hi!

I am a parent judge so please do not do anything that you wouldn’t do for a parent judge, and I have a few rules of thumb.

1. Please do not speak too fast and make sure you are clear while you speak.
2. I listen to everything during the round, and I will judge based off whose argument is more convincing.
3. Please be respectful and kind to both me and your opponent's.
4. Please have fun and try your best and good luck to both of you guys!

Please email (or if you'd rather, ask your coach to)pattridg@asu.eduif you have any questions.

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY:

I am a college & high school speech coach with eight years' competition experience and thirteen years' coaching/judging experience. In that time, I have witnessed (both from a distance and firsthand) that debate historically upholds patriarchy, white supremacy, xenophobia, transphobia, and many, many more negative systemic forces that Executive Orders would rather we didn't talk about. Making sure that rounds do not reify those forces requires active effort. Please put in that effort.

I am not a tabula rasa judge. To be so at this point, per the above, would be tantamount to complicity. If you say something that is factually wrong, and I know that it is factually wrong, I am much less likely to pick up that argument, regardless of what happens on the flow. In fact, nobody is 100% able to discard their positionality and socialization at the door. This is a learning space, and part of the way that we unlearn toxic patterns of behavior is through ballot commentary and RFDs. Repeated invocation of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or transphobic discourse will impact your speaker points, ballot comments, and, if egregious enough, win/loss record.

Regarding cards: if you aren't going to flash cases, please slow down when you read author names. I need to be able to get these down accurately to follow the debate, as do your opponents. I've seen some really unethical card cutting this season, and I don't think it's been intentional. Please be careful that the way that you cut does not change the meaning of the card. Finally, any card from the Heritage Foundation is not an unbiased source--they are the architects behind Project 2025--so use at your own risk. And if you launder a Heritage Foundation source by citing it differently, I will drop you--what does it say about your belief in the source if you had to convince me it wasn't produced by the architects behind Project 2025?

Please feel free to ask for any accommodations you need or like. Stand, sit, whatever lets you debate with maximum proficiency. Regarding speed, I reserve the right to say "clear" if I'm having trouble following, and will extend that right to both teams as well. Do not abuse that right. Keep in mind that flashing cases solves a lot of these issues.

LD/PARLI/POLICY:

Speed is fine, love Ks, cool with Theory but actually tell me if you want me to vote on it. See above for "clear". I highly recommend explicitly stating how arguments link back to framework.

IPDA:

I'm fine with any kind of argumentation in this event, but make sure your opponent is too. This is the kind of question to ask before prep starts, not after.

PF:

Don't flow through ink. Don't strawman your opponent's evidence or flow coverage (saying "they didn't address Contention 2 subpoint A" when they in fact did. You can tell me why they didn't address it in ways that mattered, and go in depth here, but don't conflate that with "they didn't address it"). The first time it happens, I will give you some leeway. The second time it happens, it will impact your speaker points. The third time it happens, you will be dropped. Clarity and clear links are valued. Theory here should be try-or-die if you're running it, and if you're running it against a K that has specific implications for how the debate space reifies the substance of the K, you need to argue for your shell in a way that doesn't buy into the K unless you're also going to tell me why the K itself is wrong/doesn't apply to the debate space.

CONGRESS:

It's never too early for clash. Please start addressing the opposition's arguments as early as speech two. It really helps ensure that clash continues throughout debate.

Hello! This is my first-year judging debate events. Please adapt to me as a newer judge, at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say and take notes. Please speak slowly and explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains - things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me. If you see me lift up my pen or not write anything for a while, it means you are going too fast for me. Slow down and speak at an understandable pace. I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone - don't yell - and be as persuasive as you can.

I consider myself alayjudge, but I will attempt to flow during the round. Here are a few of my preferences to keep in mind:

• Please be clear and concise. You should be explaining your arguments (and context) in-depth. Give me a clear link that I can follow. As always, I need to hear good warranting in case AND hear it be extended.

• Please no spreading.If I don’t understand an argument, I’m not voting for it.

• Organization matters, please signpost.

• Do comparative weighing. Give me something tangible to vote for. Tell me what is most important, and why I should be valuing this over everything else.

• Finally, the best debate rounds are inclusive and respectful. Be a good, kind person. You can be skilled and assertive without being rude.

• Add me to the email chain, dmdawson413@gmail.com

Best of luck everyone!

4th-year coach in AZ circuit (Congress, PF)

VPF Paradigm

I require email chains to be set up pre-round. Add me:tomelibil@gmail.com. Cards must be cut and tagged properly.

90% flow 10% lay - 2 distinctions:

1) Your flow will be cleaner than mine. I might miss the extension of a warrant or part of a piece of evidence so I *generally* evaluate defense on case and drops/turns on opponents case as stickier than an average nat circ tech judge would.

2) That means your defense and offense has to actually convince me. Having a response on something =/= the argument being dropped in all cases. Teams still SHOULD explain why a bad response is bad.

- Locals: pls test your tech and theory cases on me, they’re more interesting (limited experience with theory though)

- Speed is fine but no spreading

- Cleanness > everything.
- Extend full (abbreviated) link chains and responses through final

JV/Novice PF & BQ Paradigm

50% flow, 50% lay. Sitting/standing doesn't matter. Keep the off-time road map short. A passionate debate is ok, but genuine anger/insults aren't. Time your speeches and prep. Please don't state your name and the topic at the start of every speech. Generally, I evaluate novices more Truth>Tech, except for late out rounds. If you notice anything that questions the round's fairness, alert me at the soonest reasonable moment. If anything immediately threatens your safety, alert me immediately. I typically disclose.

Congress Paradigm

Debaters: I judge Congress equally as both a speech and debate event. Uniqueness is hugely important, and the time in the round you speak must match the speech you give. I will drop you for breaking cycle the 2nd time if it could have been reasonably avoided.

I evaluate all aspects of presentation - consistency and strategic variability in volume, emotion, speed, pausing, emphasizing, hand signals, and enunciation. I am not a stickler for fluency as much as most others are. I unapologetically respect late-round speeches more than early rounds, and am especially picky about sponsorships.

POs: I evaluate 3 things: accuracy, speed, and round presence. Follow standard proceedings and control the chamber while being respectful. Cut off people effectively and on time without fluff. If you're going to add personality, use it sparingly & tastefully.

Hi debaters!

Seasoned speech judge dipping her toes in the debate pool for the first time!

Keep your spread on your bread (no spreading) and humor is encouraged.

Good luck!

Email: kinan.cehajic@gmail.com

Anything enclosed by a "{____}" are not part of the flow/performance, just my intermittent notes. Specific paradigms listed below. Good luck!

PF, LD, CX, BQ

I'll disregard anything over a 10 second grace period. Put me in an email chain for CX, it's your call for LD. I'm okay with spreading so long as I can still flow it. You can call cards off-time. Flex prep, sitting, disclosure, etc. are all fine if all competitors agree.

Competed debate for 5 years, so do with that what you will. Can't believe I have to say this but, if you are in PF, do not run a K nor a plan. Both are fine for policy and LD. Non-topical Ks/plans are fine. If you give me an OTR, actually follow it. Good signposting will help. Please don't make me vote on extinction/nuke war. I don't mean you can't run it but if you lose to it, then you probably just didn't debate well. Cross won't generally be part of flow/RFD unless something is explicitly conceded, so put it in your next speech and I'll flow it. Give me a weighing mechanism in final speech if applicable, which it almost always is. Please don't make me go off my gut. Make it an easy round to judge.

DUO, DUET, HI, DI

I've competed in Duo and Duet, so I know some of the tech but I'm probably going to vote up whatever is more moving so if it's the funniest/most dramatic. Cleanly blocked sight lines, clear delivery of lines, and well timed pauses never hurt anyone.

OO

This is easily my favorite speech category. Below is a short paragraph on what I'm looking for:

I love an interesting topic but obviously that won't win you the round. Something different than usual is still appreciated and noted, though. First and foremost, I don't want your hook to go on too long, and make sure your hook actually transitions well into your piece. Choppy transitions to make a cheesy joke don't reflect well. Introduce your structure to me right at the beginning. I want to know what three points you're going to cover right away. Then, actually follow your structure and give me distinct transitions into the next body paragraph. Just walking to the other side of the room alone doesn't mean you transitioned. Don't give me personal anecdotes as your sole evidence for a trend you mention unless it's something that truly is universal human experience. When you wrap up with your call to action, make sure that it a) addresses your introductory hook and question, b) mentions your the topics of your three body paragraphs and c) is actually applicable and not general. The last point there is extremely important. I've seen too many well done OO's that bring me to a weak call to action that does not actually give the audience let alone average person an actual course of action they can take. An easy way to avoid this is by working in points that direct you towards a call to action throughout your speech.

This is not an exhaustive list and I'll add more guidelines as I think of them but the above are what I'll generally be voting off of.

INFO

I'm probably a lay judge here. I appreciate good boards/visual aids that are engaging but not too distracting. Don't make visuals the entire point of your presentation though. The main focal point should be the speaker.

Policy -

I am an inexperienced lay parent judge. Please don’t assume I know what every debate term means. I value clear communication, respectful and thoughtful engagement with the views of others, and apparent lines of reasoning.

Speech -

I am an inexperienced lay parent judge, but bring a lot of personal experience with public speaking. I'm looking forward to hearing you and will value seeing an even mix of ethos, pathos, and logos.

For DEBATE events, I focus on:

(1) Content - focus on topic; arguments organized; factual accuracy; point of view supported; references; support is germane to topic; counters arguments presented by opposing team.

(2) Delivery - confidence; appropriate/professional tone; eye contact; volume; speaking rate (absolutely no speaking at lightspeed); time management.

Special Note - A well-delivered argument with good use of the performative aspects of speech is ultimately more persuasive than the same argument delivered poorly. If you are reading specific text from authors as evidence is expected, be mindful of your speed, lightspeed recitation of evidence will not win your arguments for you. Rather, your analysis and discussion of evidence will be necessary. Also, aggressive questioning during cross is expected, but unnecessary facial expressions/eye rolling/noise making/negative demeanors are absolutely not okay.

++++++

For SPEECH events, I focus on:

(1) Content - entertaining; piece choice challenging and appropriate for competitions.

(2) Delivery - eye contact; volume; speaking rate; confidence.

Special Note - A well-delivered speech with good use of performative aspects is the key to breaking. Believe in your piece, let the judges feel you believe in your own piece.

++++++

You are all here to showcase your pieces, I look forward to enjoying them. Be respectful to each other and other teams, I value that greatly. I will mark you down for disrespectful, unprofessional, and inappropriate behaviors toward your competitors, and if you do that more than once, I will drop you.

My background: A former defense attorney with extensive litigation experience; and I am currently a senior corporate counsel with a local architecture engineering consulting company, together I have more than 20 years of legal experience.

Overview: I have been the Head Coach at Scottsdale Preparatory Academy since founding the team in 2013. I have been fortunate to coach dozens of students both at the AZ-local level and on the national circuit, but believe this activity (regardless of event) is first and foremost about "seeking the truth" through deep reading, active listening, clear thinking, and finally honest speaking. Your goal should not be to only be able to convince people with insular prior experience and expertise in S&D; good communication is good communication and should be about being able to reach anyone. As a coach, I also have the privilege/challenge of training lots of new parent/community judges who are scared to judge for the first time. My honest belief is that if you've "read a book before, watched a movie before, listened intently to a lecture before, and had a conversation with someone who disagreed with you" then you have sufficient life experience to become a good speech and debate judge (assuming they also learn the event rules/format, give feedback, and keep asking questions to keep improving).

Congressional Debate: Congressional Debate will forever be one of my favorite events. Your job is to be the whole package: convincing speaker, solid researcher, active questioner, and get into the collegial role play (without wandering too far into excessive, unnecessary motions).

- Speeches: There is no specific speaking position that is prone to do better or worse than others for me. I've seen and coached dozens of students who were primarily constructive speakers who liked speaking in early cycles on each bill. Thoroughly researched and original constructive speeches are vital for inviting good debate to follow. Others preferred (and were successful) at being a mix of late-constructive-speaker with some refutation (I welcome direct refutation as long as it is deeper than "Rep XX says YY and I disagree", offer an analysis of their claims/warrants/impacts). Others preferred to be a late cycle ("crystalization") speaker with greater emphasis on "weighing" and clarifying the overall issues brought up in the debate (please know that just giving a laundry list of previous speaker names, what they said, and whether you agree/disagree is not a crystalization; I was already here to hear their speeches, you still need to offer unique research and original analysis, even if it is analysis of their analysis). Any of those three speaker positions can do well or can do poorly depending on the speaker/speech. All three of them have an important role to play in Congressional Debate. In all 3 speaking positions, evidence is necessary.

- Decorum/Speech Length: The NSDA rule is that speeches have a time limit of 3 minutes, but does not specify a penalty for those who abuse the speech length. My belief is that exceeding the time limit is un-collegial (privileging one's own speech over those of others), shows a lack of decorum, and disrespects the rules. Many tournaments/leagues have begun offering a 10 second grace period (with the idea of letting a speaker finish their sentence/thought). If you are competing at a tournament that allows such a grace period, know that your goal should still be to give a 3:00 speech and not 3:10 speeches. Exceeding 3:10 is frankly rude (I've been horror-struck to see speeches go to 3:17, 3:26, 3:42, etc.), particularly when your PO is giving you several warnings. Stealing time from Congress’ ability to get to other speeches is unfair and poor form.

- Presiding: I have trained many students to preside (and even been fortunate to coach a student who Presided in the Finals at Nationals), and know how incredibly difficult it is to lead your peers. I have judged many POs who have been ranked in my Top 1-3 or Top 6, and also judged POs who have been in the bottom 25% of my Parli ballot. I know how difficult POing is and wish to reward a truly great PO, but the bar for leadership is still quite high and getting elected is not a guarantee that you're going to earn a good rank. POing takes practice both inside and outside of tournaments.

- Mentorship/Civility: In some ways I am grateful that there isn't a novice division of Congressional Debate because it means that new students or competitors from teams who are new to Congress will hopefully get to see some good models from experienced students in the room which they can learn from and emulate. If you are an experienced Congressional Debater, you already have a sizable competitive advantage over these students learning the ropes; they are not a threat to you. Build them up, invite them to discuss the docket with you before the round, encourage them to come to the next Congress (its in your best interest for Congress to grow across the State and Nation). Bludging a new congressional debater to death or being condescending just makes them never want to do the activity again, and makes judges less inclined to vote for you (even if you give solid speeches). This activity is about more than winning rounds; "speaking with good purpose" should be about more than giving quality speeches.

Public Forum Debate: Despite having a background in debate, I wish teams would emphasize the "Public" nature of Public Forum Debate. I competed in Public Forum Debate shortly after it was founded, and remember that part of the rationale for creating it was that debate was getting too far removed from the public and becoming increasingly insular If this community exists to only persuade those who have been specially trained to think in a specific way, then this activity fails at its goal of being relevant in the real world.

Speak clearly, medium slowly, persuasively, and be grounded in thorough research (in all speeches, not just the constructives). Unsubstantiated claims, or rebuttal/summary/final focus speeches that keep re-hashing your side while ignoring the opposition's side, are not rewarded. Even though I am coach, you are inevitably far more broadly and deeply read on this specific topic. Your job is to teach me just like it would be to teach any judge. I should leave feeling like I've learned something about the world, or think about the topic in a slightly new way.

Lincoln Douglas Debate: Please allow me to give you the respect of speaking honestly. I have coached lots of Novice LD through the basics of traditional LD, and past that I admit my limitations. I am essentially non-responsive to kritikal arguments and spreading. I acknowledge that you are significantly more thoroughly read on the topic than I am and likely will ever be. Use that knowledge responsibly and teach me. I should leave the round feeling like I as the judge learned something new about the world (or I should think about something in a new way), because you slowly taught it to the audience. Make it obvious your side is winning.

Policy Debate: If a tournament is in dire straits and desperate enough that I am judging a round of policy debate, then God rest all of our souls. Firstly, consider what I've said above about Congress, PF, and LD. If judging policy debate, I will basically adopt a "policy maker" paradigm, and your job is to (slowly, like a real policymaker would) convince me that the policy plan put forward is or isn't the better option. If I can't understand you, then I don't write it down and it didn't happen. You will have more success with stock arguments: topicality, advantages/disadvantages, maybe counterplans. If you're willing to meet me where I'm at, I'll give you a fair listening. I understand the need for progressive/kritikal arguments to exist in this form of academic debate, but they will most likely not help you win my vote.

Speech/LD coach 4 years; Policy debated in HS for 2 years at Brophy. Currently on the ASDCA subcommittee for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Justice.

I will hear any arguments, I enjoy creative/outside-the-box cases when supported well. I can handle spreading, but it must be clear, and tech can often ruin that clarity.

My hope for the round is that it does not become a card-war, but a thoughtful analysis of ideas in said cards. Please offer key voter analysis to conclude your speeches.

I am a certified theatre educator and director with over 15 years of directing experience.

1) Movement - how choreography is incorporated whether it is body language of different characters to make them stronger, or use of a black book creatively.

2) Fluid story - I should know from beginning to end the rising action, climax, falling action, and resolve in your story. If it is a POI, I should see the same thing in the cutting of the pieces.

3) Hidden message - from the teaser to the introduction, all the way to the end of the piece, I want to be able to understand the hidden message of why you picked this piece(s) to support something you are passionate about.

4) Characters - There should be distinguished characters in each of the pieces. If you have multiple characters in one piece, each one should have a different "story", body language and voice to tell them a part.

For LD:

1) Evidence - using evidence sufficiently to support the claims in your argument.

2) Argument - your argument has to make sense, meaning you can't just argue that your opponent is wrong because of everything you already said. In cross I expect a new form of argument that still supports your stance.

3) Claims - I should hear a speech in your debate that clearly states the issues and how you resolve it.

Hi, I competed in speech for all four years of high school. I've now judged/coached for about 5 years! :) Here's what I have (in terms of my rules) to say about speech and debate:

For everyone: please don't try to shake my hand (it wont affect your score, i get its for being nice and thanking me for judging your round) but idk where your hands have been.

SPEECH: Have fun, don't be nervous, and do you best. I judge fully based off the performance. If you go over the grace period of your performance, cool, but like, know you can't be ranked the 1. I love topics of public health, healthcare, child/maternal health, and health equity.

DEBATE: I am a lay judge, however I've now been judging traditional debate for 3 years (mostly PF and LD, BQ, but I know it's not traditional debate lol). Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. If you want me to disclose, I can. However, I will not disclose during elimination/outrounds!

Please make sure you can take your own times! I will be taking my time from now on to make sure the round runs as fairly and efficiently.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I can understand your sources (Name, Date) plzzz

Have your cards ready and set to go, in case I want to see them!

Checking and reading cards is not a part of prep time, but if you go over like 2 1/2 min or more, I'll start counting it towards your prep time.

Have fun, be cool, make me laugh, you could get extra pts, idk (life is short, yolo). Also, no sexism, racism, or any kind of hatred because it will lead you into an auto-drop. ALSO, yes to the email chain! abhern12@asu.edu

CONGRESS: I love clash! Speak eloquently and loudly please! Answer all of your questions succinctly as you can during CX! If you make me laugh in the round, that could possibly help lol. Please keep the debate as creative and interesting towards the bills you want to pass. Repeating arguments are irrelevant, please always add a new/interesting point during your speeches :) Have fun too! :) (if u talk about public health, delivery of healthcare systems, access/utilization of healthcare, child/maternal health, or health inequity and disparities, maybe you might catch my eye and get ranked idk) ((public health is cool))

I am a lay judge for debate. Speak as if I am an idiot so I can understand what you are saying. If I am not writing with my pen you are speaking too fast. Be sure to signpost in your speeches ("Our first contention is..." "In response to their second contention..."). If there is a lot of clash over a card please show it to me after the round. I will not flow questioning so please bring up anything important in the next speech.

Do not ask me to disclose and do not make arguments with me after the debate has ended.

Be polite to each other and allow each other to speak during questioning.

Please keep your own time because I will probably mess it up.

Thanks and have fun!

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

I'm a non-interventional judge. I like debates with meaningful arguments and don't encourage too much speed or aggressive tactics. I prefer quality over quantity. I'm going to be diligent in taking notes and watching for impact, flow, link, and rebuttal in the debates. I'm not a big fan of definitions as most of the time both sides are similar. I'd expect Cross to be focused on clarifying your opponent's points/cases but not as an opportunity to humiliate. I appreciate the summary at the end to clearly point out why your case is more weighted and why I should vote for you.

I wish you all the best!

Hello, My name is Autumn Kutsick. I am a senior at Northern Arizona University. I competed on the university's team in the past in Parli, IPDA, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, and Oxford.

Questions on my paradigm or your ballots email: aj.kutsick@gmail.com

You may use the same email to include me in the evidence chain.

General:

1. Don't be a jerk, when it all ends debate is fun and you and your opponent should both learn something.
2. Please weigh your rounds and your impacts, I don't want to do it for you, it's your job to tell me why something is important and why you deserve the vote.
3. Definitions are important, if you are going to claim abuse on a definition tell me why and where it comes from. Don't just add on to definitions.
4. A plan that lacks solvency is not a plan, you must be able to show your plan will actually accomplish something.
5. Impact Calc is important!! If you want my ballot tell me why you deserve it!
6. Do not weigh impacts in an icky way, especially pfers. I will take you down on ethos if you make an argument that clearly ignores important values.
7. Dropped points are very important, especially if your opponent points it out.
8. Do not lie to me, or manipulate source material. I will not use outside information but if you outright lie I will drop the entire point and your speaks. This goes for purposefully misinterpreting and misconstruing cards as well.
9. Don't put words in your opponent's mouth, especially in the last speech. Listen and do not manipulate, using what they say against their case is fine but don't manipulate them to serve your purposes.
10. Speak clearly, I dislike spreading because I don't want to hear 3 pages of evidence I want to hear the logical conclusions you came to from your evidence. You must make arguments not just use your evidence as your argument. This is a sport that requires critical thinking and I want you to show me where you did that thinking.
11. Link your arguments, I don't need you to hold my hand through your case but I do need to see where you draw connections.
12. Currency and uniqueness are important, if your opponent has older evidence that is less important than newer evidence for the issue at hand point it out. Same with unique impacts, while all impacts are important social media isn't the only cause of body image problems, etc.
13. As being someone who did college parli I understand tech and am not lay, however, if you are going to run an out-of-the-box k it better be clear how everything links together.

Speeches:

1. Signpost, I need to be able to follow you for it to make it onto my flow.
2. Stay away from Ad Homonym attacks, these have no place in the education of any round. You and your opponent are both intelligent, show me that by clashing with their case not their personality.

Cross:

1. Yes, it is binding but less important if it isn't mentioned in the speech.
2. Don't be rude. Again this may be heated but no personal attacks.
3. Make sure there is actually a question, don't drone on where it is unclear to both your opponent and I what you are asking.
4. Statements made by those who are supposed to be asking a question will not be considered.
5. If you are going to cut your opponent off do it respectfully at a natural breaking point.

Counterplans (For Policy):

1. Must prove why they are better with less detrimental impacts. Please don't propose a counterplan without solvency.
2. With a counterplan it should still solve the problem completely. IE.) Don't give me a counterplan for the terrible treatment of prisoners in workplaces saying you are going to pay them minimum wage, this leaves out safety, training, etc.

Voters:

1. I vote on well-linked arguments if your plan solves everything but is poorly linked then the status quo outweighs.
2. Show me how your case is better, and what is more important.
3. Make sure the round weight comes back up at the end.
4. Tell me why I'm voting for you and show the impacts if I don't. Please don't make me do the dirty work.

I will disclose and give a verbal RFD if you stick around. Don't be afraid to ask questions and most of all have fun :)!

I would like the speakers convey their points slowly and clearly as I am relatively new to debate judging. Thanks! I will pay attention to details by listening and will take notes on my notepad during the rounds.

Into 2024, I am new to Speech Judging and I would like participants to speak clearly and slowly, if possible. I will be focus and will take notes on my writing notepad as well. Thank you.

Hey y'all my name is Mia! (pronouns she/her)

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions/clarification/definitions about my paradigm! (back as a novice pfer my judge started throwing around the word "frontlining" and my partner and I were too nervous to ask what that even meant)

tldr: how to win my ballot? give me a convincing story about why your side matters more (key voters and world comparison are rly helpful tools to do this). I need important arguments that you think are key to you winning to be extended through the entire round to the last speech if you want me to consider them. 3 key things: extensions, evidence comparison, impact weighing. Lay out how I should be voting, so that the final decision is clear.

Background: One year of pf, 3 years of ld. I've debated on more traditional circuits (nsda nats), more progressive nat circ, and regular locals, so I am familiar with most styles of debating.

General Things:

-Evidence exchange is one of the most important parts of keeping debate fair, I'm all for asking for evidence off prep as long as it doesn't take a huge amount of time. Debaters sometimes drastically or incorrectly change the meaning of a card through paraphrasing or cutting, so if you're suspicious of a piece of evidence, you can ask me to call for it in a speech, or I may call to see it myself. If I find the evidence to be misconstrued, I won't consider it in the round. If your opponent can't produce the evidence, you can ask me to not consider it in the round.

-Extensions: these are pretty important to me in the flow; if you dont know what an extension is, it is the author, tag, and a bare minimum warrant/summary of an argument. Don't waste a really good case by not extending it through the round.

-Equity: i will not tolerate debaters making arguments that are very clearly problematic/offensive to a marginalized identity. If this happens in round, please call it out. I am willing to buy independent voters based off of this, however don't attempt to abuse or manipulate that stance.

Offense/Defense- ideally balance both. Offense to show how your opponent's world is worse than yours. Defense so you still have your own case by the end of the round to stand on

PF:

-good organization is much appreciated

-i like believable arguments over crazy exaggerated link chains, but as long as you can warrant it I’ll consider it

Policy:

-have done a bit of college policy, but not super familiar with the structure so bear with me, I am pretty familiar with this topic lit though, you can read ld paradigm for other things

LD:

quick prefs (in what I feel comfortable evaluating) :

1-trad/k affs/performance k

2-stock k, phil, t, theory

3-larp

4-pomo

5-tricks, skep triggers

In a trad round, I will first look at who wins on framework to see how I evaluate. If one person clearly wins the fw debate, I evaluate all impacts on the flow under that fw, (ie util), so fw debate matters. If the fw debate is a wash, then I'll just go to weighing impacts with ambiguous framing, if you don't go for fw especially do the impact weighing and key voter work for me. (You don't need to go for framework if you both agree on it).

I do not default to debate is a game, debate is anything you want it to be, *except* a space to be violent

I will vote for any argument even if it's out there, but arguments need warrants. I was a k debater myself, but mostly idpol (fem, border k etc), so that and traditional debate is what I'm most familiar with. I understand the concepts of most phil and theory but make sure I actually understand what you're saying, and don't be intentionally confusing.

I don't like tricks, frivolous theory, or super abusive multiple offs/spreading against people who very clearly can't handle it. I will not vote on you for this if this is all you have going for you. If I am your judge, you can ask me I consider your opponent to be doing any of these at any point in the debate for clarification/if you're confused what's going on.

I'm cool with flex prep. I'm heavily down with reps/discursive voters. Independent voters are fine. But most of all, I'm looking for clash, world comparison, and impact weighing. Each speech is a SPEECH, not a race to overwhelm your opponent, so tell me a convincing story of why your side wins and I'll probably vote for you.

Notes on spreading:

-if you're spreading without a doc, be very careful, I'm not the best at picking up things without a doc, I'll warn you with "slow" once or twice, even a doc with an outline/summary of what your analytics will be is helpful to follow. I think the practice of not sharing your analytics doc from your opponent when they are clearly not used to spreading is bad.

-that being said, I heavily prefer having a doc for everything if you'll be speaking fast

-even if i do have a doc, slow down on tags/analytics

notes from asu:

-quality>quantity arguments, much easier to buy something if it's well developed and actually makes sense

-please give me voters, u don't have to say "key voter" but ideally i should not be picking out what to vote on myself

-whatever happened to good analytics as rebuttals?

-extensions! pls!

-u have to try respond to ur opp's answers to the 1AC/NC, or else ur gonna be left without much of a case

-yes, add me to the chain (mlupica.debate@gmail.com)

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

• Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
• For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
• I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
• I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
• If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
• Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

• Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
• Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
• Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
• Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
• Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

Speaking clearly and articulately is the most important to me. Being confident in your argument and reasoning will go farther than just relaying a bunch of bullet based facts. I also look for appropriate facial expressions and gestures which tells me you're comfortable with the material and it makes it more enjoyable for me (the audience) to watch and listen to you.

Hi, I'm Mallory!

Though I was a four-year Public Forum debater, this is my first time judging PF, so please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final speeches and rebuttals. I tend to give more credence to data and statistics rather than hypotheticals and theories.

My general rules are simple:

• Don’t misrepresent your evidence!
• While debate can be contentious, please respect your opponents; if I see any rudeness, eye rolling, aggression, or scorn, I will lower the speaker points awarded to you.
• While I default to trusting statistics, data, and proven studies, simply pointing to it is not enough; I prefer to see thorough explanation of your argument and its validity.
• Respond to your opponents' arguments instead of ignoring them—I flow and keep track of arguments, so not contesting or responding to a valid argument from the opposition will damage your case.
• If you ask your opponent a question, allow them to answer. Do not take up the entire Cross-Ex with follow-up questions; give your opponents time to ask questions as well.
• No swearing, please.

Good luck!

I have competed in LD, Congress, and Speech for 2 years.

LD/Policy: I will not keep time unless you ask me to. Please no spreading or kritiks. Love Cross-X (be engaging, ask questions). Convince me why your position has better impacts or would improve the status quo. Keep best cards in first speech and don’t introduce new evidence in the last speech. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals (don’t simply extend cards).

Speech: I reward speeches that have a good balance of content and delivery. Even if the content is strong, poor delivery can detract from the message, and vice versa. The best speeches will combine both aspects seamlessly.Be mindful of your audience—engage with them, not just at them.In the end, I will rank speeches based on their overall effectiveness, considering how well the speaker delivers their message, engages the audience, and follows the event's purpose/structure.

For link chains: emramuslim1@gmail.com

Have fun and be respectful!

I am a traditional judge who is pretty comfortable with a lot of what you could run including a lot of progressive arguments( ie. disads, kritiks, and counterplans) but I am not that comfortable with spreading. If you decide to spread I might miss something and won't consider it. The one progressive argument that I am not that familar with is theory so you can run it but you need to explain it really well. Overall though if you can explain and defend your argument well I can follow it.

I am a parent judge, having judged for 4 years now. I appreciate clear presentation, thorough citations and deep knowledge of your topic. Please give lots of dynamic inflection and projection, don't get lazy with your speech. Definitely don't spread and avoid jargon. Always show respect for your opponents. For debate rounds, please time yourself.

I am a 7th year coach who did not compete in Speech and Debate as a student. I am more experienced in speech events than debate events, though I have coached the basics in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Big Questions. While I understand the conventions and some theory of debate, I judge as an educated member of the public. I want to hear a good story that proves to me why your side of the case makes the most sense. I listen first to understand, then to decide. Therefore, it is crucial that you speak clearly and naturally. I do not appreciate spreading. I am listening for the links between evidence and claim and decide based on which side presents and maintains the strongest arguments. I do not disclose, but am happy to give objective feedback if you ask.

For platform speaking events, I am interested more in structure than in style. A well-organized, well-supported performance will win my vote over a flashy presentation style. That being said, an overall effect in interpretation and platform events that brings me on an emotional or intellectual journey will always rank highest.

Updated 4/1/25 for Last Chance Qualifier

It is a privilege to support the speech and debate community and I do not take this privilege lightly. I value your voice and want to engage and react to you and your critical thinking and creativity.

"Debate doesn’t simply just change lives—it makes lives better. It gives us a space to grow, to give back, and to find the best people by our sides." Jeff Miller

Note: The vast majority (80%+) of LD judges are parent/lay/community most who have judged less than 10 rounds. Thus slow, simple and a single argument well developed are recommended as well as the comments below. The LDers I find most persuasive are orators and I wonder how Aristotle would evaluate the typical circuit LDer or local LDer who is a circuit LD wannabe. Rhetoric is the artful use of all the available means of persuasion. Excessive complexity, reading cards, debater math, extinction impacts, and counterplans are not persuasive.

Lincoln Douglas Short Summary

Quick summary -T W W

Traditional Framework Judge -I base my ballot on value

Warrant your argument (evidence is secondary)

Weigh - if you don't I will and you may not like the result

DO NOT SPREAD - I vote for the slowest speaking debater. Always. Yes, its true.

Don't spread. And if you normally spread and decide not to spread in a round because it's a lay judge (a very wise decision), you are probably still spreading from the perspective of the judge. Slow it WAY down.

I do not vote solvency, progressive, critique, counterplans, reject all extinction impacts and am the most traditional LD judge you will encounter and begin and end my ballot with value - so invest your time on framework. I am very skeptical of C/B/A, utilitarianism and generic, poorly defined values. IE - justice v redistributive justice, restorative justice, procedural, substantive, etc so if your choice is C/B/A, util or a generic value your task is to provide me with rationale that overcomes these skepticisms and it is impossible to have me vote any extinction impact. If you hear one in round merely weigh probability and if you don’t I will.

Warranting > evidence

Truth > tech,

Simple > complex

Less > more

The reason my weigh on "research" based evidence is close to 0 - replication crisis.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Long Form

• Delivery: conversational in both pace and tone, connected directly to me through eye contact and a sense of concern with my comprehension, simple rather than complex with no jargon particularly debate jargon and minimal use of evidence. Debaters who choose an alternative delivery lose credibility and I will be skeptical of all analysis presented by debaters who reject this delivery preference. Ted Kim paradigm (scroll to the bottom) says it best.
  
  

• Resolution Analysis: Clear, concise, well-supported analysis of the resolution. You can assume your judge has basic knowledge of the ICC.
  
  

• Argumentation: Simplicity, clarity, and effective are preferred in the comparison/contrast or weighing of competing arguments. I am hostile to extinction impacts and debater math use of which negatively impacts my assessment of the credibility of the team making use of these techniques.
  
  

• Evidence: Quality of reasoning and argumentation over quantity or complexity. Evidence plays a minimal part in my decision and debaters who read cards particularly in rebuttal will be challenged to earn my ballot.
  
  

Click on Frederick Changho paradigm for a clear set of expectations I support and share with the exception of the truth

Click on Scott Wood's paradigm for another paradigm that reflects my expectations, particularly good v bad form.

Super short form - click https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=3556

1. Don't spread. And if you normally spread and decide not to spread in a round because its a lay judge, you are probably still spreading from the perspective of the judge. Slow it WAY down.
   
   

2. Lay judges don't flow, they take notes. You win them over via persuasion, not technical tech>truth stuff. That means simple, clear arguments, delivered TO them, not read at them. This is important, talk with the judge do not read case or rebuttal.
   
   

3. Make your argument to them the same way you would to your friends or relatives. IK, this is point 2 repeated but is it critical.
   
   

4. In fact, a good model for debating successfully in front of a lay judge is to imagine the debate was being conducted in a darkened auditorium talking to general audience that is interested in the topic, doesn't know much and wants to learn more. You would never talk to that audience they way you talk in a debate. The lay judge is a member of the public sitting in that darkened audience. That means presentation, organization, clarity and connection are critical.
   
   

LD - the 2024 National final is worth reviewing. Note speed of debate, clarity in argument and delivery to the audience. Both finalists qualified via the Last Chance Tournament!

Adapt to speed, please. At a late December 2024 tournament 3 of my 4 ballots were default ballots as in each of these rounds one debater failed to adapt, spread their case and lost. I despise this type of ballot as I really am interested in your analysis so don't exclude me from the round.

This topic is - should - so I value philosophical reasoning related directly to your value as you advocate. See below for my view of efficacy and implementation as arguments that I tend to dismiss.

Summary LD Expectations - Next to advice #1 below this is your most important piece of advice: In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your single most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
   
   

2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on value. Clarity in defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
   
   

3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolution analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation. I tend to dismiss all solvency arguments in LD.
   
   

4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate or critique.
   
   

5. Counter plans - these must be directly tied to the resolution and utilize argumentation, evidence and data that would be a part of the research considered by a well prepared AFF. If any of these elements are absent, I will reject the counter plan and ballot accordingly.
   
   

6. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
   
   

7. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. If Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
   
   

8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
   
   

9. Simple is preferred to complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over the many arguments that are complex and/or poorly developed. When I hear: "I have 12 responses to my opponent's first contention, subpoint A" I think, oh no.
   
   

10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
    
    

11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution most importantly your value. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE no cards or debater math.

BTW If you say it and I don't hear it or I don't understand it *(remember I am very old and not so smart) it will not be a part of my decision. It is impossible to be too simple or basic with me, impossible. So, the simpler (and slower) the better. Also, time permitting read Scott Wood's paradigm - I wish it was mine so I incorporate it into this paradigm. Now it is mine. Thank you Scott.

Quickly reflect on how you integrate framework into case construction and rebuttal AND if the debate does not collapse on this essential element of ballot be prepared to, simply summarize, compare and weigh your value to your opponent's and in the simplest (*well warranted) manner explain why I prefer your value. This will be where I begin and end by ballot.

Google LD Paradigm Click

here

Congressional Debate short form

PO ranked, do not read a speech, do not break cycle-ever. See more below.

Public Forum

Collapse in Summary, Voters and weigh only in Final Focus. See below for link to full set of preferences.

IE - scroll to the bottom for details - I LOVE EXTEMP and value analysis over evidence cited and weigh content of speech equal to delivery. One fluency flub in a well developed extemp will not impact ranking.

Lincoln Douglas

Quick summary T W W

Traditional Framework Judge -I base my ballot on value

Warrant your argument (evidence is secondary)

Weigh - if you don't I will and you may not like the result

DO NOT SPREAD - I vote for the slowest speaking debater. Always. Yes, its true.

I do not ballot on solvency, extinction impacts, progressive,/kritik, or counterplan

LD Click here

PF Click here

Congress Click here

IE Click here - I judge to the standard outlined in Welty Wisdom.

What lay judges vote on. I encourage you to read as I am a lay judge as are over 80% of all judges you will encounter.

Why I love speech and debate

Concerns I share about debate

Still scrolling? Good. Paradigm most similar to mine at from tournaments judged this year *(Stanford) Darnov

" I simply do not follow .... speed particularly well, and I find it frustrating that debaters often seem to ignore this (no matter how clearly it's written on my paradigm). keep in mind that if you’re at any any kind of speed above a brisk conversational pace (think of a particularly energetic weatherman, for example), I’m probably not going to be terribly interested in trying to follow the argument." And, as I indicate below, I always ballot for the slowest speaking debater - always. Yes, it is true.

Like Darnov I am frustrated, bewildered, confused, and yes judgmental of debaters who IGNORE the speed admonition - so odd and to quote an Arizona coach - very disappointing.

I'm a lay IE judge who hasn't experienced judging all speech categories. Bear with me as I get familiar. I'll do my best to give time cues but sometimes I miss them if I'm listening intently.

For debate, please speak slowly and clearly - no spreading. Preference is to signpost your arguments.

For Debate:

My RFD usually comes down to which side did a better job of supporting their contentions and effectively refuting those of their opponents.

I would look for the relevant content, way of conveying the point, eye contact, delivery and proper pitch wherever required.

Please be clear, normal pace and if there are acronym/jargons, please explain at least once.

I, at one time, was a Speech and Debate competitor. That was more than 20 years ago. I do not work in education but love giving back to my speech and debate community. The skills I learned during and preparing for competitions have lasted my lifetime and I can honestly say I have used them in my current profession, teaching Nuclear Operators.

When Judging debate, I flow well but if I cannot understand you, because you are speaking too fast, I cannot judge you. Evidence is important, it is also crucial how you apply the evidence in your arguments. This is also a speaking competition so tone of voice and meaningful gestures should be used. I have judged BQ, LD, and PF most often.

When Judging IE, I look for meaningful gestures, good differentiation of character voices, and how the entire piece fits together. I also appreciate the emotion and energy used in delivering your selection.

I am a retired corporate lawyer and federal prosecutor with extensive litigation experience, and I am currently a volunteer coach for both mock trial and debate. I debated in both High School (Glendora CA) and college (Emory U in Atlanta GA). I prefer clarity, solid reasoning and courteous, civil direct clash on contentions. I am not a fan of speed reading, and prefer artful persuasion. I'll try to flow the debate but rely upon speakers to signpost their major contentions and highlight differences from their opponents.

Hello. My name is Mayura Rege.

A few things to note about me.

- I am aware of the rules and regulations, but am fairly new to judging, so would appreciate debaters sticking to them too, so I don't have to focus on the technicalities and instead, can keep track of the arguments.

- Please speak clearly and concisely. Speed won't gain you points with me, but clarity of speech and arguments will. Please, no spreading.

- I'm a bit of a grammar nazi. But I won't hold it against you if your points are well made.

- Rudeness, meanness or bullying will be an automatic loss in my account.

- I do appreciate clean humor in arguments, just make sure it does not come at the opponent's expense.

Enjoy the process, because I plan to!

Cheers,

Mayura.

Speech
Speak clearly. Ensure your character transitions are distinguishable and breakouts identifiable. I value a speech that keeps me engaged. I do not believe anyone needs to use profanity to make an impact or an impression. Additionally, I evaluate your speech for opening, closing, memorization, citations, structure, content and delivery.

Debate
Speak clearly. Do not spread. Identify contentions clearly. Number them so that I can keep track. Use signposting. Stay organized. Be respectful. Do not yell or be abusive. A debate should look like a debate, not a fight.

I am looking for content over delivery and maintaining cogent arguments. Be respectful to your peers in all interactions.

Hi there!!

I am a parent judge and a lay judge - this is my second year judging. I have done judge training both years - both online and in-person, and also have had an opportunity to judge both speech and debate events the whole of last year. And I have a loud son who keeps talking about debate - so I have caught a few terminologies. But, still consider me a super lay judge. Timing - If you can keep track of your own time, it will provide me more time to provide feedback. But, for Speeches, I can do the warnings you want. Here is what you can do to make this work for you.

Points:

• 30 - best debater i've ever seen
• 29.5 - best debater at the tournament
• 29 - Really good
• 28 - solid
• 27 - meh
• <27 - you probably didn't speak coherent english sentences, were a horrible person to everyone in the round, or dropped some slurs that you prob shouldn't be saying

Speech Events

• I will use the 3 rubrics that are provided by the NSDA for each event type.
• I will rank each person for each of the 3 rubrics with a score between 12-19 to ensure an objective ranking.
• The total points across the 3 rubrics determine your final score out of 50 and will be used to rank.
• I will also attempt to provide comments for each rubric.

Policy - Debates

My son has always wanted me to judge policy so here I am. Reluctantly though - Policy is super hard. He has taught me policy - so my paradigms are influenced by what he has told me.

• Signpost please!!- Helps me to flow.
• Clarity and Speed - If I don't understand the argument, I won't buy it. So, pl. be clear. Don't spread, talk fast if you want but keep the taglines at a fully understandable speed just because if you don't emphasize your taglines which probably have the key info that I need to vote off of, I am not gonna vote off of it
• Tech over Truth - I'm reluctantly tech over truth, like if your entire arg hinges on something that's point blank wrong and your opponents don't call you out on it then i guess i have to vote on it no matter how stupid it is, but if they do call you out on it, then i will easily prefer their refutation of the argument.
• No Lying - Don't blatantly lie or misconstrue evidence.
• Time yourself - Gives me a chance to focus
• Cross - I will not pay attention to Cross - will instead focus on refining my notes.
• Disads, Ks, Topicality etc... - Since I am still new If you are doing one of this - better to let me know, so I know what is going on. Don't expect me to understand policy terminology, completely explain and label the link, impact, alt, and framework if you have one.

LD / PF / BQ Debates

• Speak at a normal conversational speed. Do not spread.
• Clearly list your contentions. Do not try to go back and forth between your contentions.
• I would like to see continuity in your arguments and clear evidence connecting claims. Don't try to connect A to Z directly.
• Pl. summarize why your arguments hold good at the end.
• I will generally vote based on who won overall argument and who had the most undefeated contentions.

Wishing you the very best and looking forward to hearing your speeches and debates, and providing feedback

Vijay

I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year of judging. I will only vote for arguments that I will understand, So please be clear with your warranting - don’t just tell me that something will happen, tell me why it will happen.

Clearly explain your framework, why it should be used , and how I should weigh the round based off it.

I don't flow cross-examination.

Weigh Impacts, If you don't do it then I have to and you may not like the outcome.

Be polite and respectful always, If you cross the line I will drop you from the round solely for that reason and report to Tab.

hi! my name is fallon. I competed in speech and debate all 4 years of high school. I have competed in pf, congress, and extemporaneous speaking for all 4 years and impromptu for 3.

I'm fine with speed, but if I can't understand you I will raise my pen. I will flow the entire round except for cross. I will not listen closely to cross, so if anything comes up in cross that is important it is your job to bring that up in speech. I prefer a few strongly warranted responses rather than many blippy responses. I am tech over truth but I do not like outrageous arguments. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH.

I am always available for questions. My email is fallonsullivan5@gmail.com. I want to help you get better and I want you to understand my decision, so please don't hesitate to email me/ask me questions after the round if time permits.

happy debating :))

I am parent Judge.
I prefer clear and concise thoughts.

I am not a fan of speed. I prefer quality or quantity.

I enjoy a good debate on the resolution at hand. As an old policy debater, I flow the debate and judge based on the arguments on my flow as the debaters extend them. I will not extend arguments for you, so I highly recommend you stay organized and let me know where you are on the flow. In addition, I prefer strong analysis and weighing- draw my attention to where you want me to vote! I do not flow cross-ex.

I enjoy good-spirited debate, but I do not tolerate rudeness. So be kind and treat one another with respect.

1. Be respectful: I know you have all worked very hard and can be very passionate but treat each other with respect. Sexist, racist, bigoted and hateful speech will not be tolerated and you will lose.
2. I am trained in science and prefer the most precise, organized, and supported ideas as opposed to any voluminous, shock and awe approaches.
3. Please remember you are trying to convince the judges not the other team. So please do use a well described framework with numbers and signposts so we can follow along appropriately.
4. Please do not spread. If you are struggling to have enough time to present all arguments in a conversational pace, than I will likely find it difficult to follow.
5. I hope you have fun.

My paradigm is long, but I will break it down by category to hopefully save you some time. TLDR version is: I love forensics. It is intended to change, not stay the same. So show me something that makes me believe in the future of the activity just a little more, and I will do what I can to ensure it gets the recognition it deserves.

My Background

My background ranges across debate, speech, and congress. I completed for 8 years, with four years in High School mostly focused on debate and interp, and then four years in college mainly focused on limited prep, interp, and public address. I've won two state championships in Arizona (Public Forum Debate in 2013 and Duo in 2014) and I'm a three time AFA-NIET finalist on the college circuit (Informative in 2016, with Informative and Persuasion in 2018). I coached for UT Austin's speech team after finishing out my competition years, and I'm currently the head coach at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix where I've been serving since the fall of 2019. At this point in my career, I have either coached or done every event but Policy. Nothing against Policy, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Individual Events Paradigms

Drama

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Presentation of a consistent and grounded environment

3. Control of movement to blocking in your environment

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Duo

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Articulation of a clear relationship which develops across the performance

2. Clarity of subtextual meaning

3. Showcase of coordinated blocking that helps suspend disbelief

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Extemp

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive answer to the question

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your answer

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Humor, Prose, & Storytelling

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of differentiation between characters through voice, gestures, and facial expressions

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the story

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Impromptu

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive thesis to the prompt

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your thesis

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Informative

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Presence of structure couched in significance and relevance of the topic

2. Clearly defined topic scope

3. Analysis that continually punctuates the urgency of the argument

4. Engaging visuals to showcase significant details within the speech

5. Conversational, poised, and confident delivery

Original Oratory

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of urgency behind the solutions presented

2. Quality of consistent structure

3. Uniqueness of the topic

4. Tangibility of solutions

5. Showcase of controlled, poised, confident delivery

Poetry & POI

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of a clear build and climax within the performance

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the text

4. Clear differentiation of characters (Poetry specific: if multi-voice program)

5. Organization of the narrative to create a dramatic arc

Pro/Con Challenge

In this round, I ranked you according to the following qualities in rank order of significance:

1. Adherence to the Resolution in Argumentation

2. Balance between Affirmative and Negative Sides (i.e. not Straw-manning yourself)

3. Organizational Structure of Cases

4. Sophistication of Rhetoric

5. Showcase of Confident, Conversational Delivery

Debate Paradigms

Debate General

Biggest items for me in debate are that I'm a flow judge who will make very few value judgements without you asking me to within the scope of the round, and I have a few admittedly petty grievances around time. So...

• Be sure to signpost
• Weigh and identify clearly your weighing mechanisms
• I'll say "clear" twice, and then I'm dropping my pen if I still can't tell what you're saying.
• Good debate requires good diction. Do a pen drill. Take prep and do it in the middle of the round if you have to. But please speak with the intention to be understood.
• I control the clock, so: 1) The time starts when you start talking and 2) When that time is up, I'm putting down my pen.
• I think off-time roadmaps are kinda a waste of time. I get why they happen and that I'm on the losing side of this argument. But if you're reading this and would like me to appreciate your style of debate slightly more, don't do off-time roadmaps.
• If you call for many cards in a debate, I do expect that you are going to use that for something in the round. Please do not call for cards frivolously, as I would like to keep the schedule running on time.

Auto-drops for me are pretty limited, but mostly pertain to saying or doing anything particularly derogatory towards your opponent. Forensics in general should be a space where everyone feels comfortable, and is not limited from feeling so because of their identity. It therefore really doesn't much matter to me if you just clearly won the round. If you are rude to your opponent, I will drop you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Specific

• Tech. Though I come predominantly from a PF background, I'm perfectly fine with you running more technical arguments. You just need to give me 1) The educational purpose of the ballot backed by a warrant and 2) The ability to take large portions of the debate outside the scope of the round without ignoring your opponents arguments or straw manning them. A K isn't a cop-out to repeat the same argument over and over again. You need to prove to us why your Kritik of the resolution is worth more than the resolution itself.
• Framework. If you concede framework, you need to own it and carry it to the end of the debate. I would advise against switching gears midway through and deciding you'd like the round to value a new framework right when you start weighing.

Public Forum Debate Specific

• Impacts. Vital in this event is your ability to properly link (and that does mean really warranting them, don't just read off 8 cards and call it a day) your impacts and terminalize them as early as possible within the round. It's very difficult to be on the winning side of a PF round with any ambiguity around your impacts and how you access them.
• Weighing. Actually do this. Summary and FF to me are not best used for additional front lining. Summary should be no more than 50% front lining, and FF shouldn't include much at all. 2 Worlds is probably my favorite to listen to in order to best crystalize the round, but feel free to show me something cooler and I will probably like it.

Congressional Debate Specific

• Repetitive Debate. My favorite part of this event is actually watching a debate advance over the course of the session. So rather than repeating after each other, do summaries, respond directly to others, and build on prior arguments, especially if you're the one keeping us on this piece of legislation by asking others to vote against moving the previous question.

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

For Big Question Debate

I am a lay judge. Please make sure that you do not speak fast. I'll not flow, so make sure that your argument are easy to follow. I highly recommend an off time roadmap for each speech alongside an overview of each contention. Thanks.

For Congressional debate,

I consider of the content of speech, the argument skills (synthesizing, refutation), and responding of questions and the delivery skills to evaluate.

1. The content of speech

a. organized structure ? Introduction, body and conclusion.
b. Quality of content - how effectively developed the idea.
c. Supporting evidences: I prefer specific evidence with credible references. I’ll check they are logically linked together with the main topic.
d. Clarity of perspectives: clearly approaching without confusion of affirmative or negation.

2. The argument skills

a. Contribution of debate: How is the speaker actively involved in the round and leads the round?
b. The balance of synthesizing and refutation.
I don’t like the speaker simply repeat the previous argument without anything. I prefer to hear new argument with fresh new idea.
c. Q&A time: Are the questions answered adequately?

3. Delivery

a. Eye contact and reading: I prefer to have eye contact as much as possible during the speech. I don’t recommend reading without eye contact.
b. Vocal control - proper volume, pronunciation and speed. I also prefer dynamic vocal changes instead of monotonous speaking.
c. Physical poise: Is there a polished manner for the presentation? is the gesture proper when speaking? Is there any unnecessary movement or habit presented?

4. P.O.Evaluation

I consider of the quality of Parliamentary procedure (clear explanations of rules, smooth running the round with little to no error) and the ability of speaker recognition ( the consistent and fair distributions of speaking opportunity).

For Speech event,

I consider of the contents of story, the performance quality, the delivery skill and so on for judging.

1. the contents of story,

a. The selection of story - is it unique and distinct?

b. Thesis - is it clearly established?

c. The selection of references

- Is it well linked to the main topic?

- Is it effectively support the main topic?

d. The well developed structure

- Does the story flow well?

- Does the sequence of event make sense?

- Is the story line easy to follow?

2. The performance

a. Attitude- Is the presenter comfortably commanding in the space?

b. Delivery skill

* Vocal quality

- I prefer the clear diction with the normal pace.

Also like the dynamic vocal skill using the efficiency pausing and rhythmical vocal change.

* expression

- Is the expression and movement motivated in the story?

- Does facial and physical expression enhance the performance?

- Does the performer maintain and control the performance?

- Is it dynamically presented?

* fun

- Is it fun to watch? How much audience involved in?

* Is it easy to understand the presenter’s performance?

3. Prepared material

- Is the picture or photo easily recognized?

- Is it well linked to the story? How efficiently support the topic?

- How is the Material preparedness quality?

4. Conclusion

I also weigh the conclusion part because it is the most important part of the presentation. I prefer to tell me the exact summary what you present in the end.

Thank you.