I like to flow every debate I watch to make sure the burden of rejoinder is clearly identifiable, but I will not flow a dropped argument without being told. You should be flowing as well. If it is not CX, then I don't want you to spread. I don't mind speaking fast but I want to really hear your arguments and have time for you to persuade me.

Kindness and tone go a long way. If you are belittling someone else it does not help to prove your point. There is a difference between being assertive and flat-out demeaning.

In Congress, I am not a fan of rehash - I want to hear rebuttals and debate, not a new speech that doesn't address what the aff and neg speakers have brought to the chamber. I think it is completely appropriate to respond in your speeches to arguments by referencing the name of the representative/senator as long as you are tasteful. It helps me keep up with the round.

How you treat your PO and your attitude towards them also go into judging you as a competitor. If you have problems, you have every right to call a point of order, but being snide and hostile makes you look weak.

In IPDA, the resolution is paramount. You must show, using the weighing mechanism, how your case and arguments outweigh your opponents. In questioning, please refrain from dismissing each other or being overtly aggressive. Remember I am flowing but you have to direct my attention and give me a road map.

I have not judged CX in ages. But many moons ago, I was a CXer and I can flow. I don't perceive that I will be judging CX at any point.

As for Forensics events go - I was also a Forensics kid and have been a Theatre Director, Dancer and Interper for over 29 years. I am looking for solid real performances where the intent is routed in thought. I do not like when emotion is faked or pushed. Please perform from a place of honesty. All movement should be motivated and character driven. Variety and the ability to demonstrate clear distinct characters is essential. In OO, Extemp or Info - These are Speech events. Sometimes performers add more interp friendly content into their performances. This is where I am quite stern. There is a fine line between performing and speaking, please remember I enjoy the fact that these are SPEECH events. You are actually speaking to the audience, not performing for us. Remember that.

John Block: block.john.b@gmail.com please add me to email chain, thanks

LRCH ’09

Missouri state State ‘12

Last Updated: March 2024

General:

I am currently completing my final year of pediatrics residency so I have been out of the judging game to some extent so be aware that acronyms/the latest K lit I may not be up to date with. That being said I assist LRCH and judge practice debates/listen to practices. I believe that my job is to be a reactionary presence in the room. I do have my own opinions which I’ll get to in a bit but I should be receptive to basically anything you are doing. Being nice goes a long way. Make my job easy. If you can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR I would be happy for you to do so. Even if statements are phenomenal, no one will win 100% of the arguments, recognize and embrace that.

Digital debate will be an adjustment to all. I have watched some debates but they were conducted over Zoom so I will be new to this software interface so please be patient if and when glitches arise.

You don’t need evidence for an argument, although it helps.

Specifics: T/Framework-I am not exclusively a policymaker. I’m just a person evaluating a discussion of ideas. That being said I went for Framework quite regularly in college and have voted on it multiple times. Be interactive with the other side, don’t just read blocks at each other. TVA’s are important and so are aff visions of the topic that are navigable to the negative team.

Theory: bad theory arguments are just that, bad. If you want to go for theory great but I am pretty easily swayed by reject the argument not the team. If you want to read consult/conditions style arguments I can get on board pretty easily. If you want to read multiple CPs without solvency advocates to simply skew the 2AC’s time I’m less on your side.

Case Debates-crucial to a good round. You can make my threshold to vote negative significantly lower if you have good case args, these don’t have to be supported by evidence but again it helps. Ev analysis has gotten somewhat lost in my opinion over the years. Read the text/read who this person is, discuss why one piece of evidence should be prioritized (does it assume the other team’s ev? Is it newer? Is it better analysis etc?)

DA’s-PTX is fun, elections is an exciting time to be reading it. Otherwise topic DA’s are great too. Don’t forget to have specific links to the aff and a good internal link. Similarly, don’t forget to identify flaws in the internal link chain or why your aff is different than what the link evidence assumes/why it would be perceived differently.

CP’s: having a solvency advocate is good but not necessary. I read a lot of hyperspecific CP’s in my day but also think a lot of it can become esoteric. If you have a great counterplan to read go for it, if you have a generic CP, go for it. Delay is questionable from a theory level but I’ll certainly listen to it.

K’s-Guide me through the K and what it means for the hypothetical world of the aff vs the hypothetical world of the alternative. Explain what specifically the aff does, specifically what the 1AC said or the assumptions that went into it. I may not be hip to the latest high theory K’s but I hear of some of them by proximity to debate even if I haven’t sat in the back of rounds in recent times.

K Affs: Most of what I wrote in the K area applies here. I think I am slightly K leaning as far as my threshold for voting on T or F/W so keep that in mind. What is the ballot and why does it matter for whatever the aff is. I am a bigger fan of embracing the K side of the aff and not as crazy about “soft-left” affs as I have been in the past.

CX-don’t just use it for prep. A good CX can end a debate round early on. This may be difficult with virtual debate and people just trying to talk over each other.

Cheating: If I suspect it I will report it. I will often read along and will likely do this even more because hearing specifics of spreading may be more difficult virtually.

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

LD--

I take a tabula rasa approach to judging —

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

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

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

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

TWO DIAMOND COACH:

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

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

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

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

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

My View on debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigms:

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

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

I am a new parent judge and have only judged at one debate/tournament.

I would encourage clear, but passionate speaking. Please make sure and use a speed you think a new judge can understand.Never assume I have knowledge of your specific topic. If you don't think a child would understand it, assume I may not as well.

Good luck to you all!

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

Lisa Haddock

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

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

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

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

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

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

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

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

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

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

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

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

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

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

Little Rock Central High School

Please include me on the email chain: Courtney.Hornsby@lrsd.org

I most frequently judge congressional debate and Lincoln Douglas.

For policy—I default to comparative advantage. Write my ballot for me. I flow thoroughly, and speed is fine, but I will let you know about clarity.

For LD: I can judge most styles; do what you do best but make sure you thoroughly explain your arguments. Blippy theory arguments, tricks, and frivolous arguments are things I’m not inclined to vote on. I prefer substance and rarely vote on things I don’t understand.. Speed is fine but clarity is more important. Above all, debate is a communicative activity so judge instruction is key.

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!

jubileesunshine@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

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

LD

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

Policy/prog LD

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

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

Email me any questions.

barnard/columbia '25

ualr '24

add me to the email chain lailameredith2@gmail.com

I have done a little bit of everything in debate, with a focus on LD.

Do what you're good at. Whatever you can explain the best is what you should use in-round. If you cannot explain a concept then I will act as if it was never spoken.

idk how judges can say they value education but don't like K's. Side eye. Criminally offensive side eye.

Truth > tech. If several of your opponents’ args rely on a fallacy, group them and explain the error in logic. If you solely focus on tech, then you miss the point of education imo

Learning is good. Debate is a great space to encounter arguments from a literature base that you're unfamiliar with.

Feel free to address biases. If an argument is problematic because it rests on an assumption that is upheld by systemic oppression, then call it out. These biases shape debate and academia impact judging. If your argument forces a judge to reconsider their relationship to the space, it is not inherently a negative thing.

Trigger warnings on discussions of transphobia, homophobia, suicide, self-harm, and sexual assault. Automatic L if you don't preface with a TW.

K is a slay. Theory is ok if it makes sense. I'm big on education in the sense that the discourse from this round will have spillover in your academic pursuits inside and outside of the debate space.

I have mixed feelings about setcol. By mixed feelings I mean I am an afroindigenous femme and a lot of args are anti indigenous and/or antiblack. Take that however you want.

That being said, each round should be unique. Be specific to your opponent, Make your rebuttals tailored to the round. You and I will both have more fun that way.

I honestly think that many ppl use T to not engage in analytical debates. If you run T, you must prove that if anyone, including your opponent, were in your shoes, they could not reasonably debate the aff.

Spreading is fine. Not quite sure of the vitriol against speed when it is often done on the NSDA circuit. Especially since the demographics of the school that spreads the most is quite different than others….

-1 speaker point for (mis)use of aave if you're not black.

jackson.n.mills@gmail.com

Little Rock Central '24

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

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

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

Misc. Things:

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

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

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

--please call me jackson, not judge

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

dont be racist

i'm okay with Ks don't complain or i'll fight you

I judge majorly based on the flow. This means that I primarily look at argumentation and refutation. Are your arguments well supported, is there a clear warrant and impacts, do your refutations directly apply to and negate your opponents points, did you drop any points, etc.? In order to ensure a good flow, so that I can better judge the round, competitors should not spread and should use signposts during speeches. I do not tolerate ad hominem fallacies (personal attacks to the opponent) within debate rounds. Debate should remain respectful to all parties involved, this includes groups of people being debated about or mentioned within the debate, not just the competitors and judges.

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.

Yes, email chain: qmwallace89@gmail.com

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

truth

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

Speed

Speed is fine, but clarity is king.

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