Hey y'all! I did LD in high school and do IPDA in college at Mizzou (go tigers!!). I'm an occasional speech girl these days, mostly in limited prep events like extemp and radio, but I'm definitely more knowledgeable as a debate judge. Put me in the email chain: madisonarenaz23@gmail.com

The following is mainly for LD, but feel free to apply relevant points to other forms of debate:

• I'm cool with higher speeds. If you're used to debating nat circ, maybe decrease your speed by about 1/4 for me, but generally I should be good. If I'm not, I'll stop flowing to indicate that I need you to slow down.
• Debate should be accessible! If you need a round without spreading, or if there's anything I can do in general to make the round best suited to your needs, please let me know.
• I try to be a relatively non-interventionist, flow judge. I can believe much more in-round than IRL, but I do still need to believe your arguments, especially if they're a little outlandish. You can sell me on anything if you're clear with those links! Just make sure you're not saying something that I would know to be categorically untrue or misrepresented with the limited knowledge I have as an undergrad polisci major.
• I just don't buy most LD theory arguments I see. I'm not bringing my outside opinions into your actual arg ever, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me to vote on, or even consider, disclosure theory unless the tournament requires disclosure. I tend to err on the side of "drop the argument" vs "drop the debater" for nearly everything.
• I value impact weighing and comparative worlds, like most other LD judges. I have faith that y'all will do that, but novices - make sure you're learning this!
• Please please don't drop framework. I don't love framework debates (seriously it's just a lens I use to evaluate your performance please don't dedicate a ton of the debate to it), but make sure you're proving how you uphold yours. Ideally, uphold yours and your opponent's.
• Run literally whatever kind of arg you want to. I can evaluate a totally trad round, a K vs case, K vs K, a round where y'all are essentially LARPING as policy debaters, a philosophy heavy round, whatever you want. I will note I'm not the best judge for performance affs, but I value their place in the debate world - maybe just with a judge who is better prepared to evaluate them than me.
• If the point above meant absolutely nothing to you, do not worry about it. If you know exactly what I'm talking about and even think I'm putting it a little too plainly, and you enter a round with someone who clearly doesn't know what that previous point is about, ESPECIALLY in novice, consider that the point of debate is education. How you run it is your call from there. Be nice though and I'll boost your speaks every time.
• I prefer roadmaps off-time.
• Too many rebuttals are entirely scripted, and too many cases just aren't dynamic. Adapt your case and your performance to the round. Be funny or be serious, come prepared for every possible point or don't, but give me the vibe that you're actually in the room with us right now and not still on the Wiki or copying your captain. Say words beyond just what's on your cards. Even if I know what you're talking about, make it clear. I'm not a coach, I don't cut cards or develop args for any topic, and if I can't explain the argument you just gave back to your opponent, I'm not voting off of it, even if I do think I understand it. This may make me a worse judge for tricks debate and unevidenced Kritiks.
• Tldr: be a good person. Throw out this whole paradigm if you want! Your argumentation can overcome basically any of this, and anyone who tells you otherwise is doing you dirty. The point of this paradigm is just to ensure a good debate round that I can give good feedback on, but it is not my place to offer absolutes about what you can or should do. It's your activity - make it yours. Above all else, be kind and have so so much fun.

About me:

I am the captain of the Appalachian State University Speech and Debate program, and have competed in like,, every standard forensics event under the sun at one point or another. My home base in middle/high school was PF, and now is NPDA/NFA-LD. My true love is interp events, but that is nine times out of ten not why you are here lol

Speechdrop > an email chain if possible, email is at the bottom of my paradigm for chains though

Your case:

TLDR - Run what you want, and show me you know what you’re doing

I’m happy with both trad and progressive rounds. I’m originally from a trad circuit, and I’ll never get bored of a trad round done well. However, as I got to college I found a love for performance and res Ks. You should run whatever kind of case suits you best, as long as you make sure all arguments are well developed (trix are not well developed, fyi).

Disclosure theory is boring and lame, so are T shells made to be kicked, but do what you must.

On T- I am VERY hesitant to vote on the possibility of “abuse” in round, much safer for me if you can warrant and prove from your first speech how topicality will play a role.

PLEASE GIVE ME FRAMEWORKS! I want to know how you are evaluating, and more importantly I want you to tell me how to be evaluating. I enjoy good FW clash but don’t like when I am at the end of a round and neither side really warranted out their framing, or just let 2 counter interps exist all the way until the end. Make it concise, tell me what FW is best, and tell me how you are doing it (or prove how you win both framings to make me very happy).

Tech > truth*. Your link chain needs to exist and be comprehensible but I am certainly willing to believe a lot more in round than I would outside the space as long as it’s not clear misrepresentation of evidence or something to that extent.

Arguments that are in any way discriminatory (ie racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, classist, transphobic, etc) are always going to lose and give you low speaks.

In-round:

Debate jargon is appropriate and has its place, try your best to explain as you go for accessibility but in a crunch know that I am with you.

Off-time roadmaps are fine with me, but make sure you are using it to tell me the order of your speech, nothing more.

I am a speedy debater and am comfortable with most spreading, but the round should only be going as fast as everyone participating is comfortable with. Never feel bad asking for what you need to understand the round and create better arguments. Also you will see a hit in speaker points if you share your case and rip through 30 pages in 5 minutes without anyone understanding unless they read along, that’s not what this activity is for.

On content warnings: a lot of content that always requires a warning is unnecessary in round anyway, or is simply unnecessary as they are brought up consistently under a given res. Don't give a graphic depiction of violence to get your point across. Using them for things like "feminism" can certainly become trivializing. Exercise good judgment, talk to your coach, use them when necessary.

I won’t flow cross, so make sure to bring up important points in your rebuttals!

Make sure you’re engaging! There are a lot of technicalities in debate, but it is ultimately, fundamentally, a game of persuasion. Good argumentation can always make up for less than stellar speech, but having the best of both worlds can almost guarantee you my undivided attention, and probably the win.

Run fun cases, create good clash, slay your speeches, and over all else, be a nice person. The fastest way to get high speaks from me is to be the person that promotes fairness, accessibility, and kindness in the debate space.

Feel free to ask questions after round or send me an email! I am always happy to talk about forensics. (coltrainzm@appstate.edu)

I come to the debate with a clean slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion, the debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will affect society.

good debater speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible.

For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well-used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.

Hello , I have judged several rounds and have a good understanding of debate theory and strategy.

When it comes to judging, I prioritize clarity, organization, and persuasion. I believe that a debater's job is to present a clear and convincing argument, and it's my job as a judge to evaluate how well they accomplish that goal. In my view, the most persuasive arguments are those that are backed up by evidence and logical reasoning, and that address the core issues of the debate.

I value fairness and respect in the debate community, and I expect all debaters to adhere to those principles as well. I also believe that the debaters should be civil and professional, both in their speeches and in their interactions with one another. Any instances of disrespectful behavior will be taken into account in my decision.

In terms of argumentation, I am open to all kinds of arguments, including policy, value, and fact-based arguments. However, I am not interested in hearing arguments that are discriminatory or disrespectful. I will not tolerate any form of hate speech or discriminatory remarks.

When it comes to evidence, I prefer quality over quantity. I value well-researched and relevant evidence that directly supports a debater's argument. Evidence that is taken out of context, misused, or irrelevant will not carry weight in my decision.

In terms of style, I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and poised. However, style alone will not win the round for a debater. Substance and sound argumentation are key.

Finally, I believe that every round is a learning experience, and I encourage debaters to ask questions and seek feedback after the round. I will do my best to provide constructive criticism and offer suggestions for improvement.

I look forward to a fair and respectful debate. Good luck to all debaters!

I do have some speech and debate experience.I'm not lay but also not super technical

Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me.

Here are my some preferences -

Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. If you typically speak quickly, then adjust your speed to match my judging style. If I am unable to follow your arguments and comprehend what you are saying, then you will not be successful in the round.

I prefer arguments that are backed by empirical evidence, rather than those that rely solely on emotional appeals. You will not win the round by trying to persuade me through an emotional argument.

I appreciate a well-planned and logically sound case. I prefer to see a clear connection between your points and ideas.

While I am capable of taking notes during the debate, I may not be as skilled at doing so as someone who judges Public Forum Debate (PFD) regularly.

It is important to remain respectful during the debate. While assertiveness is acceptable, actions such as screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head-shaking, and showing contempt are not appropriate. Even if you win the round, you may receive a low score if you display such behavior.

Good luck.

About me: I am a recent graduate from Appalachian State University and was a member of the App State Debate Team while in college. I have competed in LD, NPDA, and IPDA in college, and competed solely in LD in high school.

I prefer being able to read your speech on SpeechDrop (or something similar).

Your case:

• Please give me a framework for the round.

• I do not mind whether or not opposing teams share their cases on SpeechDrop. Do not run disclosure theory if you have both agreed to NOT share cases.

• Arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, ableist, classist, etc. will result in a loss and very low speaker points.

In round:

• I don’t mind if you speak fast, but do not speak so quickly that you are no longer saying real words. I need to know what you are saying in order to weigh the round. Do not make me try and read a 20+ page case in 5 minutes while you are gasping for air. That being said, I will say 'clear' if you begin to speak so quickly that I can no longer understand what is being said.

• If an opponent is speaking too quickly to understand, please speak up! Debate should be accessible to everyone.

• Debate Jargon: I do not appreciate when more experienced opponents try to confuse their less experienced opponents by bogging them down with debate jargon. There is a time and place to use it - but keep the space accessible to both myself and your opponents.

• Please give off-time roadmaps! This helps everyone in the room stay organized.

• I believe that the only rules in debate are the ones agreed upon in the round. Making an argument about how your school’s debate rules are more correct than another will not do much to progress the debate.

• This also means that I am very flexible when it comes to debate “norms”. If there is something you would like to do or change, just ask! As I said, the debate space should be accessible to everyone.

• I love debates that are engaging for everyone involved. Make sure that you are actually addressing each other's arguments. I will not make arguments for you.

• I will never be mad at you running a fun case as long as it is appropriate for the round.

I’m happy you are here!!! You are amazing for being here.