these rounds as I am not a seasoned debate judge. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before and this is my first time hearing your arguments’ treat me like a child that needs to understand your argument in a simplistic, organized, and precise and concise.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times AND PLEASE HAVE FUN!!!

READY TO DEBATE?

I am a newer parent judge who has enjoyed this responsibility over the last year. I will listen to both arguments and make a fair and unbiased opinion based on the facts, and who seems to have the better argument. I expect participants to be respectful to one another while expressing their opinion and being passionate about it. I expect that you will be prepared for the debate and not fumble through the presentation. Bonus points for those that show evidence to their argument and can prove it relates to the topic at hand. If a participant makes a false statement, I expect the other side to argue and point it out in cross examination. If you speak to fast that i can't understand you, then you will lose the round. Please stay within the time allow, and if you go over excessively each time, I will count it against you.

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

Hey guys, I'm a sophomore at UARK and you can call me Judge, Brice, Judge Witt, Mr. Guy Man, whatever, honestly. I've competed in PF and Congress, both in-state and out-of-state, and went to NSDA Nationals my sophomore and senior years. I've also dabbled in CX a little. LD is what I'm least familiar with but I can comprehend arguments, will flow, and will make the most fair decision.

All Styles minus Congress:

I am a flow judge meaning I will base my decision off the flow, nothing else. I will listen to cross-examination, if I hear something interesting, incorrect, or otherwise, I will write it down, but it shouldn't effect my decision (unless your opponent calls you out for something you said in cross in a speech).

SPEED. I am fine with some speed, no spreading though, but if you're talking a bit faster be clear. If you are not clear or are speaking too fast, I will put my pen down, will not flow, and will then not be able to judge you properly. In summary, PLEASE BE CLEAR.

WEIGH. If you don't weigh for me, I will end up weighing myself and you may or may not like the outcome.

EXTENDING AND DROPS. If you don't extend evidence for me, I will point it out on my flow and if your opponent points it out and tells me why that matters, you won't be able to win it. Shadow extending is risky, I may flow it and let it slide, but don't count on it occurring. If you drop something, I point it out on my flow, and your opponent discusses it and why it matters, I will give them the argument as long as they extend.

EVIDENCE. If an opponent asks for a card, please be able to supply it in a timely manner, if not I will resort to running some of your prep time. I don't expect to ask for a card after the round, but I will do so if my decision comes down to it or a competitor specifically asks me to call for the evidence in a speech (or I just wanna see it hehe).

Policy Specific:

I don't think I will ever judge this, but if I do, I'm sorry and I will try my absolute best. If you spread, I may miss some things but I don't think it'll be too bad.

PF Specific:

Ah PF, my main style. I am fine with either paraphrasing or carded evidence, however, if you paraphrase, you'd better have the carded, properly cited, properly highlighted evidence if I call for it. I will be very displeased if you make me search through an article or tell me "control f this..." just cut the evidence.

I personally enjoyed progressive argumentation in PF, meaning things like K’s, theory, etc., but because those can make the debate unfair to an unprepared opponent, I will ask that if you plan to run something like this, ask your opponents before the round if it’s okay. 

I do not allow for either sticky offense or sticky defense. This just means to be sure to cover both sides when being the first speaker.

First rebuttal, answer AND interact with your opponents case, use all of your time, even if you have to restate your own case. If you want to weigh at the end you can, weighing earlier makes my decision easier.

Second rebuttal, answer AND interact with your opponents case, answer what they said on yours, and use all of your time. If you want to weigh at the end you can, weighing earlier makes my decision easier.

Summary, group arguments and answer what your opponent said. You have 3 minutes so use it wisely, extend, and weigh at the end or throughout. Set your partner up in the FF, it's like an alley-oop, you set your partner up for the dunk.

FF, VOTERS. Just tell me reasons why you win the debate, offer me some weighing and DUNK THAT THANG.

Congress Specific: There’s not really much I should need to say here, but just speak well, follow parliamentary procedure, don’t just read a speech, and speak eloquently and with conviction.

LD Specific:

I've only ever judged LD and have never debated in it, however, I will be able to judge properly if I am your judge.

I can evaluate K's somewhat as I did run them here and there, just please not overly complicated ones.

Make sure you give your value and value criterion so I know how to judge.

Please ensure you extend, go line-by-line, and relate what you're discussing to the value and value criterion.

Speaker points:

Use good word economy. I won't be mean when it comes to speaks, ever. That being said I also won’t inflate them and everyone will start off at a 28.

Ways to increase speaker points:

Be polite, courteous, etc.

Have good time management, organization, and line-by-line.

Be efficient and make sure you’re clear, especially if online.

If you tell me a good joke before the round I will increase your speaks by .2. If it's not good I will reduce your speaks by .2. Choose wisely.

Ways to lose speaker points:

Being inefficient with and/or not using all of your time, not knowing your case/evidence.

Being rude, disrespectful, demeaning, etc. *Note this does not mean you cannot get into a back and forth with your opponent during cross, because, if done right, it’ll enhance the quality of the debate.

If you are a(the) superior debater(s), showing humility will go a long way, however, not will cause you to lose speaker points.

Ways to automatically lose the round, get a 25 speaker point score, and have me talk to your coach/tab:

You are explicitly racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. Debate is supposed to be a safe place for all individuals, let’s keep it that way, please.

If there’s an email chain I would like to be on it: lolwhatsacp@gmail.com

If you have any questions before the round, please ask and I’ll be more than happy to answer, but if you ask me what my paradigm is, I will first ask if you checked on tab and if you say no, I will not tell you everything, and maybe nothing.

Good luck to everyone! You’re all talented and I hope I get to judge you!!