Hello debaters! I am a parent volunteer judge and I’m very excited to be here with you all. I have been trained on judging this specific style and have judged multiple debate styles & speech events. My son is a 3rd year debater. I’m eager to learn from you all and give you feedback from my perspective!

If you plan on spreading and/or are running a progressive case, please share your case with me to this email address: aihongwen@hotmail.com

True spreading will be difficult and very new for me. When possible, please slow down slightly so that I can take thorough notes and give you the best feedback & results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Competed/ Graduated in Oklahoma under the GOAT and now NSDA Hall of Fame coach Michael Patterson

As far as policy and all debate goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful.

"racism....its bad kids...don't do it"- Michael Patterson

No spreading if possible your judges should still be able to understand almost every word and enunciate.

I don't think the debate should be a monologue of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me I'll laugh, All while still keeping decorum.

Any NBA jokes are appreciated! you won't get any extra points, just my laugh.

Relatively straightforward:

Keep the debate interesting with new evidence and argumentation

Speak clearly

Be polite! Of course keep a bite but never step into the realm of rude.

I competed in Debate and Forensics on the national level for 3 years. I know that tournaments can be stressful and there's a lot of anxiety surrounding them. Take a deep breath! You're going to do great :)

For Debate: I do not like spreading. I can typically follow and flow it, however it is likely that I will ask you to slow down considerably if you spread. In PF, I expect information to be at the forefront of your case. In LD, your value should be brought up frequently. In Congressional, please try not to repeat speech points in different words. Other than that, make the round interesting. In most of the events, you're repeating the same case you give to other judges and competitors. Make me believe you. My old coach told me one time that if you're a debater, you need to know how to act and put on a performance. I will be rooting for you guys, and as a former competitor, I know how annoying it is when a judge comes into the round with bias. I might have an opinion on your topic, but I will always be as objective as possible. That's good and it's bad. You might have a really good point that I have outside knowledge to expand on, but you have to impact it out or I can't consciously give you the benefit.

For Forensics: I really don't have many paradigms! I am perfectly okay with giving you time signals specific to what you would like, although I will usually give you a countdown in your last 3 minutes. For speeches, make sure to use as much diction as possible, especially if the expectation is still to perform in a mask. I want to love your speech or your piece, but that is hard to do when I miss some of it because of masks. Don't get me wrong, I know we need them!! But just make sure to be extra cautious of that!

Hello!

I competed for three years on the ACTAA & NSDA circuit in multiple IEs & Congress. While I didn’t compete in debate much beyond IPDA, I have gained quite a bit of experience this past year as a judge.

General Etiquette

- I don't mind if you time yourself, just keep in mind my times are going to be what goes on the ballot

- Stand when you speak

- Both the competitors asking questions and the ones answering should be standing during cross exams/questioning blocks

- If you have extenuating circumstances around your physical mobility & can't be standing up and down like that, just let me know, it's no biggie

---

Congressional:

The two things I'm looking for in congress are

a) stage presence-- How dependent are you on your legal pad/laptop? How much are you looking up and addressing the chamber as opposed to just reading from a script? How well are you using your space?

and b) clash-- Past the first aff and neg speeches, you should be debating previous points at least a little bit. Bringing up new information is all well and good, but you also need to be refuting points from the delegates on the opposite side. I'm personally a fan of calling someone out by name to refute and combat their point. The more clash the better.

I generally don’t flow arguments in congress unless there is something peculiar about the debate or the comment I have to you specifically pertains to the argument. I’ll really just give feedback on how you handled yourself during the speech

As a closing note to keep in mind: I understand that congressional legislation can get political and you're going to be inclined to argue with what you personally agree with, but you should understand that debate is not about what you believe, it's about your ability to argue. There are going to be times when you have to argue for something you don't agree with and refusing to do so is going to harm the flow of debate.

---

Case Debate & IPDA

A.Don't Spread. I can't flow what I can't understand.

B. My Flow:

1. Weighing Mech/Value/Criterion

- You should also give a brief description/explanation on whatever you propose. Some people use different definitions of the same thing & we all need to be on the same page

2. Definitions

- I have auditory processing issues. Make sure you say your definitions clearly & don’t rush through them. Help me make sure I have a crystal clear understanding about the basis of your argument.

3. Any Identified Burdens

4. Contention titles

5. Claims & paired cards

- Take care not to spread/rush through your sources. I value evidence highly and want to know your cards

6. Rebuttal

- when it comes to rebuttal speeches, the way I flow gets less structured– I will write down pretty much anything I hear that obviously pertains to a previous argument so that I can go back & analyze if any points were dropped/missed & to determine what point flows to who

C. Speaker Points

- While I appreciate a bit of engaging words and style, it’s not necessary. As long as you can get through your speeches with minimal stumbles and with relative smoothness you’ll get good numbers

- It is poor sportsmanship to bring up new points late into the argument when your opponent doesn’t have time to properly refute. This will result in low speaker points.

- It is even worse sportsmanship to make comments about your opponent’s debate style or competency during off-the-clock roadmaps. I have seen this happen too many times & I’m completely sick of it. This will result in low speaker points.

- I will be 'grading' speaks points based off of the following: Delivery; Courtesy; Appropriate Tone; Organization; Logic; Support (if needed based on the weighing mech); Cross Exam; and Refutation. Some things, like organization and delivery, are more important than the others, like cross.

bonus if you got this far: i'll give you an extra speaker point if you reference jujutsu kaisen or hunter x hunter

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

Hello there and welcome to this judge's paradigm!

I am a college student and a former forensics student. If you need time to breathe or feel nervous I will not be mad. I know what it is like to be in your situation.

I have some basic congress know-how like precedent and recency.

Please speak at a slow speed because I am hard of hearing.

Harrison Cook

Judging Paradigm

Experience- I was a debater in High School on the Texas UIL circuit and am now on the Arkansas State University Debate Team. I have competed in LD, Congress, NPDA, and IPDA debate.

Philosophy- I look for a few things in rounds:

1. Clarity - Make it clear to me what you are arguing and how it applies to the resolution/case/etc.

2. Fulfillment of Burdens - In IPDA and LD rounds, I look to make sure that the two parties have fulfilled their burdens as a part of my decision. The burdens I observe are as follows:

a. Affirmative - You have the Burden of Proof. You must make your case and then provide either evidential or prudential evidence as to why your case is superior. Prefer no apriori warrants.

b. Negative - You have the Burden of Clash. You need to make it clear that you are attacking your opponent’s case either directly/CP/etc.

3. Remember to HAVE FUN – Debate is a game, have fun and do your best!

Speed- 9/10 Speed doesn’t bother me much. Make sure to clearly organize and slow down a tad for signposting. I want to make sure I have everything organized in my flow, so I can be as fair as possible.

Speaker Points- I award speaker points using the following rubric:

0-10: You have maybe introduced the topic and then proceeded to talk about something else entirely. I will never give this low of speaker points in a debate round.

10-15: Gave a speech. The organization wasn’t all there, and you didn’t respond to arguments clearly at all.

15-20: Gave a speech and had some organization. Clarity is lacking.

20-25: Gave a good speech with organization. Clear in your responses to your opponent’s argument.

25-30: Excellent speech. Showed a clear understanding of the topic and was very well organized. Good clarity throughout.

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't, by subtracting where it is, from where it isn't, or where it isn't, from where it is, whichever is greater, it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance sub-system uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is, to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position where it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event of the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation. The variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too, may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computance scenario works as follows: Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is, however it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subracts where it should be, from where it wasn't, or vice versa. By differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was. It is able to obtain a deviation, and a variation, which is called error.

we do a minuscule amount of tomfoolery

actual paradigm: you will receive an immediate L if you reference that silly Voltaire quote about the Holy Roman Empire unless the topic is directly related to it

I am a recent graduate of high school. I was competitor in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Congress. I have judged before and of course competed in debate, so I am very well versed in debate and debate slogan. If you are spreading make sure everyone in the room is comfortable/aware.

For LD:

Be polite; I do know though that this isn't a specifically polite debate, I also am more of an aggressive debater. If you have aggression, or passion as I like to say, that is by all means great! Just make sure to not use offensive terms in your case, and especially not against your opponent. It is pretty valuable to me that you flow your value and value criterion throughout your case and speeches. I take that into great consideration when choosing a winner. I also want to hear clash on every argument; if you drop something I will be flowing the entire round, so I will know. I love debate, so I will know timings as well. I do prefer you time yourself though, just to ensure you get your speech in time. Focus on impacts. Impacts and how they fit into your criterions are how you win.

PF:

Same applies from above, however I do think PF is a style you don't spread in a lot. Typically there are lay judges, so I would recommend not spreading (however I am fine with a small amount of it). Make sure you weigh your rounds. Weighing the round is what I judge upon when it comes to my final decision, and who had the biggest impact with their weighing mechanism.

Speaking:

Focus on your stance, and just clear concise speaking. I love everything debate, and am so so excited to judge you!

Always make sure to have fun, I love when I can see passion in debaters!

As this is my second year of judging on the circuits, I feel better prepared to accurately judge rounds based on the technical merits of cases. I have spent quite a bit of time judging Public Forum, and I continue to refine my skills in Congressional Debate. Assessing weight and impact are ongoing tasks, but I feel confident in my decisions based on a review of my flows. I have not judged a Critical Theory round to date, but I have sat in on one or two. I try to actively judge in tournaments, as it is through judging I learn how to better assist the students in our program.

I am more confident judging forensics' competitions as this is where I have more practical experience. I enjoy the diverse variety of the interpretive divisions. There are so many different ways students can showcase their talents and skills from interpretation to improvisation to acting. While it is difficult to quantify inspiration and creativity, I always enjoy watching how these remarkable young men and women respond to a challenge.

As a judge, I prioritize logic, adherence to the resolution, effective rebuttal, and speaking ability. Here's a breakdown of what I look for in each of these areas:

1. Logic: Logical reasoning is the number one most important thing in debate. I appreciate debaters who present well-structured arguments supported by evidence and sound reasoning. Clear and logical organization of ideas helps me follow the flow of the debate and understand the debaters' positions.

2. Adherence to the Resolution: It is crucial for debaters to engage with the topic at hand and demonstrate a clear understanding of the resolution. I expect debaters to provide arguments that directly address the resolution and support their position. Debaters should avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not contribute to the central debate. The ability to effectively link arguments back to the resolution is essential.

3. Rebuttal: Debaters should actively engage with their opponents' arguments, identify weaknesses, and provide strong counterarguments. I value debaters who can effectively refute opposing arguments while maintaining a respectful and constructive tone.

4. Speaker Points: I assign speaker points based on factors such as clear and dynamic delivery, organization, use of evidence, and overall effectiveness in conveying their arguments. Higher speaker points are awarded to debaters who demonstrate exceptional communication skills and make a strong impression.

Here are some common mistakes that weaken a debater's performance:

Speaking too quickly

Choosing definitions that do not align with the spirit of the resolution

Setting a framework, then neglecting to reference it throughout the debate

Lack of humility.

Remember, this paradigm is specific to my judging preferences. Other judges may have different priorities, so it's important to adapt your approach accordingly. Have fun!

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

Hi, I am a parent judge who has a daughter that does PF debate. I am looking for at your speaking techniques, case and topic debate not personal, good evidence, clear cut taglines, good argumentation, etc. I do not like progressive stye debate and will not be able to keep up with things like spreading so I ask that you do not do so.

LD-

I look for a good balance between evidence, analysis, and theory if used. I do not know as much about theory so if you are running it please explain thoroughly. I am not used to things like K's but will hear them out.

PF-

I am looking for mostly evidence, some analysis, and no theory. I will not accept or vote for a plan as that is not what needs to be provided in a PF round and is against NSDA rules. I am also not used to anything like K's in PF as that is not the standard, so I ask that you refrain from using them.

BQ-

I am looking for a balance between evidence, analysis, and theory but I will not count it against you if you use mostly theory with analysis.

World Schools-

I have never judged world schools before and know very little about it so this will be a learning experience for me.

1. Be Professional ALWAYS
2. NO SPREADING UNLESS YOU SHARE YOUR CASE WITH ME. If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing the debate. This means if I can't understand you, there will be points automatically flowing to the other side. Unless you share your case with me, you should be speaking at a conversational or slightly quicker rate.
3. Clash is key!!! Go line-by-line and pick apart every bit of your opponents case while you build your own case back up.
4. Good debaters are good communicators and good speakers. Make sure you look up at me. You shouldn't have to read your case word for word the entire time.

I am a speech and debate coach. In high school and college I was a speech/IE competitor. I have been coaching for the past 12 years. My teams compete in PF, BQ, IPDA, Congressional and Mock Trial. We also compete in all speech/IE events. We compete on both state (Arkansas) and national circuits. ____________________________________________________________________________

Decorum is of utmost importance - both verbal and nonverbal.

This should be a civil discourse between competitors.

Do NOT attack your opponent personally - attack the resolution and the claims.

Debate is a speaking activity, so, no, I do not want you to share/email/drop, etc. your case to me. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speaking style is also critical. Do not spread or even talk fast - if I can't understand or if I struggle to keep up with what you're saying two things happen: (1) I will miss key information and (2) I will get frustrated and not be able to judge you. If I miss an argument because you are speaking too fast and are not clear, then you didn't make it.

Do not be monotone in your delivery and look up during speeches. KNOW YOUR CASE!!!

You should not have so much information that it requires you to speak faster than normal conversation pace/speed. Be efficient with your words.

I want to know how to judge the round, so supply and use your MW or V/VC or Framework!

I want to see clear links between your claims and your WM, V/VC, Framework.

I want clear CWI's.

I want to hear logical application of research in your case - don't just recite sources, actually apply it!

You need to clearly and effectively refute all of your opponent's claims. Debate requires CLASH - if there is no clash, then you have not debated. It is the responsibility of each debater to add to and create clash throughout the round.

I flow the round, so I am well aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - don't claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't!!! This can cost you the ballot!

Debate the resolution you have been given and nothing else! (HINT: K's)

Do not have a side debate about who has the best evidence - present the evidence and I'll decide as the judge, I don't need you to try and persuade me - or any other issues not related to the given resolution.

I don't need a road map - you should be clear enough in your round that I can clearly follow you.

______________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Debate - This is a role play debate ( you are not a high schooler, you are an elected representative with constituents). You still MUST HAVE CLASH!! Without clash, it's just dueling oratories! Listen to the other representatives and address their arguments. Don't bring electronics up and read your speech off of your computer/iPad/phone. Look up and address your fellow representatives. Ask good questions - don't preface questions and don't ask/lob "softball" questions.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Have fun!!! The world will not come to an end if you do not win this round! Always be looking for what you can learn from each round you debate.

Win. Lose. Learn!

________________________________________________________________________

On a lighter note, my favorite K-pop bands are The Rose, EXO, BTS, Seventeen, NCT 127 & NCT Dream -- if you work K-pop lyrics into your case/refutation, you won't receive any extra points, but it'll make me smile!!!!!!

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

Lisa Haddock

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

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

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

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

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

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

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

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

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

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

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

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

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

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

I have been working with the debate team at our school for 4 year and judging for at least 3. I am a High School/College teacher in both US and World History. This means I am very well versed in history. I am well versed in research and bias of sources. In Debate rounds I want well researched cases with strong evidence. I also like connections, your evidence needs to connect to your points and support your claims, free floating evidence does not apply anywhere in the round. I expect a synopsis for voters as well, if you don't give me voters I will use my own observations to way the round, which may not be how you want me to vote. That being said, being too pushy may push me away from your position. Give voters that I can consider and persuade me why you should win on the logic and evidence of the case. I am not a fan of spreading. I would rather have you present a case with a few strong points than a lot of little ones. I do not like it when competitors are rude to one another. No matter how heated the battle or frustrated you get, politeness goes a long way with me.

PUBLIC FORUM

I will evaluate Public Forum as if I am a jury of 12 and you all are the lawyers. Pro is the Prosecution and Con is the Defense. What is on trial is the status quo in relation to the topic at hand. Pro/Aff in any debate round advocates for a change. Pro accuses the Con side of creating a risk with complacency in our current condition. Pro must present that change implied in the resolution has lower risk and higher benefits, and do so in effective qualitative ways, as opposed to a quantitative approach in policy debate.

Now, unlike a courtroom, Pro does not necessarily have to prove their side "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead, "on balance" - which basically means I have to find 51% or more favor to their side. I will look for the Con team to punch holes in this effort and basically convince me that either A) change is not necessary or B) the change the Pro side advocates is bad.

My ballot goes to the side that presents the least risk, and a better future outcome than what their opponents call for.

LINCOLN - DOUGLAS

I judge components of LD in a hierarchy of burdens each debater has to fill:

1) FRAMEWORK - Value first, criterion second. I need to know the "what" of importance as related to the resolution before you tell me "how" that importance will be met in your criterion, and ultimately your case. If either side drops framework, it makes the round very difficult for them to win.

2) AFF CASE, BURDEN OF PROOF - The affirmative is the side advocating change. They therefore establish the arena that everyone plays in. They need to show how their perspective on the case represents the value the best and how that value substantiates a deviation from status quo. I need to see legitimate, topical blocks that fortify framework. Dropped aff arguments are devastating.

3) NEG CASE, BURDEN OF REJOINDER - The negative case has the responsibility to refute proof when aff has met their burden. Silence is consent. The negative cannot simply ignore or blatantly dismiss affirmative arguments, logical substantiated claims and warrants are a must for me to determine an aff point or subpoint has been refuted.

The side that best upholds framework, and also has the strongest aggregate amount of legitimate arguments standing at the end of the round gets my ballot...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

What I will be looking for from competitors in Congressional Debate is speech structure, relevant, reliable evidence and content uniqueness. Repeating talking points from prior speeches without enhancing discussion of the question is worse than saying nothing. Build onto prior points, refute prior claims, or create new angles of discussion. Be a part of the process, and do not aim to slow it down with parliamentary tricks. Use the procedure to benefit the procedure.

I am a traditional lay judge, nothing progressive. I have a son who does debate and I stay pretty well informed on most topics. I appreciate professionalism in rounds. I am okay if you talk fast, but I am not always good at listening fast. Just do your best and make good arguments.

Decorum and Professionalism are of utmost importance, especially verbally! I do not want to see any disrespect between opponents!

This is a debate, and it should feel like one! No spreading or talking so fast that I can't understand you. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you properly.

Know your case! I don't want to feel like you are reading verbatim from your notes. Look up once in a while! If you are going to just read your case to me instead of actively presenting your case and debating your opponent, I will judge you accordingly.

Come to the round prepared! While confidence and speaking tone are important, it is not all that the round is judged on. You must present a better argument, even if your speaking tone isn't as loud as your opponent's!

Debate requires CLASH! You must be able to clearly and effectively refute your opponent's claims. No clash means no debate! I want to see passion and confidence!

I flow the round so am aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - do not claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't - it could cost you the ballot.

Please only debate the resolution you have been given and do not focus on anything else.

HAVE FUN!!! Give it your best and leave feeling accomplished in your efforts, the world will not end if you don't win this round!

On a lighter note, I love a good cross! I love when questions aren't the general "Can you state all of your contentions again...." and are used more for engaging your opponent on points they just made that you could challenge and make flow to your side!

Hi! I am a college student graduating in May 2023 from the University of Arkansas! I am majoring in Theatre with an emphasis in Performance, however, I have was in Speech and Debate for 4 years throughout High School. I have experience in all of the speech events, but I hope to explore debate as well! I qualified for Nationals in the summer of 2019 and made it to the octo-finals. Needless to say, when it comes to judging, you are in great hands!!

Hi, I'm Kristella and I graduated from Bentonville West in 2018. I started off my debate career in policy and migrated to the other styles competing all over the state and country. Because of this, I do flow and will want the speeches to be organized and arguments easy to follow. I am okay with any type of argument if you chose to run a more progressive case. My only concern is to make sure it connects to the case and articulate why it is important. Make sure whatever you are saying links back to the resolution and/or framework.

As this isn't policy, there is no need to spread. As someone that speaks rather quickly, I resonate with my fellow fast-talkers. Just make sure you are still extremely clear with what you are saying. I don't want to be confused with the arguments you are making.

Cross can be very valuable. I won't be flowing cross but if your opponent says something you deem important in cross, make sure to bring it up during your speech. Tell me why what happened in cross is important.

If you have any questions, you can ask before the round starts.

Be respectful and avoid arguments that are offensive in any way. Debate should be fun so while you want to win, have fun with it.

Good luck!

I am a college debater who competed on the Arkansas circuit in high school, I have competed in BQ, LD, IPDA, CX, WSD, and parli . I know mainly anything you can throw at me, just be clear with your arguments.

If you want me to flow everything you say, don’t spread. Be very clear with line by line and the flow. When addressing an opponent's case be very specific on which it is ex. " contention 2 sub point b"

Have fun:)

**For Nationals Policy Paradigm, scroll to the bottom**

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

- NATIONALS 2024 POLICY PARADIGM-

Going to be honest here, policy is not my favorite style. I am not a fan of spreading, speed dropping cards, and theory arguments before the resolution. I won’t buy card formatting arguments or other fringe or minor arguments that do not deal directly with the administration of the cases in the round.

Aff Burden: I am an old school Policy Judge. Aff needs to set a Plan that is well thought out, supported with cards, and a detailed and nuanced Plan that takes into account the harms/ads/disads and impacts of the Plan. Plan needs to think through all the standard planks.(• Topicality • Harms / Inherency • Significance • Solvency • Advantages / Disadvantages) If you run something that is not a plan, it is hard to address/solve the burden of the Aff which is to propose a Plan.

Neg Burden: I’m ok with the Neg focus on counterplans and but my main focus as the judge is if the plan is well supported, funded, enforced and FESABILE. Neg should pressure test the Aff plan and be able to show how the plan presented, originating from the three possible policy applications, may have flaws/shortcomings/disads/impacts that the Aff may not be looking at or see. Neg needs to keep it topical though, I will not be buying any argumentation that reducing Social Security would lead to nuclear war, or anything of the like. If Neg does not establish and maintain strong link chains and impacts its going to be hard to show the flaws and get around or past the Aff plan.

Disclosure Note: So when it comes to disclosure, I am not going to factor into a decision disclosure of cases online well before the round. I would love a copy of the case in paper or digital form before you start, I feel it is required if you plan to spread. If you expect me to flow your spreading without some form of your case I will not flow your case, I will just put my pen down. If you go at a moderate speed, I can and will flow with you but would still appreciate a copy of the case to look at in case I have questions. If you are doing a piecemeal Neg case that is Straight Refusal and line by line, then no case is needed but make sure you go slow enough that I can flow it out.

Cards Note: If you have the card, be able to provide it if asked. I prefer paper cards, but know that is way Old School so make sure I have your Linktree/Drive or something established so if I have a question on a card I can see it. If it sounds too good to be true don’t be surprised or offended if I ask to see it. Also, do not try to discredit cards due to templating, without a National template I am not the style police for carding, if they made an effort, can provide it and it makes sense it is admissible to use in the round.

Spreading Note: Honestly, not a fan of spreading, it is a choice in delivery, and not a requirement. You have 8 mins to set the case, if you need to sacrifice speed for speaking I think that your case is overloaded and you are card slamming just to give the opponents more to answer. I think spreading takes away from the communication of debate and would rather hear the arguments and experience the clash then hear someone mumble their case at me. Set the case as you choose but then give the spreading a break and advocate for why your case is a good thing and should win. If you spread every speech at me with no real application or connection it will be a hard win. Just being honest.

Importance of Impacts: I am a impacts debater, meaning I want to see the impacts that a line of argument of questioning have on the status quo or proposed Aff/Neg world. I often follow the line for impacts to a ballot so be sure to apply the impacts of your attacks all the way through. Don’t just stop at the evidence and ask me to apply it for you, show me your warrants to get that impact!

What doesn’t Flow: I flow cross if it applies to advancing argumentation. I don’t flow ad hominum/personal attacks. I will flow case side extensions but not too late in the case and will always flow impacts and stock issues flowovers if set up and backed up with cards.

Plan Planks Priority: For me the order goes, from most to least important:

Topicality, Solvency, Advantages/Disadvantages, Harms/Inherency, Significance

New coach here. I'm familiar with speech and forensics, but new to debate.

Please don't spread. I'm not savvy enough to figure out what you are saying and flow your case.

Please be respectful to your competitors.

I value truth over tech and focus on the impacts for my decisions.

I'm looking forward to your debate, best of luck.

1. Reasoning and evidence
2. Expression and delivery

Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach

I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.

Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.

I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.

I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.

PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!