Name: Luke Anderson

School Affiliation: Fremd High School - Assistant Coach

Were you previously affiliated with any other school?

Palatine High School Graduate, Bradley University for Undergrad.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in:

This is my first year judging and coaching! Although I'm new to the debate world, I've learned a lot in a short time and am comfortable with mostly anything you want to throw at me.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so.

I have judged one Public Forum tournament before, otherwise all LD.

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.)

Whatever you feel comfortable with. I can somewhat tolerate spreading, you'll be able to tell if you've lost me though.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?

Very important - I need something to weigh your impacts against! Give me clear and strong links for all your arguments.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?

Voting issues are always nice to have. Explaining back to me why you won that round never hurts.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches?

Not important to my decision, but can be for the sake of my organization and yours.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Your arguments win you the round, your style gets you speakers points. Poor speaking can effect your

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round?

Evidence is king. Give your contentions both strong empirical and analytical evidence.

Background:

Adlai E. Stevenson (IL) '23| Pronouns: he/him | Email:calamariye@gmail.com

Previously competed in PF for two years and LD for one with a little bit of experience in Congress. Currently a college student studying political science and economics.

Novice: Be nice and try your best, I'm ideally looking at how you frontline, extend, collapse, weigh, and crystallize ^-^. Have fun, no ad hominem attacks, be polite and don't stress/worry too much about speaking points, I generally give an average of a 28, round strategy + clarity + creativity will raise speaks.

Round Details:

Set up an email chain and send a card doc before each speech where you read new evidence. pdf/word good; Google docs okay.

I'm fine with decent speed, but if you're really unclear your speaks will probably tank. With that said, you must slow down if your opponents call "clear."

Yes, extend, but it's not a big deal to me. You don't need to extend card names. I just want to know what link(s) and impact(s) you're going for.

Judging Philosophy:

Ethics>Tech>Truth. Debate is a strategy game, but it should be fair. As a default, my ballot will come down to whichever team can show me the strongest link to the most important impact. You can read any argument in front of me with the caveat that poorly warranted arguments can get poorly warranted responses.

With that said, there are some things I'll always intervene against:

1. Bigotry - Saying anything overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. will be an automatic drop for obvious reasons.
2. Evidence Ethics- Distorting, fabricating, or clipping evidence is a drop. I don't actively monitor the doc and check every card, so it'll mainly be up to the debaters to point out any abuse.
3. Abusive Tactics - Includes but isn't limited to not slowing down after being told "clear," going egregiously overtime, reading new arguments in the back half, being unnecessarily rude to your opponents, etc. I won't drop you for something minor, but I'll definitely drop the arg or tank speaks.

(Borrowed from Michael Kirylau)

Speaks:

I don't agree with the philosophy of how speaks are generally graded. Personally, speaks will be determined by your strategy and signposting (as well as anything else mentioned here). locals avg = 28, nats avg = 28.5

Everything Else:

-- very little experience judging progressive debate (completely flay)

-- If no offense by final focus I will presume w coinflip or both teams can postround for 30 seconds (I'll ask you)

-- If you have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

Bring passion to the round, I don't care if you use strong language, whatever gets your point across. No filters needed. Crossfire can get as intense as the teams would like, and while I will not weigh cross I want to see points/responses referenced in summary or rebuttaI.

I do not care how you dress.

Time yourself and keep track of prep also.

Weigh for me remember you are doing the work, not me.

Use believable impacts (Not everything in the world ends with nuclear war)

Don't act like I know about the topic.

Talk as fast as you want, I have debated for years and will understand. Speaking fast does not mean you should talk quiet or mumble though...

Cross apply contentions.

Bring up contradictions the opponents have.

Make jokes if you want, the world isn't actually on the line, despite what your impacts say.

At the end of the day have fun and don't take anything too close to heart cause everyone here puts in way to much work to leave and feel unaccomplished.

Special Note For January Topic - Repeal Section 230:

In my opinion, this debate has two parts to it:

1. What is the proper interpretation of Section 230.
2. Given the above interpretation, what is the best course of action to take regarding its future and why.

Successful arguments will address both parts.

Good luck!

About me:

I am a relatively new parent judge with limited understanding of debate jargon. My day job is developing software for a financial services company.

My approach:

I think I would be best described as a flow judge. I don't flow cross fire (so don't use it to introduce arguments or evidence), but I listen to it to correct statements I may have misheard. That said, if you bring up a point in cross fire that is a new point, I expect that to be brought up in a subsequent speech in order for it to impact my decision.

I don't flow speed really well, so spread at your own risk.

I think I am tech > truth. If you do not address your opponents arguments, I will accept them as true.

As the round progresses I am looking for your team to:

1. Clearly state your contentions.
2. Support your contentions with at least 1 piece of evidence.
3. Tell me the impacts, their weight, and their probability.
4. Tell me why the collective weight and probability of your impacts out weigh your opponents'.
5. Respectfully refute your opponents' claims, evidence, weighing or probability as appropriate, preferably with counter evidence of your own.

I will drop your speaker points for rudeness. You can passionately debate the topic and still be respectful.

I don't understand theory and Kritiks so probably best not to use them with me.

Loreto Galvan-Alva

As a flow judge, my primary focus in determining who wins the round is on the technical aspects of the debate/arguments rather than the truthfulness of the arguments presented (I also do not flow through the crossfire, I simply listen so make sure points made in crossfires are brought up in a speech). However, in close rounds I recognize the importance of both tech and truth and I will consider both aspects in determining the rounds winner. Above all, I simply want every debater to remain respectful, and to have fun throughout this process!

1. Tech Over Truth

• Organization, Clarity, and Coherence (e.g., it's okay to speak quickly, so long as clarity isn't affected)
• Strength of evidence presented (e.g., stats, studies, data)
• Structured Speeches (i.e., organized, clash with opponents- speeches change depending on the debate itself/argumetns being presented)

2. Flexibility in Close Rounds

• While I prefer technical arguments, during close rounds I will consider arguments that challenge my initial beliefs or opinions.
• Strength of arguments and connection to why I should vote for either PRO or CON world is what I refer to when making a decision in close rounds (i.e., what are the main voting issues you want me to vote on)

3. Fairness and Behavior

• I encourage respectful discourse, I expect all debaters to engage with their opponents in a respectful manner (remember that you are clashing with the arguments, not the debaters themselves)
• Refrain from any potentially distracting behaviors while opponents are speaking (e.g, talking, giggling, expressive facial expressions)
• Plan ahead for any potential wifi/tech issues (e.g., not depending solely on computers), the wifi of other school's will be unknown until the day of the tournament (being prepared for any potential issues allows us to be respectful of other teams/judges times)

So simply put remember to be respectful, have strong arguments, and have fun!

*My personal preference is to not disclose at the end of a round, I will leave all feedback on the ballot*

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

• It’s not an argument without a warrant.

• 'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.

• ‘Probability weighing also isn’t real

• Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.

• Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

• Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.

• Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.

• Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.

• Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.

• Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.

• If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.

• You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.

• Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
• Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

• I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.

• weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus

• It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.

• Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense

• Miscellaneous Stuff

• Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there

• Have preflows ready

• open cross is fine

• Flex prep is fine

• K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.

• I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory

• I don't care where you speak from

• I don't care what you wear

This is my third year coaching and judging debate. My background is in speech and Model UN. I feel that debate is a valuable learning experience and I enjoy hearing new contentions that make me view the world from a different perspective.

I am a flow judge so I appreciate teams that provide lots of evidence and include relevant impacts. In PF, I give a lot of weight to voting issues and mostly award speaking points based on that. I value truth over tech.

Respect your opponents; they help you become a better debater.

Please be mindful of the time limits. I stop flowing after your time is up.

Have fun! I'm looking forward to hearing your arguments :)

Hey everyone! Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best!

1. Clarity over speed - economy of language that allows you to be concise while still making your points will go further in my book than reading something as fast as you can. However, if you’d like to use speed or need to do so, I will probably be able to follow just fine.

2. Logic and reasoning - from the very beginning with your case itself, you should be defining and defending the connections (with evidence) between affirming or negating the resolution and the argument you are making. If the links themselves are weak, it matters less to me how significant your impacts are (ie don't drone on about how detrimental (blank) is if you haven't established that your position leads to/worsens/mitigates/prevents that thing).

3. Two worlds analysis - I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

4. Engage with your opponents' arguments - Name the pieces you both agree on and use shared stances to then dig deeper on areas of clash, trying to persuade the judge why a similar argument works more in your favor than in your opponents. This should mean that the longer the round goes on, speeches feel more and more representative of engagement happening in the round (and less canned or pre-prepared).

5. Use CX strategically! It is of course important to ask for clarification when necessary, but I love to see a strategic set of questions that feels purposeful and can then be referenced later in the round.

6. Extensions - My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for. You do not need to extend evidence, just your claim and warrant. They can be paraphrased. You also cannot just extend some arbitrary number for your impact. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

7. Signposting and organization - I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

8. As in frisbee, the #1 rule of debate should be "spirit of the game" - be respectful of yourselves, each other, your judge, and have fun!

My name is Matt Kolb and I am a sophomore finance student at the University of Texas at Austin. I debated for University High School and have experience in high rounds in the state tournament and NSDA nationals. However, this is my first year judging.

Speed of delivery - I can understand what you're saying if you're spreading but I strongly prefer a slower approach with articulation.

Format of Summary Speeches - I like a mix of line by line with some major takeaways at the end.

Extension of arguments into later speeches - If you want something to flow through it should be in summary and final focus.

Flowing/note-taking - I will flow everything but cross-x. This time is more to show me who you think is winning.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? - I like a mix of argument and style. If you have a great argument but you can't show me I will have a hard time buying into it.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? - Varsity should cover both cases. JV and novice it is acceptable not to but it will hurt your round.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? - If arguments are brought up in grand crossfire and the team speaking first wishes to carry it into final focus, I will listen. I still discourage this. No new arguments can be brought up in final focus.

I have worked with debate teams for sixteen years and enjoy a healthy argument. I look for a debate with solid evidence that flows through to the end. Framework and voting issues are also appreciated as well. Be respectful to each other and mindful that a healthy clash of ideas often brings forth a refinement of your side. I appreciate the side that weighs their impact.

I appreciate when students are clear and concise in rounds. I need to be able to understand what is being said in the round in order to flow and subsequently judge. Outline your voters issues and impacts in your case. Be kind to one another, this is an educational and learning opportunity for everyone.

hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for 3 years. typical flow judge, assume im lay on the topic.

add me to the email chain: andrewsli2436@gmail.com

ms/novice: frontline, extend, collapse, weigh. be nice. dont run progressive stuff (pf). the rest of my paradigm is a *suggestion*; my priority is ur comfort :)

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

-- for sensitive args: anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings

-- do email chain or speechdrop. send cases and docs

-- ~250 wpm max (w docs!!) but pls slow down in back half or i will 100% miss smth. 5 sec grace period. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed!

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

-- i dont flow cross but also dont filibuster or concede random stuff. flex prep is ok

-- SHORT roadmaps pls

-- metaweighing is kind of a cheat code ngl (do it)

-- i generally believe prob weighing is fake or abusive when used for different terminal impacts

everything else:

-- run prog at ur own risk. i havent judged prog much and what i have judged has (generally) been very mid. more receptive to "we cant engage" answers in jv. pls slow down and tell me before starting so i can get a third sheet.

-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks often are. speaks start at 30 and decrease for only for mistakes in strat/signposting

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!

glhf :D

aditya stole my old paradigm + bless hebron daniel + scott elliott + renee li (approved on 4/21/23) + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this pre-round entertainment + i judge most like this guy and this guy

Hi all, I'm a 4 year high school PFer turned college parli debater. My pronouns are he/him. Email is yaseenmozaffar@gmail.com if you have any questions at any point.

I'm a pretty straightforward tech-over-truth flow judge. For Public Forum, I judge off the flow by directly comparing whatever impacts each team has extended through summary and final focus. If you tell me how to weigh one of your arguments against one of your opponents', I'll weigh it that way. If you don't tell me how to weigh, I'll end up just having to make a judgment call and/or draw inferences based on the rest of the arguments on the flow. I don't want to have to do that, and you definitely don't want me to have to do that, so put a lot of care into your weighing analysis in the back half of the debate. I don't flow crossfire, but I pay attention to it, and I'll flow arguments that reference cross IF they're brought up in later speeches. Past that, I'm supremely flexible with just about everything, as long as it's okay with the others in the round. At the end of the day this is your round, not mine. **no spreading in PF**

On speaker points: I don't have a formula for speaker points because there's no one way to be a "good" speaker. I award speaks based on both presentation and strategic effectiveness in speeches, as well as presence in cross.

Finally, do your best to avoid acting like a bad person. I understand that this is a high-tension activity, especially when stakes are high, but be sure to keep yourself in check before being disrespectful, hateful, or otherwise mean-spirited. We're all human beings before we're debaters, and it's important to me that we all remember that everyone has a place in this activity.

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for Normal, IL University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged and coached a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm going to be a junior in university, so with all that in mind, I'd like to think that all my debate knowledge is still fresh within my mind.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

I'm not very picky about sources I think listing off a thousand cards means less than a valid logical argument with one strong source. You should be able to convince me with your tone and your own thoughts. Please use cross to present flaws in your opponents case. Nit picking about cards doesn't move the debate forward I would rather see quality questions being asked instead of quantity. Be competitive and be respectful.

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. I have been coaching debate for 8 years. Any disrespectful behavior including abusive frameworks may work against your partnership. SPEED READING will not be flowed, and I will put my pen down. It is important for me to hear your contentions, links, evidence and impacts. I value accurate use of evidence and weighing in the round. Intentionally muddling a round is manipulative, please do not try to confuse the round with irrelevant information or worse misuse of evidence. I want you to tell me why you are actually winning by proving how you outweigh and pulling your arguments through the round. Line by line is preferable, but a logical narrative can win around if well supported by timely evidence and historical depth of knowledge. In the end I vote for the team that tends to understand the topic and the research, presents with calm and clarity, and crystalizes the debate in the summary while providing voter issues. Additionally, I vote for truth over tech! Happy debating!

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Speed of delivery - You can go fast but make sure to clearly highlight your point, speak clearly

Format of Summary Speeches - Start with Big Picture and then double click/go deep where required

Flowing/note-taking - I am a lay judge (parent judge) but I will flow important points

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally - Both are important, but I value the argument more

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Final Focus

please signpost, if i don't know where you are on the flow, I can't flow if i don't know where I'm supposed to be.

Weighing and voting issues are super important to me in a round, you need to be able to tell me exactly why i should be voting for you.

Name: Jayden Touchette (she/her)

School Affiliation: Belleville West High School

Were you previously affiliated with any other school?No.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: I've been judging for four years, and I competed for 7.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so.I've judged a mix of LD and PF over the years, and I have also judged speech. At this point, I've also competed in most styles of debate, so I am very familiar with structure.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.)I am completely fine with speed as long as you are clear; however, do not go fast just for the sake of talking fast. There is nothing wrong with conversational speed, and I would much rather have that than not being able to understand a word you say.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?It depends on the round. You (the competitor) need to tell me why the V and VC are important for your arguments as well as your opponents. If you don't do that weighing, I have a hard time being able to make a decision on that portion of the debate without having to intervene too much. That being said, you should be weighing V and VC in the round!

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?) The 2NR can have a bit of line by line, but it should not be the focus. By the time we reach second rebuttals, I prefer big picture elements of the round. Give me the voting issues. Tell me why I should vote for you to win the round.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?I prefer voting issues in the final rebuttal. I think it helps me make my decision cleaner and clearer. Please give me voting issues to consider in my decision!

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches?extend, extend, extend! If there is an argument that helps your case, EXTEND IT! Especially if the argument is dropped. I won't do extensions for you. You need to tell me to bring it across the flow.

Flowing/note-taking-I flow the rounds just as you should. I try to take as many notes as possible on the arguments so I can keep up with the debate. I often reference my flow in decisions.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?Truthfully, I love a nice style in a debate round, but arguments are always going to influence my decision way more than style.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?You can win using whoever's framework you would like as long as you explain to me why. I love watching good framework debates, so please feel free to have one of those in front of me.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round?Evidence is SO IMPORTANT! If you don't have evidence, I have a hard time buying any claim you want to make. Give me some kind of evidence for every claim you make because without evidence, it is really easy for me to just overlook the argument.

Any other relevant information (optional)?I'll attach my old paradigm below. I think it has a few more details about me and my perspective as a judge.

I wholeheartedly believe that this is your activity and your round, so my thoughts shouldn't dictate what happens in the round. My goal as a judge and coach is to allow the debaters to have the debate they want to have, and I have spent a lot of time learning and growing so I can best facilitate that and judge any debate, which I believe I can.

So I can be of better service to you, I have created a list with specific thoughts I have about debate. Do with this what you will.

-A claim is not an argument. Please give warrants and thorough explanation to any claim you make. That is the only way I will vote on that argument.

-When you read a Value and Value Criterion, please carry that through the flow throughout the round unless you kick out of it. Values and Value Criterions are something special about this style of my debate, and, when done well, VC debates are some of my favorites.

-When giving voting issues on specific arguments, please provide impact weighing. Don’t tell me to extend an argument and move on. Explain to me why that matters more than what your opponent is saying.

-Always give your opponents arguments close and careful thought. I promise you that someone has spent time thinking about the things they are saying, so in order for you to keep afloat in the round, don't just dismiss arguments without thorough explanation.

-HAVE FUN! You should do this activity because you enjoy it, and I enjoy judging rounds where the competitors are having fun with what they are doing.

I look forward to judging you in a round. If you have questions about anything on this paradigm or a more specific thought I have on debate, feel free to ask before the round starts. I will be more than happy to answer :)