Former Debate Coach at the University of Arkansas. Forensics competitor in college (primarily IPDA & NPDA) 1999-2001.

If you are the stronger debater who has maintained clash while carrying all arguments throughout the round, you will win 90% of the time. If you are abusive to your opponent, I will not be convinced by your rhetorical prowess and will most likely drop the abusive competitor.

Persuasion is key but do not ignore structure. I will respect the government/affirmative’s burden to frame the debate (within reason, I was a member of the Arkansas Union Society and I have seen some far-fetched interpretations that were unfair to the opposition). I expect clash but don’t be afraid to concede a point if you believe your overall argument will carry the round.

I believe in the value and power of rhetoric. If I cannot understand you, I will not flow the round. If you plan to spread, I expect you to share your case so I can follow your logic.

Most of all, have fun. Debate should be engaging and enjoyable. And it never hurts to make me laugh.

Hi! My name's Karen Akins, and I'm excited to be judging you today.

• I prefer to see debaters stick to the given topic.
• If I can't understand what you're saying (i.e. too fast), I won't be able to understand your argument. (In other words, spread at your own peril.)
• Be respectful! In my opinion, this is the greatest benefit of competitive debate--learning to craft a compelling argument while still showing civility to your opponent.
• Have fun!

Good luck!

Parent Volunteer

I am a parent volunteer whose student is in her second year of debate/forensics. I have also been a volunteer judge for the past two years. I am an education professional, having spent 12 years in Higher Education Administration and six in Corporate Learning. I currently lead all Supply Chain Training for a Fortune 10 Company.

While I do not have formal debate experience, my professional experience includes conducting speeches and presentations and succinctly sharing my position, always grounding it in a solid argument. These professional skills and experiences have been imperative to my career success. For example, during my time in higher education, I presented to thousands of students, specifically employing techniques of persuasive speech. Now, in corporate education, my communication skills continue to be integral to my work, such as in advancing projects and bringing my suggestions to all levels of associates – from entry-level to chief executive officers. Possessing the abilities to speak articulately; research; and advance a thoughtful argument and rebuttal is the cornerstone of success in any field.

Most of my communication experience is in speech. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. I expect students to know their content – not just read to me. I want to observe your speaking and delivery skills as much as I want to hear and understand your arguments.

More specifically, I expect solid speaking skills. I prefer that you not speak too fast or too slow. Please enunciate clearly. If you do speak quickly, make sure your words and ideas are clear. If I miss your argument because you are unclear or are speaking too quickly, it could cost you the round.

Your content is also integral to your success. Back your claims and counterclaims with solid arguments. Your claims should be supported with more than your own opinion. I want to feel confident that you have done your research and are prepared to present to someone who does not know the content as well as you do. Make your points clear and understandable.

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution and framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way for me to evaluate it.

Keep it professional. A true debater is able to give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. Any such behavior will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

Since I am a newer judge, do not use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I have never heard the word debate before.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or otherwise offensive. Be respectful of your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

And finally, this is your debate, so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!

I am an intern from Harding University and it is an honor to be here! Thanks for having me.

As your debate judge, I appreciate all comments and arguments alike so long as they are respectful and well-thought out. Please refrain from attacking your opponent rather than challenging the idea they are proposing. This would be an example of an ad hominem fallacy, which does not lead to a productive conversation.

I sometimes have a difficult time understanding people. You do not have to yell at me, but as long as you speak clearly and precisely there should be no issues.

Unfortunately, I am only able to be present from 4:15 - 6:15 on October 6. Thank you for your understanding.

Looking forward to it!

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.

Hello, My name is Ariel Couch, and I am currently a Debate & Forensics Alumni from Don Tyson School of Innovation. Just a little bit about me, I have been debating for 5 years, since I was in 8th grade. I use She/Her pronouns. My main debate events are Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions, and Congressional Debate. My main speech/forensics styles have been Prose and Poetry, but I do have experience in some way around most events.

Debate

My paradigm for a debate event is pretty universal for all events and is more based on how I want the round ran. I ask that everyone stays very respectful, just because you are more aggressive and loud then another person does not mean you are better or are gonna win. Just like I give my pronouns here I ask that you respect each other as well. Anything you say in your round you should be able to back up with evidence and/or analysis and stand with what you say in dignity and pride. The final thing that I ask is that you respect the rules of your style of debate and run it the way it is supposed to be run. Keeping every debate far and equal, to reflect your skills and the spirit of debate. I am told I am more of a traditional judge/debater.

Speech/Forensics

In speech and forensics type events, I really am just looking at performances that follow the generalized standards for that event. I look for good pitch and tone, full memorization, and acting elements such as bookwork. You should do your best, and that is the best for me. Remember everyone will always have something to improve on therefore everyone I will give some sort of constructive criticism.

I wish the best of luck to all competitors!

Hi!  I am pleased to judge at this tournament.  You will influence me most with solid logic accompanied by supporting facts and evidence.  I will flow your debate on paper to keep track of the various arguments and rebuttals.  You are welcome to talk fast in an effort to overwhelm your opponent with arguments and facts and I will respect that, but that alone may not win the round with me.  Take care that the speed at which you argue does not hinder clear communication of your reasoning.

Good day, contestants!

Concerning my paradigm: I have a degree in Communications and have practiced law as a litigator and in appellate courts for over 35 years. I am admitted to practice before the federal and state courts of Arkansas as well as the Supreme Court of the United States.

In assessing your performance, I will be looking for the following elements:

*Concise and clear logical progressions: Major premise + Minor premise = Conclusion.

*NO FALLACIES

*Effective persuasive speech techniques including variations in tempo, volume, pauses for emphasis, and gestures.

* Confidence in your presentation and manner

Regardless of the tournament's outcome, you are improving your skills just by competing today. Good luck!

Susan Fox

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

Hello all! My name is Andrew Hull, I have had six years of forensics and debate experience from Jr. High through the Collegiate level. I prefer to judge forensic events as this is where my experience lies.

**Debate Judge's Paradigm: A Roadmap for Fair and Effective Evaluation**

Debaters, I am honored to be your judge today, and my primary goal is to ensure a fair and impartial evaluation of your debate round. To set clear expectations and provide guidance on how I approach this role, I present my judge's paradigm specifically tailored for debate:

**1. Neutrality and Fairness:**

- I pledge to be a neutral arbiter. My judgment will not be influenced by my personal opinions or beliefs.

- Your arguments and performance in this round will be the sole basis for my evaluation.

**2. Argumentation:**

- I value well-structured arguments supported by logic, evidence, and analysis.

- Clarity and precision in presenting your arguments are essential. Signposting and a logical flow of ideas are key.

**3. Evidence and Credibility:**

- The quality and relevance of your evidence matter. Ensure that your sources are credible, recent, and directly related to the topic.

- Misrepresentation of evidence or arguments will negatively impact your evaluation.

**4. Rebuttal and Clash:**

- Effective engagement with your opponent's arguments is crucial. Address their key points and provide clear rebuttals.

- Constructive clash demonstrates your understanding of the opposing side's position and strengthens your case.

**5. Time Management:**

- Adherence to time limits is essential. Respect your allocated speaking time to ensure a balanced and orderly debate.

- Going significantly over time may result in point deductions.

**6. Cross-Examination:**

- Cross-examination should be conducted respectfully. It's an opportunity to clarify your opponent's arguments, not to engage in personal attacks.

- Effective questioning can reveal weaknesses in your opponent's case and bolster your own.

**7. Adaptability:**

- The ability to adapt to changing circumstances or arguments is a valuable skill. Flexibility in your approach can enhance your effectiveness as a debater.

**8. Respect and Sportsmanship:**

- Maintain a respectful and sportsmanlike demeanor throughout the debate. Treat your opponents and fellow debaters with courtesy.

- Derogatory or offensive language is unacceptable and may result in point deductions.

**9. Judges' Questions and Feedback:**

- I welcome questions from debaters after the round. If you seek clarification or feedback, do not hesitate to ask.

- I will provide constructive feedback to help you grow as debaters.

In closing, I take my role as a debate judge seriously, and I am dedicated to ensuring a level playing field for all participants. I encourage each of you to present your arguments persuasively, engage in constructive clash, and adhere to the principles of fairness and respectful discourse. I look forward to a robust and enlightening debate round. Good luck!

Mrs. Lorie Jensen

I am an English teacher at heart but serve as the Superintendent for Bentonville Schools. While I'm not an experienced speech and debate judge, I do have experience teaching speech at high school. I like a speaker to display civility and respect for others. I appreciate a systematic and logically developed arguments. You should lead me down a long road of deep thought supported by strong evidence without offering superfluous thoughts that distract. Most importantly, I believe your face, eyes, actions and vocals should demonstrate the passion you feel for your topic.

Debbie Jones

I am currently a History and AP Macro/Micro teacher at Bentonville High School.

Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.

Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.

Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches

I do not love serious spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing. However, if you plan on spreading, I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow- this is fine!

Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominant speaking ability, emotion, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots.

I am a reasonable person and will connect some dots myself, but I appreciate any mental load you take off of me as your judge.

Don't be afraid to make me laugh :)

I do not have a lot of judging experience, but I will try and be as fair as possible. Please speak slowly and clearly. If you rush I may not understand what you are saying. Thanks!

I am a first time judge and a mom of a first time Debate student.

In my career, I’m a successful, self-made entrepreneur and fully understand the importance of the skills you’re gaining in Debate and how they will support you throughout the remainder of your education and your future career. Without learning the skills you’re currently building, I wouldn’t be where I am today.

I’ll be looking for confidence, clarity and presence, and I’ll do my best to provide constructive feedback. I commend each of you for demonstrating the courage to perform and hope you will take a deep breath, relax and have fun. These are memories that will last a lifetime and I hope you soak up and enjoy every moment of this competition. -Jackie

Bentonville High School Alum, class of '02. I am new to judging as well as Debate. 

Fan of conversation in general, but I do have a hard time being too serious for too long and inevitably feel the need to make a joke. 

I love to laugh

Welcome! I am a new judge so I need to be able follow where you are leading. I know there is a time limit but be careful not so speak so fast that you trip over your words. Be sure to use all of your resources, that are allowed for each speech type. Wow me with what you have prepared!