Hello debaters! I am a parent volunteer judge and I’m very excited to be here with you all. I have been trained on judging this specific style and have judged multiple debate styles & speech events. My son is a 3rd year debater. I’m eager to learn from you all and give you feedback from my perspective!

If you plan on spreading and/or are running a progressive case, please share your case with me to this email address: aihongwen@hotmail.com

True spreading will be difficult and very new for me. When possible, please slow down slightly so that I can take thorough notes and give you the best feedback & results.

general:

I dont flow or count cross X thats for yall not me

if a question goes over time i will allow a quick and concise response

and as a heads up im a bit hard of hearing so if im looking away im pointing my ear to hear better im not ignoring you i promise

LD:

value: the upholding of your value over your appoint

Value criteria: a connecting theme between your point value and value criteria

as LD debater who wants to see the style grow if I see any unsportsmanly conduct I will stop flow and adjudicate the round the same moment excessive speed and use of "info bombing" ect. are considered as unsportsmanly conduct

Congress:

Congress is just as much about your research as your presentation ham it up be confident you are taking the role of a Congressmen embrace that energy also call out someone who if they said something that’s just especially if you can explain how wrong they were also if you have already heard your points said don’t just restate them expand on them

PF: tbd

BQ: tbd

Hello debaters and fellow judges,

I approach this debate with a focus on several key elements:

1. **Having Fun:** I believe that debate should be an engaging and enjoyable experience for all participants. I value creativity, wit, and a positive atmosphere in the round.

2. **Value and Framework:** A clear and well-defined value and framework are essential for a meaningful debate. I expect debaters to establish a strong value criterion that guides their arguments and provides a clear lens through which to evaluate the round.

3. **Impact:** I am particularly interested in the real-world implications and consequences of the arguments presented. Debaters should demonstrate how their contentions directly affect individuals, communities, or society as a whole.

4. **Engagement:** I encourage active engagement with your opponent's arguments. This includes addressing key points, providing rebuttals, and offering compelling counter-arguments. Strong engagement demonstrates a deep understanding of the topic.

5. **Confidence:** Confidence is crucial in persuasion. I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, maintain good eye contact, and project their voices effectively. Confidence not only enhances your persuasive abilities but also demonstrates a strong command of the material.

6. **Persuading:** I value effective persuasion, which includes the ability to present arguments logically and coherently. Debaters should be able to build a persuasive case while also addressing potential weaknesses in their opponent's arguments.

Remember, I am here to objectively evaluate the round based on the merits of your arguments and presentation. Regardless of the side you're on, your ability to articulate and defend your position will be the key factor in my decision.

Good luck to all debaters, and let's have a constructive and enjoyable round!

As a judge I would like to see confidence, great evidence, and the ability to respond to the other teams efforts with great judgement.

I was a debater in high school from 2006-2008, competing in Congress, PFD, and LD. I was also a debate judge for my former high school from 2008-2011, judging PFD, LD, and a bit of Policy. I do flow and take notes, and I'm happy to keep track of time and give you critiques after the round.

With that said, I know debate has probably evolved a bit in the last 12 years, and my debate skills are definitely rusty. Please keep your speed reasonable (I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you), and it's probably safest to assume I've forgotten some of the common debate terminology, so please make your arguments very clear if we start to veer into more progressive debate territory.

Like most judges, I believe that you need to affirm or negate the resolution on balance. That is, Neg cannot claim that Aff must affirm the resolution in all circumstances, and then provide one extreme circumstance in which the resolution might be negated. Debate should be fair, and both sides should have an equal burden to prove their case on general principle.

In both PFD and LD, real-world impacts do matter, so please don't ignore them. I won't extend through ink, so please respond adequately to attacks on your case. I also will generally extend your opponent's arguments if you completely drop them, except in rare cases where the argument is completely unsupported or non-topical (i.e. we have to affirm the resolution or aliens will destroy the Earth). But even in this case, you should call them out on that. And of course, don't bring up new arguments in the final speech of the round where your opponent will not have a chance to respond to them.

PFD:

-Since this is a less philosophical event, please make sure your arguments are structured more around real-world impacts, and please provide evidence with cited sources to back up your arguments.

LD:

-The value debate is very important. If you're winning the V/VC, you're probably close to winning the round, provide you can correctly link the rest of your case through your framework. I'm okay if you decide to drop your value system if you can prove your case also wins through your opponent's value system, but of course this tends to be tough to do.

Above all, be kind and respectful towards your opponent(s). We're here to learn and have a good time, after all. Good luck!

Hi! Just a few things about me, I did debate for 5 years, started in 8th grade. My main debate event was Public Forum, but I have also competed in IPDA, congress, and BQ as well. My main speech/forensics events were prose and DI, but I can have experience in every style there is. Any questions about my paradigm is welcomed in round and I can't wait to judge your round!

Debate
My paradigm for a debate event is pretty universal for all events. I ask that everyone stays very respectful. Debating should be fun! We should always be respectful and friendly to each other.
I'm a firm believer in having analysis, evidence, and impacts. I want to know what is important, why, and how. Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches. I will not make any assumptions or draw a conclusion to any loose ends. I want to be told, everything should wrap up like a pretty present.

I ask that you respect the rules of your style of debate and run it the way it is supposed to be run. I am familiar with every rulebook, I will be judging with that understanding in mind.

For LD& PF, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I want to see them clash.

I do not love spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing. I want to hear the argumentation clearly.

The ability to persuade will win you the round. If I am convinced, I have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this. Clear speeches, sign posting, and confidence are all big factors to a win. Although, anything can happen in a round and I will leave both competitors plenty of notes about my decision.

Speaker points ARE important so everything stated above WILL have a major factor in my decision. Another factor is the pace of your speech. If you are talking so fast I cannot comprehend what you are saying, I will not be able to flow your speeches to get the content written down. Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will not aide in your points. I won't vote a debater down for spreading but in any style other than policy, I feel it only keeps the debate from hitting full potential. Use your time wisely and insure that each word you say is heavy hitting.

Debate jargon is mostly acceptable for me... I say this with a few exceptions. I know my fallacies and biases, feel free to throw those out in a round. I do stand by the idea you need to explain the concept so EVERYONE knows what page we're on. As long as there's analysis to every claim you make in a round, jargon should never be a problem in round.

Most importantly, this is a fun activity you get to do. I'm excited to see all of the super amazing work everyone has put in and wishing the best of luck!

Speech/Forensics
When it comes to speech and forensics events, I expect everyone to be attentive to their fellow competitors pieces. I do look at performances based on the generalized standards per the event. Don't over stress it, do your best, I'll respect you owning your piece more than anything. Hi to any forensics kids reading this!

Thank you so much for this opportunity to see you in this arena.

I am a parent volunteer, but I bring a background of performing arts, writing and literature, marketing, and education as a foundation for my judging. I am incredibly passionate about helping young people improve their thinking and communication skills and would love to discuss anything with you after I've submitted scores for your competition.

DEBATE

As I become more familiar with structures of the various styles, I will provide more specific feedback on those. But for now, my perspective will be based on the following:

✅Strength of argument- TARGET: argument is clear and structured in Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format, sources are reliable and relevant, fallacies are avoided

✅Strength of rhetoric- TARGET: standard structure that flows from point to point, audience consideration, strategic word choice and phrasing, variety of methods of argument (ethos, logo, pathos), tone is respectful (see below)

✅General presentation- TARGET: clear and interesting vocalization, professional and confident body language, professional and clean dress, etc.

✅Rebuttal/Cross- TARGET: paying attention during opponent's speech, asking clear and specific questions that undermine their argument, answering questions asked

✅General civility to opponents and other viewpoints- TARGET: Verbiage remains respectful and collaborative. Any language or attitude/tones that marginalize others, belittles others' viewpoints, etc. will result in lower ranking/score. Examples include:

❌using religious perspectives in the argument where not specifically warranted

❌using phrases like "pipedream," "ridiculous," and other phrases that are more subjective and belittle others rather than creating a relevant argument

❌microaggressions, ableist language, etc.

These are tactics used by many news outlets and their followers, so it may be that your influences imply these are ethical ways for argument, but they are not. In fact, they weaken your own argument when in the presence of logical debate.

FORENSICS

As I become more familiar with structures of the various styles, I will provide more specific feedback. But for now, my notes will be based on the following:

✅Elements of performance- TARGET: Volume and enunciation vary as appropriate for the piece and allow audience to hear clearly; careful considerations for tone, inflection, characterization, etc.; using space to enhance the performance

✅Strength of rhetoric- TARGET: standard structure that flows from point to point, audience consideration, strategic word choice and phrasing, variety of methods of argument (ethos, logo, pathos), tone is respectful (see below)

✅Consideration of the audience- TARGET: Piece is selected with judges and peers in mind; performance engages audience through eye contact, vocal interest, etc.

✅Intention- TARGET: Performance steps outside the safe zone to make an impact and further reinforce the intention of the performance. It's a risk, but so is playing it safe.

✅Strength of argument (where applicable)- TARGET: argument is clear and structured in Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format, sources are reliable and relevant, fallacies are avoided

✅General civility to opponents and other viewpoints (specifically to those events that are argument/information based)- TARGET: Verbiage remains respectful and collaborative. Any language or attitude/tones that marginalize others, belittles others' viewpoints, etc. will result in lower ranking/score. Examples include:

❌using religious perspectives in the argument where not specifically warranted

❌using phrases like "pipedream," "ridiculous," and other phrases that are more subjective and belittle others rather than creating a relevant argument

❌microaggressions, ableist language, etc.

These are tactics used by many news outlets and their followers, so it may be that your influences imply these are ethical ways for argument, but they are not. In fact, they weaken your own argument when in the presence of logical debate.

Please send any requested information to my email at taracloudclark@hotmail.com

Hi, I am LaTeace, I am a new judge with no prior experience in judging debates. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and provide feedback to debaters.

I approach this role with an open mind and neutrality, as I am not familiar with specific debate formats. My goal is to judge fairly and provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve their skills.

I will asses how well debaters communicate their arguments, emphasizing the importance of not speaking too fast for a novice judge like me. Clarity in speech and maintaining a respectful tone during the debate are crucial aspects I'll be looking for.

I will evaluate the quality of arguments presented by debaters, with an emphasis on clear claims, logical reasoning, and relevant evidence. I encourage debaters to make their arguments understandable to someone new to judging debate.

In my feedback, I will keep things simple and focused on the following areas:

Clarity in communication: I will highlight the importance of speaking clearly and avoiding excessive speed.

Organization: I'll provide feedback on how well debaters structure their arguments.

Respectful: I'll emphasize the significance of maintaining a respectful tone during the debate.

I encourage adherence to basic debate rules and etiquette, such as respecting time limits and addressing opponents with courtesy.

Hello, my name is Thomas Coston (pronounced kaw-sten) and I'm a Marketing major at the University of Arkansas and hold a marketing internship. I will be mainly focused on a student's confidence, speaking ability, and respectfulness. If you are more persuasive, you more than likely have my vote. May the best debater win!

I am a recent graduate of high school. I was competitor in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Congress. I have judged before and of course competed in debate, so I am very well versed in debate and debate slogan. If you are spreading make sure everyone in the room is comfortable/aware.

For LD:

Be polite; I do know though that this isn't a specifically polite debate, I also am more of an aggressive debater. If you have aggression, or passion as I like to say, that is by all means great! Just make sure to not use offensive terms in your case, and especially not against your opponent. It is pretty valuable to me that you flow your value and value criterion throughout your case and speeches. I take that into great consideration when choosing a winner. I also want to hear clash on every argument; if you drop something I will be flowing the entire round, so I will know. I love debate, so I will know timings as well. I do prefer you time yourself though, just to ensure you get your speech in time. Focus on impacts. Impacts and how they fit into your criterions are how you win.

PF:

Same applies from above, however I do think PF is a style you don't spread in a lot. Typically there are lay judges, so I would recommend not spreading (however I am fine with a small amount of it). Make sure you weigh your rounds. Weighing the round is what I judge upon when it comes to my final decision, and who had the biggest impact with their weighing mechanism.

Speaking:

Focus on your stance, and just clear concise speaking. I love everything debate, and am so so excited to judge you!

Always make sure to have fun, I love when I can see passion in debaters!

This is my first time judging. I am a kindergarten teacher in Bentonville. I will be listening carefully.

I previously competed in high school policy debate for Cabot from 2006-2008. I have judged high school CX debate, college LD debate, and both high school and law school mock trial competitions. I am currently a deputy prosecuting attorney for the 4th judicial district.

Please roadmap your arguments and speak clearly! I will flow the debate, so if I can’t understand you that could make me miss your argument.

Please be respectful and kind!

General info:

Feel free to put me in the email chain but know that I will only flow what I hear you say in the round. I will give you a 10 second grace period at the end of each of your speeches. If you go over that I will drop you a speaker point. I won't flow cross-ex so if something important is said in cross, make sure to use it in one of your speeches.

Burdens are one of the biggest voters I use to adjudicate the round. As debaters, you should know that the Aff has the burden of proof and the Neg has the burden of clash and should be able to uphold these. The Aff will use on case arguments to prove their side and the Neg will use their on and off case arguments to clash with the Affirmative case. At the end of the round, I will decide who has achieved their burden best.

Framework is another important factor whether it be Value and Value Criterion(LD), Framework(PF/Policy), or a Weighing Mechanism(IPDA/BQ). I won't "flow" framework to one side or the other, I will flow the framework as either "upheld" or "fallen". At the end of the round, I will apply only the upheld framework(s) to both sides and decide who achieves it better.

Case Argumentation is an essential voter to emphasize on in the round. The Affirmative needs to present, uphold, and rebuild upon their on case argumentation in order to win the burden, the framework, and ultimately the round. The Negative should provide on case arguments that help them clash with the ideas and arguments that the Aff is presenting. The Aff can use off case arguments to rebuild and extend their points and the Neg can use them to clash with the Aff. Ideally, the strongest arguments have a claim, warrant, evidence, analysis, and impact. I will only flow an argument as dropped if someone points it out. If you are rebuilding, extending, or pointing out dropped arguments don't do the bare minimum, after you're done doing this take some time to explain why your arguments matter.

Miscellaneous: The Neg can use straight refusal but in order for this to work they must go line by line completely clashing with the Aff case. The Aff doesn't have any obligation to clash with the Negative case outside of the framework, they need only clash with the arguments they feel are important to the round. In your cross-ex, you have the control, if your opponent is eating up your time feel free to interrupt them so that you can move on to another question. If it is your opponent's cross-ex be respectful of them and their time, wasting your opponent's time in cross is just a good strategy but if they try to cut you off don't continue speaking or try to talk over them.

Lincoln Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge. I will not flow your Kritiks, Adds or Dis-Adds, or Theory Shells. If you want to use a Plan or Counterplan go ahead, but do not expect or imply that your opponent needs one to win the round. If your arguments are untopical I will not use them to weigh the round. Neither debater has an obligation to provide a Plan/Counterplan. Solvency is not an important factor in the round, so don't waste your time with it.

Pet Peeves: I am ok with speed but if you spread I will give you 20 speaker points. Do not try to put me or your opponent in a double bind that implies that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. If you lost, it was because either you failed to do your job as a debater or your opponent did a better job. With that being said, I will automatically vote you down if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I am a firm believer that debate is supposed to be fun and educational, we all get competitive but you are never justified in being rude to your opponent.

HI GUYS!!

I'm very excited to be back on the circuit again but as a judge! My name is Samantha but you can just call me Sam. I did debate for 4 years in High School as an LD, PF, and Congress debater. So I am very familiar with all styles!

PUBLIC FORUM

• For cross examination make sure that you let your opponents finish their thoughts and their answers
• In that same sense make sure your answers are short and concise the questioning period is short (to the point)
• Make sure you and your partner sign post and let me know where we are and which argument we're going over
• Your ending speech for the round (voters speech) is what I am going be voting the round off of so make sure all your points that you want me to vote off is what you end with. Any arguments dropped are arguments that I will not be voting on.
• There is 3 minutes of prep time use it wisely, for novice I will be more lenient on using prep to share evidence but for varsity circuit make sure you are well organized to be able to not use so much of your prep time. When time is up for prep time is up for both circuits so be careful
• When sharing or clarifying evidence in email chains please include me as well @ 1db8edwards@gmail.com please!

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

• FRAMEWORK, I will weigh rounds HEAVILY on your framework and value criteria make sure you do not drop this, if your opponents framework and value differs from your opponent let me know why I should prefer yours
• I know that spreading can be found in Lincoln Douglas but please do not spread UNLESS I have your case on hand to me. If I don't understand your speech I will not flow and it will be lost on the judges flow to help me make my decision
• Make sure you hold decorum during Cross Examination like any other style let them finish their questions/answers
• I am also not a fan of theory debate so stay away from it please, but other than that debate the round the way you see fit
• When sharing or clarifying evidence in email chains please include me as well @ 1db8edwards@gmail.com please!

CONGRESS

• Make sure you're being kind to all competitors and you hold decorum the ENTIRE round from the moment you walk in to the moment you walk out
• I am in full belief that congress is one of the styles that you can make your own with your speeches. So be unique with intro's I LOVE UNIQUE INTRO's
• I love strong delivery with their speeches and making sure you are not just reading off your paper, walk around make use of the space that is given to you
• MOST IMPORTANTLY I look forward to the civil clash in congress rounds and I expect to hear the analysis of evidence that you are giving and I will be listening for the evidence that is being given in round as well.

SPEAKER POINTS:

speaker points will be ranked on the consensus of how well you present/ articulate your arguments and how concise your speaking is

CLOSING STATEMENTS FOR EVERYONE:

Personally as a judge I will always value respect of your opponents over any argument in the round. Any rude or disrespectful arguments or comments that may occur in the round you may consider the round lost already no matter how it goes after that point. All in all I know this may be a lot but remember that I was in your guys' position at some point too as many of the judges here were as well. Have fun with it and simply just enjoy this time, it flies by.

Please don't spread. I'm a bit hard of hearing and if I cannot understand you, you might as well have said nothing at all. If you provide me a copy of your case, I can read fast enough to keep up if you are not confident that you can keep from spreading. Speak clearly and with confidence.

I tend to choose a winner based on the quality of the evidence presented as well as the quality of the presentation. I prefer leaning into facts over feelings: emotional ploys will not earn you points with me. Bonus points if you can catch a logical fallacy and properly name and explain how it occurred in your opponent's argument. An appropriately detected fallacy can completely undermine an argument.

Proper use of non-verbal communication is expected, i.e. eye contact, hand gestures, vocal intonation, and facial expression.

Do not drop points of contention and be sure to tie in your value statement.

Time management is important. If you are severely under or over time, it can hamper your presentation in a negative way. Not taking enough time may present weak/ill thought out arguments and going overtime does not value the time of your opponent and judge.

Be respectful and attack the argument and not your opponent. Nothing will lose you a debate faster than name calling or insulting the character of your opponent.

Please enjoy yourselves and have fun!

Have served as a judge for Debate competitions since 2004 and have seen many different changes in the process of debating but the one thing that remains unchanged is that debating should be enjoyable and everyone should learn from their experience, including judges!!

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

Please speak confidently and clearly. Being prepared and knowing your content is half the battle! If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.

I am a reasonable person, a good listener, and enjoy seeing young people shine in their element! I only ask that you use professional language at all times, avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way, and be respectful. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. Disagree respectfully.

Immediate verbal feedback will not be provided following the round. Please allow me to process my notes and enter feedback online.

Bentonville West High School English Teacher

I have been an English teacher for eight years- specializing in writing studies. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments developed. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with line-by-line argumentation.

Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker and writer. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.

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 I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully. On that note, while not a debate or forensics coach, I am not novice at understanding the intricacies of argumentation. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles. Your judge could be anybody- respect them but also understand that if they're not persuaded, you didn't do your task.

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!

Hi, I am a parent judge who has a daughter that does PF debate. I am looking for at your speaking techniques, case and topic debate not personal, good evidence, clear cut taglines, good argumentation, etc. I do not like progressive stye debate and will not be able to keep up with things like spreading so I ask that you do not do so.

LD-

I look for a good balance between evidence, analysis, and theory if used. I do not know as much about theory so if you are running it please explain thoroughly. I am not used to things like K's but will hear them out.

PF-

I am looking for mostly evidence, some analysis, and no theory. I will not accept or vote for a plan as that is not what needs to be provided in a PF round and is against NSDA rules. I am also not used to anything like K's in PF as that is not the standard, so I ask that you refrain from using them.

BQ-

I am looking for a balance between evidence, analysis, and theory but I will not count it against you if you use mostly theory with analysis.

World Schools-

I have never judged world schools before and know very little about it so this will be a learning experience for me.

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.

Know that you automatically have my respect for being brave enough to engage in debate and public speaking!!

Be respectful and civil to your opponent. Please don’t try to humiliate them.

Tricks and spikes don’t really interest me--I am more interested in substance vs flair. I prefer a clear and substantive debate

Keep in mind I am a lay judge so if you want me to flow you- take your time

The topics are serious but you don’t have to be-have fun if you want to!

School Nurse for Bentonville Public Schools. 5th time judging on a tournament. Please speak loud, slow and clear. Introduced yourself and what the topic is about.

Be respectful of each other, do not question the judge, learn from mistakes and enjoy the ride!

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.

About Me

I do not have any experience in Debate. However, I am really excited to learn and do the best I can to judge to the best of my ability.

I'm a nurse.

Big Picture Stuff

I want to see a round in which teams run arguments that they feel comfortable, confident or otherwise righteous running. Do what you do well, do what matters to you, and have fun. I don't want to see rudeness or bullying. Debate only serves its purpose as a quest for a larger overall truth if all participants feel welcome in the activity.

Speak loudly and don't go full speed, at least not right away at the beginning of the round.

Argumentation Preferences

I do not have a preference on the style of argument. I would like to know how what you say relates to the topic.

I do need crystallization in rebuttals. I want "even if" statements. Find those cracks and exploit them. Rounds are controlled in the constructive speeches but won (or more often, lost) in rebuttals.

Voting Tendencies

By default, I will vote for the team that provides the most persuasive offensive reasons to win my ballot. This is open for interpretation for a reason. Meta-level analysis that tells me how to weigh the round is particularly important. I need to know the purpose. Don't lose your perspective; individual arguments matter, of course, but don't get too bogged down in winning every little thing. Win the big picture. Tell me how and where to vote.

Things that will irritate me:

Any form of bigotry. As a community we must be better than that. The world sees enough hatred the way it is. Let's make debate a safe academic laboratory of constructive ideas.

In a debate, I expect rules that are set to be followed. I will not tolerate abuse.

I expect it to be fun and the most important thing is to be respectful of your opponent.

Your case needs to stand through the whole debate and rebuttals need to be strong

Be sure to speak clearly.

Hello!

I am a parent volunteer judge. Please speak slowly if you can.

For further questions after round, email venkatkodak@gmail.com.Use this email to include me in email chains as well, but this should only be for Policy Debate which I try to avoid judging.

For me, the most important thing in a debate round is respect! Any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or discriminatory/demeaning comments or arguments will result in an immediate loss.

Most importantly, have fun! I look forward to judging you!

Hello,

My name is Mark Konschak, and I am truly honored to be here as a judge today. I want to start by thanking each and every one of you for being a part of this incredible experience.

As a 21-year military veteran and have served as a diplomat for the US Department of State for 16 years, and now for the US Department of Agriculture as a Group Manager. I have had the privilege of living and traveling all over the world. It has been an incredible journey, and it has shaped my perspective on the importance of effective communication and respect to others.

This is my third year as a judge and I must say, this platform has given me the opportunity to witness remarkable talent and dedication, my daughter has been participating in forensics for three years now, and I could not be prouder of her accomplishments. She even made it to nationals last year, and it was truly a joy to see her shine on the big stage.

It is my hope that each of you competing today will have the opportunity to experience that same joy and sense of accomplishment in your own journey. Whether it's your first time or your tenth time competing, remember that every moment is a valuable and opportunity to grow.

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.

Above all, have fun! This competition is not just about the victory, but about the joy and fulfillment you gain from participating. Enjoy the process, embrace the challenges, and cherish the memories you create along the way.

Good Luck to each of you. May this experience be a meaningful and transformative one!

Me:

• Former Debate State Champion and Nationals Qualifier
• Former United States Marine Corps Combat Correspondent
• Veterans Advocate
• Spokesperson
• Former Congressional Military and Veteran Liaison

The Basics:

• Have fun!
• I'm fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.
• Procedurals / theory are fine as long as you articulate the abuse.
• I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.
• I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise.
• Please tell me why you think you are winning in your last speech.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I like it when debaters directly engage with each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization is very important to me. Please road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around if necessary but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Unique tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik.

I will also mention that I'm not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards thing in parli. If you don't understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I'm in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli, speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you cant do these things AND go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear ...please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were able to effectively.

Online Tournaments: Speed and web based debate does not work. Slow down or everyone will miss stuff.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is antithetical to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call "clear" or "slow." That said, if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me your stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

NFA-LD SPECIFIC THINGS:

Files: I tend to feel paper only debate hurts education and fairness in the round. I also worry it is an ableist practice as some debaters struggle with text that can't be resized and searched. If you only use paper I would like a copy for the entire round so I may read along with you. If you can't provide a copy of your evidence digitally or on paper, you will need to slow down and speak at a slow conversational pace so I can flow everything you say.

Disclosure: I'm a fan of the caselist. I think it makes for good debate. If you are not breaking a brand new aff it better be up there. If it is not I am more likely to vote on "accessibility" and "predictably" standards in T. If your opponent is anti-case list you should run a wiki spec / disclosure theory against them. I think that teams who chose to not disclose their affirmatives are abusive to teams who do.

LD with no cards: It might not be a rule, but I think it is abusive and bad for LD debate. I might even vote on theory that articulates that.

Specifics:

Speaker Points: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 26-30 range. If you do the things in my General Approach to Judging section, your speaks will be higher.

Topicality: AFF, make an effort to be topical. I'm not super amused by squirrely cases. Ill vote on T in all its varieties. Just make sure you have all the components. I prefer articulated abuse, but will vote on potential abuse if you don't answer it well. I'm unlikely to vote on an RVI. In general I enjoy a good procedural debate but also love rounds were we get to talk about the issues. That said if you are going for a procedural argument...you should probably really go for it in the end or move on to your other arguments.

IPDA:

In IPDA I prefer that you signpost your arguments and follow a logical structure for advantages, disadvantages, contentions, Counter-contentions, etc. If it is a policy resolution you should probably fiat a plan action and argue why implementing it would be net-beneficial. I think it is generally abusive for the affirmative to not FIAT a plan in the 1AC if it is a resolution of policy. Please note the official IPDA textbook says the following about resolutions of policy "With a policy resolution, the affirmative must specify a plan that they will advocate during the debate. The plan of action should consist of at least four elements: agent, mandates, enforcement, and funding." (pg 134)(2016). International Public Debate Association Textbook (1st edition). Kendall Hunt Publishing.)

You get 30 minutes prep, you should cite sources and provide me with evidence. Arguments supported with evidence and good logic are far more likely to get my ballot. I will vote on procedural arguments and other debate theory if it is run well in IPDA, but you should try to explain it a bit more conversationally than you would in other forms of debate. Try to use a little less jargon here. I flow IPDA just like I would any other form of debate. Please respond to each other and try not to drop arguments. A debate without clash is boring.

At its heart IPDA is a form of debate meant to be understood by non-debate audiences and skilled debater audiences alike. Argumentation theory exists under this framework, but certain strategies like critical affirmatives, spreading, and complicated theory positions are probably better situated in other forms of debate.

Fayetteville High School Debate 2000-2003 - Cross-Ex, LD

University of Arkansas Debate 2003-2006 - IPDA

I am thrilled to be a part of this tournament and look forward to seeing some fantastic competition.

Please relay your debate style up front, so that I can best prepare.

I enjoy sarcasm and humor, but will count against rude or disresepctful comments.

This will be my first time adjudicating and I'm open and willing to learn how to be a better judge for the benefit of all students participating in this event.

Bentonville West High School

I have been an AP English Language teacher for 12 years, and have judged debate for the past six years intermittently. Although I love to judge debate, I am considered more of a lay judge, so please don’t assume I will understand debate jargon.

PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.

I am an analytic thinker who prefers an organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with line-by-line argumentation.

Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims backed up with more than your opinion.

I am willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.

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 I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!

Hi, I'm Kristella and I graduated from Bentonville West in 2018. I started off my debate career in policy and migrated to the other styles competing all over the state and country. Because of this, I do flow and will want the speeches to be organized and arguments easy to follow. I am okay with any type of argument if you chose to run a more progressive case. My only concern is to make sure it connects to the case and articulate why it is important. Make sure whatever you are saying links back to the resolution and/or framework.

As this isn't policy, there is no need to spread. As someone that speaks rather quickly, I resonate with my fellow fast-talkers. Just make sure you are still extremely clear with what you are saying. I don't want to be confused with the arguments you are making.

Cross can be very valuable. I won't be flowing cross but if your opponent says something you deem important in cross, make sure to bring it up during your speech. Tell me why what happened in cross is important.

If you have any questions, you can ask before the round starts.

Be respectful and avoid arguments that are offensive in any way. Debate should be fun so while you want to win, have fun with it.

Good luck!

Hello debaters and debate enthusiasts,

In evaluating debaters, I prioritize three key factors:

1. Convincing Arguments: Debaters must present well-structured, evidence-backed arguments.

2. Conciseness: Clarity and brevity in argument presentation are important for effective communication.

3. Respectful Conduct and Effective Use of Humor: Debaters should maintain respect for opponents and the topic and using humor (when appropriate) is highly recommended :).

My votes will go to debaters who excel in these three areas. Let's have a lively and enlightening debate!

I have little experience judging debate. I can usually keep up with rapid speech. My decision will be made based on which team wins the most claims in their argument.

No spreading. At all. If I can’t understand you, you don’t get points.

Make me want your case to win. I won’t care what side you’re on as long as you’re defending it with creditable arguments and passion.

Don’t drop points you’ve previously made. If your opponent does this, don’t let them forget it.

Cx time is your time to drill it in, but bring it back up again later. Be respectful with how you speak to each other.

Current University of Arkansas student. Forensics competitor in high school 2019-2020. Second time judging debate.

Remember to always be respectful to others.

Speaker with overall ability to persuade will be the better debater for the round.

Hello Debaters!

I am so excited to be your judge this weekend. I love debate and it is a privilege for me to be here.

I competed as in LD and Policy debate at the National level in High School at Miami Palmetto Senior High School under the same debate coach as our new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I went on to compete for the University of Florida Speech and Debate team in Policy Debate where I participated in tournaments across the US representing UF. I have spent my career at Walmart & BVille supplier community in various leadership roles. My debate and speaking experience has been very helpful in my career, I am sure you will find the same.

A few things I am looking for:

• Research and evidence: I know case preparation and building comprehensive evidence files takes a lot of time. I will reward the debaters who have arguments built with creativity and cited with strong evidence.
• Spreading: Let's GO! Strong policy debaters at the National level must learn to spread effectively in order to be competitive. Please feel free to practice your best spreading with me and I will try to keep up. If I can't understand you - I will let you know. Spreading is an art and a skill to develop.
• Flow: I am old school and will try to flow the arguments to determine the winner. Help me to make this easier by clearly linking to all of your competitor's arguments so that I can track progress.
• Speakers points: I love energy, passion, preparedness, confidence and style. Bring it on!

Feel free to ask me any questions - I hope we have a great round!

Experience:  Debate competitor in high school in policy debate, student congress, and extemporaneous speaking 1990-1993.  

I am a detail oriented person and will be flowing the rounds.  I will be looking for good organization of your arguments and  supporting evidence.   A confident posture, eye contact, and clear articulation will get my attention and go a long way towards winning your debate.   I also ask that you respect your opponent and speak to them the way that you would like to be spoken to.  

Have fun and use all of your time, I want to hear what you have to say!

Bentonville High School Graduate & Former Forensics Competitor

BHS Forensics from 1998-2000, including policy debate, original oratory, and dramatic interp. LD competitor in college from 2000-2002. Arkansas Student Congress delegate from 1998-2001.

Remember that we are here to learn and have fun. Debates can get very intense, but we should always remain respectful of our opponents. Attack the ideas, never each other. A little humor is always welcome!

I will most likely vote for whoever is the strongest debater, however exceptions could be made. I will pay close attention to the logical merits and overall development of your arguments, the evidence presented, strategic use of cross-ex time, and your ability to address each of the arguments made by your opponent. Persuasion through emotional appeal is great, and a little grandstanding is fine, but intentional or repeated use of fallacy will diminish your chances of winning the round.

Also, I am not a big fan of spreading. If I can't understand what you are saying or can't take notes fast enough, I will stop flowing. If you do wish to spread, that is fine, but please share your case first so that I can follow along.

Best of luck to everyone!

Hi, I’m Wyatt, I have 3 years of debate experience in Congress and PF, but I’m also happy to judge LD. I also have 2 years of forensics experience. My paradigm is not super extensive, just some things to keep in mind.

ALL STYLES

• Be civil. Debate is open to anyone, an educational activity that expands your thinking and speaking skills. If you can’t put aside any prejudices you may hold for the duration of the round, then you don’t belong on the circuit, and I will be happy to tell you that.

PF

• I judge based on flow. Speaker points will not affect the outcome of the round. That said, if your speech is unorganized and sloppy, then that could make it harder for me to flow, which could lose you the round

• Logic and technical arguments will always move me more than conjecture and emotional anecdotes. They have their place but support your arguments with real evidence as well.

• The PF circuit is becoming more progressive. If. Theory and off case (Kritik) arguments are valid, but must be well justified and well linked.

• Don’t spread. Especially on the novice circuit.

LD

• Most of the same as PF above.

• Make sure you connect your values through the entire round, don’t put them at the beginning of your speech because you think it’s required, and then never bring it up again. Don’t assume that I understand your link to the value.

• LD is also becoming more progressive. Don’t be afraid to use Theory or Kritiks but still make sure that it’s airtight.

• Spreading is acceptable BUT:

• Start an email chain before your speech. You don’t get to start spreading as a way to stop your opponent from understanding you, If I can't understand your speech, or I don't have your case in front of me, I can't flow it.

• Include me on any email chain: wrice2327@gmail.com

CONGRESS

• I love congress.

• I want to see clash, bring up points that your fellow representatives have brought up. Congress is not a forensics event, so we need to be debating, not acting.

• While it isn’t a forensics event, speaking is important. You need to be organized and passionate about what you’re saying

• Do not speak for the sake of speaking. It is painfully obvious if your speech is a filler fest with no original content or clash. These speeches will not get you very far and will hurt your chances with me.

• It’s really easy to be rude or act superior in congress. Don’t.

He/him

I'm a former debate student from last year, and I have experience in everything except LD. I focus on both your arguments as well as your speech/tone. My only real issues are if you're impolite to your opponent or if you personally attack them instead of their argument. My general specialty is informative. That's about it, have fun :)

1. Reasoning and evidence
2. Expression and delivery

As a first-time debate judge, I aim to be fair and objective. Here's what I'll be looking for:

1. Clear Communication: Speak clearly, respectfully, and at a pace where I can listen, understand, and take notes.

2. Strong Arguments: Support your points with evidence and logic. I also will be looking to ensure that there are no jumps in your logic which undermine your argument.

3. Organization: Structure your speeches well.

4. Rebuttal: Engage with your opponent's arguments effectively.

5. Time Management: Stick to time limits.

6. Respect: Maintain sportsmanship.

I'm here to help you learn and improve. Good luck!

Hello! I'm Jennifer Sommer, and I'm an instructor with the Bentonville Schools Ignite Professional Studies program. I am new to judging debate, so I appreciate all of you in advance for providing me some grace and patience. I really like participants who have innovative points of view and are able to clearly and concisely articulate their thoughts. Forewarning -- I am slightly hard of hearing, so if you read this before your round, I appreciate you speaking a little louder so that I can hear your wonderful debates!

Hi, my name is Gracie Stephenson (pronounced ste-ven-sun). I am a current J.D. Candidate. In high school, I participated in Extemporaneous events within high school debate. Many people judge high school debate tournaments as a "real-world" experience as if you are in a courtroom or "on-call" for a law school course, but it is nothing like that and will never be close to "real-world" events. It's about learning how to control your anxiety and maintain a professional manner when under pressure and time constraints. We, judges, are ordinary people who have lives, careers, and families. I will not take points from students for little mistakes such as stuttering, using filler words, or stumbling over points. I will focus on a student's etiquette, professionalism, and sportsmanship. If you are convincing, you have sold me. It's all about who makes a better argument and can play a character. Have fun!

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.

/// IPDA / BQD / PF / Congress / Lay LD Paradigm ///

Background

My background is in policy. Due to this, I am biased towards technical argumentation. Regardless of format, I will take detailed notes on the specifics of your arguments and will weigh them alongside the rhetoric of the debate. I will adjust for formats as needed, and will weight rhetorical ability higher in formats where it is more important.

Below is my background for formats other than policy.

IPDA & BQD: I have zero background. I have never judged or debated these formats.

Congress: Extremely limited background. I will judge you almost exclusively on your rhetorical ability here.

PF: I am more experienced with PF, however, the format of PF means I will weigh rhetoric more heavily. I tend to take a tabula rasa approach to PF judging and try to put myself in the shoes of a standard 'member of the community'.

LD: I did a good bit of LD in high school. It has been awhile since I have judged LD, but, my policy paradigm is applicable here. I will weigh tech more heavily in these debates.

General Paradigm

Respect is paramount. Debaters should be cordial and sportsmanlike. Malicious and/or personal attacks against your opponents are unacceptable.

You're welcome to ask questions pre-round if you would like. It will not influence the debate.

I try to approach judging as tabula rasa as possible and withhold my own personal biases and beliefs when rendering a decision. I view the debate space as a testing ground for new ideas, and because of this, I think that unique viewpoints ought to be explored. That said, I believe that all arguments must be backed by a substantive and reasonable warrant, and all arguments ought to have a reasonable degree of truth value. The best debates I have seen are ones wherein the direct warrants of arguments are contested. The more clash the better.

The best piece of advice I can give if you are debating in front of me is to write my ballot for me. I want specific reasons as to why you win and your opponent loses. Contextualizing and framing are important. The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so.

My favorite rounds to judge are the ones where the teams are having fun. I like jokes, and I always appreciate when debaters seem to be having a good time.

/// Policy / Fast LD Paradigm ///

Note for Bentonville tournament: this portion of my paradigm is written in the context of flow/fast styles of debate. While the broad strokes of my judging ideology will hold true across formats, I will adapt to the format and stylistic choices you make in debates that don't follow the framework of fast debate. All that being said, if you are not planning on doing fast policy or fast LD debate in front of me, take this with a healthy grain of salt.

email: caleb.vering@gmail.com

The Run Down:

Pronouns are he/him/his, they/them are also fine. Y’all means all. I have zero tolerance for disrespecting anyone due to their identity, or any disrespect for that matter.

Speed is okay with me. I'm out of practice so I may clear you.

4 years of debate experience in high school and graduated in 2017 (Policy mostly, and a bit of LD). I debated on both the local Kansas and national circuit. Open to all forms of argumentation (traditional policy, soft left, K, planless, performance, etc.). I have stayed active in the community, judging a couple of tournaments each year.

I was an assistant coach for Shawnee Mission West in Kansas City in 2018-19. In HS I went for traditionally policy arguments, so my knowledge of the K is somewhat limited.

Questions? Ask pre-round or send me an email. Asking questions pre-round will not influence the outcome of the debate in any capacity. I'm more than happy to contextualize myself.

///

Top Level:

Pronouns are he/him/his, they/them are also fine. Y’all means all. I have zero tolerance for disrespecting anyone due to their identity, or any disrespect for that matter.

I graduated from Kansas State University in 2022 with a degree in education. However, I currently work in the finance industry as a financial planner.

Clarity over speed. I’ll clear you once, after that it’s docked speaks. Only exception is a room with bad acoustics, which happens sometimes.

Overviews are good and you should use them.

Tech over truth, but truth value of arguments does matter. All arguments need a substantive warrant, and sufficient credibility in the card backing up that warrant.

Cross-ex is important in establishing your credibility, and it is also binding.

You should disclose previously read arguments prior to the round, ideally on opencaselist.

Wanna win? Stop reading so many cards and start explaining and contextualizing them to the debate.

Have fun. Make jokes. Enjoying what you’re doing helps your credibility, ability to win, and your speaks.

I know cursing feels edgy and cool but unless it's important to your argument try to leave it out of the debate.

Playing your music out loud preround or during prep without the permission of your opponent is incredibly rude and distasteful and will dock your speaks. (this does not apply to performative aff wherein the music is a part of the argument).

Note on Rhetoric

In most good debates I see, a lot of my decision can come down to the rhetorical and persuasive ability of a team. I will do my best to stay as close to the flow as I can in my decision, but I cannot separate myself from the influence strong rhetoric from a debater can bring to the debate. I do think rhetoric in a fast debate is different from rhetoric in a normal speech. Things like cohesiveness between you and your partner, knowing your argument well, and strong cross-ex, are all examples of things that can push me one way or another in close debates.

Theory:

Not a huge fan of theory debates and I’m more apt to vote in the direction that the community generally sees theoretical aspects of debate (condo good, disclosure good). This doesn’t mean you can’t go for theory, but it isn’t your best source of offense when debating in front of me.

T:

I like T. I went for it a lot in high school. I default to competing interps but can be convinced of reasonability. I view T as offense. T should be two competing visions of the topic, and why one vision is preferable to another. T should have offense and defense just like any other argument. T is not a time suck, and RVI’s are bad.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition. It isn’t some weird alternative world that exists in between the aff and the neg. All the perm does is demonstrate why the aff and the neg can exist in the same world, and you should contextualize it as such.

Presumption:

I am comfortable voting neg on presumption. I think that the affirmative needs to prove that there should be a substantial departure from the status quo, and that their method of solvency will work. If nothing happens when I vote aff, I vote neg. I am comfortable voting aff on presumption. The negative needs to prove a substantial net benefit to their counterplan. If a world of the aff and a world of the neg look the same, I vote aff.

K:

K’s are cool and I like hearing them. Any K is fine, and I’m more versed on “core” K’s like cap, security, etc. In terms of more nuanced kritiks, i.e. setcol, afropess, etc. I am more than happy to listen to these, but, you need to be able to explain it to me in terms I can understand. I have some fundamental knowledge of philosophy and generally can understand the argument you make. But, if it is filled with buzzwords, you need to do some work catching me up. I expect you to understand and be able to explain the direct warrants of your K if you want to win.

Planless and Performance:

I am happy to pick you up on this kind of aff. However, I am also fully willing to vote for framework/T-USfg. I have only judged a few of these debates, and I very rarely encountered these arguments when I debated. I believe that any form of performance you bring into the debate must have a purpose.

Speaks

I'll do my best to try to keep up with the standard of the tournament, whatever that may be. However, my standard points scale:

30: Absolutely flawless. If I could personally hand you the top speaker trophy I would. Not only was your technical argumentation impeccable, but your rhetorical persuasion was also incredible as well.

29.9-29.5: Top 5 speaker at least. Missing a small piece from the puzzle listed above.

29.4-29: Top 10 speaker at least. Small problems emerging in both rhetoric and tech, but still very good.

28.9-28.3: Larger cracks emerging in either rhetoric or tech, usually a small problem with one and a larger with another

28.2-27.7: This is about average. I can see bigger problems in both rhetoric and tech, but you generally held together a cohesive debate and put up a good fight. While there were problems, if I'm noticing a commitment to improvements, such as making good analysis, deploying a smart argument or strategy, or having strong points in rhetoric you will fall here.

27.6-27.2: This is where you will fall if I see you making large and critical mistakes. Reading directly from blocks and a small bit of analysis. If I'm giving you speaks in this range, I will do my best job as an educator to try to explain how you can improve. This range does not mean failure: it means room for growth.

27.1-26.5: Falling into this range generally means obvious mistakes with no attempt to fix them, or just straight up giving up. I will still do my best to try to be an educator and teach you to improve, but this is generally if I see a lack of effort, i.e. reading directly from blocks and practically no analysis.

26.4-26: Smaller instances of disrespect or distastefulness will fall here, see above for what might qualify for this. This applies to both your partner and opponent. Things like talking over your partner in a disrespectful manner, or being rude during prep.

25.9-0: This would only occur in the instance of some heinous act of disrespectfulness, verbal abuse, racism, etc.

Hey Guys! My name is Sean Watkins and I'm a former Debater from Bentonville High School. Here's some things you can know about me: I've done debate for 3 years and have competed across the nation in both Congressional and Public Forum. I attended the 2023 National Speech & Debate Tournament in Congressional debate and have a growing love for the style but I dig the casual styles of debate as well.

Email: watkisean@gmail.com

Here's a brief summary of what I'm looking for in Debate rounds:

- Most importantly, stay respectful and make sure to stay engaged throughout the round. If you're disrespectful or creating disturbances within the round you'll most likely lose both speaker points and the round. Along with that, don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, or transphobic - if this happens I can promise you'll lose the round.

- Direct me through your speeches. Don't expect me to infer what you're trying to say or impact. Address everything and tell me why it matters. At the end of the round, I will most definitely be looking at who has the bigger and better impacts and that is what will win you the round. I do flow everything, however, don't expect me to rely on my flows the entire round; it is your job to convince me why you won the round.

- If something is said in cross that is important to the round, please please please point it out. Although I will most likely hear it, I do not flow cross and I expect you to bring up big points that were made in cross.

- If a card is called for, I expect that it already be cut and ready to be sent. Given the chance of technical difficulties, it shouldn't be taking 10 minutes to send a cut card. Come to round prepared, I don't want to see cards being cut in round.

Specific to Congressional:

Speeches should not just be read. Ideal is performed without reading except for statistics. Each speech should add to the conversation, not just rehashing. Perspective should be of a representative not a speech and debate participant. Try to give specific examples of people or events when possible. Stats should add credibility and value to the speech. Use the space you are provided, don't just stand in one place. Voice should be clear, audible and most importantly, confident. Questions should be direct and relevant. Approach to questions should be assertive but professional. Participation is key.

Specific to IPDA:

- Speaks: As IPDA is out of 40, it is basically impossible for me to score you below a 30. Unless you and rude and disruptive you will most likely always receive a 34+. I'll start each opponent off at 36 and go from there.

- I enjoy a serious yet still enjoyable debate. If you can make me enjoy being there and have fun the whole time I will be a much happier judge. Yes, serious and realistic debates should be the norm, however if you create a unique and enjoyable case, you will receive my extra respect and gratitude.

PLEASE - just have fun, enjoy the debate, and don't be upset if you lose. Loses are there for us to get better and leads us to victory in the future. I'll almost always give feedback and disclose in round if I can, as I like it being person to person rather than having opponents just read my RFD.

This will be my first time judging debate. I have reviewed all of the training materials and readings that the debate organizers have provided.

My background: I own a sales consulting company. My company's job is to assist our customers in developing a compelling case/reason regarding why their retail customer should buy their products. Our success is also dependent on our ability to successfuly counter concerns and objections and, present in a manner that is appealing, effective and efficient.

Fundamentally, and as a new judge, my evaluation will be primarily based on which team presents the argument that I believe is strongest and most effectively supports the assigned position.

Presentation of rationale in a logical, concise manner that stresses critical points and strategically seeks to anticipate and manage potential opponent responses are important.

I am less concerned with presentation skills and more with how effectively the participants use language to effectively make their points.

• I'm a volunteer and I've read the training information and watched some demo videos, but I'm new to judging. I'm looking forward to watching a kind, thoughtful, and respectful debate.