Competed/ Graduated in Oklahoma under the GOAT and now NSDA Hall of Fame coach Michael Patterson

As far as policy and all debate goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful.

"racism....its bad kids...don't do it"- Michael Patterson

No spreading if possible your judges should still be able to understand almost every word and enunciate.

I don't think the debate should be a monologue of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me I'll laugh even if I don't find it funny. All while still keeping decorum.

No spreading, enunciate your words.

Hello!

I competed for three years on the ACTAA & NSDA circuit in multiple IEs & Congress. While I didn’t compete in debate much beyond IPDA, I have gained quite a bit of experience this past year as a judge.

General Etiquette

- I don't mind if you time yourself, just keep in mind my times are going to be what goes on the ballot

- Stand when you speak

- Both the competitors asking questions and the ones answering should be standing during cross exams/questioning blocks

- If you have extenuating circumstances around your physical mobility & can't be standing up and down like that, just let me know, it's no biggie

---

Congressional:

The two things I'm looking for in congress are

a) stage presence-- How dependent are you on your legal pad/laptop? How much are you looking up and addressing the chamber as opposed to just reading from a script? How well are you using your space?

and b) clash-- Past the first aff and neg speeches, you should be debating previous points at least a little bit. Bringing up new information is all well and good, but you also need to be refuting points from the delegates on the opposite side. I'm personally a fan of calling someone out by name to refute and combat their point. The more clash the better.

I generally don’t flow arguments in congress unless there is something peculiar about the debate or the comment I have to you specifically pertains to the argument. I’ll really just give feedback on how you handled yourself during the speech

As a closing note to keep in mind: I understand that congressional legislation can get political and you're going to be inclined to argue with what you personally agree with, but you should understand that debate is not about what you believe, it's about your ability to argue. There are going to be times when you have to argue for something you don't agree with and refusing to do so is going to harm the flow of debate.

---

Case Debate & IPDA

A.Don't Spread. I can't flow what I can't understand.

B. My Flow:

1. Weighing Mech/Value/Criterion

- You should also give a brief description/explanation on whatever you propose. Some people use different definitions of the same thing & we all need to be on the same page

2. Definitions

- I have auditory processing issues. Make sure you say your definitions clearly & don’t rush through them. Help me make sure I have a crystal clear understanding about the basis of your argument.

3. Any Identified Burdens

4. Contention titles

5. Claims & paired cards

- Take care not to spread/rush through your sources. I value evidence highly and want to know your cards

6. Rebuttal

- when it comes to rebuttal speeches, the way I flow gets less structured– I will write down pretty much anything I hear that obviously pertains to a previous argument so that I can go back & analyze if any points were dropped/missed & to determine what point flows to who

C. Speaker Points

- While I appreciate a bit of engaging words and style, it’s not necessary. As long as you can get through your speeches with minimal stumbles and with relative smoothness you’ll get good numbers

- It is poor sportsmanship to bring up new points late into the argument when your opponent doesn’t have time to properly refute. This will result in low speaker points.

- It is even worse sportsmanship to make comments about your opponent’s debate style or competency during off-the-clock roadmaps. I have seen this happen too many times & I’m completely sick of it. This will result in low speaker points.

- I will be 'grading' speaks points based off of the following: Delivery; Courtesy; Appropriate Tone; Organization; Logic; Support (if needed based on the weighing mech); Cross Exam; and Refutation. Some things, like organization and delivery, are more important than the others, like cross.

bonus if you got this far: i'll give you an extra speaker point if you reference jujutsu kaisen or hunter x hunter

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.

Hi, I'm Kaneeka. I go by she/they and I'm a varsity LD debater at Little Rock Central and I'm the current (2023) State Champion in Varsity LD in Arkansas.

Read what you want, but I will NOT vote for you if you said something homophobic, racist, misogynistic, etc. have fun ☺️

Excited to hear what the future holds. I look forward to hearing what these bright young minds have to say. Looking forward to a fun and exciting debate.

I want to emphasize the importance of respect in this competition. It is not just about winning or losing, but about having respect for your opponents, for the judges, and most importantly yourself. Treat every individual with kindness and understanding, regardless of their performance. Remember, we are all on this journey together.

I want to encourage you to take your time and speak clearly, ensuring that your words are not only heard but felt by those who are listening. Let your passion and emotions shine through your performance, captivating the audience and judges.

My name is Addison Choate. I truly love debate and I am currently an LD Debator at Conway Public High School.

I don't have any strict preferences for debate rounds. Please just keep it respectful, professional, and absolutely do not cheat. The only thing I ask you not to do is spreading. If I cannot understand you, your opponent cannot understand you, and that is not fair.

*PS. If you have a creative approach to an argued I ALWAYS love to see that*

Paradigm for Judging Speech:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD--

I take a tabula rasa approach to judging —

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

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

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

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!

just debate

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

I am a parent judge and former debater in Student Congress and Model U.N. at the high school and college levels.

I am looking for speakers to be clear and concise. Be poised, organized, and confident. When making arguments I look for good research/statistical data that supports the points that you are trying to make. Speakers should be easily heard; projection and pace are important. Speaking too fast or using too many ums or ahs can detract from the points you are trying to make.

My advice is as follows:

Take a deep breath before you start - it provides your brain with oxygen and will help you think/process.

Speak slowly, but not too slow. Make sure the judges and your audience can understand you. If you speak to fast we might miss an important argument, point, etc. Take breaths as you speak after each sentence so that your speech is not a like a single run-on sentence.

Be confident. Do your research, study, prepare. Try to make sure that you are ready. The more organized and prepared you are the better you will be.

Learn something new each time and try to improve each time you speak. Read the judges comments and use those to help you the next time.

Finally, and most importantly, have fun! It is serious and you learn a lot but make sure you have a good time. Make connections with your peers. Enjoy life and make good memories that will last a lifetime!

Background

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

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

Randoms

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

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

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

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

Update for Online Debate

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

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

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

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

Short Version

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

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

T-USfg

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

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

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

Parting Thoughts

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

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

Lisa Haddock

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

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

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

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

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

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

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

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

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

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

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

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

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

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

I have been working with the debate team at our school for 4 year and judging for at least 3. I am a High School/College teacher in both US and World History. This means I am very well versed in history. I am well versed in research and bias of sources. In Debate rounds I want well researched cases with strong evidence. I also like connections, your evidence needs to connect to your points and support your claims, free floating evidence does not apply anywhere in the round. I expect a synopsis for voters as well, if you don't give me voters I will use my own observations to way the round, which may not be how you want me to vote. That being said, being too pushy may push me away from your position. Give voters that I can consider and persuade me why you should win on the logic and evidence of the case. I am not a fan of spreading. I would rather have you present a case with a few strong points than a lot of little ones. I do not like it when competitors are rude to one another. No matter how heated the battle or frustrated you get, politeness goes a long way with me.

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

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

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

Biggest pet peeve:

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

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

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

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

WSD

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

LRCH 2024

besskerby@gmail.com

lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

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

General

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Affirmatives

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

Kritikal Affirmatives

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

Framework

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

Off

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

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

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

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

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

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

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

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

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

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

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

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

Arkansas Debate

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

LINCOLN - DOUGLAS

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

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

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

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

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

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

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

jubileesunshine@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

Debate what you know and weigh your arguments. You should write my ballot for me.

LD

• The value and value criterion is the most important part of the round in my opinion.
• if you're aff, tell me what horrible things we would lose if you don't win the round
• if you're neg, tell me what horrible things will happen if you don't win the round

Policy/prog LD

• I’m most familiar with K debate, but I also understand policy fairly well. Run anything you want, just weigh impacts and make it easy for me to choose a side.

• The only arguments I’ll not evaluate are any racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. arguments. I don’t really like pomo but I will evaluate it if you decide to run it.

Email me any questions.

Hello!
Thank you for competing!

I judge under the notion that you debate as the best debater you are, and I will evaluate you on that metric. Please engage with each other's arguments, and be intentional in both cross and speeches.

Don't overcomplicate points that should be simple, and don't drop arguments, and have refutations that logically link. As a congress debater and competitor I do value a good presentation and speaking, if that helps.

Please don't go too fast as in spreading if it harms your delivery. I appreciate a good framework and roadmaps.

Have fun! Be nice!

I am both a speech and debate coach, who primarily works with speech events and IPDA style debate.

Speech Events:

In interp, I focus on technical ability but also your understanding of the emotions in the piece. I want to see sincere displays of emotional depth that appropriately connect with the overall theme.

In public address and platform speaking events, I value organization and clarity in your speech. I am a fan of visual paragraphing provided it is done well--your movement should look natural and enhance the presentation not distract. INFO should be well rehearsed with their visual integration, but I understand that accidents may happen due to travel/stands.

ALL Debate Events:

Above all, I value good sportspersonship! I will not tolerate rude behavior towards opponents because we are here to clash ideas, not clash each other. I am opposed to the practice of spreading, as it does not give judges enough time to process information and flow. I typically evaluate rounds based on the following criteria (in order): validity and logic of argument, organization of points, round decorum, and speaking presence.

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

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.

Background/ Experience:

I have competed in several IPDA and Lincoln Douglas events, as well as congressional. I won 2nd place in the National IPDA tournament last year.

Likes:

I love a solid, clear argument that maintains the clash. I also love when you can tie your case into your weighing mechanism or value/value criterion.

Dislikes:

Disrespect. The point is to not bash your opponent but to clash with their case. Please do not spread in your round, as that makes it difficult for both your opponent and me.

Decorum and Professionalism are of utmost importance, especially verbally! I do not want to see any disrespect between opponents!

This is a debate, and it should feel like one! No spreading or talking so fast that I can't understand you. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you properly.

Know your case! I don't want to feel like you are reading verbatim from your notes. Look up once in a while! If you are going to just read your case to me instead of actively presenting your case and debating your opponent, I will judge you accordingly.

Come to the round prepared! While confidence and speaking tone are important, it is not all that the round is judged on. You must present a better argument, even if your speaking tone isn't as loud as your opponent's!

Debate requires CLASH! You must be able to clearly and effectively refute your opponent's claims. No clash means no debate! I want to see passion and confidence!

I flow the round so am aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - do not claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't - it could cost you the ballot.

Please only debate the resolution you have been given and do not focus on anything else.

HAVE FUN!!! Give it your best and leave feeling accomplished in your efforts, the world will not end if you don't win this round!

On a lighter note, I love a good cross! I love when questions aren't the general "Can you state all of your contentions again...." and are used more for engaging your opponent on points they just made that you could challenge and make flow to your side!

jackson.n.mills@gmail.com

Little Rock Central '24

Do what do you best, and have fun. I don't have any ideological preferences on content or form and try to adjudicate debates as strictly off the flow as possible. The only exception to this is problematic/violent arguments (racism good, genocide good, endorsements of self-harm, etc.) which will result in an L and the lowest speaks possible. I don't consider arguments such as wipeout or the death K to be in the same vein of argumentation described above, assuming they are not run in a way that would make anyone feel unsafe.

My debate background is largely critical, so I have a much more intuitive understanding of how Clash and K v K debates work. This is not to say I hold any animosity towards traditional policy arguments, but rather to say that extra explaining would be appreciated in these debates. I think I have a pretty good understanding of topicality versus policy affs, as well as the more common counterplans and DAs, but complicated counterplan competition debates and other things with that vibe will be where explanation is especially important. I think judgekick is fine but please say the words if you want me to do it.

Tech generally outweighs truth (see the above exceptions), but I must flow a claim, warrant, and implication for something to be evaluated as an argument. I default to being flow-centric as a means to evaluate all debates, but am willing to evaluate them through an alternative manner if presented and won. Debates should be about what the debaters say, so my defaults/predispositions/whatever are easily overcome by good debating. Judge instruction is by far the most important thing you should be doing, as it helps me to evaluate the debate through the lens you want me to rather than leave me to my own devices.

Misc. Things:

--speed is fine, but don't sacrifice clarity! the chance of me clearing you is extremely low (awkward) so just prioritize it

--don't be a bad person to your opponents – I understand some pettiness, standing on business, etc. but am not okay with you just being disrespectful for the sake of it.

--i tend to look somewhat tired/apathetic during debates, so please don't take this as a sign I am not engaged. i appreciate the effort and time debaters put into the activity and will do my best when adjudicating all debates.

--please call me jackson, not judge

--feel free to ask any/all questions after a decision - I know how much I have benefited from the advice given in RFDs and want to do whatever I can to help make your time in this activity more valuable

LRCH '24

Email: laylaismysong@gmail.com

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading alone but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here. Don't try to run Progressive theory before the resolution or run Disclosure Theory, won't hold water with me.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

please add me to the email chain: rroberts5604@gmail.com

1. be nice and respectful :)

2. read anything you want (as long as it doesn't violate number 1)

Hi!

I am a freshman at the University of Arkansas. I have experience in multiple formats, Congress, Parliamentary, and IPDA I have the most experience competing in. I also have done in the past LD, PF, WSD. So I'm fairly experienced in the world of debate. I have 4 years of debate under my belt.

I look for good logical flow as well as who persuades me more. Signpost for me. Make sure I can flow it. Keep it neat!

Please do not spread. If I can't understand you I'm not going to flow.

Don't be rude to your opponents. Just don't.

Please keep a good round going and try your hardest to give a good easy to understand flow.

For Congress:

Know what you're doing.

Elect a PO that will run a smooth session, as a career PO I will rank you well if you do a good job. I know it takes a lot of work.

Try to avoid podiums. Avoid having your laptop. I know it's not always possible. But do your best to avoid them.

Clash. Don't just give me your 3 point constructive. I want to see good solid clash. You will be upvoted for good clash!

Have fun!

email: charlesswan06@gmail.com
pronouns: they/them

Just do what you do best. I probably won't clear you as long as you have a speech doc. Just go max speed. I compete in LD Debate specifically K's. If you run a trad in front of me v a K, please make sure you aren't dropping every argument the K creates. Similar for the K, make sure the clash is there (I need to know why extinction non-unique or why cap is bad for POC) I won't like it but I will vote down a K if I feel like you don't understand what you're reading. Quick prefs below:

1. K/Performance K's
2. Theory/K v K
3. Policy v K
4. Phil
5. Tricks (just don't read it)


I'll boost your speaks by 0.5 if you tell me your favorite rap song/book series. Racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia etc. will also result in instant L's + speaks will be the lowest they can be.

email for questions

I am a parent judge.

I prefer debaters to debate the Resolution. A great debater will address contentions but will stay focused and ensure they bring them back to the Resolution. I encourage you to repeat the resolution during the debate keep the topic the topic.

A great debate will have active cross-ex and respond to others debater’s contentions and they will develop and mature their case based on the opponents case. To often debaters only debate their case and it is two ships passing in the night.

If you speak at a rate I can not understand you will lose. It is more important I understand your points then you says more points.

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

Lincoln Douglas

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

Congressional Debate

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

Policy Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun and promote better discourse.

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

Hi there!

I'm a freshman at Hendrix University and newer to the realm of judging but have been competing in speech and debate for the past 3 years in events such as IPDA, Extemporaneous, World Schools, Big Question, and Original Oratory. I also have a love for watching rounds in general and seeing how they go. As for judging preferences, there are just a few to keep in mind:

Style of Debate

-Maintain the style of debate that you are competing in. Do not try to run a round of IPDA for example, the way you would run a PF round. They are different for a reason.

Spreading

-Try not to spread and if you do, don't spread to the point that you lose your enunciation and make flowing difficult. If it is difficult for your opponent to flow, it is more than likely that it is difficult for your judge to flow as well.

Be Nice!

-Don't be rude to your opponent. Debate is supposed to be civil and academic in nature.

Also just a note from a previous debater: Please have fun!! Speech and Debate can be stressful but it can also be a really fun time. So allow yourself to have that fun.

Yes, email chain: qmwallace89@gmail.com

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

truth

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

Speed

Speed is fine, but clarity is king.

I am a former high school and college policy debater. I love clash, evidence analysis, and sound argumentation. I can flow with the best of them, but spreading just because you can isn't always the best move. Be considerate of the type of debate in which you are participating. I dislike rude and snarky debaters. We all do this because we love it, so let's treat each other with respect. Manners and a good sense of humor are appreciated.

My name is Mustfa Zia. I am a debater in Conway High School, and have debated IPDA, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions. Also, I have extensively performed in Mock Trial. I have previously judged for the Conway Classy Classic invitational tournament.

I would like to consider myself as a laid-back judge. I love competitors with confidence, but please remember you do need to have a case.

I weigh tech over truth; in other words, if you say something which is factually incorrect but your opponent doesn’t fact-check you, that’s my prerogative to take that as fact.

Furthermore, I give extremely detailed notes, in both the reason for decision and for the feedback of both sides. This feedback will remain largely constructive, and I am not afraid to critique. I love debate and want what is best for all debaters, and so to point out flaws and shortcomings is to uplift my fellow debaters. My RTD will essentially be my entire flow!

I also value humor. Throw some humor into your argument and it makes it stick! Please do remember, however, this does NOT mean to be disrespectful towards your opponents.

And finally, under no circumstances whatsoever, spread. If you spread, I will stop the flow of debate and simply try to pick the jumble of words you say.

P.S: If you add some of these elements into the round, I’ll give your speaker points a bump:

Spider-Man reference - .2 points

Tool (the band, not the appliance) reference - .3 points

Speaking on quantum mechanics in any fashion- .1 points

Explaining to me before the round why Interstellar is a peak movie- .2 points