Debate:

• I will cast my ballot based on whose argument fits the value and criterion the most (or impact if you are debating PF.) I judge based on logic in policy. Not a huge fan of theory evidence. You are most likely to get my ballot with facts and logic.
• Please do not spread. Speed is okay, but your breathing should not become irregular.
• Please have a well-structured argument. Make your contentions (and subpoints if applicable) clear for the flow.
• Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated by me and will result in an immediate L.
• Be kind and respectful.
• LD: Value clash is quite boring, and wastes time in a round. If possible, try to agree to a value and criterion as soon as possible. It is not considered "weak" to drop your value, you may even make yourself stronger when doing so.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

I've been an educator for the past forty years. The majority of that time has been spent teaching English, drama, and forensics. I have a background in the performance arts with a degree in speech and drama from Missouri State back when it was called Southwest Missouri State University. I am familiar with the mechanics of flowing but have limited practical experience. I do have the benefit of working with a very well-trained group of veteran debaters who've been assisting me as I navigate these new responsibilities. My philosophy when it comes to judging debate is to listen closely, script frantically, and remain objective in my analysis. I am becoming comfortable and confidence in my decisions weighing impact and evidence validity with greater ease.

As a judge, I prioritize logic, adherence to the resolution, effective rebuttal, and speaking ability. Here's a breakdown of what I look for in each of these areas:

1. Logic: Logical reasoning is the number one most important thing in debate. I appreciate debaters who present well-structured arguments supported by evidence and sound reasoning. Clear and logical organization of ideas helps me follow the flow of the debate and understand the debaters' positions.

2. Adherence to the Resolution: It is crucial for debaters to engage with the topic at hand and demonstrate a clear understanding of the resolution. I expect debaters to provide arguments that directly address the resolution and support their position. Debaters should avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not contribute to the central debate. The ability to effectively link arguments back to the resolution is essential.

3. Rebuttal: Debaters should actively engage with their opponents' arguments, identify weaknesses, and provide strong counterarguments. I value debaters who can effectively refute opposing arguments while maintaining a respectful and constructive tone.

4. Speaker Points: I assign speaker points based on factors such as clear and dynamic delivery, organization, use of evidence, and overall effectiveness in conveying their arguments. Higher speaker points are awarded to debaters who demonstrate exceptional communication skills and make a strong impression.

Here are some common mistakes that weaken a debater's performance:

Speaking too quickly

Choosing definitions that do not align with the spirit of the resolution

Setting a framework, then neglecting to reference it throughout the debate

Lack of humility.

Remember, this paradigm is specific to my judging preferences. Other judges may have different priorities, so it's important to adapt your approach accordingly. Have fun!

Decorum is of utmost importance - both verbal and nonverbal.

This should be a civil discourse between competitors.

Do NOT attack your opponent personally - attack the resolution and the claims.

Debate is a speaking activity, so, no, I do not want you to share/email/drop, etc. your case to me. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speaking style is also critical. Do not spread or even talk fast - if I can't understand or if I struggle to keep up with what you're saying two things happen: (1) I will miss key information and (2) I will get frustrated and not be able to judge you. If I miss an argument because you are speaking too fast and are not clear, then you didn't make it.

Do not be monotone in your delivery and look up during speeches. KNOW YOUR CASE!!!

You should not have so much information that it requires you to speak faster than normal conversation pace/speed. Be efficient with your words.

I want to know how to judge the round, so supply and use your MW or V/VC or Framework!

I want to see clear links between your claims and your WM, V/VC, Framework.

I want clear CWI's.

You need to clearly and effectively refute all of your opponent's claims. Debate requires CLASH - if there is no clash, then you have not debated. It is the responsibility of each debater to add to and create clash throughout the round.

I flow the round, so I am well aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - don't claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't!!! This can cost you the ballot!

Debate the resolution you have been given and nothing else!

Do not have a side debate about who has the best evidence - present the evidence and I'll decide as the judge, I don't need you to try and persuade me - or any other issues not related to the given resolution.

I don't need a road map - you should be clear enough in your round that I can clearly follow you.

Have fun!!! The world will not come to an end if you do not win this round! Always be looking for what you can learn from each round you debate.

Win. Lose. Learn!

On a lighter note, my favorite K-pop bands are The Rose, EXO, BTS, Seventeen, NCT 127 & NCT Dream -- if you work K-pop lyrics into your case/refutation, you won't receive any extra points, but it'll make me smile ????!

My name is Brenda Henderson, you may call me Ms. Brenda. I am a debate parent and attended Garland County Community College with a major in Nursing. I am somewhat new to debate but have been around it for a while now. I look for clean and concise arguments. Please present the information thoroughly and confidently. I am okay with spreading but please remember I am not a young spry teacher and could get lost in your arguments if speaking too fast. Any form of discriminatory speech such as racism, homophobia, or bigotry is not tolerated and will result in a loss of the round.

Earning Speaker Points is a very simple process for me and will be ranked as follows -

21 - 24 ... The Speaker was not clear and didn't speak confidently, words were cluttered and overran together.

25 - 27 ... The Speaker was clear and spoke confidently and Informed, eye contact and/or body movements through me off.

28 - 30 ... The Speaker was clear and confident, eye contact was made, and walked through information clearly.

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 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.