General

psa this is a work in progress and will change as a judge and debate more xoxo

they/she/he (switch it up!)

coppell '23 || wake forest '27

send docs hunniya.ahmad@gmail.com-pls pls pls make the subject the tournament, round, & year!!!

credentials because people seem to care??: debated for coppell high school 4 years as an LDer, attended NSDA NATS as a freshman in policy, qualified to TFA state 3 years consecutively, qualified to TOC junior + senior year with 4 career bids not including 5+ bid rounds, breaking to doubles and achieving eighth speaker my senior year. coached middle school debate for 2+ years and have taught 3+ debate camps. have experience in policy, LD, and PF, currently coaching 4 ish HS debaters as well

dont be racist, sexist, homophobic, yada yada u down and i nuke ur speaks. if u feel unsafe in a round or need to talk about anything i am always here just shoot me an email <3

WSD:

Barely dabbled in this event so don't know a lot about event specifics- will most likely end up judging heavily on argumentation and who is winning the overall flow- so more techy than your traditional wsd judges due to my event background- just do your thing and I'll follow along

I find refusing alot of Pois, or asking too many a little frustrating! find the happy medium. Most of my worlds schools understanding comes from watching Coppell Black debate!!. I like the affect of the later speeches but make sure they resolve any argumentative concerns- especially the four. So I have a high expectations for 3s making the round clear and concise, and 2s to do a decent amount of line by line (getting all the arguments needed out there). The 1 should have emotion in their voice, and be engaging with presenting the information.

I like speeches that start with a creative introduction, I think they make the round more engaging and will boost speaks.

I love when debaters start with their offense first! makes stronger speeches

Shortcuts:

these are based on my ability to judge/understanding not personal preferences meaning you can read what you want just tell me how to evaluate it! tldr if ur good at it i dont care what you read just win. im human and have predispositions but my goal is to be trasnparent about them and let you guide my ballot

1- K v K, Policy v K, K v Phil, Traditional

2- Policy v Policy, T, Theory

3- Phil v Policy

4- Phil v Phil, Tricks

Trad

i care tons about weighing and worlds analysis to help me determine the winner. organization is ur best friendi use framework to filter which offense matters- if you dont do this it comes hard to adjucate I need you to not be two ships passing in the night and do the argument interaction work for me.

Counterplans

explain to me how their competitive + net benefits. process counter plans, pics, advantage counterplans are all a green light. im more likely to buy less probable impacts if there's a counterplan that solves the aff so da + cp is a pair that I respect

permutations are test of competitions but can reolsve many concerns on the cp-- they need a text and explanation beyond perm do both that gets blown up later. you should be explaining how the perm shields the link I find it highly persuasive. if ur gonna go for severance as a da to the perm impact it out or it wastes time and explicate how the links are das to the perm.

Disads

care so much about link analysis and the i/l chain, but other than that do ur thing. most impact turns r good except things like death good.

do evidence comparison it can make and break this debate, I hate outdate evidence on things that recency matter for.

K

yes! I read queerpess, cap, security, afropess, psychoanalysis and have an understanding of set col, identity ks but will need hand holding through baudy and any way high theory stuff. organize the 2nr, tell a story, ks dont need an alt but if they have one prove solvency, framing matters as how I evaluate the k and if I evaluate the post fiat impacts of the aff- how I come to that conclusion is up to you. the more specific a link is the more likely I am to vote for you.

contrary to popular belief im not a k hack- clash of civ debates are my favorite andI do vote on extinction own---> just win it

I need a k 2nr to be not 6 mins of reading ur backfiles but actual engagement w the 1ar these debates are most likely lost when you don't explicitly shut the door son 2ar outs and tell me where to flow ur prewritten stuff in the context of the 1ar

when answering a k win u weigh the case I buy clash most as a warrant but also eval fairness etc, if THEY CONCEDE CASE and you go for extinction OWS I am very likely to vote for you -- k debaters answer case or shut the dooorrrr on their access to it that doesn't rely on securitization of threats (bc you concede one is real)

K affs

I will not vote for u just because you read on- dont just do it for me (me having read it means my bar may be higher and so on).

what does the aff do? why do you need the ballot? why not defend the topic? are all questions that arise I expect to be answered in the debate. I won't vote for something I dont understand. performance rocks you do ur thing just justify it. contrary to popular belief- I WILL VOTE ON T- if you dont win your model. yes im the girl who read queer muslim futurity so be as creative unique fun and fresh with what you read and how you embody it

I need to be able to tell u what the aff is in the rfd. If I cannot you WILL NOT get my ballot.

TFW

my brain has tons of thoughts.

debate is a game but that game has value- means yes fairness matters but to what extent is for you to instruct me on. im more persuaded by clash and education 2nrs than anything that sounds like whining to me. definitions may be important but you have to win they are- world comparison on this flow is a make or break for me. contextualize it too the aff.

Theory

have voted on it when its executed well, I default to c/I and drop the debater but you can convince me otherwise. the more frivolous a shell is the less of a bar i have for responses so on and so forth. I enjoy judging this if you do it well

disclosure is good at bid tournaments but if ur a novice/small school debater who doesn't know what the wiki is just say that + error to reasonability and I won't vote you down! evading disclosure for competitive benefits is something I disagree with

yes ill vote on most theory shells just win competing interp and dont make it silly like shoe theory!!! I value tech a ton so if its conceded and no reasonability warrants it doesn't matter what the shell is if it has a voter.

Phil

I dont get this especially beyond Kant so be slow, explanatory and pretend your teaching it to a flay judge. some concepts click with me and ill nod but some fly over my head so watch my facial expressions. I will vote on it if you win it I just need hand holding through understanding it- again I can vote on it ONLY if I understand it

This is the hardest thing for me to judge as it confuses me ALOT because I just haven't delved into these philosophers as much as you. Tell me how this standard concession on framing means u win, tell me how you filter out their offense teach me why consequentialism doesn't matter.

Tricks

t I think these suck for debate so will take tons of convincing and slow/clear explanations, no I will not vote for any eval after x speech arguments but if you convince me to vote for ur apriori good for u i guess? ive come to the conclusion if you win it ill vote on it but the bar for responses is on the floor also pls tell me why the conceded thing means you win and dont assume I know why

Speaks/Notes

tech>truth to an extent, be clear and i dont care how fast you are- ill say clear but also my body language is really obvious! if I look confused I am.

I give speaks yes on speaking but also strategy + organization. make me smile and maybe ill up ur speaks ;). I dont like speaks theory. I will nuke ur speaks out of spite. Just do better !!

sitting down early or using less prep is a power move and a slay- ill reward u heavilyin speaks if u do it and crush the win.

NUMBER UR ARGUMENTS PLEASE

the more you split ur 2nr the less likely it is i will vote for you- ur arguments wont be fleshed out enough AT ALL

I have adhd and may or not be on meds when I judge you depending on the day- we love clear slow down moments and organization bc it helps me tons when im not medicated!! before 930am and after 830pm are times when you need to keep this in mind

along those lines pls be a nice person- your energy carries into the room and debate should be a positive place of community

ask me questions! if you disagree with my decision feel free to respectfully inquire about it-just key wordrespectfully andI loveeee helping people talk to me ill work with you on anything

I like when u make my decision easy- do it :)

Please turn your camera on for online debate.

The later in the day it is the more slow + judge instruction heavy I expect you to be

email: Spencerbenton06@gmail.com

I do LD but Iḿ familiar with policy debate and Public forum.

Iḿ okay with spreading but I rather you don´t, but make sure you say your taglines clearly because I judge off of my flow.

Make sure to contextualize and show me how your plan will work. Asking for clarification during Cross Examination is completely fine. Counterplans and Kritiks are okay but make sure your argument is still topical.

And as always HAVE FUN! and be respectful.

Welcome, debaters, to this competition where the art of persuasion and effective communication takes center stage. As your judge, I value the intellectual rigor and eloquence that each debater brings to the table. I know the hard work, dedication and time that you commit to this craft. My judging paradigm is rooted in a commitment to fairness, clarity, and a thorough examination of the arguments and presentations presented. Here are the key aspects I emphasize:

Clear Communication: I strongly prefer clarity and precision. Make sure your points are well-articulated and easy to follow.

Avoid rushed delivery: I have a distinct dislike for fast, rushed arguments that sacrifice clarity. Speed should not compromise the quality of your presentation.

Thorough Examination: Dive deep into the issues at hand. Provide comprehensive analysis and evidence to support your claims. Quality, not quantity, is key.

Sportsmanship: Demonstrate respect for your opponent, the audience, and the rules of the debate. Ethical conduct is paramount to a positive and productive debate environment. Disrespect will not be tolerated.

Engagement: If you are competing in an oratory category, please engage the entire audience and not just me as the judge. Be confident in your delivery. Speak with confidence and volume. Do not be afraid to make eye contact. Simply stated - Don't just look at the ground or the ceiling during your delivery.

Overall, have fun, Good luck and may the most compelling arguments and presentations prevail!

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Please add me on the email chain: amandaciocca@gmail.com

I feel like this is important to add at the top bc no one reads paradigms anymore: OPINIONS ON 1AC DISCLO AND TRICKS HAVE CHANGED

Most of you are familiar with my judging preferences but just a little background on me. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I worked at TDC over the summer and I privately coach some kiddos so I've been active in the activity. I also am the co-founder of the Latine and Hispanic Debate Foundation, follow us on ig @landhdebatefoundation

Im most comfortable with K's, K v T-fwk, LARP, and some phil, slightly more comfy evaling substantive theory debates.

Favorite things I've read/ judged: Borderlands, any Anzaldúa position, Crenshaw, Latine IdPol, Intersectional Fem, Set Col, Black Fem, Queer Pess, and NonT K Affs v T-fwk/Cap.

Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, Jack Ave, Elijah Pitt, Lily Guizat, and Isaac Chao.

Standing conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Clear Lake RM, Heights CT, Heritage Independent WT, Clear Springs EG, Lincoln East BH

Pref guide:

K: 1

LARP: 1

Phil: 2/3 (more comfy w Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Butler)

Trad: 3

Theory: 2

Tricks: 4

________________________________________________

LD Specs:

Does Amanda vote you down for being mean? This seems to be a question floating around so I'll just say this: any blatant verbal discrimination/harassment of an opponent will get you an L 20. I don't tolerate in-round violence, I will stop the round and will ask you to leave the room. HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!! The round is no place for hate.

Theory: I bumped theory from a 3 to 2 because I've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells! I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

LARP-I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :)) Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.

Phil-I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.

Tricks- LOVE K TRICKS BRING THEM BACK! Have voted on Indexicals and Solipsism. This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

Tabula rasa within the limits established here. Speed as fine as long as (1) your volume is loud enough for me to hear you and (2) know that I usually give high speaks but will deduct points if you're talking into your laptop. No tricks.

Clash is good. I like creativity and will reward that in the round. A creative case is better than one I'm going to hear every round. Open to theory but I hate tricks.

I like an efficient round - please have speech doc sharing etc completed before the round begins. I will deduct speaker points if you delay the debate over a speech doc is not ready before the round.

jedonowho@gmail.com

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means I have to intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner.

Don't do debater math.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

Don't steal prep or do anything else that makes the round last longer than it needs to be (not pre-flowing beforehand, taking forever to pull up evidence).

Don't go too fast in front of me.

Technical things:

Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary

Second rebuttal needs to frontline.

If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.

No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.

When it comes to debate, please consider the delivery of your speech. Speed is a natural thing in a timed setting. I understand if you have to say your arguments at a quick pace. I'm just not comfortable with someone speaking as fast as super humanely possible. There is a line that you should consider. Quality arguments and weighing them are always stronger than listing countless cards without much weighing or explanation. Signposting is always welcome in your speeches as it helps with the flow of the debate. Consider time limits...going over grace periods could cost points. Usually don't disclose unless elimns.And most importantly...please be respectful during all events which includes speech, in between rounds and different speakers.

nathan.gong@utexas.edu / I prefer tabroom fileshare though

I qualified to the TOC three times for LD, debated twice, and cleared once (as Plano East and Plano Independent)

Read good quality evidence, be clear, compare arguments, and ballot paint!

Stop talking early when possible - I don't want to hear a 6 minute speech when a theory shell was conceded.

I can tell you speaker points after round if you want

Don't read evaluate after X

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

Ok, who is this?

Hi, I'm Anderson! This is my third year debating for Northland Christian School in Houston and I'm a junior. I am a pretty mid national circuit LD debater, and I've done a lot of traditional and progressive LD. I have one career bid round, qualed to TFA State 2x, broke at TFA State my junior year, and I have qualed to NSDA Nats 2x in LD. I've also dabbled in extemp, and I qualed in WSD for NSDA Nats.

LD

General

I want the doc - email is anderson_hendrix@northlandchristian.org but I definitely prefer speechdrop

I take judging very seriously, and I will treat every round as equally important. I am very open to postrounding as long as you are kind, as debaters we should be able to defend our decision (won't be able to change it tho).

Probably one of the worst flowers in the nation, you will find me in the back typing with two of my fingers. Spreading is totally fine, but with that being said, PLEASE SLOW DOWN on analytics, I would consider myself as a 7 out of 10 in terms of speed. If you have the need to go fast, please send analytics, otherwise I won't feel bad if I don't catch an argument.

Be kind to novices - You don't need to spread to beat a novice. Do what you need to do to win, but please don't be intentionally uneducational. The higher your kindness, the higher your speaks will be. Also, please don't waste all of your speech time if you are clearly winning.

I have low toleration for rudeness- there's definitely a fine line between being perceptually dominant and being rude. Sassiness is fine - being a jerk will irritate me and I will TANK your speaks. Showing decency to your opponent is appreciated.

Tech>Truth to the highest extent ethically possible -will eval any arg with two exceptions: 1] If the argument isn't warranted in the first speech that it is read or in the extension and 2] If it makes the debate space unsafe

I do keep time - but feel free to time yourselves. I will stop flowing once you go over time. Finishing a sentence is fine, making a new arg is not.

Please collapse - especially if its the 2NR

Here's myjunior year wiki for reference to see what I read

Traditional/Novice LD

If you do these four things, you will most likely get my ballot.

1. KNOW YOUR CASE & EXTEND - I feel that a saddening amount of rounds are lost bc people don't understand what their case says, if you can give me a well-warranted explanation behind your arguments and do good extensions, your case will seem really strong, and you will be far ahead if you are doing a better job than your opponent.
2. JUDGE INSTRUCTION - tell me where the most important arguments in the round are, and where I should be voting.
3. WEIGHING - explain to me why the impacts of your case are the most important, and TIE IT BACK TO YOUR FW. You could be winning every argument that you make, but if your opponent is the only one who is doing weighing you WILL lose the debate.
4. BIG PICTURE ANALYSIS -compare worlds for me, explain what the aff world looks like versus the neg world, this can be a huge tiebreaker, especially if the debate is close on the line by line.

Progressive LD

Shortcuts (based off of how comfortable I am with judging them):

T/Th - 1

Policy - 1-2 (see below)

Phil - 2-3 (see below)

Tricks - 2-3 (see below)

K - 4

K Pomo - Strike

Things I won't vote on

• Anything that changes the LD format (6-3-7-3-4-6-3)
• Hack for me because I am x identity
• Anything that tells me how to evaluate a speech during or after that speech i.e. I won't evaluate "Give me new 2ar args" in the 2ar but I will if it is introduced in the 1ac or 1ar. This means I won't evaluate "eval after the 1ac/1nc".
• No speaks theory - speaks are my choice

Policy

Love it! It's what I read most. I'm pretty much cool with anything in this category, and I will give really high speaks for high quality larp v larp debates.

In Policy rds, I really enjoy 0 off case strategies as well as 5+ off strategies with t shells, cps, and das. My favorite 2Ns are Adv CP + DA or case turn & DA + Case. I really enjoy when aff debaters execute turns on net benefits and DAs and such. I also really enjoy solvency deficits to CPs that are creative and contextual to that CP.

PLEASE do lots of impact calc and judge instruction - pretty much who does a better job of this in larp v larp debates wins.

I don't necessarily read evidence after debates, bc I don't want my interpretation of the evidence to change the evaluation of the round -however, I will read evidence if you flag it and tell me to look at it

DAs---Biggest thing here is impact calculus - every 2nr going for the DA should have analysis such as "DA turns case" + "DA ows case" etc. You will lose the round if you don't do some sort of weighing with the aff. Link specificity and evidence quality are important in these debates. I won't automatically not buy it if the evidence is bad, but it will make 1ar and 2ar link pushes extremely persuasive.

CPs---Every cp should have three things: 1] CP Text - explain in thorough what the cp implements 2] Net Benefit - a reason why the world of the cp is better than the world of the aff 3] Competition - a reason why your cp can't be done with the affirmative. Default to no judgekick, you should tell me if you want me to. I enjoy cps that are cheaty (delay, consult, etc.) but be prepared for a theory debate - because I also really enjoy cp theory :)

Competition---Probably not the best judge for very dense competition debates, I would consider myself pretty average here. Err on the side of over-explanation in these debates

Case Debate---Please do case debate. Put some defense, put some turns, do something. Not only does it give you more viable 2nr strategies, but it also gives the aff more things to respond to.

Impact Turns---Love them. Spend 7 minutes, read non-policy stuff and make them your case page. Do impact calc. Also, don't impact turn stuff like racism or homophobia etc.

Soft Left Affs---Also cool, my career has been spent mainly reading hard right policy positions, but I have read soft left affirmatives here and there. I think 1acs should have strong justifications and reasons why you should prefer structural violence impacts and reject extinction arguments.

Theory

Also love this! Will evaluate any shell and there is no such thing as a "frivolous" shell - anything else is judge intervention. I won't "gut check" shells j because I think or you think they are silly. If you think it is a bad shell, you should able to beat it back.

Defaults---Fairness=education, DTD, CI, No rvis, text over spirit, and norm setting model, changed with one warrant though.

Reasonability---So underrated. I am pretty persuaded by good reasonability arguments with a clear bl, especially if the violation is small. This argument can be very strategic if you are able to couple it with other arguments.

RVIs---Don't get the hate honestly. It's a great way to punish bad shells and create more outs. I find Yes rvis vs no rvis very engaging, and I will be very pleased if you successfully go for an RVI.

Disclosure---You should disclose. I read anything in my career from round reports to contact info and winning against disclosure is going to be difficult. I think that generic disclosure shells are super winnable but violations like round reports are justifiable. I think disclosure is very true but I will not be happy if you read it against someone who clearly doesn't know what it is or have access to the wiki. Sure, you probably will get the ballot, but don't expect high speaks from me.

Evidence Ethics---I think that reading ev ethics as a shell is much better than staking the round. I think winning it as a shell is super easy and gets out of lots of trouble. If you decide you do a challenge, I will instantly end the round and there are no takebacks. If it is a false accusation, you will receive the L.

T

I also really enjoy a good T debate. Every 1NC I read on the JF24 topic pretty much always had at least one T shell. Please do lots of judge instruction when it comes to these debates and tell me in 2nrs and 2ars what arguments come first. If you are winning your definition, tell me why that matters. If you are winning a limits standard, tell me why I am still voting for you, even if the aff wins their PICs DA. Caselists are also good, especially if you are reading a ground standard.

T-nebel/leslie/bare plurals/wtv you call it---T shells that require high levels of semantics are probably not my cup of tea, probably bc I am not that smart. I'm sure Nebel is awesome, but I think that just reading regular t-can't spec is more persuasive then using cards from a debate blog. There is probably always a better t violation to read in front of me then Nebel.

Phil

I actually have started to really enjoy phil arguments even though I struggled with them for a major chunk of my career. I am not by any means good at phil debate, but I am interested and enjoy these args. Just know that I have a major lack of experience, and I definitely don't read phil lit.

I have a basic understanding of fws such as Util, SV, Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, Contracts, Polls, I-Law, Constructivism, Pragmatism, and Determinism. Anything else is still fine but just make sure you are explaining your syllogisms and connecting the dots for me. Impact calc that explains how you weigh offense are also extremely helpful.

PLEASE SLOW DOWN -lots of phil debaters blitz through tons of analytics which makes it super difficult to keep up.

PLEASE do more offense debates - no one does debates on the contention layer in phil rds which makes me sad. I would love to see someone concede to their fw and go for the offense debate if its dropped or undercovered. I also find CPs that do the aff or that have offense under the aff fwk to be extremely strategic.

Util v Other Phil---Good for this. Have been on both sides of this debate and really enjoy these when they are executed well. I am a big fan of calc indicts and TJFs in these debates.

Phil AFFs---I enjoy phil affs that have framing + contention + util advantage, I think it is extremely strategic (unless if you read it against someone who definitely won't read util).

Phil v Phil---Not fantastic for this, but I definitely want to see this debate. You are going to want to hold my hand and do lots of fw interaction.

K

Iffy judge for this at best. It's not that I have a general distaste for these arguments, I just don't have a great understanding of them and probably wouldn't be able to adjudicate these debates well. I have a very surface-level understanding of cap, setcol, security, and afropess, but I'm not familiar with any other lit.

K Affs---yeahhh I just read fwk and pics against these so I don't know much about them. I have a higher threshold for solvency for KS than most judges, you should explain why the advocacy solves the impacts of the K, otherwise I will be extremely persuaded by a 2NR presumption push. I do find K affs that are T and defend some sort of material action to be extremely lit though.

Ks---I know Ks aren't CPs, but if u are going for the alt, you should probably explain the alt to me like a cp. Explain why it solves the links of the k, why it's competitive etc. I like independent analytical links and I think that links that quote lines from the 1ac are super strategic.

2NRs---I feel like there is a trend in K debate where the 2nr makes tons of new extrapolations and explanations, I don't love if there are framing interps, rotbs, are new justifications that are introduced in the 2n, and I will have a pretty low threshold of answering them. I also HATE long overviews, please do not read K overviews that last the entire speech or that "answer" the aff arguments, I will likely miss some arguments if u do that. Shorter overviews that explain the thesis of the K are appreciated, just don't script your speech. Point is, do work on the line by line in the 2nr, don't read a super long overview.

Framework

I definitely lean more towards fwk, and have really only debated on this side, so I probably will be biased for this argument. I strongly do believe that affs should be tied to the topic in at least some capacity, but I will attempt to put that opinion behind me and try my best to be 50 50.

Going for t-fwk - Good for any impact you want to go for such as fairness, education, or clash. I think it's best when you read standards with offense under different impacts so that you have multiple 2nrs to go for. 2NRS on this probably should touch case, especially if your opponent is reading arguments on T that rely on their TOP.

Answering t-fwk - If you are going for a DA or an impact turn on T, please just explain it to me and why it ows the neg arguments. Defense against standards is also good for me, highly encourage lbling them. Also explain why the tva is violent/bad is to me, if you concede a tva it's probably game over. I'm probably missing a lot of things so just ask me.

Tricks

Fine with them as long as they have warrants - won't pull the trigger on them if the warrant isn't complete.

Don't love one line blips that are hidden in huge blocks of text - persuaded by ableism ivis on these

Good explanation is key - I am perfectly comfortable giving an "I don't get it" rfd - if i cant explain it back in the rfd I am not voting on it

SLOW DOWN - these debates can get incomprehensibly fast - please do not blitz through analytics, I also won't vote on it if I didn't catch it within a hidden block of text

Please don't overdo it - I don't want to see a 120 point underview and I still want to see some sort of debate on a substantive layer

Preferences---Enjoy theory related spikes, those can be pretty fun to evaluate. Less good for truth testing offense debates/substantive tricks, but still have debated these several times.

Speaks

My range of speaks that I give is from 26-30, and I start from a 28.5 and move up or down for there. My speaks scale is also like this

30 - Omg I'm inspired, late elims at least

29.4-29.9 - Fantastic debater, will reach mid to late elims

29-29.3 - Did a great job, early elims

28.5-28.9 - Did good, Bubble round

28-28.4 - Getting up there, possibly bubble round

27-27.9 - Can be improvements to your strat, but you have potential.

26-26.9 - Probably not ready for the event/division

Lowest speaks I can give - isms/phobias/ev ethics/clipping/stuff of that sort

Keep in mind that my speaks change depending on the difficulty of a tournament - its much easier to get a 30 at a novice ld local than it is to get a 30 at the TOC (I can't judge at the TOC but you know what I mean).

THINGS THAT WILL GIVE YOU GOOD SPEAKS:

• Critical thinking!!!! (not reading off a doc for 13 minutes)
• Making jokes and just making the debate entertaining
• Ending your speeches early and still winning (if you lose tho ur speaks will be lowered)
• Good strategic decisions
• Being kind!!!!!!
• Clear signposting and speech organization

THINGS THAT WILL GIVE YOU BAD SPEAKS:

• Being shady in CX
• Being repetitive with your arguments
• Unclear spreading
• Being rude
• Sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, anything of that sort

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

PF

• I don't know the topic, treat me as a less experienced judge.
• You better not paraphrase
• Probably more receptive than most judges to framing args because that is the LDer in me
• K's in PF seem silly, I dont think 4 mins is enough to develop a good K + respond to other args, but I'm not a good k judge to begin with sooo
• Spreading is fine with me, but j make sure ur opponents are cool with it, ik that lots of ppl still don't spread in PF, If you want to be a super technical debater, you should probably do LD or CX.

Have fun!!

• Don’t be mean or I will dock speaks.
• + speaks if you make me laugh

lauren.debates21@gmail.com

I started judging this year, and I am still learning the details of each event. I participated in official NSDA tournaments in high school, so I have a good understanding of most speech events.

For both speech and debate events, any type of spreading is not recommended, I can't guarantee I will be able to take in all of the content. I am open to judging any subject matter, as long as it is presented in an appropriate and professional way.

For speech events, I tend to focus on diction, levels, blocking, believability, and creativity of the presentation. A technically sound and believable performance will receive high marks. Excessive screaming, lack of enunciation, and movement without reason will result in a lower score.

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

Houston Memorial 2018 – 2022, WashU 2022-2024

Texas/nat circuit, moderate success

jase1ilas@gmail.com - send speech docs (to everyone in the round)

Did LD PF and CX. Spent most of my time in PF.

Default theory, topicality, K, case. Never really ran Ks. Read Theory/T frequently for a PFer.

Tech > Truth to the point where alot of ballots I hate filling out bc I feel unethical.

Read extensions, weigh, and voters - meta-weighing is how you win my vote on substance.

I default presume aff.

Don't flow cross.

I have high standards for evidence, read evidence ethics even if there is slight abuse. ie: if you have a card, author quals (if relevant), date accessed, publisher, url, date published etc. and your opponent doesn't. If you read evidence ethics I expect you to also read something else. I expect to see that you have cut a whole case at minimum, that meets the standards of evidence that you set.

Easiest ways to win my vote:

• read theory that has actual substance (disclosure, no paraphrasing, evidence ethics), will evaluate friv theory dependent on who your opponent is and how frivolous it is (ask in the round)
• meta weigh
• if you extend well and your opponent doesn't I'm going to vote for you 90% of the time (I will just be like this offense is the only one extended, I'll vote for it). If you extend a turn you have to extend your opponent's link chain if they don't (it doesn't have to be a great extension just good enough)
• signpost

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next. In Informative, I also look for an overall theme that is informational (thus the name) rather than persuasive.

In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.

Hello my name is Syed Faraaz Mahdi. This my first time judging a debate competition. I am a novice judge and I prefer not to spread. Please present your arguments clearly.

Name: Ava Owens

Affiliation: Langham Creek High School

Current for the 2023-24 Season

I've done LD and CX at Langham Creek.

Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I love to judge a good debate regardless of the argument. I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. I'm fine with spreading as long as you state your standards slowly or your values, etc. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

(thank you for reading this, +.2 speaker points if you say cool in your speech or cx)

my email for any chain links- avajasowens@gmail.com

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

This is a debate event, where you speak. Your speech and rhetoric must be at the forefront of your competition.

"There are no new waves, only the sea" - Claude Chabrol

Your arguments must be concise and CLEAR. These are not practice rounds. Every round is a test that you face against yourself before you even begin responding to your opponents claims. Do you understand your arguments?

I will flow the round, but I will not flow for you, as in I will not make extensions unless stated, and I will not place arguments on the flow, you must tell me where to apply them.

SPEED: I can generally follow along as long as things are clear, but on a 1/10 scale, I'm at like a 5.

I am a policy maker at heart, I like to evaluate the arguments you make and then from there, I will look at your metrics. So please define your metrics for winning the round and tell me why your arguments are more substantial.Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

On the speech side: I want to see speeches that give a thesis and tell me what's happening in the larger topic area. Idc about sources as much as I care about logical arguments.

On the IE side: technique, efficiency of physical movements and blocking are important. Tone, volume, and timber are important things that your voice has to use to make me feel your performance.

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

For debate rounds, I vote for whoever has the better argument in the round.

Pronouns He/Him/His

Boling High School 06/ West Texas A&M 10

LD debate

I am more traditional and believe in a strong Value and Criterion debate. I am not a fan of CP in LD but will use it as a voting issue if the AFF doesn't answer it strongly. Speed is not an issue but if I can't understand you then there is an issue. I love philosophy debate and appreciate a strong philosophy based case.

CX Debate

I have been judging CX debate since 2008. I am a policy maker judge. I believe that the affirmative has the burned of proof and the Neg has burden of clash. I do not like time suck arguments. If you are running topicality please make sure that it is warranted. I have no issues with speed but if your diction suffers because of speed i will not flow your speech and your arguments will not matter. I am ok with K, CP and DA. Make your impacts realistic.

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," for ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows me to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, and time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level.

With Congress, I look for proper parliamentary procedures and clarity of delivery through rigor, focused on democracy and clarity of ideas, seriousness in demeanor, and effective empowerment in speaking extemporaneously about the topic. Authenticity with clear speaking points such as sentence structure, eye contact, transitions, and word choice. The standard of decorum must be met.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms:you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all. I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

For Context: I am a PF debater

General

If you are going to spread your case, please make sure I can still understand what you are saying. If you prefer to spread that is fine, just email me your case so I can follow along. In general add me to the email chain: pahthakur@gmail.com

Please signpost; it really helps me ensure I fully understand your case

I won't evaluate anything from cross unless it is brought up again.

Extend all of your arguments. Saying something without expanding on it is no use.

Be respectful. Interrupting during cross, etc. will lose you the round.

PF:

Weigh.

This and rebuttals are what I will be voting on the most. If you do not apply your argument to its effects, it does not matter.

Not responding = conceding

No new arguments/evidence from 2nd summary

LD:

I do not have much experience with LD. That being said, I will vote on K's and theory if you can convince me it works. Traditional rounds will be easier to follow but will not influence my voting if you run a K.

Value/Criterion

I am a speech and debate coach. I consider speech events to be an excellent way for student's to have real-world practice in conveying their thoughts and beliefs. I enjoy listening to speech events that show a speaker's range as it pertains to vocal tonality, personality and knowledge. I look for clear preparation and organization through details brought fourth in the introduction, body and conclusion. Sources should be clearly stated and expanded on. I want to hear content on social, political and educational topics that revolve around current events. Adding in personal touches when appropriate are also appreciated. I consider debate a communications event. Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. I prefer a traditional style of debate and am big on speaker clarity. I’m okay with a speaking pace a bit faster than ‘normal’ conversation but avoid monotone speaking and inhibited breathing! Do not spread. Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter! Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments. Be sure to extend your arguments, especially after they’ve been attacked. Take advantage of Cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round. Topics reflect concerns in our society, so take it seriously and do not waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers’ intent. My vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present. Please don’t be jerky or rude – it will cost you speaker points!

Trigger warnings are appreciated when appropriate.

Teasers should set the mood for the piece and not be too lengthy.

Intros need to continue to prepare the audience for the piece by setting the appropriate tone as well as give important exposition. A sharp or clever intro that is well constructed can be the determining factor in scoring among two equally done pieces.

Blocking and movement should be clear, well defined, and motivated. Clever or creative staging is appreciated. Unclear or unspecific pantomime, upstaging, or weird angles that prevent seeing the actor's faces should be avoided.

Characterization should be consistent and easy to follow if performing multiple characters. Pops should be clean. Vocal characterization should be suggestive of the character and not an opportunity to showcase cartoon voices/cliche characters (the surfer, the New Yorker, the Brit, the Aussie, etc.) unless warranted by the script/story.

The binder is NOT a prop other than in POI. Movement below the waist (steps) should be clear and motivated as well as minimal.

Author's Intent and/or Appropriateness of Literature-How do you feel about an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material (appropriateness)?

That's a big NO for me if it's offensive more than it is creative. (Miracle Worker as an HI, or The Lovely Bones, or anything like that is offensive to me. Hearing loss and child rape aren't funny and do go against the author's intent.) Mature content if it's handled well and suits the piece doesn't bother me- if it's excessive or for shock value, then I may not like it. It really depends on the piece and the performer; I'm not conservative.

For Speech Events OO/INFO– I weigh the written speech (construction/logic/novelty/grammar/humor) equally with the presentation of the speech. I like creative/inventive Info props.

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides a platform and an audience. Your voice matters, and I am honored to be but a small part in the process where you speak your truth.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class two years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker and on some topics a bit of Tabula Rasa thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind- don't spread bad vibes!) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresher each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

Congressional Debate

Congress, while functional debate, is just as significantly role playing. Take the role. Serve the part. This increases professionalism and individuality within the round. I prefer quality over quantity and communication must be elemental to the round. It the quality here blended with unique arguments that leads to clash.

Theatrical Individual Events - DI/HI/Duet/DUO/POI/Prose/Poetry

Be in the moment. Engage your judge and audience. Be confident. Perform with focus on your verbal presentation blended with your physicality. I look for proper inflection, diction, and enunciation alongside other elements of characterization. Balance your time with the story arc you are attempting to establish - help me visualize your character's world and the thematic meaning you are highlighting. Have you created a reflection of the mood and essence intended by the author(s)? Be sure to include an appropriately crafted introduction. I enjoy a well designed teaser before entering into your introduction. In partner events the introduction should be equally balanced. I equally enjoy well crafted settings through movement and pantomime. Throughout the round remain respectful of the performances in your room.

Forensic Individual Events - OO/INF/USX/IX

A professional presentation is anticipated ranging from mannerisms within your speech towards vocabulary choice, organization, handling of presentation topic (this includes props in Informative) to general presentation techniques of pace, diction, projection and general enunciation. I look for a well developed and organized concept supported by appropriate evidence, statistics, and personal anecdotes. A balanced use of time in appreciated as your present your introduction, points and conclusion. Inform, persuade and entertain. I enjoy effective use of rhetorical devices. This includes both historical and pop cultural allusions, alliteration and the rule of three. Sound devices enhance the quality of a presentation and make your statements memorable. Eye contact shows confidence. Rhetorical situations should include the full rhetorical square and nit simply the triangle - use ethos, pathos, logos and kairos.

For LD:

Signposting: Please use clear signposts to guide the judge through the debate. For example, clearly indicate when you are introducing a new argument or transitioning to your opponent's points.

Delivery: Maintain a clear and confident speaking style. Make eye contact with the judge and your opponent, and speak at a moderate pace to ensure effective communication.

Wording: Avoid using debate jargon, as I may not be familiar with it..

Clear Voters: When presenting your final arguments, explain the key issues in the debate, why you believe you are winning, and why the opposing side is not.

Remember to maintain respect and sportsmanship throughout the debate.