I'm a career coach who has coached/judged WSD at nationals for several years now. I try to judge the debate on what was said. I am looking for a theme or team line. I appreciate it when debaters simplify the debate in rebuttal speeches. I expect emotional appeals designed to make me feel something in and amongst all the arguments presented. I also find the team line useful because it helps anchor the story that unfolds in the debate. World schools is a conversation. It's about turn-taking, respect, composure, and a limited amount of arguments...In other words, the best 'conversationalists' should accrue enough points for their team to win. I enjoy the format of WSD and I appreciate how it is different than other styles of debate. Most debates are close at nationals; just don't let the line-by-line overwhelm the pressing need for you to make me feel something. I'm a former policy debater...so i'll get the arguments on the flow. I just think that the 'face' we create in addition to our standard offense/defense is super important in WSD because it really humanizes the debate for me and helps me see and feel things that I might not see or feel in other forms of debate.

Pronouns: HE/HIM

if you want to address me call me judge or Robert I'm cool with either

STAN LESSERAFIM

I have been doing policy debate and extemp as well as congress for 3 years I am a very chill judge and there is not much you can do to make me mad or upset you can see how I feel about certain arguments under this

speed: go as fast as you want if I have the doc so send it to me BUT DO NOT SPREAD ON ANALYTICS OR EXTENSIONS

I will not extend anything for you so if you don't extend your case and the neg says this I will vote neg if it doesn't get extended and that gets called out so flow well so you can catch drops

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

da's: I want disads to have good links. I'm cool if it is generic but I will be more lenient to the aff on delinking from the argument. explain the link story really well and internal link as well. I want a lot of impact calc from the aff and neg and impact calc is something I use heavily when deciding which impact to go for. I don't have a preferred impact. I can be persuaded on any impact

cp's: I want them to have a very clear net benefit. I am open to the aff reading cp abusive if they want but will have a very high threshold on abuse

Topicality: If you run this as a time suck I honestly don't care but if you do I will hold you to a higher threshold on abuse I want abuse to be proved in round and I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously, the most important thing in these debates is the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization, but that is your time, not mine. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the Kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine but you need to give me a good explanation on how my voting aff does anything without an alt.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

disclosure: if you are a massive school with tons and tons of backfiles (you know who you are) I won't even evaluate it but if not then I err on the side of the aff and hold a uber high threshold of abuse

Speaks: I know what it is like to go 3-1 and then not break because the judge gave you 25 speaks so I won't the lowest I will go is 27 normally but I will go to the lowest I can if you say anything RACIST HOMOPHOBIC TRANSPHOIBIC XENOPHOBIC SEXIST (don't be an incel) OR IF YOU ARE JUST GROSSLY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(treat them like humans)

LD: im getting better at trad ld but If I was you I wouldn't

Please add me to the email chain: baxteremily22@gmail.com

I'm familiar with policy and critical arguments, so run whatever you're comfortable with. I will vote on anything, so I'd be best considered a tab judge if you're doing the work and telling me why they matter.

Tech>Truth. I'll only vote on the dropped argument if you explain to me why the drop is significant.

Depth>Breadth. Self-explanatory - if you are running more than 6 off, there probably isn't much warranting going on. Evidence quality is also important, and comparing evidence is super useful in making decisions, but I won't do the work for you.

Affirmatives.I'll listen to anything, just be able to explain later on in T and FW debates why your method of education is best for debate. I'll listen to performance affs, too.

Counterplans/Disads. I'll easily vote on them. If AFF has impact framing and you don't, I will likely vote aff. I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the cases.

Kritiks. Just reading all of the blocks you've written for your K won't help you win the round. Do engage with the other team's arguments and actually contextualize your link to whatever they've read. Generic links can make it really easy for me to vote aff. I love specific links to the aff, and will heavily vote on them. I know some lit but don't assume I know what your kritik is about. Please explain and paint a story for me. That said, I expect there to be framework, a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making.

Theory/Topicality.I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. I will listen to Topicality arguments, and think when theyre are done right, I will vote on them. Please impact out your standards and voters! I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory/topicality, that tells me that it's a time suck, and I will not vote on it. That said, I will NOT vote on certain theory args, like disclosure, spreading, etc. I don't believe there is substantial debate here.

Speaks. Just don't be rude. If you say something offensive/homophobic/racist/etc, that will not be tolerated, and that will be reflected in your speaker points and your ballot. I'm completely fine with speed just put me on the email chain and signpost.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

Please speak at conversational speed and prove your values with facts that back up your points.

abell09@yahoo.com - For documents you may want me to review.

Plano West ‘26 | ryandebate7@gmail.com

He/Him

I am a parent judge. I have never done debate and am new to judging. I judge LD and PF. I am completely new to both events. Please adapt to be more lay and extend everything. If an argument is too unclear, I default to voting off whoever makes the more clear response or extension. Please do not run any sort of progressive debate- K’s, Phil, Tricks, Theory, and any other form of prog debate will not be considered as I don’t understand it. Don’t spread either. If you are aggressive in round I will dock speaks. Abuse such as racism, hate speech, homophobia, and sexism will be an instant drop and 25 speaks. Have fun in round!

I am a new judge, No spreading, and Don't be rude.

Disclosure:
Disclosure is important, so don't forget to send your cases to aliyanarah@gmail.com

About Me:
I'm currently in my fourth year of debating at the University of North Texas in NFA-LD and serve as one of the team presidents. Before college, I participated in modern oratory and have always loved speech and debate. I am more of a critical debater so do not shy away from any type of debate you have. These rounds are your stage, I love to see whatever you bring to the table. I’ve also worked at the Mean Green Debate Camp, where I enjoyed assisting in the LD pool. I’m excited to see what everyone brings to the table!

LD:
Given the extended prep time in LD, I expect well-organized cases and polished presentations. While I support disclosure, I don’t consider it critical enough to determine the outcome of a round. For affirmative cases, know your material inside out, or at least present it confidently. Treat your case like it’s your creation—be passionate and thorough. I appreciate plans and relevance to the resolution, but if you go beyond it, just give me a heads-up. I won’t flow new evidence introduced in the 2AR, so it won’t factor into my decision. On the negative side, I welcome counter-plans, kritiks, and disadvantages. Kritiks add depth to the round, but they must be executed cleanly. Even if the affirmative case was disclosed, I expect you to stay attentive and flow throughout the debate.

PF:
Public forum aims to educate and persuade your audience. Approach each debate as if the judge has no prior knowledge of the topic—inform and explain thoroughly. Clarity and communication are key; nothing should be assumed or left vague. It’s up to you to control how the judge and audience perceive the arguments.

CX:
In Policy debate, I have expectations similar to LD, but with more flexibility given the complexity and length of the rounds. I expect cases to be organized and clear, and I’m fine with speed (spreading), as long as it’s clear and understandable. Plans, counter-plans, kritiks, and disadvantages are all welcome, but be thorough in explaining your positions and impacts. I appreciate creativity and strategic depth, but the debate must stay grounded in logical argumentation. New arguments in the 2NR or 2AR won't be flowed. While disclosure is important, it's not a round-winner, but it helps keep the debate clean and fair.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. At heart, I am an old-school purist. Because I judge all categories, I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. I believe each form of debate helps the student build particular skills that are part of the design of each category.

I believe there is great benefit in learning to weigh a subject through a value based moral criterion, as in Lincoln Douglas debate. The greatest orators throughout history have changed the world by appealing to the nobility within each of us, and offering us the WHY. A great stock issues orator, as in classic policy debate, spells out the WHAT clearly. Powerful debate presents relevant and useful information to educate and enlighten. I believe vivid story telling are two of the most powerful tools in any speakers tool box and can take any speech to the next level. The greatest leaders were either great storytellers, or great stories were told about them. Vivid descriptive language will elevate any speech. ( This is especially true when addressing any form of human suffering. When you are creating a call to action,(a vote) to must make the subject come alive for your audience. Referring to suffering is as engaging as the evening news, but even the evening news will grab your attention if they are talking about your school, your town, your friend. The more personal it feels to your audience, the more persuasive and more impactful a speech. People forget facts and figures, unless they are vivid, but they don't forget how you made them feel. We remember people like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Amelia Earhart because they said and did things that made us believe that the world could be a better place and that there were things worth laying down one's life for.

Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge both the style and the content they have prepared and give feedback accordingly. I will say, if you run a K, you need a really good reason. Part of the educational process is to be able to do what is asked. There are times when challenging an idea is very valuable, it is where progress is birthed, but I will weigh ideas through probability, legitimacy of source, and a real world analysis. I am not a fan of an idea thrown out merely to trip up an opponent if there is no real weight behind it.

It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy and the latest therapies for cognitive stimulation, pain reduction and life enhancement. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide. The communications programs have helped over 100,000 people create projects and non-profit organizations making a profound difference in the world. I have a background in youth, family, and educational ministries and have served on the board of several non-profit organizations. Communication skills were the foundation of all of these endeavors.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

Hi, my name is Holly Garrison (They/Them) and I'll be your judge.

I have done debate for long enough to understand how most of this stuff works. I'm a senior at Colleyville Heritage.

You don't have to but if you do make an email chain add me at Hollydebate22@gmail.com

PF

• Tech over truth(If you make an argument back it up)
• I'm okay with progressive arguments
• Please don't spread My therapist said it was bad for me
• No bigotry, please
• It's PF so please don't run a K, there isn't enough time in a round to do the discussion justice so you are just reading it for a win
• When it comes to weighing my value, unless otherwise disproven, is utilitarianism(most good for most people)
• I don't flow crosses but I do pay attention
• #abolishgrandcross

LD

Short and Simple

• I will value any argument so long as it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything bigoted.
• DO NOT spread. Even if you have a speech doc if you are not coherent I will not flow your argument.
• I'm very tech so if you are going to present an argument please provide some sort of evidence(either analytic or sourced)
• I prefer if teams disclose without it being a big deal but feel free to not disclose as long as you are speaking clearly
• I have experience with a lot of the theory arguments but if you are unsure if you should run something then show up early and ask me

Long and Complicated

Framework- I will value any framework. I do believe when submitting a framework you should have some definitions of your value and your criterion that way there can be an actual framework debate. I do like a good framework debate but I believe that they should have substance more than "framework is better." That said, I will still flow all framework debates. I also do not need a philosophy with your framework but if you have one more power to you.

Disclosure- I would prefer if everyone discloses sometime before your speech. I'm open to any form of disclosure(Speechdrop, Email chain, the new Tabroom speech drop, case list) so long as I get the speech doc. I also don't believe in this new contact disclosure theory so please don't run that.

Spreading and Speed-I'm fine with spreading and can handle a decent amount of speed. If you are going to go 80+ words per minute please send a speech doc and be clear in your delivery. If you are just mumbling to try and get out all 6 of your contentions then I will shout "clear" that way I can understand you.

Topicality -I need either limits or grounds to flow them and I need appropriate voters to properly value them. Do not just stand up and call your opponent abusive and tell me to strike them. Tell me why your opponent's argument shouldn't be valued or I will still keep it on my flow.

Theory- Like topicality, I typically need some grounds and you CANNOT just stand up and call your opponent abusive. Theory(when done well) will be valued first before impacts so please if you are reading some sort of theory or theory shell please just do it well.

Kritiks- I've read some of the literature(Edelman, Puar, Marx, Engles, Fisher) but I've never loved K debates. If you want to read a K I do have high expectations because you are purposefully changing the round away from the resolution so I need this to be a well-thought-out argument if you are planning on running some like a K.

DA's- For the Disadvantage to win it needs to either Turn, Outweigh, or Solve the case. And I am not going to be doing the work for you on this one. Tell me why you are winning and show me where you are winning.

Counter Plans- I will always love counter plans. I think, when done well, they are really strong. Just make sure that if your opponent doesn't provide their own plan text your counter plan is against the whole resolution.

Perms- I understand perms and I think they are strong counters to counter plans but I need proper answers to the counter plan and not just "perm do both"

Plan/No plan aff- I do not require a plan on the aff and I'm ok with any type of affs so long as they're clear and understandable. So long as the argument isn't bigoted I'll flow it.

Tricks/Spikes/Small Abusive stuff-Please don't. If you do decide to run these arguments just try to keep them fair.

I prefer if everyone keeps their own time. I will have a stopwatch going to keep your time but the round will go a lot smoother if you keep your own time. I will allow a grace period of about 10 seconds before I just stop flowing and I will cut you off after about 25 seconds over.

Also, try to pay attention during the round but if you need to check your phone or type something just don't be disruptive

If you have any questions before or after the round please email me at Hollydebate22@gmail.com

Let's have a good round y'all

I am a speech kid. I don't know too much about debate. I don't do well with speed, so try to speak slowly so that I understand your arguments. Please don't run Kritiks or Theory because I do not know how to evaluate it. Extend your arguments in all speeches or I will consider them dropped. I will ask to clear if I can't understand. If you don't fix it after three times I will drop argument. Send all docs through email or SpeechDrop. NOVICES ONLY

email for email chain:

ghumman_anup@lovejoyisd.com

Background

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

Include me on all email chains at cgdebate1906@gmail.com. If it’s a policy round then ALSO includelrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,If it’s an LD round then ALSO include lrc.lddocs@gmail.com please and thank you

Randoms

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

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

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

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

Judge Commitments

I’m SO sick and tired of circuit-level teams/competitors providing NON-circuit/lay judges to cover their commitment. Debaters spend a LOT of time crafting/drafting arguments and deserve to come to tournaments and have judges who will work equally as hard, when it comes to evaluating debates. If I am judging you and your school did/does NOT provide quality judging then expect me to be more arbitrary in judging debates than I would normally; if you are unwilling to provide others with a quality judge experience then I have no qualms giving bad, arbitrary, or other non-flow based decisions. IF you want me to provide you with a quality judging experience then you should populate the pool with similar-minded people. If you are unsure of what constitutes non-quality judging then see the non-comprehensive list below:

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

We as a community understand that some people cannot hire out judges and maybe only their parent is available but the lack of training that they give to those parents/certain questionable ways that they teach them to judge are still not good. In short, if you want me to be the best version of myself then provide other judges who are willing to work equally as hard.

Update for Online Debate

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

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

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

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

Short Version

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

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

T-USfg

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

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

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

Parting Thoughts

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

I am a former LD debater returning to judge for the first time in over 10 years in Fall 2023.

My strong preference is to hear you debate the resolution at hand. Therefore I will only consider traditional arguments.

I also strongly prefer quality of arguments over quantity, consider that before you spread.

To send documents my email is aimee.henderson@gmail.com

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Currently the Coach at Jasper | Consulted with Hebron & Southlake & TAMS in the past | Worked at Dartmouth & Harvard Debate Camps

Debate should be a fun and educational experience. Abuse of any kind will not be tolerated. Remember, judging starts the moment you walk into the room. Conduct matters.

Congressional Debate

• Content and quality matter, engage with previous speeches and further arguments.
• Direct, sharp questioning is key, dodging or grandstanding weakens your credibility.
• When you speak matters, even if recency or precedence isn’t on your side, learn how to adapt your speech and respond effectively to arguments.
• Don’t pre-crystallize.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

• I evaluate the framework you give me.
• Weighing is important, show me why you win.
• I evaluate real theory abuse, but don’t run frivolous shells, if you do, make sure it’s airtight and something you actually understand.
• No tricks. Debate should be about substance, not gimmicks.
• If your arguments aren’t clear and well-structured, you’re making my job harder. Help me help you by making it easy to evaluate the round.
• Speed is fine. Be clear. I will not ask twice and I will stop flowing.

Public Forum (PF)

• If I have to piece together your arguments, you are making my job harder. Be clear and organized.
• I do not like K’s. Keep the debate grounded in the topic.
• Speed is fine. Be clear. I will not ask twice and I will stop flowing.
• Weighing and voters are key, show me how you won.

Speech Events

• Performance should be engaging, well-structured, and clear.
• Confidence, clarity, and connection with the audience elevate your speech.
• I value strong delivery just as much as well-developed content.

Make the round an educational and enjoyable experience. Let’s have a great round!

If your career trajectory is influenced by debate, you will find yourself having to persuade

A) experts who will rip you to pieces on technicalities, and
B) generalists who require orientation and clear signposting.

Group A is rare outside the sciences or the legal profession, and even there they tend to stand out as unusual.

Group B is far more common. They proliferate in business and management. Odds are good you'll be working for someone of this type in the future. They require introductions, context, clarity, and concision when being pitched or persuaded.

Lucky you, you've drawn someone from Group B.

First time volunteer judge.

Take a beat, relax, and prepare to convince me that you are right.

We are not at an auction. Audible gasps between paragraphs are a good sign that you're going too fast. I appreciate that you've got a lot of points to put on the table, but I will not be receptive to spreading.

Find your strongest arguments and clash on those. Treat them with care, not like chaff. If you make an assertion I expect you to defend it in each speech. I will be flowing, as much as you allow (you're dealing with a layman here). Did I mention no spreading? If I can't follow I'll say "clear" and hold up a hand, and continue to do so until the pace becomes manageable. Keep in mind, while that hand is up I won't be typing, so the points you're making won't be evaluated. If after the second verbal cue the speed is still excessive, speaker points will start dropping and you are likely to lose the round.

Be respectful of your opponents. Treat them like they're your ride home. You may be colleagues one day, and you are already creating your professional reputation.

Clarification questions in CX are to clarify. They are not opportunities to browbeat your opponent into a yes or no answer. Tricking someone into saying something won't fly here. I'll be evaluating the positions as they are presented with clarifications as necessary. No points for verbal bullying.

Be respectful of the process. Demonstrate that you have come prepared to pitch, present, persuade. Know your arguments inside and out. If you're not convinced of them, no one else will be either.

Be flexible with the process. Deploy Kritiks or Theory at your own risk. I'll err on the side of Truth over Technique when in doubt. Tricks are to be avoided.

Be clear with your arguments. Lay out a roadmap, call out the signposts, and remind me what to weigh when voting on the outcome. Clarity will be rewarded when points are doled out.

Email your case to LD@siyote.net, and if possible send a recording of your speeches at the end of the round.

Avoid being offensive in your delivery, your content, and your arguments. I do not take exception readily, but I am hypervigilant when it comes to shielding others from discrimination.

As far as Speaker Points go, you're going to have to really work at it to get higher than a 29.4 or lower than a 26.9 - but you can, and if you do it'll probably be obvious to the entire room that it was earned. I'm not here to screw up your scores. I'm here to adjudicate a memorable contest. Relax, and have fun with this.

I am a new parent judge.

Hi, I'm Aashik Khakoo, I'm a traditional judge but have had 30+ years public speaking experience.

I'd prefer to be on the email chain, but please do not spread.

Please speak like you are giving a Ted Talk

Also for 1AC in LD, I prefer you read only part of the cards highlighting bullet points of your cards, which will leave you time to create an analytical section to help persuade me rather than just reading your cards, which is what’s happened in the past. I’m happy to clarify this if needed before, starting the debate.

I prefer analytical debates over card dumping, and please line by line your opponents case.

Please send documents ahead of time - my email address is akhakoo2@gmail.com

Keep Cross efficient, and give short answers to all as many questions as possible.

I see debate as a performance, and prefer truth > tech

Please create clash in the round don't just extend your arguments

I will not tolerate speaking over each other, or any racist, sexist, homophobic etc, arguments

Aashik

Email: sethlee2024@gmail.com

Greenhill '24

Penn '28

Taught at VBI LA. Made elims at the TOC 2x.

Hi. Bring your best and have fun! That's all I can ask for. I like when debaters make the debate interesting with smart arguments, but what you read is UP TO YOU.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. Argument quality > Argument quantity. Don't get me wrong, I will evaluate the debate if you read 7+ OFF. But, I find that many 2NRs spam 10+ cards hoping I'll put the pieces together and give you "new" arguments. Usually when this happens, the 2NR lacks judge instruction and analytical evidence comparison. If this happens, I'll be sympathetic to new 2AR arguments.

2. Impact Comparison is your friend. Collapsing, weighing your arguments vs their arguments, and giving clear judge instruction will WIN you rounds.

3. Clarity first. Speed second. Especially for ONLINE TOURNAMENTS. The number of arguments I understand > incoherent mumbling.

4. Tech > Truth. There's NO LIMIT to the content you read except that every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Some arguments are inherently easier to answer than others, of course, but I will still evaluate arguments that would be generally considered "tricks" or "fake science".

5. The only situation in which I will intervene is when forced to by the tabroom or directly against hard rules, like speech times. Everything else will be evaluated by the flow, so be technical.

6. Don't over-adapt to me. Just give JUDGE INSTRUCTION and WEIGHING. I primarily went for policy, K, and topicality, BUT that should bear little influence on my decision if you've done sufficient judge instruction.

7. Be Nice. If you're clearly better than your opponent, please make the debate simple so we can make the round more educational.

8. I really like a good in-depth policy vs policy debate with substantive disads and case arguments. I guess we all have dreams.

Also being funny is always a plus.

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2027 J.D. Candidate

2021-June 2023: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.

Framework:

I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.

T:

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.

Theory:

I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.

Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes-on-end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Questions, comments, concerns, thoughts, musings, opinions...?

Add me to your email chain - colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.comOR add me on your speech drop.

My name is William Mathison. I'm the coach at Colleyville Heritage High School. It's my second year coaching at Colleyville. I have no debate experience as a competitor. Because of this fact; the less jargon you use, the better. I understand the basics but don't be surprised if I ask you what ____ means because I am still getting used to the debate jargon. Point is, just because I don't understand it right away doesn't mean it's bad. I try to be open minded, even if I don't understand the wording of something right away,

If you spread make sure to add me to your SpeechDrop or email chain. I can flow the 1AC or 1NC off of the doc but if I can't understand you during any rebuttal speech and don't slow down at 'Clear', you'll definitely lose speaker points and there's a good chance I'll miss it on my flow.

I'm the most familiar with PF and LD since that's what I've judged the most of. I've judged IE's before as well.

Preferences for LD (in this order)

FW Debates -I do enjoy a good FW debate. At the very least you need to weigh yours against your opponent's, but if you want my vote oftentimes you'll need to tell me why yours is to be preferred or it's a prereq, etc.

CP/DA/Advantages - I'll definitely evaluate these as long as there's some strategic net benefit to the CP.

T, Theory - If you can explain it for a middle schooler, then I'll be just fine. Otherwise, there's a chance I will not evaluate it either from a lack of understanding or because it's abusive.

Non-T Affs - It's my opinion that the resolution is as stated for good reason and there's a lot of benefits to gain from remaining topical, such as the educational value of the topic. If you decide to run a non-topical affirmative, I believe it does need to have some semblance of relevancy to the topic. That might seem like a backwards way of thinking but I think there's more value to gain from having some sort of link to the topic. This does not mean I'm going to vote them down immediately, it just means I'm less likely to vote on them if I don't see any shred of relevancy.

Kritiks -This is pref'd lower simply because I have not read the literature on the most common K's and don't feel entirely comfortable evaluating these. I'm open to hearing the argument but if I have to vote on it that could be tricky for both of us. I certainly doubt my ability to provide feedback on them as well. Definitely simplify K FW. Point is; if you’re wanting to run a K, I’m likely the wrong person to pref or ask for in depth feedback.

Friv Theory, Spikes, Tricks - I simply have not heard enough of these, I don't understand them well enough, and have not been apart of enough discussions to feel confident enough to vote on these, so run them at your own risk. I try to be open minded in general, but if I simply don't understand something I don't feel as though I can vote for it. Don't be afraid to ask me about something specific, but also don't be totally shocked if you run these and lose. I will not vote on Eval.

Speaker Points for LD and PF

30: Perfection

29-29.9: Great with a couple notes

28-28.9: Good but needs some work

27-27.9: Needs significant work

26.9 or less: offensive comments or other in-round abuse took place

Hey! So Excited to hear what you have to say.

I think anyone who tackles debate is a winner but alas I have to decide on a single winner today.

Do your best, Speak clearly and NOOOO spreading!

Please add me to the email chain smmilam@outlook.com

Sonja

Hi, I'm Ayne. I'm a senior who debates for Greenhill.

Email chain: parka24@greenhill.org or speech drop.

TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR, give me one argument to vote for and tell me WHY, please be clear!

Slow down for analytics especially if you don't send them!!!

I'm not the most comfortable evaluating theory or Ks but I will if I have to - read at your own discretion. Don't be mean.

Bye :) see u in round

[ plano west '26 | angelribo7@protonmail.com ]

please add greenhillld.docs@gmail.com , lcanderson.cx@gmail.com , thurealgamers37@gmail.com , baudrillard@googlegroups.com , loyoladebate47@gmail.com , harrison.debate.team@gmail.com , ernan.haruvy@mcgill.ca , ajasanideb8@gmail.com to the email chain.

mostly influenced by holden bukowsky, ryan chang, navid, dave huston, and aryan jasani. i disagree with skanda gopikannan.

"I am currently a student at Plano West Senior High" ~ [stolen from rania azizah]

read whatever you want - if in doubt, ask. best for larp, k, theory, and common phil. if you can eli5 i can judge whatever ac/nc you want me to, but i am least comfortable with really dense affs. 95% of NCs are okay.

i do enjoy aprioris, 2nrs on a skep warrant triggering permissibility, and good ncs if you're actually clashing on some level. lowkey though i don't know how skep can be offense without truth testing. please use moral uncertainty. i think there is a lot of stigma around tricks. eval after 1nc is a stupid argument; indexicals is just a clever way to make another win condition for yourself.

i flow by ear and will check docs as needed post-round so tell me if I need to flag anything. slow down for interps, spikes (especially 'hidden' ones), and advocacy texts. i will evaluate the debate after the 2ar.

i am very sympathetic to 1ars victim to 1nc trickery.

speaks boosts for really good case debating, clever wipeout scenarios, semantics-based T 2nrs, and good execution of psychoanalysis that isn't just 'agential fantasy fiat is bad oh no.' otherwise, they are mine and only i choose what to do with them.

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

LD Philosophy

I consider myself traditional.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being.

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

If you run theory in front of me, you are wasting your time. I will not vote on theory.

I do not disclose at the end of a round so no need to ask.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

I am a parent judge. Please be clear and show passion/energy (as applicable) in your presentation. Good luck!

armadaverae@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch but I'll say clear three times before I stop flowing. I haven't judged for a few month so I would not suggest intense spreading.

Please make sure Ks are clear- especially links, alts, and ROB. I'm not the best judge for performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse and spec DTD/DTA.

Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. I won't evaluate arguments without extensions.

Have your cases ready!!

If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)

I am a parent judge with little judging and debate experience.

Please no spreading. Talk at a normal speed and speak CLEARLY

As a parent judge with 20 years of cancer research experience and an extensive career as a biology professor teaching undergrads Cell Biology at the University of Notre Dame, my perspective on high school debate is shaped by my background in presenting and evaluating complex but evidence-based arguments. While I've never directly participated in high school debates, my academic journey has honed my appreciation for the art of debate and its significance in cultivating clear thought processes and logical reasoning.

Here's what I am seeking in your debate:
A thoughtful approach: Construct your arguments like a well-crafted story. Each point should flow logically and sequentially, building a convincing narrative. I prefer a deliberate and logical presentation, with layers of evidence that create a compelling case.
An emphasis on logical reasoning: The journey through your argument is as important as the conclusion itself. I value debaters who can articulate their thoughts with precision and clarity of logic. "Less is more" captures my philosophy; your ability to convey complex ideas succinctly will earn my points.
A well-organized presentation: A coherent structure is crucial. Ensure your arguments are presented in a manner that allows for an uninterrupted flow, enhancing both your delivery and the overall impact.

Debate, to me, is anart form of persuasion. It's not about being right or wrong, rather it's about crafting compelling narratives that move and persuade your audience. I particularly dislike the style that I find detrimental to the essence of debate - so-called "spreading". When speaking at a pace that is impossible to follow, you destroy the beauty of debate as a language art form. You persuade nobody if the audience cannot understand you (don't give me the docs)! It is my strong intention to discourage such practices and instead reward those who uphold the values of clarity, logic, and eloquence.

A strong argument is rooted in logically-connected evidence, rather than a forcefully loud augment. I look for speeches with conviction backed by facts and data closely relevant to your argument. Don't just simply drop your "cards" on any topic. Think and choose your "cards" carefully! It is the closely relevant pieces of evidence that fortifies your position, not the number of cards. I will not be swayed by volume or aggression. In my view, the most persuasive arguments come from a place of calmness, where passion can be felt through measured delivery.