I am a lay judge. Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. I do not always disclose, but I usually will if requested. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents, I will drop you.

Speak clearly. If you are talking as fast as possible, I’m not going to understand a word you’re saying and that’s not going to get you any points even if what you are saying is good. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Speak at an appropriate pace and you’ll be good.

Name: Kate Baldwin, English department chair

School Affiliation: Gilbert High School

Judging/Event Types: I primarily have judged debate, especially Lincoln-Douglas.

I started judging in 2020 online, so I am excited to judge more in person!

I judge primarily based on strong evidence and counterclaims, rather than style, but as an English teacher, I do pay attention to diction and tone. Evidence alone is not enough, as I feel the best debates also shape their evidence in a compelling way, so structure is paramount. I take a lot of notes, and I listen primarily for how evidence is used to construct a narrative about why your side is best. In my opinion, real-world arguments are strongest when they are easy to follow and well-organized, so I award points based on clarity and focus. I am less impressed by the ability to attack the opposing team than by the ability to rebut using strong evidence focused on the main argument.

ONLINE: you must send docs if you’re going to talk fast. It’s hard to hear over the computer.

General

Add me to all email chains: colebrown131@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him or they/them. Please let me know if you need anything or have questions at any time. Tag team CX is fine. You should time yourself and ideally your opponents to ensure fairness.

Spreading and Evidence

I've had a lot of questions about these things so I'm going to split them off into their own paragraph. I don't mind spreading, but I have ADHD which makes writing down from hearing difficult. It's also been four years since I've regularly flowed policy debate. I will not penalize you for going as fast as you want, but I may not be able to flow your analytics or taglines that are being spread (speaking fast is always fine). You are fine spreading through the constructives on shared docs as all I'm listening for is to make sure it matches the doc. Please feel free to ask about this at any point in the round. I prefer quality over quantity and I don't buy blippy/unwarranted extensionsso there's a significant disadvantage to going at a pace that would make it difficult for me to write this down anyways.

I strongly prefer that evidence be shared with me and your opponent(s). NLD and PF are exempted, and if you can't please let me know. For elimination rounds of any kind, this isn't optional.

NO FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR ANYTHING ELSE TO GAME ROUNDS.I love theory and tricks, but I won't be legalistic about voting on them if I don't feel like they're in good faith. Don't be put off by this I'm just tired of having to vote down teams for reading 10+ theory args.

Policy

I have competed in policy for four years so I am okay with you running whatever you want (as long as it is professional/functional). Overviews/underviews and clear signposting are important. All evidence introduced must be on docs shared.

I am very willing to vote on any theory argument, but I will also just ignore theory obviously run as time skews especially, but not only, if the opponent points that out. Ts, FW, and properly created CPs are too rare. DAs, Ks, and K affs are fine. Weighing of impacts directly is absolutely critical to winning rounds. I have nothing against nuclear war impacts, but if you're conceding the probability of an extinction impact while weighing it against your own policy impacts, you've done something wrong (this is just an example).

LD

I haven't competed in LD but I've been judging it this year. I am fine with whatever you run, as long as it is professional and functional. Read the policy section if you are debating progressive. I appreciate a good framework round but I am frustrated when both sides use the same value and fail to notice this. Clash is important. If you don't specifically weigh impacts I'm going to struggle to make decisions especially when the framework debate is moot or not helpful in evaluating the round.

PF

I am a policy debater so I will primarily weigh your arguments as expressed, without reference to the quality of the presentation. Debating on the flow and fully fleshing out your arguments are important to me.

I competed in LD throughout High School and I am currently doing Policy in college.

I will be more familiar with an LD topic than any other form of debate so if I am judging you in PF or CX so if you have very technical things in the topic you will need to explain those more in your case.

Clash is my favorite thing in a round - Don't be two ships passing in the night say something and do a debate. That being said don't just say things to say things an incoherent argument is worse than no argument at all. Evaluate what your opponent is saying and respond to it in a way that makes sense. Respect your opponent and their arguments.

I will drop you without a second thought if you run a joke argument. During a college debate round I watched someone ran a coloring performance if you run anything like this getting me to vote for you will be very difficult. I love flair, critical, and performative arguments but it needs to be based in either theory or I need a reason why what your saying matters. I try to limit my intervention as a judge so don't expect me to do any work for you.

LD

LD is a theory and morality-based debate so I expect a focus on the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The debtors need to tell me why I should care about their V-C and why their V-C is better than their opponents and should be preferred for the round. I will not do any work for any side you have the responsibility of stating the impacts of your arguments and why these impacts are better than your opponents. You also have to extend your own arguments throughout the debate for them to matter. I'm fine with CP's, Theory, and K's you just need to explain it well and make sure the impacts and analysis are clear.

I will say I think traditional LD tends to be more successful than critical forms of debate just because of the time constraints. If you're confident that you can get out what you need to with the time you're given then go for it. But the 4 and 3-minute aff speeches do make it difficult to get out what you need to.

I have zero patience for being rude to your opponent. Especially if your opponent is not as versed in critical arguments as you are. This is an educational activity, not an opportunity for you to pretend to be cooler than you are.

CX

I'm fine with any type of argument as long as it makes sense and you explicitly state the impacts.

Topicality

You need to be explicit about what the violation that the other team has committed is. I tend not to care about fairness as an impact especially when you just make this claim in a vacuum. However, if you can tie it to a structural claim I'll be more likely to buy the argument. Make sure you're extending this throughout the entire round. I also need to know what ground you've lost as a result of the Aff being non-topical. Don't run topicality in front of me if the violation is small it will not be hard for the other team to convince me that they are topical.

K

I like K's I think critical arguments are important to increasing education in debate and I think that they bring a type of education that doesn't typically exist in the debate space. That being saiddo not run a K if the only link you have is a link of omission.Language is super important for K's so make sure you're being explicit with what you're saying. I think K's certainly can win against topical cases you just have to show why the impacts on par with nuclear extinction. I tend to find structure claims to be the most persuasive.

Performative Things

I think performances can be good but you need to have a way that your opponent can actually engage with your argument. I don't particular enjoy it when performance teams get overly angry or hostile to try to prevent their opponents from arguing.

Framework

My hot takes here are basically the same as topicality. I do think the framework is generally more true than topicality.

My paradigm is generally the same for CX as it is for LD you need to extend your stuff and make the impacts clear.

Listening is not an impact.

PF

I did PF I think twice? My same general rules for other debates apply - don't spread your event is not made for it and I'm more inclined to believe that it's unfair for your opponent. I will call cards so they better say what you tell me that you say. Also generally don't take racism and blow it into some insane impact because you want to win an argument. Impacts and links should make sense.

General

I'm fine with speed just let me know at the beginning of the round if you're going to be spreading.

Flashing/Email Chains should not take forever if it becomes excessive I will make you use Prep.

I'm fine with flex prep

Read analytics slower if you want me to flow them

Keep in mind this is digital for the time being I expect you to understand your own technological constraints and adjust accordingly especially in regard to speed.

If you need to use a graphic description of SA to win you don't deserve to win.

Things I like to see in a round:

1) don’t yell at each other, keep it calm.

2) don’t go fast in your constructives.

3) keep track of your own time and your opponents’.

4) signpost everywhere.

Look forward to judging you.

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.

LD

Paradigms are stupid, please don't be as well,
Many debaters rely on it, without it they sell,
And don't start off with "My case, their case",
because everyone thinks it's a waste.

Progressive is rubbish and dumb,
My ears have heard it all, they're numb.
The worst speak fast,
And yet their arguments are ass bad,

Now when deciding whether sit near,
you should have no fear
If your speech I cannot hear,
I will then yell "Clear!"

If still after three times,
Your speech is still mumbled,
Then because of this rhyme,
Your contentions will be fumbled.

Everyone around asks me,
"Do you flow cross?"
My answer is simple as can be,
Mention it in speech, else it's your loss!

Everyone sets up a doc,
And still no one can seem to block.
Countless cards are cut,
But in the end nothing is rebut.

But lets talk about the arguments,
Because I've heard them all,
Even though LD isn't my department,
Bring up non-topicality and you will fall.

Power tagging is distasteful, that's a fact,
Lying is wasteful, don't try this act,
Countless lies and debater-math,
Don't try anything funny, or face my wrath.

Your words alone can't be trusted,
Please cut cards properly, don't get busted.
Be nice to your opponents, don't abuse,
Honesty or not, what shall you use?

Some egos are too big,
I'm tired of hearing countless digs,
It's Speech and Debate,
Not impeach and hate.

For all intents and purposes,
This paradigm is mostly a joke.
Please don't report these verses,
or complain to your coach.

The real paradigm lies within,
Talent, abilities, and skill to win,
Trophies will line your shelf, in time,
Remember to have fun and unwind.

Policy

No progressive. Speed is fine, but you better be prepared to be clear and vocal, especially with your evidence. If you drop your syllables I will drop you. In all seriousness, if I have to say clear three times, I will stop flowing for that speech. Topicality is a must, refer to my LD paradigm.

I am absolutely and wholly unqualified to be judging policy debate, and yet it seems I get assigned this tournament after tournament. Please take this into account when coming into the round, there is no "bad judge, good judge", but rather any other judges, and me. I will have preconceptions and implicit bias, as we all do, take note. At the end of the day, I value debate skills and strategy over content, if that helps. I wish you the best of luck, you will need it.

Public Forum

The event's called Public Forum,
That's why you maintain decorum.
Follow the rules during debate,
If not then you won't break.

Don't lie to me, should be simple enough as a PF debater right? No inflated impacts, misattributed statistics, exaggerated tagging, etc. Easy!

Congress

I did Congressional debate for all four years of my time in the NSDA. Congress is unique in that competitors are able to discuss and advocate for change regarding issues that directly affect all of us in a debate format that's open and accessible. Whether new to the event or experienced, I look forward to seeing all your speeches out there on the circuit!

Baseline Expectations

Due to the fast paced nature of Congress, the speakers' evidence is often given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, every competitor's integrity is central to maintaining the trustworthiness of the overall event. This integrity is lost when evidence is fabricated, so it is expected that you've put in a reasonable amount of effort to ensure the credibility of the sources you cite in your speech. No, combining "NYT" with '22 does not make what you say more believable, contrary to popular belief.

How I Judge

I value strategy.

Too often enough in Congress, speeches with previously elaborated arguments are given again by another speaker. Congress is not just an event where one can expect to prepare speeches ahead of time and do well by giving them canned; you and your speeches must be adaptable. If you respond to or build upon others' speeches given before you and introduce new but relevant arguments, then you'll do well. If you completely shut down the other side's case for passing/failing the legislation, I will have no other choice than to rank you high!

You can be the most articulate, clear, well-spoken competitor out there, but if you do not strategically give your speech at the right time and address the right points of contention/speakers, your impact on debate will be minimal. This is why I believe that in Congress, all ought to be judged on how they strategize.

Do Not Under ANY Circumstance Do the Following (I've seen it all)

Not Paying Attention - Going up and saying in your speech saying "here's something NO other representative has brought up"... only to rehash something previously brought up. Shows you aren't paying attention.

Political Stupidity - Say something so politically inept like "Representative, why would China spy on its own citizens?" I wonder, why would an authoritarian government spy on its own citizens? Other things I've heard include: "Why would Putin lie about killing civilians?", "Isn't it the obligation of the US to provide aid to the world?", etc.

Putting Down Others to Be Different- Going up and saying "Rep. X falls flat when they say ____" or rebutting your own speech side for the sake of making yourself seem smarter is simply a waste of time, better spent focusing on yourself.

Refuse to Speak Until a Certain Cycle - Despite popular belief, speaking later in the round does not mean higher ranks. Judges only really care if you're rebutting and referring to the most important arguments in your cycle and if you clash properly. I've seen people go "I can give an X speech" when gauging the chamber's splits, only to refuse to speak and forcing the chamber to break cycle, which hinders everyone's experience. I will point this out to the judges, and they will rank you accordingly.

PO'ing

Our circuit is plagued by a chronic shortage of POs, to the point where you'll see a chamber full of competitors awkwardly staring at each other hoping that someone steps up and takes the gavel. You'll hear things such as "Oh I can PO but I haven't done it in a long time..." or "If someone POs now I can PO later...". Despite the long-held rumor that becoming the PO will ruin your ranking, this is far from the case, especially when I'm judging.

Remember, the Congressional debate national champion has been a PO for more than a few years in a row, how do you think they got there? Pure skill? Wrong. They PO'd.

If you PO and do it impartially, fairly, and efficiently, a high ranking will reflect your high performance.

I will be considering based on quality over quantity arguments and prefer a conversational pace and the avoidance of overly technical debate jargon.

1. Conversational pace: A good pace for a conversation is one that allows for all participants to comfortably express their ideas and thoughts, while also engaging in active listening and responding to one another.

2. Quality over quantity arguments: It is important that arguments are well-reasoned and supported by evidence, rather than simply being lengthy or repetitive. I will consider the depth and thoughtfulness of the arguments presented, rather than the quantity.

3. Avoidance of debate jargon: Using jargon or specialized language can create barriers to understanding and hinder effective communication.

Overall, I will consider the balance and flow of the conversation, and how well the participants are able to effectively communicate and engage with one another in a respectful and constructive manner.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

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

 

Academically, I specialize in rhetoric. In debate events, I prioritize clear, reasoned arguments, warrants that show logical connections between the evidence and claim, and skillful, rational discourse between debaters. I feel that the debate has an essential purpose in society and that civil discourse is the cornerstone of a productive society.

While presentation, charisma, and composure can affect how an audience responds to your argument, the most important part is your reasoning. A well-reasoned response delivered skillfully will land every time. A poorly delivered response that is logically sound will land more often with me than a skillfully presented argument that is not logically sound.

In platform events, I appreciate it when ideas presented connect meaningfully to authentic human experience, exhibit engaging storytelling, and present polished delivery (prioritized in that order). As a lifelong reader, I love character-driven narratives and want to feel included and drawn in. Human connection comes first.

I see debate as way to demonstrate one's critical thinking, preparation, and communication skills in a professional manner, but also, an opportunity to connect with the audience. An example for the audience to follow in their own lives. A platform to debate an argument, not the debater.

I would appreciate if you speak at a conversational pace, or I won't be able to follow you (no spreading please).

Hi my name is Shannon Downey. I am a lay judge who wants clear conversational flow with no spreading. If you speak too fast you could potentially lose speaking points if I cannot understand. I want distinct sign posting and clear maps of your speeches before you give them. I also prefer topical affs, and I expect you to keep track of you and your opponents time. I want good communication, a fair debate, and no rude language will be tolerated. Good luck all debaters!

I am a lay judge with minimal experience. I would appreciate if you would talk slow, with good volume.

Hi!

I competed in LD for Corona del Sol on the local and national circuit and then did policy debate for ASU.

I've qualified to nats, bid to the TOC, and been to late elims in high school and college so I have familiarity with a range of arguments and argument styles.

Add me to the email chain zaneencinas@gmail.com

The below paradigm is general so ask me any questions you might have before round

LD:

General:

I am welcoming of almost any form of debate but may not be knowledgeable/ familiar with the topic. All this means is that an explanation of warrants is necessary. An exception is blatantly offensive arguments. Speeds fine as long as you're clear. I default to a comparative worlds paradigm.

Topicality/ Theory:

Please please please remember to engage in clash and weighing.

I will vote on disclosure theory

I don’t hold any preferences here. Provide a reason to prefer a paradigm.

Kritiks:

As said before I am welcoming of Kritiks, but do not rely on literature-specific jargon without providing an explanation.

A vivid explanation of the alternative will make me super happy. This means I don't necessarily need a policy alt.

Generic links make me sad but will still give them my attention.

LARP:

Creative counterplans will make me super happy.

Don't just say extend.... extend the actual claim warrant and impact.

Emailing/Flashing:

Don’t waste everyone’s time please, but with that said I don’t take prep for flashing.

Policy:

Everything above applies. I am not familiar with the topic so I will need an explanation of topic-specific jargon if any.

Speed is not a problem for me, but slow down so that the transition between cards is clear.

Speaks:

29-30: Above average, most likely to clear and be competitive in elims

28-29: Around average range, possibly with clear

27-28: Significantly below average, unlikely to clear

<25-26: Offensive

I am a parent judge who has some experience judging PF and BQ tournaments.

Be respectful to the judge and fellow competitors.

Be nice and enjoy your debate. Tell a clear story and make it count.

Speak slowly and clearly. Absolutely no spreading.

I value presentation, clarity of argument and good eye contact.

I am fine if you go a bit overtime with prep.

Except for responding to responses, DO NOT bring up any new arguments in summary

Don’t go overboard with debate terminology.

I will immediately drop you if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic etc.

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

I am lay judge. Please make logical arguments and make sure that your impacts are reasonable. Don't talk over each other in cross and talk at a conversational pace. Also, keep your own time and please don't go over. I know debates can get heated, but make sure to be respectful.

Email: Annaherrig2@gmail.com

General:

UTT 22-Present

Please send speech docs! (also if you say "mark the card here" please mark it)

Lets all learn something from each other. Debate is supposed to be fun, that being said, if you are having fun, I'll have a better time judging the round. The best judges will listen to any argument and style of debate. Do what you are best at. I try to leave predispositions out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not) and will work hard to adjudicate your round well. It's not my job to decide what you should debate, but to help you become better at how you choose to debate.

Signposting is important, please do this throughout your speeches and tell me the order beforehand.

Tech>truth.

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Topicality

I will vote on T. I think you need to be explaining why you have the better internal link to either fairness or education. I think these debates have gotten increasingly shallow, and no one goes for it as a super compelling strategy in the block anymore. Explain why under your interpretation, debate is better and you method is better for debate at large. Arguing the spillover effects of your interp is an easy way to win this on the negative. Generics will not do it for me. I default to competing interpretations.

Disads

You should be cutting new uniqueness very often, and if you go for this strategy the quality of your evidence will have an impact on my decision. "If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc. Make your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is." -Kristiana Baez. There is such thing as 0% risk of a link.

Counterplans

Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs. I really like counterplans, and I like process counterplans. I don't love super generic CP's with the same set of solvency cards each round. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

Kritiks

Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates. You should have specific links to the aff. I am the best for cap. Anything else, especially anything pomo, you will need to explain to me like I am a 5 year old. If you're arguing that the k outweighs and turns case, you need a solid articulation as to why. You also need to be arguing specific impacts of the k, and how that compares to the claims made in the affirmative. I need a very clear explanation of framing here, and if you go for the K in the 2NR you should be writing my ballot for me. I also need a very clear picture of how the alternative functions, and why you solve the aff if you do.

K v K

I think that these debates can be really great because clash is kind of important. However, these debates tend to get really muddled, so you need to work extra hard to make things clear for me rather than just assuming I will lean one way or another. When it comes to K Affs v. FW, I think that you need to do a lot of work and don't just go for generic arguments like switch side without giving specific examples of things like in round abuse, etc. or interesting impact arguments. Ex: just saying roleplaying good/bad without a really good explanation is not going to be compelling.

Performance/Methodology debates

I am in no way biased in one way or another. I think that arguments need to be competitive. The things you may talk about in your performance/methodology may be true, but there needs to be a clear link articulated to the argument that you are debating. Many times competing methodologies start to sound really similar to each other, so teams need to establish a clear difference between the arguments.

Theory

Dumb theory or tricks won't do it for me. However, the less generic you are, the more I would be willing to vote on this. I believe theory that is done well and is well-articulated could be a compelling place for me to vote. I think proving in round abuse is important. Generally, I think condo is good.

Pref Stuff:

I am best for a policy v policy debate

I have a special place in my heart for the politics DA.

- Explain thoroughly. You know your arguments very well, but they will be new to me so please explain them clearly. Your claims should be logically sound. If you are throwing out a crazy claim or card that seems contrary to logic, you're going to have to explain it very well.

- Try not to spread.

I am a parent judge. I very much prefer the traditional debate format and appreciate clear and concise arguments. I also find roadmaps and guidelines very helpful.

Spreading: I do not appreciate spreading. I do, however, understand that spreading is sometimes necessary, like, e.g., when rebutting a long list of contentions. I will read the speech document to assist my understanding of the argument but feel strongly that it is contingent on the debater to make a clear and compelling argument during the debate.

Cards/references: I most appreciate debaters citing peer-reviewed publications, less so for media publications. I'm grateful of the debaters who clearly state the legitimacy of their references or the unreliability of their opponent's references.

Hi. My name is Bhaskar Kulkarni. I am affiliated with the school Arizona College Prep (ACP HS). I will try my best to provide extensive feedback and areas where you could improve on as well and areas you succeeded in. If you ever have any questions about how you performed in your round, ballots, more feedback, etc., you can reach me at bbkulkarni@gmail.com.

Here are a few basic things to know before your round:

1) Please use a "lay appeal" strategy with me. Focus on slowing down, weighing impacts (this is huge!!), pointing out dropped contentions, and rebuttals. Explain your link chains very clearly, so I can follow along with your case.

2) Clear citations per NSDA rules are very important. If you have statistics or cards, please clearly reference it.

3) Spreading: I understand why debaters spread, but please don't. My preference is for a clear and enunciated speech at a conversational speed. There is no point in speeding through information if I cannot understand and process what you are saying. Remember, if I can't follow what you're staying, I cannot judge you.

4) I prefer logical reasoning than semantic and pathos-based arguments, but a few pathos-based arguments here and there are fine.

5) Speaks: typically, I will not give you low speaker points. Make sure you speak confidently, make it flow, and rebut your opponent's arguments sufficiently with strong explanations.

6) Please warrant all cards. This helps me as a judge: a) understand your case and b) better decide who gets the win.

7) In the end, I will award the win based on the contentions/arguments that you have proven to me to not be refuted by your opponent. I will also be awarding the win based on rebuttal speeches (the 1AR, NR, and the 2AR).

8) If your opponent says something something during cross-examination that you want me to take into account, mention it in the speeches that follow. Otherwise, it will not be taken into account.

9) I am fine with short Rebuttal speeches, but make sure they successfully rebut your opponent's points, and that they are warranted well.

Most importantly, have fun and try your best!

+1 speak if you're funny and make the round interesting

No spreading. I am a parent judge and prefer Traditional debates. If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't consider those arguments. Don't add me to email chains.

I won't time you, please time each other. You can complete your sentence once time runs out, anything new will be dropped. I will deduct 0.5 speaker points for bad time management.

I prefer evidence based facts from credible sources over individual author opinions or emotional appeals. While I do consider logic in decisioning, those arguments needs to be well supported.

While I consider cross ex in my judging, make sure you address anything significant in your subsequent case or rebuttal. Otherwise I will drop those from Judging consideration.

Speaker points: I score in increments of 0.5.

General rule of thumb: One of the best debaters: 30 points; Above average: 29 points; Average debater: 28 points; Below average: 27 points

Excessive Spreading: 25 points; Offensive or outrageous: 20 points.

Please do not spread.

If I feel like you are talking too fast, I will ask you to be clear twice. After that, if I can't understand you I will simply put down my pen. I believe that spreading is poison to the debate community. I do not want to be added to your email chain, as I should not have to read your case in order to understand it. If there is an evidence dispute or I feel like there is any other reason I need to see a card, I will ask. I find off-time roadmaps to be a waste of time, and while you are speaking I will always keep time and immediately drop my pen once your time is up.

I value topicality above all else. Debate should be an educational experience focused on the resolution. Regarding Ks, your arguments should not be ones that you could repeat ad-nauseam for any topic and a lot of Ks don't pass that test. A Neg K can be topical and I will evaluate it accordingly if so. However, K Affs by their very nature generally do not meet the burden of defending the resolution and are there is a high probability of me just dropping you if you run one. Regarding Theory, be very careful. I recognize there are things that either side can do which are abusive or frivolous even if the base argument is topical. If you can thread that particular needle when responding, more power to you.

For weighing, I prefer probability over other mechanisms and I am receptive to timeframe as well. I'm fine with reasonable magnitude weighing too. However, we live in a reality in which extinction has not yet occurred despite the countless number of dire warnings given by debaters over the years. I feel like debaters are intelligent enough to understand the distinction of something that could arguably be true vs. an impact that is just included in your case as a magnitude bomb.

Tech is of course important in any debate round, but I also recognize that there are also some things that are objectively true. If you have a card telling me the sky is green, that does not mean I have to accept it as the truth, even if your opponent does not have a specific card refuting that (because why would they?). However, for any reasonable argument that isn't straight-up factually incorrect and flows through, I will absolutely award you the ballot regardless of my personal opinions on a given topic.

The bottom line is that if you're being intellectually honest and recognize that a debate round exists within the confines the real world, that will maximize your chances of picking up my ballot.

1. Don't spread. You can speak slightly faster than average conversation speed. I cannot judge you if I cannot understand you.
2. I will be the official timekeeper. However, I strongly encourage each competitor to keep their own time. I may ask you for your remaining prep time. I will give 10 sec. grace period for any discrepancy in prep. time.
3. I am considered lay judge and does not have LD background. I have judged approximately 35 LD round during 2022-23 school year.

I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.

Dos:

• Have depth in understanding of the topic.
• Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
• Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
• Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
• Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.

Don’ts:

• Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
• Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
• Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.

Misc:

• Truth > Tech
• Argument Quality > Quantity
• Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

I am a lay judge. I am new to judging debate as a whole, this is my first year judging. I am learning as I judge rounds, so please don't read to fast and if i don't understand something please explain to me.

I flow when judging LD debate, on paper, with pens. I do this because before coming to a decision about which side has won the debate, I carefully review those notes. Debaters should present to me in a way which will allow that flow to represent their points - speaking at a pace and meter that are easily followed, emphasizing key points, signaling change in topic clearly.

Because I spend time reviewing my notes before reaching a decision, I do not disclose at the end of the rounds.

I focus on how clearly and completely each side has laid out their argument, followed through consistently, and responded to their opponent knowledgeably. I am not impressed by theatrics, and expect both participants to be respectful to one another at all times.

While I hold strong beliefs, for this debate, consider me to be a blank slate. Explain to me your value and your criterion. Explain to me your contentions and what standards should be used for judging this round.

I take lots of notes, while I may not be looking at you, I am listening.

In order to win this round, show respect to your opponents. Avoid rude, harassing behavior. Controversial topics may be used, but please keep it civil. I expect teams to hold each other accountable for time. Please speak clearly and not too fast, if I cannot understand you, I can’t understand your argument.

Thank you.

I am a parent judge, having judged for 4 years now. I appreciate clear presentation, thorough citations and deep knowledge of your topic. Please give lots of dynamic inflection and projection, don't get lazy with your speech. Definitely don't spread and avoid jargon. Always show respect for your opponents. For debate rounds, please time yourself.

This is my second season doing LD judging, sorry participants, and I am trying to become a better judge with every tournament. The following are my recommendations for debaters that I am judging

1. If you are going to spread, send me your case to carlos@aerocadmfg.com, and go at 70 mph and not 100. In my opinion if the audience can't follow your case, that is a problem.
2. If you are going to do progressive, make sure that you explain very clearly how your case relates to the topic; and you still need to address your opponents case.
3. If you drop arguments to focus on critical points, communicate that and I will judge if you did address the key items.
4. Flow and structure are just as important as your main value.

I am 2nd year lay judge who did not compete in Speech and Debate as a student. I listen first to understand , then to decide. THerefore, it is cruicial that you speak clearly and naturally. I do not appriciate spreading. I am listening for the links between evivdence and claim and decide based on which side presents and maintains the strongest arguments.

I am a 6th year coach who did not compete in Speech and Debate as a student. I am more experienced in speech events than debate events, though I have coached the basics in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Big Questions. While I understand the conventions and some theory of debate, I judge as an educated member of the public. I want to hear a good story that proves to me why your side of the case makes the most sense. I listen first to understand, then to decide. Therefore, it is crucial that you speak clearly and naturally. I do not appreciate spreading. I am listening for the links between evidence and claim and decide based on which side presents and maintains the strongest arguments. I do not disclose, but am happy to give objective feedback if you ask.

For platform speaking events, I am interested more in structure than in style. A well-organized, well-supported performance will win my vote over a flashy presentation style. That being said, an overall effect in interpretation and platform events that brings me on an emotional or intellectual journey will always rank highest.

Hello! I am a parent lay judge, please do not spread. I don't super love nuclear extinction arguments unless you have a very very very clear reason why it imminent.

This is my first year as a judge. I am a parent of a first year LD competitor. I think it is important that a debater states a clear value. Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

Hiiiiiii I’m Brandon Pham and I competed on the circuit for 3 years (if you count online as competing XD). Tbh I’ve done it all, as in I preferred to just try out different events rather than focusing in on being good at one event (weird ikr but I’m here to have fun). I typically know what to look for in each event and what the standards of each event are like. I consider myself a fairly technical and flow-based judge. Most of my success was in my senior year of s&d consistently placing in my events, and I qualified for nationals reaching triple octas representing Arizona on the World Schools Debate team: Team AZ Citrus or Team AZ Yellow idk they kept changing the name (at one point it was one of our teammates’ names). not only that but i’m also part of the ASU forensics team traveling across the country for our own tournaments so if im not on the judging pool its probably because im competing at my own tournaments. i *kinda* know what im doing. im practically yalls age so i dont mind if you treat/see me as such. im chill like that.

email: phambrandon668@gmail.com

DEBATE

I’ve done every debate event (PF, LD, CX, BQ, WSD) except congress, so if I ever judge congress bc of judge desperation, go easy on me o.o. (I have judged congress a few times including the harvard semis round so I still know what I'm doing ish) Regardless, I know how each debate event is run with their nuances and how to judge.

1. SPREADING: idc about spreading and can keep up with it bc i used to spread *occasionally* but if you’re gonna do the “speak in a super loud monotone voice with no inflections thing” you better start an email chain or at least preface that you’ll spread. If I say “clear”, chill out brev, and that means you have either a) not started a sufficient email chain and b) are just speaking way too fast to the point I can’t even flow.

2. SIGNPOSTING: istg if you don’t signpost i’m docking speaks and am less likely to give you the dub. it helps with flow reference, make you appear organized and not fumbling mid-speech, and it even helps your opponent know where you are to sufficiently rebut!

3. CARDS: tag cards appropriately during speeches and reference them as such + key info during later speeches. saves time, helps flow, and is just a more organized form of debating. novices, i get it i was there too, but if you have questions on this or other things ASK. for checking cards, i won’t take prep unless its just a seriously long time. ill start prep the moment you show your opponents the card bc ngl the longer you take to find a card, the more time your opponent will have to prep and that’s your own downfall for poor organization. if you as the opponent need me to check a card bc of a mutual misunderstanding of it, lemme know. also, i *might* ask for cards post round - shouldn’t affect decision too much but it better be cut appropriately!! misconstrued cards reflect HORRIBLY on you so be careful!!

4. CROSS FIRE: lmao i don’t pay attention here. if im on my phone, its bc i couldnt care less what happens here. this is your time to clarify or find weak points. anything brought up in cross ex MUST be brought up in a later speech if you want me to consider it. also for policy i am cool with tag-teaming.

5. EXTENSIONS + WEIGHING: this is the most critical point in the round. i go by the flow, so if you do not flow it through in summary, its lost in the abyss forever. obv u dont need to flow everything, just collapse on the key voters. again, flow cards with tag + info/stats and explain why this is important. i also like seeing great clash and further elaboration on your arguments/rebuttals, not just a repeat of your constructive/rebuttal. also, pls try and properly weigh. ive seen too many debaters weigh the wrong way. use weighing mechanisms and why you win on a certain arg. also, don’t forget to frontline! and be very organized with these speeches/say which side/arguments you are addressing. if you want you can offer an off-time road map, up to you.

6. TIMING: time yourselves bro. i’ll be timing too, but take responsibility. if you’re over by five seconds, ya done. anything you say after i won’t even listen/flow. if your opponent is over and you want them to stop, raise a closed fist in the air and i’ll cut them off. also, yall shouldve practiced speeches beforehand so you should know what your time is like. if you’re under time, i couldn’t care less and won’t dock you as long as your arguments are great and well developed. i will have a bit of judgement in the back of my mind if you give like a 2 minute constructive tho, i just wont consider how short your speech is in the round.

7. DEBATER MATH: no.

8. THEORY: i was never too much of a theory debater, but if you are, you do you boo. i do understand theory and will know what you’re talking about, but just thoroughly explain what your argument is and also why your form of theory is necessary here. poorly run theory will get docked!! pf i don’t really see theory and don’t see much of a purpose, but for other debates feel free. policy, make sure you have your stock issues, or else… youre dead. and for policy make sure you guys have a solid solvency card(s) bc this is one of the most important parts of the debate for me.

9. SPEAKS: lmao speaks will NEVER determine who wins an argument for me. you couldve given the worst speech ever but if your organization and arguments were there and you were doing your job to win the debate, you can def still win. i do appreciate some passion and style tho bc lets face it, debate in the real world relies on this type of stuff and for those of you looking into any kinda public speaking career, nows the time to start practicing! i will, however, give extra speaks for people who gimme a snack or some kinda energy drink or coffee/tea. i love love love boba o.o. but don’t try to suck up to me. i will give you LOWER speaks if you do this.

10. tech>truth

11. Congress specific: I have two primary criteria for judging your speeches; Content and Delivery. I might abbreviate them as "C" and "D" on the ballot but that's just for efficiency for me. I like to see a lot of critical analysis on topics and providing originality on your speeches rather than just regurgitating info you found from a card online. Having a unique and attention-grabbing hook helps with receiving delivery points from me. Also, make sure you are asking questions that help to develop the bill and opens room for debate, if that makes sense. As for my POs, I rank you guys very well and POs almost always make it onto my ranking list. As for whether or not you rank highly depends on how efficiently you run the chamber and ensuring that you are allowing each representative a fair chance at giving a speech and ensuring that everyone tries to speak once per bill for around a total of two speeches throughout the session. I personally don't know much about the certain nuances or the amendments to bills and whatnot, so just make sure that in the event that this does happen, POs, that you handle this situation properly and whatnot.

12. World Schools Debate specific: I go based on exactly the ballot, so I judge based on content, style, and strategy. I need content that develops why we should or shouldn't pass this motion and has a highly analytical basis. Make sure you have evidence that really drives your points and helps with developing your arguments. Make sure to hit the golden number two P.O.I.s and make sure they develop the argument. also be INCREDIBLE speakers pls to me this event gives debaters the chance to simulate actual policymaking when being voiced in a public session. gimme some passion + good arguments. obv have your own style of speaking, but motivate me! for strategy, I also love some good bench comm bc it shows you guys are a team! try to be a lil more ad lib and dont read off your notes. be sure to incorporate things your opponents have said and what your teammates put forth in the round to really bring it all together. like everything else have good organization, speak clearly, and be confident. ive never judged world schools before but ive done it.

If there is ANY instance of discrimination, homophobia, racism, sexism, or ANYTHING that needs to be brought to my attention PLEASEEE do. I take these things seriously and will make sure that your opponent is NEVER seen on this circuit again and receives sufficient punishment. pls do this asap before/after round or whenever is most convenient so that we can get appropriate action to prevent further tournament complication. and if for whatever reason your opponent isn’t punished, i’ll sick my poodle on em.

email: phambrandon668@gmail.com

-for email chains or if you have any questions about rfd or just want advice or even need a friend to talk! i swear im not that scary uwu fish are food not friends i mean huh wo- i think imfunny huh..

that was a lot im sry even i got tired of typing all this but i got a lotta things to say. im pretty flexible tho so lets go wild. if you have any questions ask away ehe. again if you have any questions about rfds or my ballot, need advice, whatever, my email is phambrandon668@gmail.com.

glhf girls bros and nonbinary ho- *ahem* :D

I'm a college student and did debate in high school. Nothing is off-limits, but I do ask you guys to be civil and courteous towards one another.

Debates:

Where do I even start? I'm not gonna start with the usual talk about how judges don't want to weigh in on the debate and intervene....but, throughout my judging experience, I'm forced to be an interventionist so... Yes, I will be dropping/weighing arguments if things are unclear. Yes, I will be asking for cards. And no, I will not use my knowledge (tech > truth) to refute your ridiculous contentions but you might get a very angry ballot.

The quality of your argument is BETTER than the quantity of your argument. Don't lazily extend your arguments without explaining WHY IT MATTERS ON THE FLOW. This is very important to remember to obtain higher speaks.

Slow down your speech. Idc if you have 100 sources to read in your 1AC, 2NC, slow down and explain your arguments clearly. Fast is cool but If I don't type, I'm not listening. And don't ask me for a wpm MEANING NO SPREADING. I can understand fast reading and will flow your arguments to the best of my ability, but zero tolerance for spreading.

Run tech stuff (DA/plans/counterplans/theory/Ks) if you think it's genuinely interesting and not a gotcha against your opponents. (I can tell if you really know your things/just doing it to win). For Ks in particular, bonus speaks if you show effort. Pls no spreading.

And uh, no friv and tricks. Zero tolerance.

Do the weighing for me. If your impacts are numbers and statistics, compare them to your opponents'.

If your impact is nuke war/extinction stuff, tell me why it is LESS PROBABLE to happen on your side. NOTE: Nuke war impacts without comparative analysis will get you a very frustrated judge.

You should be combining great rhetoric with great arguments and evidence. Consider me a parent judge. Lead me through your positions and point out why I should vote for you (insert key voters). Just Debate 101. And some miscellaneous things:

Time yourselves.

Do whatever with your cross. I will probably not pay attention.

I'm fine with disclosing after the round.

Prefer speechdrop for evidence sharing (if need to). No emailchains. But don't rely on the evidence-sharing to be lazy in your speeches. I have a very low tolerance for this.

And pls don't run prog in PF, lol.

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

PO resources

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

If a paradigm in tab room is not read, does it exist?

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

You are the teacher, I am the student.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, perhaps focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this month at STATE to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Mitch and I are also up there on the bench.
10. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.

I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos

"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"

Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

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

Debate:

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

Speech:

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

Parent lay judge.

Don't spread. Speak clearly. If I cant understand your argument I cant vote on it/weight it.

I need clear reasons (warrants) to vote on. Make sure that your arguments are logical and easy to follow. A dropped argument isn't going to be a reason for my decision if the the argument is not warranted properly.

Links must be reasonable/logical. From the rounds I've judged, I've found extinction impacts extremely hard to vote on.

Make sure your rebuttals are organized and logical. Off-time roadmaps help fulfil this. Make sure to signpost.

Lastly, be nice. Don't be snarky or roll your eyes at your opponent while they are speaking. Also, debate is meant to be fun and educational and if I find you are abusive in any way I will dock speaker points or possibly drop you.

I'm a parent who has been judging for a couple of years, but still learning every time I do this. For LD, make it easy for me. Keep your own time and avoid spreading - I want to be able to understand and follow you. Numbering your contentions and sign posting help me greatly - I care a lot about this. Always tell me why you won and why I should vote for you - you may be able to convince me.

Hi! I am a new coach to speech and debate so I am still learning the ropes. The only paradigms I have are to speak loudly and clearly during your round. I can only judge what I can hear!

email chain: cammiesoderquist@gmail.com

History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.

Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.

-----------------------------------

Specifics:

Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.

Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.

***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***

Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).

DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)

Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)

Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.

Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.

Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.

-----------------------------------

Things that make me happy:

• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.

• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")

• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)

Things that make me sad:

• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.

• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).

• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")

-----------------------------------

Random:

• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.

• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)

• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.

• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh

Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't send chain it's not going on my flow.

Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.

-----------------------------------

LD/Policy TLDR

Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions

For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.

-----------------------------------

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

-----------------------------------

Random:

Flex prep is fine

Tag team is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Tag team cross is fine.

-----------------------------------

Misc LD/policy things:

I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.

Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.

If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.

Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)

------------------------------------

PF paradigm- I was an LD debater but I did PF a a few times. Knowing my LD background, you can feel free to read framework or non-traditional PF arguments. HOWEVER, I feel PF should be a debate for a lay judge so everyone can understand it, so if you have a lay panel and you run that stuff be warned that might not end up favorably.

TLDR- If you have a tech panel do what you like, but on a lay panel I will be less flexible so you should act like I'm a somewhat experienced lay judge in such a situation. Additionally, reading progressive in front of an LD judge who did a lot of that stuff might be bad if you don't structure it properly or understand what you're doing.

- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

------------------------------------

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).

- There is a huge PO shortage on our circuit. If you step up to PO, do a decent job, and (if I'm parli) are also active in the other session, you will receive a good rank as a result. If it's your first time POing, ask the parli questions and try your best and you probably can still get a decent rank. It's all about trying your best. But, even if you don't perform the best as PO, you can still make ranks by following the above suggestions in the next session!

I am a lay parent judge, with 3 yrs of experience judging PF and LD.

Public Forum:

I’m okay with most arguments as long as the evidence provided is clear and concise and I can see a clear link from your argument to the conclusion you make. Be sure to extend your arguments through Final Focus, I’m only going to consider them if you do. Impact weighing is crucial and wins rounds: tell me why your impact outweighs. Don’t spread; if I can’t discern your words, I won’t flow them.

Cross Ex: I believe that Cross Ex is a crucial part of the round. Maintaining composure and delivering sound responses is an essential part of debate and shows your knowledge of the case and ability to think fast on your feet.

Lincoln Douglas:

DO NOT SPREAD !! If you do I will drop you. Use logical, well reasoned arguments, support it with evidence and also highlight their value and impact. Dont simply read lengthy quotations - instead summarize them to explain how they support your contention(s).

And finally, be respectful of your opponents, and have fun.

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

My Background

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

Individual Events Paradigms

Drama

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

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Presentation of a consistent and grounded environment

3. Control of movement to blocking in your environment

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Duo

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

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

2. Clarity of subtextual meaning

3. Showcase of coordinated blocking that helps suspend disbelief

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Extemp

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

1. Provided a definitive answer to the question

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

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

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

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

Humor, Prose, & Storytelling

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

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

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

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

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Impromptu

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

1. Provided a definitive thesis to the prompt

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

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

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

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

Informative

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

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

2. Clearly defined topic scope

3. Analysis that continually punctuates the urgency of the argument

4. Engaging visuals to showcase significant details within the speech

5. Conversational, poised, and confident delivery

Original Oratory

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

1. Clarity of urgency behind the solutions presented

2. Quality of consistent structure

3. Uniqueness of the topic

4. Tangibility of solutions

5. Showcase of controlled, poised, confident delivery

Poetry & POI

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

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

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

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

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

5. Organization of the narrative to create a dramatic arc

Pro/Con Challenge

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

1. Adherence to the Resolution in Argumentation

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

3. Organizational Structure of Cases

4. Sophistication of Rhetoric

5. Showcase of Confident, Conversational Delivery

Debate Paradigms

Debate General

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Specific

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

Public Forum Debate Specific

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

Congressional Debate Specific

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

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.