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.

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Contact info for the email/doc chain is located at the bottom of this paradigm.

***For IPDA, reading all of my paradigms will be helpful in general cause some things exist within the scope of all forms of debate, but there is also an IPDA-specific section of my paradigm further down you can skip to if you prefer***

***For IEs (info, oratory, etc.)/Speech events: See section towards the end of my paradigm***

I am a PF judge. It is my favorite type of debate and I had a ton of fun debating it in the past. I'm definitely a fan of progressive/techy debate styles since I find that it keeps me more engaged and just makes for a better debate. I will accommodate most arguments and styles even in PF, though with some exceptions as detailed below.

Outside of PF, I should be fine to judge policy or LD if it isn't crazy progressive. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with progressive arguments as you will see below, I just don't have the experience with the events/styles to be maybe the best tech judge for you, but I can act as a semi-prog/tech judge in any situation if needed. Regardless, I will do my best to be an accurate and just judge in any event (regardless of the type of debate, there are some things that just always apply, so you can trust I will be well versed in those universals)

Experience

I debated PF and various other debates (I loved WSD as well) all four years of high school for Dardanelle High School. I qualified for PF nats (where my partner @Kyle English and I were the first Arkansas team, to my knowledge, to ever break past prelims) and for silver PF at UKTOC and have a slew of trophies 1st place and otherwise from the state tournament in PF, WSD, etc.. Long story short, I'd like to think I know what I'm doing lol, so don't worry about having to baby me like a lay judge.

I am now a student at Harvard University in the Class of 2025 studying Applied Mathematics on the CompSci/Economics Track. That probably won't have any relevance for you, but at the very least I can tell you that because of this I'm VERY familiar with statistical analysis, techniques, etc., so if you're trying to run a bs argument on shaky ground past me, you may have a hard time if your opponent can at all vocalize a reasonable response.

TL;DR

I am a tech judge with a few limitations/exceptions. Long story short, run what you want and have a good time - that's what debate is about in the first place. I am a hard-flow judge who won't vote on anything that you drop or that isn't said in your speeches. I am especially particular about links. If there is not a reasonable link shown and supported by your team (whether that be with evidence or analysis, though evidence is generally preferred), I will find your arguments difficult to vote on. That isn't to say that I won't vote on crazier arguments (Like linking M4A to space colonization, which I found hilarious), but if you don't clearly show that there is a link, I may have a hard time even considering your argument seriously (though your opponent still has an obligation to point this out). That's the gist of it, just do your thing and have fun with it. FYI - if you are going to read something potentially offensive or triggering you better put a content warning or you are just asking for low speaks and a possible drop depending on the issue at hand.

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

To quote one of my favorite paradigms I've seen on the circuit (from my old coach lmao):

"It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine, indict and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.

I, therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation, words used, and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their social or political commentary.

If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.

In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."

This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced-based argumentation. I prefer a well-warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence [this is not to say qualification doesn't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased]. Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter."

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

That said, let's get into my paradigms.

Progressive Args

I'm cool with most anything in PF, but let's make a couple of things clear.

1.) No plans or counter-plans. Advocacies are okay but either of these will result in an L20 for both debaters and I will stop flowing unless I just feel energetic.

Here is is straight from the NSDA High School Unified Manual: "In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions."

2.) I'm fine with theory so long as it is done well and IMPACTED OUT. PF is all about impacts, so theory on its own means nothing if you don't impact it and weigh it like a normal argument. I will probably not vote on disclosure theory, but I do like to be able to see the case when you read to make sure I don't miss anything especially if you're fast or the case is content/evidence heavy. The same goes for Ks. Since I wasn't much of a fan of either of these during my time on the circuit, I never really ran them, so don't expect me to just understand them unless you are clear in your delivery, explanation, etc..

3.) Speed - I actually love speed. Speed means so many more args can be presented and really makes for an interesting debate. That said, clarity is key especially in PF. If I can't understand you, I will let you know by saying "clear" (this is for in person. If it's virtual... well we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). I won't penalize you for my not being able to keep up, but if you don't slow down after being told clear more than once, your speaks will get docked. Please do accommodate lay judges if they are on the panel though, I'm not the only ballot you're trying to win here.

On that note, if you send me speech docs with carded evidence for your constructive or any other speech I will give you and your partner top speaks and it will probably increase your chances of a dub because I will more clearly understand your args. That said, be careful. I won't make you send it, but if a card is obviously being misrepresented heavily I will drop you. You may not like that because it is too much judge intervention or whatever, but while I appreciate all aspects of debate I believe it has no place for what is essentially lying or cheating. On the same note, if a card seems sus I will ask you for it.

Novices

Honestly, I prefer to judge varsity, but novice matches can be good and I love the chance to work with you to make you better, novice or otherwise. same rules apply to you though, so just go out there and do what you know how to do.

Speaks

Honestly, I'm not a fan of the current speaks system. It's too subjective and one weird judge can really screw up your chances of a speaker award. It sucks, trust me I have experienced it first hand (as well as benefitted from it). Because of that I will just give 28.5s to the winning team and 28 to the losing team with a couple exceptions to the rule.

-If you run 30 speaks theory, expect to get really low speaks. Sorry, I get the point but it's just silly. We should be trying to make a more accurate way to measure speaks instead of essentially just avoiding doing them at all especially since a lot of people try very hard to win speaker awards at some tourneys. Plus, this wastes so much time you COULD be spending on actual arguments.

-If you are rude or just a genuinely bad speaker your speaks will be dropped so be ready.

-If the cards you send are uncut, speaks will be shafted.

-If you send me your speech/card docs before speeches you and your partner will probably both get 30s.

IPDA Debate

Pretty much everything mentioned above and below that can logically be applied to IPDA debate does apply. I'll take a sec here to go over some specifics for how I'm judging the event though.

-IPDA rounds can vary a lot in how they should be judged depending on the topic. As such, I think it is really important that the affirmative takes a little bit of time to clarify the burdens of each side in the round and what each side needs to do specific to the resolution to win (also take some time to set up WMs/FWs if appropriate for the topic - but please don't use logic or real-world as a WM or FW. Those are assumed regardless of what the topic is, WMs and FWs should narrow the focus not just state what should be obvious)

-I'm not going to grill you too much on evidence because of limited prep, but the more the better obviously. On a similar note, I'm not afraid to have you direct me to where you got a source if it's really sus and decides the round (honestly not sure from an IPDA perspective if this is frowned upon or not from a judge lol, but I'm keeping this until someone more familiar with the event tells me otherwise)

1st AFF: This is entirely a constructive speech, use it to lay out your case, framing, definitions, etc. (obvious words don't need to be defined it just wastes time). That said, if you have extra time and want to do some frontlining against possible NEG arguments I won't stop you (but ofc these won't help you if your opponent doesn't run the args)

1st CX: Please focus on the AFFs case here. I shouldn't be able to figure out what the NEG case is before I even hear it because of CX. That said, don't be afraid to pull some of that info in if needed to grill or point out big wholes in the logic of the AFF. Also, NEG, don't be afraid to cut AFF off (respectfully) so that they can't just rant with their answers and take up the whole CX on handful of questions. That said, AFF, don't be afraid to make sure you make your point. CX is a battle for control but it is a delicate balance.

1st NEG: This needs to both introduce the NEG case and respond to the 1st AFF speech. Not responding will be considered a drop. Also, if you're going to use evidence from your own case in response to the AFFs points then I would advise giving your case before you directly apply it as a response (or cross apply as you go through your case). If your case and your responses are disconnected then order doesn't matter as long as you signpost. Also be sure to address any bad/unfair definitions, burdens, FWs, WMs, etc. during this speech.

2nd CX: Same goes here as for the first CX, but ofc there is a lot more material already introduced that you can draw from and go over.

2nd AFF: The main thing with this speech should be to respond to the NEG case. I get that there isn't really enough time to go over all of the NEG responses to the AFF, but if you can get to it it would be largely to your benefit.

2nd NEG: Defend your case against rebuttals, strengthen your responses to the opposing case, and really make sure to hammer on the burdens, FWs, WMs, etc. and really tie the whole round together to show me why you win.

Final AFF: Don't be abusive, but do take this chance to briefly respond to NEG's responses to your case (you may need to prioritize important arguments for the sake of time), strengthen your responses to NEG's case, and do the same as 2nd NEG to tie the round together.

-Just like any type of debate, IPDA requires links, evidence, warrants, and weighing (specifics on what this looks like varies by topic).

-Preponderance of evidence will not be accepted as a WM/FW. It is stupid normally and even more so in IPDA which is not an evidence heavy format.

General Debate Tings

-I will be timing and will not flow after time is up. If you rant for too long after time, I will drop your speaks. I will signal non-verbally when your time is up unless you want a verbal queue.

-I prefer for the second rebuttal to cover both sides of the flow, but if you don't I will still evaluate it unless your opponent says it is dropped. I will count it as dropped if that is what your opponent claims but will pick it back up if you take a little time to explain how them counting it as dropped is abusive. Basically, if you don't want to take the risk, make sure to watch your time and cover the whole flow. This is strategically better anyways.

-New arguments in the summary and FF will not be evaluated (unless the situation highlighted in the previous paragraph occurred, that is the only exception and only applies to the summary)

-Be able to find and send cards quickly. I will give you one minute, then will drop speaks by half a point for every 20 seconds that pass (I'll be a bit more generous with this if we're virtual, because technology can be a challenge, but the same general rule of thumb applies).

-If the debate is a complete wash, speaks probably won't be awesome and I will pref neg because the status quo is reliable (unless it's one of those weird topics where aff is somehow the status quo or the assumed reality. Those are sucky topics anyways usually lol)

-You have plenty of time now that summary and prep are 3 minutes (PF), so be sure to cover everything.

-When you extend arguments you need to extend impacts as well or they may not be evaluated.

-Saying "IDK" isn't a response. You will lose the arg.

-I will always disclose and give an RFD except in one of two situations. 1.) the schedule is tight and we need to get moving or 2.) I am on a panel of judges and don't want to influence their decisions. That said, I will disclose on a panel if I am sure that the other judges have submitted ballots already and they don't mind me doing it.

-If you want to ask questions before or after the round, my email is located below and I will gladly talk to you assuming you are not overly aggressive or yelling at me lol. Talking to me outside of round at in-person tournaments is chill too, but the same principles apply.

-If my judging style somehow screws you over or I need to adapt to changing times, I won't change my ballot, but feel free to contact me and let me know so I can adjust my paradigm and knowledge accordingly.

p.s. If you straight-up lie about your evidence (not misinterpret) I will not only drop you and give you terrible speaks but if I am on a panel I will make a comment to the other judges whether tab likes it or not. The speech and debate community has no place for lies and cheaters and it will not be tolerated.

On Evidence Infractions//Misrepresentation:

This comes straight from the NSDA, and unless told otherwise by Tab, I'm going to follow these guidelines strictly. If you are choosing to make a formal allegation of an evidence infraction, I would prefer this occur in between speeches if possible and if you make it explicitly clear that it is a FORMAL ALLEGATION.

The following are the types of evidence infractions laid out by the NSDA

Distortion: Evidence contains added and/or deleted word(s), which significantly alter the conclusion of the author. A failure to bracket added words would also be considered distortion.

Non-Existent Evidence:If a debater is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested, the evidence is considered non-existent. If the original source does not provide the evidence you claimed (cited), it is considered non-existent. If the evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify, it is considered non-existent. If you claim to have the original source, but decline to provide it to me (the judge) or your opponent upon request, it is considered non-existent. (Depending on the severity of this particular infraction, if it just seems like a case where you can't find the evidence or something, then I'll probably just go through my flow and reconsider my position as a judge on the round if that evidence were never read).

Clipping:Clipping occurs when the debater claims to have read the complete text of highlighted and/or underlined evidence, when in fact that debater skips or omits parts of that evidence, misconstruing it.

At the point in time at which a formal evidence infraction is alleged, I will immediately stop the round and examine the evidence (or lack thereof) and make a decision. Unless a special case (like the one above where you just can't find the evidence), I will determine if the alleged violation is legitimate. If the violation is legitimate, I will immediately vote against the debater/team who violated the rules.However, If the alleged violation is not legitimate and it is found that the team did not actually break the rules in any way, then the team that alleged the evidence violation (the accusers) will be voted against, receiving an immediate loss. It may seem harsh, but that is the official position of the NSDA, so if you are going to allege an evidence infraction you should be very sure of it first. In the event that an evidence infraction occurs or is alleged: I will immediately end the round, turn in my ballot, and notify Tab of the situation as is required of my by the NSDA.

If you make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise blatantly discriminatory you will lose the round. Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass. (Besides, you wouldn't get the W anyways)

Individual Events/Speech Events (Info, oratory, etc.):

For me, events like these can be divided up into two different components that I am judging. (1): The content of your speech/script (what you are saying) and (2): The delivery of your speech (how you say it). Both of these are vital components to any I.E., but especially for speech events like oratory and informative. First and foremost, the content of your speech/script should be interesting, unique and written in a way that anybody in the audience can find some way to relate to it or find interest in it (that said, if it is a matter of ideological differences, so long as it is not bigoted or a terrible take, you will not be penalized simply because I disagree with you on a personal/political level). It doesn't matter how good of a speaker you are, if what you are saying and your speech/script itself is not inherently interesting or relatable, any audience member will lose interest and you will lose points. Second, no matter how good a speech/script is, it can rapidly becoming boring if it is not delivered well. Filler words are discouraged (unless as part of a script to create/develop a certain character's mannerisms), and confidence is key. More than anything, I would say the detail I pay most attention to here is a mixture of pacing and inflection. Your inflection/tone should match the emotion you are trying to convey, and your pacing should reflect that as well. The worst speeches are monotone and go at the same speed the entire speech (or stop and start abruptly, but if that is happening there is probably a more fundamental issue at play).Finally, a note on using flash cards and/or reading your speeches/scripts. The short answer: Don't. Well, at least not if you can help it. I understand especially if you are a novice that sometimes having bullet point notes or flashcards to help you remember things will mean a better speech than if you tried to just wing it. That said, if I have two different competitors give virtually identical speeches, but one uses some notes and the other doesn't, the one with their speech memorized will probably win. So, with that in mind, it's probably beneficial for you to have your speeches entirely memorized (although if you're reading this before a round it's probably too late to change that now lol so I guess it's more of a note for the future).

Anyways, that's the gist of everything. If you have any questions at any point or want to add me to the email/doc chain, my email is located below. Good luck!

michaelfinkenbinder@college.harvard.edu

I was a policy debater in West Texas in the late 90's. Competing and doing well in both UIL and TFA. Afterwards, I spent four years competing in two forms of limited prep debate at the collegiate level (IPDA and Parliamentary)

TWO DIAMOND COACH:

In 17 years of coaching, we have competed and won in Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, World Schools and Big Question. We are the only small-school ,from Arkansas, that has been consistent at qualifying for Nationals.

In the past 17 years, we have attended TOC 4 times and NSDA Nats 8 times. We have made it to nationals in everything from Oratory, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions and World Schools debate.

I have judged; 2020 NSDA PF FINALS, 2023 NSDA WSD FINALS, NSDA finals rounds of Individual events, NSDA Nats World Schools Debate, Big Questions Nationals Semi-Finals Round, Lincoln-Douglas.

TOC PF and everything that you can think of on our local circuit.

This activity and its associated community give me life. It has led me from a life of poverty into a prosperous one that allows for a completely different world than I was raised in. I am honored to be judging debaters of your caliber and degree.

My View on debate:

It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.

I ,therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation , words used and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their own social or political commentary.

If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.

In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."

Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass.

This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced based argumentation. I prefer a well warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence. [this is not to say qualification don't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased] Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter.

Paradigms:

• Speed is fine. "Spreading" is not. Your breathing shouldn't become markedly different and noticeable because of your rate increase. The pitch of your voice shouldn't also change dramatically because of your delivery. If you are clean, clear and articulate then you are free to go as fast as you wish.
• Don't just extend cards with Author name. "Extend Samson '09". You need to explain why that argument is a good answer to whatever you are extending. For me, debate is more than just lines on a page. Your words matter. Your arguments matter.
• I feel that the first two speeches are solely for setting up the case in favor or opposition to the resolution. If an answer happens to cross-apply as a good answer to their case that is fine. But, I don't expect PF teams to divide their time in the first speeches to offer counter-arguments.
• No new in the 2. Core arguments should be flowing out of the first two constructive speeches. If it isn't covered by your partner in the second constructive or by you in the summary speech then it is dropped. Too little, too late. This isn't football and a Hail Mary will not occur.
• While I view debate as a game....it is more like Quidditch and less like muggle games. (*just because you win the most points doesn't make you the winner. If you catch that golden snitch....you can pull out the win! Don't be afraid to argue impacts as opposed to number of points)
• The affirmative has the burden of proof. It is their job to prove the resolution true. If the debate is a wash this means the default win will go to the negative. (low speak wins included)
• Framework: I will assume CBA unless otherwise stated. You can win framework and then lose the debate under that framework. That should be obvious. Make sure that you explain how and why you win under the framework of the debate.
• PF Plans/ CPs: Simply put. These are against the rule. You are allowed to give a general recommendation but this often delves right into plan territory.
• ATTITUDE: Humor is welcome. Sarcasm and rudeness are not.
• Evidence: Don't miscut evidence. I will call for evidence if (A) a team tells me to do so or (B) I suspect it is miscut.
• Round Evaluation: I am a flow judge. I will judge based on what happens in-round. It is your job to impact out your arguments. Don't just say 'this leads to racism'...TELL ME WHY RACISM IS BAD and what the actual impact is. Don't make me do the work for you. Make sure to weigh the arguments out under the frameworks.
• Shoo fly, you bug me:
• Don't tell me that something is dropped when it isn't. If they simply repeat their assertion in response, that is a different story. But if they have a clear answer and you tell me that they dropped that isn't going to end well for you. Don't extend through ink.
• Rudeness: This isn't a street fight. This is an intellectual exchange and thus should not be a showcase of rude behavior such as: Ad Hominem attacks on your competition, derision of your opponents argument or strategy, Domination of Cross by shouting/ cutting off / talking over your opponents.
• Arguing with me after disclosure. It wont change the ballot.
• Packing your things while I am giving you a critique.

Overall, do your best and have a fantastic time. That is why we are all here. If you have any questions about a ballot feel free to e-mail me at mrgambledhs@gmail.com

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.

Experience: Competed for the University of Arkansas (2000-05); Coach at the University of Central Arkansas (2007-present). Most of that experience is in IPDA. While I appreciate and am happy to judge other forms of debate, I'm an IPDA purist at heart, and that governs my philosophy. I'm also a licensed attorney and spent seven years working for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. My job involved reading arguments with real-world consequences. While I am willing to vote for any well-reasoned argument, I'm a policymaker judge more than anything.

Delivery: I'm not a fan of speed. I sometimes listen to podcasts at 1.5x speed, and that is about as fast as I would prefer a debater go before I get uncomfortable. If it is a form of debate where speed is frowned upon (basically anything other than CEDA/Policy) and you speed, it will be reflected in your speaker points, even if I can follow you.

Don't spread. I would rather hear three well-developed arguments than 5-6 poor ones.

Speaker Points: Pretty arbitrary, especially if the ballot does not contain a rubric. If it is an IPDA round, I will have traditional criteria in mind: delivery, courtesy, organization, tone, logic, support, CX, refutation. Each is assessed on a 5-point scale. I will add them up, and that will be your total. An average debater will receive a 4 in each category, a good debater will receive a 5. I won't go less than 3 in a category unless you affirmatively do something to warrant it.

Case and Burdens: Unless it is a public forum round, the affirmative has the burden of proof, and the negative has the burden of clash. Failing to meet that burden is an automatic L before we reach the rebuttals. If it is an IPDA round and both sides fail their respective burdens, I will default to the stronger speaker.

As a policymaker judge, I would prefer to vote based on the merits/demerits of the resolution itself, especially if it is form of debate where you get to choose the topic. I'll vote on topicality, but if it is close, I'll give the affirmative the benefit of the doubt. (If you are going to run T, I'm big on framer's intent.)

I'm willing to vote for a K, but again, I would rather vote on the merits of the resolution itself. Like topicality, the affirmative will get the benefit of the doubt if it is close. Also, assume that I know little to nothing about the theory and prepare to explain it to me.

I flow the round. By the time we get to rebuttals, you should be telling me why you have won the round. Put out any fires created by your opponent's previous speech if necessary, but please don't go line by line. I'm very big on impact calculus, especially if the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, comparative advantage, or something similar.

Evidence: Quality over quantity. Better evidence beats more evidence. Explain why your evidence supports your case. I do not enjoy rounds where debaters dump numbers and stats without context. Second, source presses are a waste of time unless (1) your opponent makes a spurious claim or (2) you have evidence that contradicts your opponents. If the only argument you have against an argument is that no source was provided, you will lose that argument unless you explain why the lack of source is important.

Topic Disclosure: If the resolution is straightforward and affirmative's interpretation is in line, I will not entertain an argument that the debate was unfair due to a lack of disclosure. If the resolution is metaphorical or otherwise vague, you should probably disclose.

While I will not punish a debate who does not disclose, I will DQ a debater who gives a false or misleading disclosure. At the same time, I believe that the affirmative is entitled to use the prep time as they see fit. If your plan takes you in a different direction, you are entitled to change your mind (especially if the negative pressed you for disclosure before you started prepping your case). But be reasonable. Doing so with twenty minutes of prep left is fine. Doing so with ten minutes left is not.

NPDA debaters: I miss points of information. Please use them.

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.

Hi! I’m a first time judge, so not as familiar with the various topics. I look forward to seeing your creativity!