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.

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

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

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

Appearance judge with a focus on delivery and reasoning. New to judging but spent time on circuit for the last two years. Spreading is not a comfort nor K's.

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

Paradigm for Judging Speech:

I have three main points to which I look for when judging speech and debate, but I would like to start out with general conduct and respect. Always be respectful and courteous to fellow competitors when sharing the same room while competing. You may also feel free to pause when appropriate to address any issues experienced between competitors or myself. I will do my best to conduct fair and meaningful debate rounds that are first led by respect and courtesy.

Please see the main points I’m looking for within competitor’s content when judging speech rounds:

1. Memorized Material:
- Evaluate the speaker's ability to memorize and recite their content fluently and accurately.
- Consider the speaker's grasp of the material's nuances, depth, and relevance to the chosen topic.
- Assess the speaker's confidence and ease in delivering memorized content without relying heavily on notes or prompts.

2. Audience Connection:
- Gauge the speaker's engagement with the audience through eye contact, body language, and vocal variation.
- Evaluate the speaker's ability to tailor their message to resonate with the audience's interests, concerns, and perspectives.
- Consider the speaker's responsiveness to audience feedback, including questions, reactions, and interruptions.

3. Creativity in Delivery:
- Assess the speaker's originality and innovation in presenting ideas, anecdotes, or arguments.
- Evaluate the speaker's use of rhetorical devices, storytelling techniques, and dramatic elements to captivate and persuade the audience.
- Consider the speaker's adaptability and spontaneity in responding to unexpected situations or challenges during the presentation.

Overall, prioritize the coherence, persuasiveness, and impact of the speaker's performance while also considering their adherence to time limits, professionalism, and respect for their fellow competitors.

As a judge, I approach each round with the utmost respect for the competitors and their craft. My goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps speakers grow while also fairly evaluating their performances. Here are the key criteria I consider:

1. Content and Argumentation:

   • The content should be well-researched, relevant, and organized.
   • A clear thesis or argument should be presented.
   • Supporting points should be logically developed and effectively communicated.
   • The speaker's understanding of the topic should be demonstrated.

2. Delivery and Presentation:

   • The speaker should engage the audience effectively.
   • Delivery should be confident, articulate, and expressive.
   • Tone, pace, and volume should be varied appropriately.
   • Gestures and body language should enhance the message without becoming distracting.

3. Voice and Diction:

   • The speaker's voice should be clear and easy to understand.
   • Proper pronunciation and enunciation should be demonstrated.
   • Pauses and emphasis should be used effectively to convey meaning.
   • Vocal range and control should be exhibited.

4. Presence and Persona:

   • The speaker should command the stage and maintain poise throughout the presentation.
   • Authenticity and sincerity should be evident in the delivery.
   • A connection with the audience should be established.
   • Nervousness or distractions should be effectively managed.

In evaluating each performance, I strive to maintain objectivity, fairness, and constructive criticism. I recognize the dedication and hard work that goes into preparing for speech individual events, and I aim to provide feedback that both celebrates achievements and encourages continued growth. Thank you for entrusting me with the opportunity to serve as a judge.

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.

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

TWO DIAMOND COACH:

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

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

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

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

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

My View on debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigms:

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

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

As a judge, I am looking first and foremost at speaking skill. A well planned and spoken speech ranks high on my radar. I also place value on evidence based speeches. Your evidence should be current and relevant. Confidence, kindness, and professionalism are key, as well.

1. Be Professional ALWAYS
2. NO SPREADING. 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.

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.

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!

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.

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 ????!

I was 4-year policy debater in Kansas that dabbled in PFD and LD occasionally in high school. I currently debate for the University of Arkansas in IPDA.

Policy: I am used to rounds at any speed level and can judge about any argument in policy. All I stress is that you run what you feel is your best option that you understand and feel comfortable arguing. Don't run a K just to run one, make it matter in the round! I will vote on any arg (T, CP, Condo, K's, Framework, etc.). I'm probably a little more tech over truth but both matter quite a bit to me.

Other Debate Events: Use your lay skills here! I will definitely be flowing but I care more about your analysis of evidence and arguments and how they relate to your position under the resolution.

Ensures that each debater's arguments is assessed objectively, without favoring any particular viewpoint. Focusing solely on the strength of the arguments presented and the evidence provided to support them. Evaluating debaters based on their ability to communicate effectively, both in terms of delivery and engagement. Looking for debaters who speak confidently, engage with their opponents respectfully, and effectively convey their arguments to the audience.

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.

I have coached several styles of Debate for two years now (mostly Congressional, LD, and PF). During a debate round, I will favor a debater(s) who is courteous/respectful, who presents organized and easy-to-follow arguments, and who gives clear/reliable/robust evidence to support those arguments. I don't mind spreading, but I prefer when debater(s) speak at a speed in which you can still fully understand every word they are saying. To win my ballot, please bring fully prepared arguments to the table and treat your opponents as you would like to be treated.

I am both a speech and debate coach, who primarily works with speech events and IPDA style debate.

Speech Events:

In interp, I focus on technical ability but also your understanding of the emotions in the piece. I want to see sincere displays of emotional depth that appropriately connect with the overall theme.

In public address and platform speaking events, I value organization and clarity in your speech. I am a fan of visual paragraphing provided it is done well--your movement should look natural and enhance the presentation not distract. INFO should be well rehearsed with their visual integration, but I understand that accidents may happen due to travel/stands.

ALL Debate Events:

Above all, I value good sportspersonship! I will not tolerate rude behavior towards opponents because we are here to clash ideas, not clash each other. I am opposed to the practice of spreading, as it does not give judges enough time to process information and flow. I typically evaluate rounds based on the following criteria (in order): validity and logic of argument, organization of points, round decorum, and speaking presence.

**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.

Hi!

I am a freshman at the University of Arkansas. I have experience in multiple formats, Congress, Parliamentary, and IPDA I have the most experience competing in. I also have done in the past LD, PF, WSD. So I'm fairly experienced in the world of debate. I have 4 years of debate under my belt.

I look for good logical flow as well as who persuades me more. Signpost for me. Make sure I can flow it. Keep it neat!

Please do not spread. If I can't understand you I'm not going to flow.

Don't be rude to your opponents. Just don't.

Please keep a good round going and try your hardest to give a good easy to understand flow.

For Congress:

Know what you're doing.

Elect a PO that will run a smooth session, as a career PO I will rank you well if you do a good job. I know it takes a lot of work.

Try to avoid podiums. Avoid having your laptop. I know it's not always possible. But do your best to avoid them.

Clash. Don't just give me your 3 point constructive. I want to see good solid clash. You will be upvoted for good clash!

Have fun!

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!!

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.