New Judge, my daughter is in debate and has been for almost a year.

Try not to go super fast since we are online and it could be hard to get all of the information (for me and your opponents)

Be sure to make your points clear ESPECIALLY when you're rebutting, makes it easier for me.

USE ALL OF YOUR TIME! This is the most important part of the debate if you use al of your time then you have a better chance of getting more points.

You don't have a lot of speaking time, so make sure that you have great information and rebuttals to make yourself clear. I you make yourself clear about case, blocks, and rebuttal speeches; then you have a better chance at gaining points.

Good luck to you all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HELLO!!!!
I am a fairly new judge to debate.

I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.

I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.

Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.

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

I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!

For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace, clarity of delivery, and organization.

Appearance judge with a focus on delivery and reasoning. New to judging but spent time on circuit for the last two years. Spreading is not a comfort nor K's.

Paradigm for Judging Speech:

I have three main points to which I look for when judging speech and debate, but I would like to start out with general conduct and respect. Always be respectful and courteous to fellow competitors when sharing the same room while competing. You may also feel free to pause when appropriate to address any issues experienced between competitors or myself. I will do my best to conduct fair and meaningful debate rounds that are first led by respect and courtesy.

Please see the main points I’m looking for within competitor’s content when judging speech rounds:

1. Memorized Material:
- Evaluate the speaker's ability to memorize and recite their content fluently and accurately.
- Consider the speaker's grasp of the material's nuances, depth, and relevance to the chosen topic.
- Assess the speaker's confidence and ease in delivering memorized content without relying heavily on notes or prompts.

2. Audience Connection:
- Gauge the speaker's engagement with the audience through eye contact, body language, and vocal variation.
- Evaluate the speaker's ability to tailor their message to resonate with the audience's interests, concerns, and perspectives.
- Consider the speaker's responsiveness to audience feedback, including questions, reactions, and interruptions.

3. Creativity in Delivery:
- Assess the speaker's originality and innovation in presenting ideas, anecdotes, or arguments.
- Evaluate the speaker's use of rhetorical devices, storytelling techniques, and dramatic elements to captivate and persuade the audience.
- Consider the speaker's adaptability and spontaneity in responding to unexpected situations or challenges during the presentation.

Overall, prioritize the coherence, persuasiveness, and impact of the speaker's performance while also considering their adherence to time limits, professionalism, and respect for their fellow competitors.

Please include me on the chain: ryandickerson1991@gmail.com

LD--

I take a tabula rasa approach to judging —

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, progressive or traditional. I am willing to judge both styles, kritiks, CPs, DAs, and traditional cases and contentions. Explain it well and if you’re winning the debate you win my ballot. I will come in with a clean slate each round.

Threshold note--If you read a kritik, aff or neg, I will have a higher threshold for explanation for the theory debate, meaning you should clearly walk me through why your model solves. I don't necessarily have a higher threshold for voting for these arguments, I would just prefer more explanation here.

***I am a former policy debater and congressional debater. Speed is fine. Flex prep is fine. Email me with any questions.

General info:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't spread. I'm a bit hard of hearing and if I cannot understand you, you might as well have said nothing at all. If you provide me a copy of your case, I can read fast enough to keep up if you are not confident that you can keep from spreading. Speak clearly and with confidence.

I tend to choose a winner based on the quality of the evidence presented as well as the quality of the presentation. I prefer leaning into facts over feelings: emotional ploys will not earn you points with me. Bonus points if you can catch a logical fallacy and properly name and explain how it occurred in your opponent's argument. An appropriately detected fallacy can completely undermine an argument.

Proper use of non-verbal communication is expected, i.e. eye contact, hand gestures, vocal intonation, and facial expression.

Do not drop points of contention and be sure to tie in your value statement.

Time management is important. If you are severely under or over time, it can hamper your presentation in a negative way. Not taking enough time may present weak/ill thought out arguments and going overtime does not value the time of your opponent and judge.

Be respectful and attack the argument and not your opponent. Nothing will lose you a debate faster than name calling or insulting the character of your opponent.

Please enjoy yourselves and have fun!

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

As a judge, I am looking first and foremost at speaking skill. A well planned and spoken speech ranks high on my radar. I also place value on evidence based speeches. Your evidence should be current and relevant. Confidence, kindness, and professionalism are key, as well.

Background

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

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

Randoms

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

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

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

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

Update for Online Debate

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

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

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

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

Short Version

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

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

T-USfg

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

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

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

Parting Thoughts

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

This is my third year as a parent judge. I have judged LD, PF, IPDA, EXT, Declamation, and Congress both at local tournaments and at Nationals . I try to focus on the speaker and only take key notes during the round. I like to see the speaker talk to the judges and not the podium (scanning all the judges, try not to focus on one judge). Be passionate about your topics. I am not to concerned with time. If you run over a few seconds I would rather you finish the sentence than stop talking abruptly. I cannot keep up with spreading.

Lisa Haddock

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

Leslie Harden Greer Judging Disclosure:

I take the responsibility of judging seriously and believe in rendering fair decisions based on a neutral perspective. I share this commitment with most experienced judges. I approach each round with an open mind, eliminating bias and holding no preconceived ideas about the outcome. I can lean affirmative or negative with equal propensity, and teams should strive to persuade me with their arguments.

I bring 23 years of experience as an English, drama, debate, and communication teacher, and have also coached speech and forensics, directed theatre, and coached mock trial and student congress. My approach to judging is influenced by these years of involvement in the education and forensics community.

Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Communication is Key: I prioritize clear communication over rapid delivery. (It’s as if I can hear the quiet sobbing of the policy debaters reading this.) Effective communication is vital for conveying arguments successfully. I prefer a clear and eloquent presentation of issues in the round. Effective communication is crucial in persuading me of the merits of your arguments.

2. Play Professional: I place a high value on sportsmanship and decorum in debate. Respectful conduct is essential for a productive debate.

3. Affirmative Burden: The affirmative plan should fulfill all of their burdens. If the negative demonstrates that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected.

4. Quality Evidence: I appreciate well-articulated arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Well-researched and substantiated arguments are more persuasive in my evaluation.

5. Focus on Disadvantages and Counter-Plans: I often give weight to disadvantages and counter-plans. While I may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments, I assess the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages.

6. Respect for Judges: I expect debaters to recognize that judges are reasonably intelligent, well-informed members of society. Debaters should present their case comprehensively and avoid assuming that judges lack the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments.

In summary, my judging philosophy centers on fairness, clear communication, and rigorous argument evaluation. I encourage debaters to present their cases effectively and persuasively, regardless of their positions, and I assess each round impartially. Good luck, and I look forward to a productive and engaging debate.

Refutation, commentary, logic and argument extension are my primary voters. I am a tabula rasa judge for most forms of debate.

LD - I enjoy having a traditional framework set up in LD but if you can link your debate theory and turn a case that is acceptable. I know there is a push in Arkansas of “Prog v. Trad” and I honestly don't mind either way. I think if the arguments are accessible and we understand the ground of the debate and can create clash then there is no issue.

PF - This form of debate should be accessible to the average citizen. Speed should be moderate at most and there should not be an expectation for a plan/policy or alternate. I weigh more heavily on impacts than framework but having a weaved in framework throughout the case is a huge plus. I flow and weigh cross.

Biggest pet peeve:

{First speaker starts} Read a card in 1AC with a questionable card

{Neg during cross} can you summarize the card...?

{First speaker} I can't but I can read the card again.

Congress: I am relatively new to judging congress but have a decent grasp of Robert's rules. I enjoy it immensely and find that I try to judge/weigh based on the NSDA Debate Guide. For example, the book lists that representatives should not infringe on the chamber's time - stop before the grace period. I weigh questions in your overall score ESPECIALLY if you are tired for speech scores. By the fourth/fifth speech on a bill there should be active clash in your speech and you should not just be rehashing old points. I love a good clarity/summary speech. If you are double entered and leave the chamber I do not let that affect your score for questions.

WSD

I am a newer judge to WSD however I have helped coach two teams and have sat in and judged multiple practice rounds. One thing that I am looking for is presentation, organization, and of course well explained content. Please make sure to respectfully wave questions I prefer civility. In terms of evidence, ensure that you focus on how the evidence fits in your argument / substantive and whether or not it is relevant or credible for the side.

Me: 

1st-Year Debate Coach

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

Judging for Debate: 

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

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

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

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

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

LR Central '22 | Mizzou '26

Kasten10203@gmail.com

I did Congress in high school. I do IPDA in college.

Debate is a game about persuasion. You still need to convince me. The goal of my paradigm is to give you the necessary information to effectively do so.

For PF:

I'm technically tech>truth if it comes down to it, but I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful.

Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round.

Extensions are VERY VERY important. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offenses you are going for (turns included).

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) call them out on it and I will not vote on the argument

I'm fine with spreading. Just make sure you spend a speech doc and are speaking clearly. I'm fine with theory & Ks. I do have a congress background though, so if you use a lot of jargon quickly, make sure you explain.

For congress:

I always love constitutional arguments and will highly value them in a round.

I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship, so don't be afraid to give the first speech!

Make sure that questioning is on the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, you have to do cleanup. I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. There are exceptions but use your best judgment :).

Please do your best not to read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

My rankings aren’t simply based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This means I’m taking into account speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and everything else that happens as soon as you walk into the chamber.

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

General

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Affirmatives

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

Kritikal Affirmatives

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

Framework

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

Off

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

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

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

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

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

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

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

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

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

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

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

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

Arkansas Debate

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

PUBLIC FORUM

I will evaluate Public Forum as if I am a jury of 12 and you all are the lawyers. Pro is the Prosecution and Con is the Defense. What is on trial is the status quo in relation to the topic at hand. Pro/Aff in any debate round advocates for a change. Pro accuses the Con side of creating a risk with complacency in our current condition. Pro must present that change implied in the resolution has lower risk and higher benefits, and do so in effective qualitative ways, as opposed to a quantitative approach in policy debate.

Now, unlike a courtroom, Pro does not necessarily have to prove their side "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead, "on balance" - which basically means I have to find 51% or more favor to their side. I will look for the Con team to punch holes in this effort and basically convince me that either A) change is not necessary or B) the change the Pro side advocates is bad.

My ballot goes to the side that presents the least risk, and a better future outcome than what their opponents call for.

LINCOLN - DOUGLAS

I judge components of LD in a hierarchy of burdens each debater has to fill:

1) FRAMEWORK - Value first, criterion second. I need to know the "what" of importance as related to the resolution before you tell me "how" that importance will be met in your criterion, and ultimately your case. If either side drops framework, it makes the round very difficult for them to win.

2) AFF CASE, BURDEN OF PROOF - The affirmative is the side advocating change. They therefore establish the arena that everyone plays in. They need to show how their perspective on the case represents the value the best and how that value substantiates a deviation from status quo. I need to see legitimate, topical blocks that fortify framework. Dropped aff arguments are devastating.

3) NEG CASE, BURDEN OF REJOINDER - The negative case has the responsibility to refute proof when aff has met their burden. Silence is consent. The negative cannot simply ignore or blatantly dismiss affirmative arguments, logical substantiated claims and warrants are a must for me to determine an aff point or subpoint has been refuted.

The side that best upholds framework, and also has the strongest aggregate amount of legitimate arguments standing at the end of the round gets my ballot...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

What I will be looking for from competitors in Congressional Debate is speech structure, relevant, reliable evidence and content uniqueness. Repeating talking points from prior speeches without enhancing discussion of the question is worse than saying nothing. Build onto prior points, refute prior claims, or create new angles of discussion. Be a part of the process, and do not aim to slow it down with parliamentary tricks. Use the procedure to benefit the procedure.

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

barnard/columbia '25

ualr '24

add me to the email chain lailameredith2@gmail.com

I have done a little bit of everything in debate, with a focus on LD.

Do what you're good at. Whatever you can explain the best is what you should use in-round. If you cannot explain a concept then I will act as if it was never spoken.

idk how judges can say they value education but don't like K's. Side eye. Criminally offensive side eye.

Truth > tech. If several of your opponents’ args rely on a fallacy, group them and explain the error in logic. If you solely focus on tech, then you miss the point of education imo

Learning is good. Debate is a great space to encounter arguments from a literature base that you're unfamiliar with.

Feel free to address biases. If an argument is problematic because it rests on an assumption that is upheld by systemic oppression, then call it out. These biases shape debate and academia impact judging. If your argument forces a judge to reconsider their relationship to the space, it is not inherently a negative thing.

Trigger warnings on discussions of transphobia, homophobia, suicide, self-harm, and sexual assault. Automatic L if you don't preface with a TW.

K is a slay. Theory is ok if it makes sense. I'm big on education in the sense that the discourse from this round will have spillover in your academic pursuits inside and outside of the debate space.

I have mixed feelings about setcol. By mixed feelings I mean I am an afroindigenous femme and a lot of args are anti indigenous and/or antiblack. Take that however you want.

That being said, each round should be unique. Be specific to your opponent, Make your rebuttals tailored to the round. You and I will both have more fun that way.

I honestly think that many ppl use T to not engage in analytical debates. If you run T, you must prove that if anyone, including your opponent, were in your shoes, they could not reasonably debate the aff.

Spreading is fine. Not quite sure of the vitriol against speed when it is often done on the NSDA circuit. Especially since the demographics of the school that spreads the most is quite different than others….

-1 speaker point for (mis)use of aave if you're not black.

I am a college debater who competed on the Arkansas circuit in high school, I have competed in BQ, LD, IPDA, CX, WSD, and parli . I know mainly anything you can throw at me, just be clear with your arguments.

If you want me to flow everything you say, don’t spread. Be very clear with line by line and the flow. When addressing an opponent's case be very specific on which it is ex. " contention 2 sub point b"

Have fun:)

My name is Logan and I think debate is cool.

I don't really care what kind of arguments you read.

Typically, the team that makes the smarter decisions wins.

If you are unclear, I will say "clear."

If you are too fast, I will say "speed."

The former is more likely to be an issue than the latter.

Hello! I have been judging debate for a couple years now and I did speech in high school.

I expect you to be respectful towards one another and to efficiently keep your own time to keep the debate moving forward.

I give speaker points based on who was the most natural speaker. I am okay with you spreading, however, please be aware that on this format the audio may lag and I may miss some of the things you say.

I love cross-examination. A big deciding factor will be who can effectively get their point across while debunking the other team's points through questioning and rebuttal arguments.

Jonathan Roath

I Co-teach High School Biology

11 years working in SPED at the elementary and high school settings.

1 year Speech and Debate assistant coach.

Took 2 Debate classes in High School.

I like facts and supporting those facts. I like honesty in a speech and do not hold back information that is supported and not just an opinion. Enlighten me !!

Christina Smith

Arkansas State University

Mainly an IPDA Debater but has PF and Congress experience

General

When looking at debates, I love clash. I believe that one of the main focuses of debate is a good clash, that way you see an actual debate going on. This can go for both Congress and PF.

When debating, always make sure that your arguments are clear and go down line by line, that way I can flow easier which will help me judge your round better. If your impacts are major to your case, make them seem important. If the number of cards is major to your case, make them seem important. I’d hate to look past them.

When looking at speaks, if you can speak loud and proud and add emphasis to your speaking, then you're almost guaranteed good speaks. I am not a fan of robotic, blunt-speaking because I will zone out real fast.

I also have zero tolerance for disrespect. In some instances, you can be aggressive to your opponent, however, if you step over the line and insult or show disrespect to them in any way, it will reflect on your speaks. While I know debate can get loud, it also needs to be civil.

IPDA

On the collegiate level, I mostly focus on IPDA, so IPDA is an expertise of mine. My paradigm for IPDA really reflects what I look for in both Congress and PF. So just read below.

PF

If Congress was eradicated from existence, then my go-to would be PF. I enjoy PF a lot, mainly because it makes us discuss topics that you wouldn’t usually talk about. That being said, please be sure to provide definitions and frameworks within your case. Not only does it inform me and others about the topic, but your framework helps me decide on who I should vote for, depending on which side shows that they fit the framework better. That means that you should always emphasize your impacts within the debate. I can agree that framework is in no way the most important, and please do not have a framework debate, but it’d be nice to have it included. In summary, you should always weigh out your impacts and go over the arguments that were spoken throughout the debate. The final Focus should be mainly on voters, that way I can vote more effectively.

When it comes to cx, as I have said before, the clash is key. That being said, I mainly prefer open cross, that way there’s more possibility of the clash. You don’t have to do an open clash, but it’s preferable.

Please do not spread either. Not only is that disrespectful to your opponents, but I can’t flow, meaning I can’t judge.

Congress

There are not many paradigms for Congress I have, as my paradigms most closely follow PF, but all I ask for congress is to have clear points within your speech and be sure to speak well. And please, for the love of anything religious, don't repeat arguments. I don't want to fall asleep during your session.

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

I judge majorly based on the flow. This means that I primarily look at argumentation and refutation. Are your arguments well supported, is there a clear warrant and impacts, do your refutations directly apply to and negate your opponents points, did you drop any points, etc.? In order to ensure a good flow, so that I can better judge the round, competitors should not spread and should use signposts during speeches. I do not tolerate ad hominem fallacies (personal attacks to the opponent) within debate rounds. Debate should remain respectful to all parties involved, this includes groups of people being debated about or mentioned within the debate, not just the competitors and judges.

***Include me in your email chain.*** zatucker@asub.edu

Lincoln Douglas

LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions, value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or policy arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.

Congressional Debate

I encourage any competitor to reflect seriously on the import attributes o the event. Congressional Debate should ALWAYS be a debate – not a presentation of dueling speeches. Delegates should use the sessions as an opportunity to critically discuss the legislation and move the debate along advancing agreements for and against of the matter before the body with each speech. Speeches should be conversational not appear scripted (DO NOT JUST READ A PREPARED SPEECH), notes should be used to quick reference evidence and quotes, reference points made by fellow delegates, cite supporting evidence, and be logical respecting the decorum of the event. Finally, each delegate should holistically contribute to the body and its debate of the measures on the docket. Engaging in questioning and parliamentary procedure respect respecting the decorum of the event.

Policy Debate

As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):

Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.

K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.

T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.

CP/DA: Sure, it's a debate.

Theory/Framework: Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.

The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.

Have fun and promote better discourse.

Jasmine Turnage

Arkansas State University - Jonesboro

Cabot High School Alumni

Mainly a PF/Congress Debater

tech > truth (in most cases)

hey guys! just a quick introduction- i’ve done multiple types of debate, barring LD, but i focus on PF and congress. I’m a recent grad from cabot high school where i was varsity pf captain and had competed in debate since freshman year. For the most part, you guys just do what you feel necessary within the round & everything will be groovy. If you want specifics, read below under the events.

General

I don't have a problem with aggressive, loud spoken debaters. I tend to be "aggressive" when arguing myself. BUT, always be respectful to everyone in the round. You don't need to talk over each other in cross. I love some good clash, but both teams yelling at each other doesn't impress me in the least.

For the most part I’m a flow judge, but I’m not going to flow the round for you. You tell me what you want on my flow and that’s what’ll be on the paper. ex: if you want me to cross-apply your answers, tell me. Im not here to assume.

Impact your arguments out -- make sure to weigh them against your opponents impact.

You should have a clear line by line. Reference cards if I need to pay attention to them.

Make sure to point out link/case turns.

speed is fine, but make sure it’s appropriate for the event.

i am tech> truth for the most part

Definitely give me voters & weighing. Otherwise, you leave it completely open for me to interpret what to vote off of - and that might end up in your favor & it might not.

Don't be rude, be respectful to judges/teammates/opponents/spectators. We're all here to have fun. If you're rude, disrespectful, or anything along those lines - your speaks will reflect that.

***Any disrespectfulness within the round towards anyone present will not be tolerated

Please check for your opponents pronouns before the round- and if they point them out, make sure to address them appropriately.

PF

I enjoy good, fun PF debates almost as much as I love Dr. Pepper. I'll judge on whatever you want - you guys just do what you think is best. If you use a framework, make sure to tie your arguments back to it and use it throughout the round. Again, make sure to line by line and point out things you want me to put on my flow. Extend arguments throughout the debate, make sure to weigh impacts. Summary should be the point where you articulate the most important arguments and start getting into some serious weighing. Final Focus should be voters and some final weighing.

If there are any conflicts with evidence, I'll call for the card. It shouldn't take you ten minutes to find it. You need evidence to prove what your saying, but keep in mind that analytics are pretty powerful too.

CX

I did policy for a year, so I understand the basics of it. My input on that is to run what you think you can do the best at. It’s been a hot minute since i’ve done policy, so bear with me. If you’re wanting some all knowing policy god, it’s probably best that you strike me as a judge if you can.

I want to be on the email chain -- turnaj1@cps.k12.ar.us

LD

I've never competed in LD, but I've seen rounds. I don't have a preference of traditional or progressive. If I end up judging you, its up to you what you decide to do. While I haven’t done LD, i’m definitely not oblivious to how it works- so ultimately just do whatever you’re comfortable with & what you think is best.... This ones kinda vague, so if you have questions or need clarification just email

Congress

honestly, this doesn’t really need an explanation. speak well, i enjoy the use of pathos- but not excessively. i will rank you on your overall participation within the round. Make me notice you- ask questions, use parli pro, and give some dang good speeches. have fun, this is always a learning experience and if you have questions- just ask.

also- i’m a firm believer that anyone breaking should be a well rounded delegate- by this i mean that they’ve been active and prominent within the session - asking questions, using parli pro, giving speeches. Also while quality > quantity is definitely true, don’t think you can just give one speech and be done because more than likely, that’s not going to earn you points in my book.

Speaks

Everyone starts @ 28.5. I see this as “average” and your speaks will go up or down from there. Don’t expect a 30 from me unless you are truly an exceptionally great speaker (for your division) I will be more lax about speaks with novice debaters. Again, any harmful speaking during the round will result in embarrassingly low speaks.

I do give RFDs - you should write them down. I might disclose the round, but that depends on the round, my flows, and the tournament.

In the end, have fun. Make it fun for everyone there.

Any questions - email me jasminelturnage@gmail.com

I judge based on organization & facts backed up by reliable sources.
Please speak clearly and at a regular pace. Be confident!!!!
p.s—NO pen clicking

Yes, email chain: qmwallace89@gmail.com

I'm a former debater, but I'm returning to judge after many years away from competition. As a judge, I want you to understand how I'll weigh your arguments, what will be the consequences of dropping arguments versus extending arguments, etc.

truth

You win points with me through arguing specificity. Since your job is to persuade, I expect a good clash. I'm judging your ability to argue rhetorical fallacies or consequences of the aff or neg. Again, when you raise your arguments, be consistent and extend the argument through your speech.

Speed

Speed is fine, but clarity is king.

Rounds this topic: 0

I debated for four years at Little Rock Central and briefly in college. I have been out of the scene for a minute so you will get a lot more mileage out of just asking me questions before the round starts.

It’s not all bad, though. Keep things clear and organized and I’ll be there with you.

After the first round I’ll probably have a better idea of what I don’t want to hear and post it below, but for now:

I think I’m more receptive to T and particularly FW arguments than some judges, just keep in mind this is my first tournament out on the topic.

Ideal round for me would be a diverse 1NC against a policy to soft left aff.

Open to most arguments, but the further away you get from the rez the less familiar I may be with your args.

Premium on clash and organization.