I enjoy hearing different sides to an argument regardless of if I agree or not. Follow up on points not proven or well explained by an opponent is a big part of winning a debate. 

I prefer when students don't talk too fast because I want to hear/understand everything that is being said but understand everyone has their own style. 

I was originally introduced to speech and debate in High School, where I competed in Lincoln Douglas and got into the finals during my time competing. While I started in LD, I am also familiar with other competition formats.

I am currently a student here at ASU and am still relatively new to judging, so I may ask competitors to explain things pertinent to the debate (such as how you plan to argue your case, and if there are any unique traits about your argumentative style I should be aware of) before the round starts. That being said I would also like to set a few ground rules for how I would like the debate to go:

1. I am okay with most progressive strategies, however I would prefer if you kept from aggressively spreading so that both I and your opponent can understand the arguments you are making.
2. It's critically important that you directly engage the other debater's points/arguments throughout your rebuttals and crossfire. Also, be sure to weigh your arguments so that I know why your impacts are more significant than your opponent's. (this is how much of the outcome of your debate will be decided)
3. Please signpost before you lay out your arguments so that I know what part of the case you are currently arguing.
4. Maintain a standard of decorum throughout the round.

I am a parent

Please speak loud and clear. Also, please be civil towards your opponent(s).

Specifically for LD: I'm fine with Progressive Arguments (Counter plans, Disadvantages, Kritiks, theory, etc.), just be reasonable and explain it clearly so that I can understand what you are saying. For theory, please make sure it is an actual abuse in the round.

I did speech and debate throughout high school, my experience mainly being in PF and BQ.

Please make it easy for me to understand what you are saying, I don't deal with spreading. I'll judge off what I flow, so if you speak too fast for me to understand/flow your speech, I won't weigh it into the ballot. Even if you give me a speech doc, I will likely miss some things if you spread. Speak quickly at your own risk. I don’t care about when you sit and stand, and I usually give a 5 second grace period. I also ask that debaters time their own prep.

PF: As I said above, I'll judge off what I flow. I want to think as little as possible during the round and when making my decision. That being said, try your best to organize your speeches and make your warrants/impacts clear. That makes it a lot easier for me when deciding what to vote on. The framework you run will also weigh in on my decision, so make sure to fulfill your burden and tell me why I should vote based off it. If you and your opponents have different frameworks, definitions, etc. make sure to argue why I should buy yours rather than theirs. Also, I don’t accept any theory in PF debate. If you run it, I will drop the argument.

BQ: Similar to the PF paradigm above. Take special note on my comment regarding frameworks and definitions. This is especially important for BQ, as I find rounds often come down to a definitions debate.

This is my second year as a debate judge.  Please no spreading. Try to use unbiased, legitimate sources. Signposting will help me follow your flow. I don't flow cross examinations. I also won’t consider any arguments made after time is over. I enjoy watching a good debate, but dislike debaters who are disrespectful. This will more than likely ensure your loss. Sound arguments are better than loud ones. 

I am a parent judge. So please speak clearly and never go above 200 words/min.

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.

No spreading! Speak clearly! If I don't understand something, I will ignore it. 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.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well-supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts.

If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.

Signpost! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I will vote for you.

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.

Since 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 mean to each other. So let's have fun and enjoy the round!

I prefer weighing for my decision with signposting

Clear tone with respectful behavior is a must

I am a parent so I am fairly new

I'm a non-interventional judge. I like debates with meaningful arguments and don't encourage too much speed or aggressive tactics. I prefer quality over quantity. I'm going to be diligent in taking notes and watching for impact, flow, link, and rebuttal in the debates. I'm not a big fan of definitions as most of the time both sides are similar. I'd expect Cross to be focused on clarifying your opponent's points/cases but not as an opportunity to humiliate. I appreciate the summary at the end to clearly point out why your case is more weighted and why I should vote for you.

I wish you all the best!

Please include me on the email chain: rydebate@gmail.com

I was a policy debater for 2 years in high school and am not competing in college

I like line by lines, overviews, good analytics, impact weighing

Spreading evidence is fine, but please speak at an understandable pace for analytic arguments

Aff must prove that they meet stock issues. Neg must prove links between aff plan to off cases

I'm willing to vote on counterplans, disadvantages, topicality, kritiks, theory

I lean condo bad because I think it takes away from the educational value of the debate

I'm not that familiar with theory arguments, so if you do decide to run them, explain thoroughly

Clipping will result in an automatic vote for the opposite team

Debate is an exercise of exchanged ideas and philosophy to inform, persuade and compellingly lead the audience or opponent to the truth or their truth.

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.

No spreading! Speak clearly! If I don't understand something, I will ignore it. 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.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well-supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts.

If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.

Signpost! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I will vote for you.

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.

Since 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 mean to each other. So let's have fun and enjoy the round!

I do not flow cross. I cannot stand when summary and FF are used as a second rebuttal, so please start condensing arguments toward the end. Please sign post or I will not be able to distinguish contentions.

One extra speak if your contentions rhyme

For my paradigms, I prefer a clear-speaking voice so I can understand your argument, don't go way over time, and you can talk fast or slow just as long as I can understand your argument.

I am retired attorney. I have done many appellate arguments and have judged moot court competitions. But I am new to judging speech and debate competitions.

- I'm a lay judge, so please don't spread

- Traditional debate, phil arguments, and policy arguments (plans/counterplans) are all fine with the caveat that I will not vote on an argument if I don't understand it, so make sure to warrant and implicate everything well.

- Explain why the arguments you're making matter in the round. Saying "extend x card" means nothing to me if you don't tell me why I should vote on it. Key voters, impact weighing, and good crystallization are all very important to me in your last speech.

-

Background-

I did PF for three years in high school, so I am familiar with how it works and will be flowing. I did LD once, not a fan.

Paradigm/Preferences;

Construction: Make sure to tag your contentions and clearly cite your cards in the speech. Any evidence not cited will not be on the flow. For citations, the source and the date are a must. Authors are ok, but I prefer the source itself(ie New York Times, Washington Post, etc.).

Crossfire: I will not be flowing either of the crossfires. If you make a point during cross that you feel benefits your argument, it needs to be brought up in another speech.

Rebuttal: Please please PLEASE sign post. It makes it so much easier to follow your speech, which makes the debate easier for me to judge. Be specific when making rebuttals. Don't just say your opponents argument doesn't make sense, follow through with an explanation as to why it doesn't make sense. Second speaking rebuttal does not have to respond to the first rebuttal, but it is in your advantage to do so.

Summary: When extending arguments, making blanket statements such as "My contention one flows through" and not giving further analysis will not make it on to the flow. Be sure to extend the cards and claims themselves, not just contention tags. Same goes for dropping opponents' arguments.

Final Focus: This speech should be almost completely filled with impact analysis. If you're not explaining to me why your impacts matter more, but your opponents are, their impacts are most certainly going to weigh more. NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE BROUGHT UP. It will not be on the flow and will be a complete waste of time. No arguments or cards that were dropped in summary will be on the flow either.

More details:

Don't give me an off-time roadmap unless you're gonna do some really weird stuff.

I can understand a fairly fast rate of talking, but if you're spreading I'm going to stop flowing. If you think you might start talking too fast, ask me before the round if you want me to say "clear" during your speech when you're talking too fast. Otherwise, imma just let you keep going.

Checking cards will be off prep time unless it starts happening for every single card. You can ask to see someone's card at any point except during someone's speech or after the debate.

Speaks are irrelevant, everyone will be getting 29. If you use a Thanos quote in any of your speeches, I'll give you 30.

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

Recommend not to spread. I tend to take notes all along and if I am not taking notes, that means I am unable to follow your arguments.

Be respectful to everyone around you.

I am a parent judge with little experience. I would prefer it if the teams were to not use theory arguments or Ks or anything too abstract, DAs and CPs are fine. I rank team higher with original arguments and comparison. I would also like for the teams to speak with a slower speed than normal (almost conversational) for I won't be able to understand at the speed of a normal debater. I wish good luck to both teams, and hope they have a fun round! my email address is kkt1979@gmail.com

This is my third time as a judge. As a teacher, I prefer people who speak clearly and slowly in an organized manner. You don't have to yell to get your point across. Also, I vote based on impact.