Hi, I am Kaitlin I go to William Tennent High School. I have competed in both speech and debate in High School.

DEBATE:

Just some main stuff I'm going to hit right away if you are going to spread I will drop my pen. Also, please use an appropriate pitch and tone if you are mumbling I will also drop my pen.

Timekeeping - You're more than welcome to keep time I will also keep track of time.

- Evidence plays a crucial role in establishing the credibility of your argument. Debaters should use evidence that is relevant, accurate and comes from reliable sources. My criteria for judgment will evaluate debaters based on clarity, argumentation, evidence, persuasiveness, and overall logic. Which means evaluating the strength and coherence of the arguments presented and how well it supports the overall argument. It's not just about who presents the most facts, but who uses those facts in a logical, persuasive manner. Also, If you present new evidence in rebuttals I will drop it.

Decorum - Please refrain from using disrespectful language or personal attacks. - Any violations will result in point deductions.

For some, this might be new and that's 100% ok! We all were there at one point so if you have any questions, please ask before or after the round! Also, remember just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible, you can do it!

SPEECH:

Timekeeping - Only in Extemp and Imp I will allow you to keep your own time but for those events and the rest of the speech events I will be keeping time (if you want specific hand signals please let me know but in general I will do a three down.)

Decorum- I don't really mind it as long as it does not take over your piece.

Content warning- Please give them they are so important!

All electronic devices should be turned off unless it's an emergency please let me know!

As a judge, my evaluative framework is firmly rooted in fairness to all competitors, respect for their individual perspectives, and a commitment to fostering their growth and development. I place a high value on the clarity of argumentation and expression, while also recognizing the unique challenges that each participant may face. It is essential to consider these factors in the judging process. I encourage speakers to transform any perceived weaknesses into strengths.

I am particularly interested in the logical structure of arguments and the effective use of evidence and citations, as I believe these elements are fundamental to a compelling speech. I appreciate debaters who can maintain a respectful tone while passionately advocating for their positions and supporting their claims with factual evidence.

I expect competitors to provide clear roadmaps to facilitate the understanding of their arguments. While I am open to various styles of debate and speech, I have a particular appreciation for creative arguments that are substantiated by empirical evidence.

My overarching goal is to cultivate an environment that promotes critical thinking, respectful discourse, high-quality presentations, and intellectual growth. I value the efforts of each competitor and recognize the dedication that goes into preparing for competition. Remember that just by competing you are already a successful speaker and debater. I wish the best of luck to all participants.

As a stock issues judge in Policy (CX) debate, my paradigm centers on evaluating arguments based on their quality rather than quantity. I prioritize depth of analysis, coherence of reasoning, and clarity of impacts in determining the strength of each team's case. I believe in the importance of thorough research and well-supported evidence to substantiate claims and impacts. Debaters can expect fair scrutiny of the significance, solvency, inherency, and harms of the proposed policy solutions, ensuring that all arguments are rigorously evaluated against these criteria.

My commitment extends beyond argumentation to uphold a round free from discrimination. I maintain a strict intolerance towards any form of bias, ensuring that all participants are treated with respect and evaluated solely on the merits of their arguments and performance. This includes sensitivity towards language, identities, and perspectives, fostering an inclusive and equitable debate environment. By upholding these principles, I aim to facilitate a constructive and educational debate experience where every debater feels empowered to present their case confidently and fairly.

I do not mind theory arguments in Policy (CX) debate, but will not even consider them if they are discriminatory or too "out-of-pocket."

[...]

Hi! If you’re reading this then I am either somehow judging a debate round or you are an EXTREMELY committed speech kid (good for you!).

Some things you should know about me: I competed at the HS level for four years, and participated in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Impromptu, and Public Forum. I am an NSDA octafinalist in Oratory (2x qualified) and state champion in the event. I was a state finalist in info and state semifinalist in impromptu. I was also leadership for my team for 3 years and thus have experience critically evaluating both speech and debate rounds.

For speech:

Not much to know. Do your best and I will do my best to rank you fairly. I will always also strive to give you a helpful and constructive ballot. I will laugh at your jokes, I’m not one of those weird judges who will just stare at you ????

For debate:

I competed in PF but was TERRIBLE at it lol. So don’t expect me to get it when you run a K or disclosure theory, especially as I generally disapprove of prog debate. I’ll drop you for prog (so treat me as lay), spreading, and/or blatant sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, or other forms of discrimination employed in your argumentation or directed at your opponents. These are unacceptable.

Thank you for competing at this tournament, I look forward to hearing your perspective! Your voice matters, your words have power — don’t let anyone ever silence you.

I'm a speech and debate alumni who did debate for all four years, but speech was always my strong suit. This makes me in general much more of a comms judge, but I try to go off the flow. This means that it is very important that I understand what you are attacking, so speak clearly and signpost well. No spreading. I like it when you tell me why you win, so give me voters. Imma say that again please give me voters. I'm generally tech over truth, so if your opponent says something untrue, call them out. I am also extremely sleep deprived, and I already have a hard time listening to people talk for long periods of time without falling asleep, so please keep me engaged.

I am a Middle School Speech and Debate coach. I judged debate at the NSDA nationals last year and have judged on our local circuit here in Richmond, VA. Have completed cultural competency training via NSDA.

Here are my prefs:

1. Clear signposting throughout.
2. Cut your cards cleanly. I may ask to see evidence at the end if something is unclear or if a particular piece of evidence has been a source of contention in this round.
3. Speed is your worst enemy with me. (Lay/Flay only). High speed tech is not great for me. I will flow the round.
4. Make sure you have clean and clear logic chains with impacts that I can weigh. If you leave me with nothing to weigh at the end it will be incredibly hard to make a decision.
5. I want to see interaction with the evidence and cards provided.
6. Most importantly, I value and uphold civil discourse. I will not tolerate mean-spirited, snarky, or otherwise disrespectful debate.

Info general:

Sofía María Bosch

Mexicana-catalana-española-estadounidense

Coach (entrenadora) de debate bilingüe o en español en John D. Wells, MS. 50 (PF y política)

Jueza de PF bilingüe

Profesora de humanidades de educación especial bilingüe, grados 6-8

Expectativas:

Tus discursos deben tener un fuerte inicio y final, debe ser muy claro tu argumento relacionada con la resolución o tema del debate. Tu evidencia o los nombres de tus fuentes también deben ser explícitas.

Prefiero discursos con narrativas convincentes (pathos, logos) y palabras de transición (por ejemplo, "nuestro primer argumento", "nuestro segundo argumento", etc.).

No debería tener que decirles que sean respetuosos o que no usen lenguaje odioso, racista, capacitista, sexista u homofóbico. Si lo escucho, automáticamente le daré la boleta al otro equipo.

I am currently a sophomore at Northwestern and did Public Forum for 4 years in high school, so I come into rounds with the perspective of a competitor. I'm a flow judge; at the end of the round, unless there are serious rule violations or an inherently racist/sexist/homophobic argument, I will vote on my flow. However, I need you to weigh so I know how exactly I should interpret my flow in the round. If you don't do the weighing for me, I'll decide with my own analytics, which may not favor you. Also, impacts don't always need to have numbers attached to them. As long as you tell me how to weigh them, I buy logical arguments. I can handle speed. However, if you're spreading to the point that the round becomes inequitable, I'll stop flowing your speech. For conflicting evidence, you need to tell me why exactly your card is better than your opponents'; you can't just say that it is. Have fun! That's why we're all here.

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom (no true at nationals). You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.

-----------------Speech-----------------

Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.

-----------------Debate-----------------

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Extemp Debate:

Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!

Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.

----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----

Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.

Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.

My experience in public speaking goes as far back as elementary school plays. But my experience in competitive public speaking began when I competed as a slam poet in my high school years for the SayWordLA team in the years of 2016-18. We represented the city of Pomona at Brave New Voices and made it to semi finals both years. In between that, I became a Los Angeles Youth Poet Ambassador in 2017. When I went to college at Mt.SAC, I competed in Poetry, DUO, Persuasion, and extemp. I was awarded multiple medals throughout the season and took some hardware home from nationals as well. Our team took Gold in 2022 at Phi Rho Pi.

Part of my judging philosophy is that we establish and create a safe space for all competitors. We can achieve this together by being good audience members. That means no phones or side conversations while a speaker is performing. We know you are a great speaker, let’s practice being respectful listeners.

I am happy to help you grow in your events and I’m sure we can learn from each other.

Good luck always!

email: kimberly@adcominc.us

I did cx, extemp, and interp in both the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits.

Debate: I’ve mainly done cx in my high school experience so that’s what I am most suited to, but I easily pick up on any form of debate. I am okay with spreading. Make sure to roadmap. Remember always to be respectful to everyone or else it could drop your speaks. I'm a policy judge. Have fun and do your best!

Speech: I love interp it’s truly my happy place (or sad). Make sure to be clear and enunciated. If you’re in extemp make sure to clarify your points and why it’s important. I always need to know the why for your speech.

I am relatively new to PF debate judging and have judged about 25 PF debates. I am ok with some speed, as long as you are clear when articulating your key contentions, subpoints, and rebuttals. While I do consider delivery, I am a flow judge and the team that is able to best argue and support their contentions with with logic and strong evidence, while effectively rebutting the contentions made by their opponents, will win the match. I place emphasis on when strong contentions (i.e., supported by clear evidence) are made by one team and not rebutted/addressed by the other team. In my view that's an implicit agreement with the contention.

When stating evidence, please ensure you provide the date when referencing.

On crossfire, my expectation is for each team to give each other the chance to ask at least one question.

I prefer for the teams to manage the debate round, including maintaining order and making sure to ask for prep time. I will have a timer, but teams are encouraged to maintain their time as well. I will ask at the beginning of the round, if teams want a 1-minute, 2-minute, etc. warning.

Please be courteous and respectful to each other.

Just graduated high school. 3 years in Policy and Congressional Debate.

3x state qualifier in OO, Congress, and Policy and 2x National Qualifier

Rock on. Be nice. yeah that's pretty much it

I am a former competitor and long-time speech and theater coach and have assisted with WS debate in our district.

I prefer persuasion over gamesmanship, moderate speed, and a focus on cross-x that is clarified in rebuttal.

I flow, but will not supply the argument for you - it must be made.

Civility is a must.  Subtleties of LD/PF will be lost on me. But intelligent, data-backed claims with a clear warrant will find success.

I have judged LD debate for two years, and I value a coherent argument backed by logical reason. I am not that versed with the tricks necessary to win a debate. I also feel that it is important to note that I value a roadmap and making sure that your contentions are tied back effectively to the position and standing you are advocating for. I flow, but will not supply the argument for you.

Updated: 03/12/2024

Add me to the chain:cbpelayo94@gmail.com

I go by 'Ellie' (she/her) now, for those of y'all that knew me by a different name.

Experience

Currently doing hired work and doing grad school at the University of Utah; formerly, coached NPDA at UoUtah; policy at CSU Fullerton; & IEs at Honor Academy. Nowadays I mostly judge rounds, do some assistant coaching for my friends, and watch policy streams because no one really leaves debate (lol).

I've been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, but my experience leans heavily towards NPDA parli, LD (cali/toc/nfa), policy, & IEs. Started competing in 2012:

- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)

- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)

- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)

- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)

I was a 2A/1N & did exclusively kritikal/performative -- we did a lot of fem IR, academy, decolonial brown fem, futurisms, sci-fi, & cyborgs. But debate is what you make it; all I ask for is clear links, FW, and advocacies. How you choose to run it is totally up to y'all!

Truth > Tech

Kritiks

Love Ks. I am still 'traditional' in wanting some kind of FW, links, advocacy/alt, and impacts. But that doesn't mean that it has to be strictly organized in that way (i.e., performance k's). But at the end of the day, I do want to know what your K does: what the intervention is, what the bad words are, etc. I found it helpful once to consider theK alt like a CP: the moment the alt appears, your neg presumption disappears (pls don't make me listen to condo plssss). I also love in-round links -- I think they're excellent offense in the development of theory throughout the round. Links are uniqueness to the K. Performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you.

Other things:

- I believe that FW, not T, is used to answer K. Running T against the K is just insulting, and I'm not big on the nonengagement w/ advocacies that approach debate non-normatively. Tomato tomato.

- Providing trigger/content warnings to your K is good (when they're needed).

- Answering a T run against the K with more theory is so, so wonderful. Almost as wonderful as "mini" DAs to oppressive theory. I've noticed the rise of some pretty trash theory as of late, and I wish there was more metacommentary that claps back against that.

- If I hear Fruit theory I swear...pls just don't okay? :') same with tricks, sorry, don't like em.

- Don't like condo. I'll listen to it if I have to, sorry abt my faces.

- In terms of performance, definitely just be on the same page as everyone else. I won't stop a round, but I do reserve rights to respect, say, a point of personal privilege if the round is getting a kind of way.

Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)

This is prob where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered:

- Plans/CPs/Perms: Love em. Do more perms. I also love multiple perms, if you can provide at least some explanation beyond "perm do both...anyway." Solvency burdens shift throughout the debate, and that's good. Theory against plan-plus, plan-minus, etc. are all great.

- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. Y'all do this please. Get them "PICs Bad" blocks out.

- Impact Calc: While I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, solvency, I also like voters w/ specific phrasing that conjures up what your world looks like, esp if you're proposing alternative ways of and futures for doing debate. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. Good round vision is good.

- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language that's recognizable (e.g., non-unique, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will be so happy. Active language and verbs are good. Offense over defense, sure, but terminal defense is underappreciated. This applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.

- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.

- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.

Procedurals (FW/T)

Good FW/Topicality debates are great, but I wanna hear clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violations). I've been jaded with the habit of dismissing kritikal arguments under the presumption of topicality, but I still think there's hope for procedurals! I still expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation, and at least some engagement with the arguments you label non-topical.

- I respect X-T and FX-T. I find that there is great offensive in doing counter-interpretations, counter-standards, & the aforementioned DAs against T

- RVAs make me so sad :( please no RVIs, they're never as good as you think

- Founders intent is so mid

- [Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR.

- Trichot exists! And I love it. Also monochot <3

Speed

My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, spreading can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you okay with spreading?"

This position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:

[Policy/TOC LD] Sure go fast brrrr. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.

[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.

[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow as fast as you speak. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading: find it, navigate it.

Hello, I just want to make sure everyone has fun and has an opportunity to do their best. It is a huge accomplishment to be here, and you should all be very proud.

I am verry knowledgeable in most all debate and speech events, and I am here to help. I am so excited to judge you all and remember to just enjoy yourself. This is an amazing experience, so take it all in!!!

See you in round!

Background:

1. Sophomore at the University of Mary, Bismarck, North Dakota.

2. 5 years of Speech and Debate (Congressional Debate, Informative Speaking, Extemporaneous Speaking, Radio Broadcasting.

—————————————

General Notes:

Please please please be respectful to your peers. For debate, be engaged within the debate (Flowing is essential!). How you act and conduct yourself in the round is a reflection of you and your school, purposefully being argumentative and blatantly condescending will result in a deduction of your rank. For speech, again be sure you’re engaged—give your full attention to the speaker, just as they will do for you. Practicing your speech, being on your phone (For non-emergency purposes), talking to your neighbors, etc. will also result in a deduction of your rank.

Debate (Congressional Debate):

Speeches MUST be CLEAR from all aspects. Speeches need to have an argument structure (claim, warrant, evidence, impact) in some sort of fashion. It’s necessary to show me how your claim connects to your impact and overall argument. You also need to explain why your evidence matters to your impact(s)—things need to build off of each other. Sign-posting is also necessary, using roadmaps and signposting through vocabulary or phrases tells me we are moving from one concept/idea to the next (I cannot understand your argument if you don’t do this).

Besides speech structure itself, CLASH IS EVERYTHING. If you aren’t the first speaker, you need to acknowledge the speakers that have come before you (Both when you are defending/refuting points). If your speech(es) don’t interact with others in the chamber, I don’t know how to rank your speech–thus your rank will be lower. Please refrain from just name-calling (I.E. naming multiple representatives and telling me their arguments are wrong), merely telling me names without telling me their arguments does not help your case. Failing to properly address previous arguments during your refutations will also result in a lower rank. Tell me what was their argument? How did they justify it? What was their impact? Do they make logical sense? Are there things that they are missing? Answer those questions (to the best of your ability) to create strong refutations and you will do well!

Flow is something that will make or break the round. Flowing it during the round shows me you are engaged and will help the speeches that you give as well. Failing to flow arguments shows me you are not engaged, and will result in a lower rank.

TL;DR:

1. Your speech needs structure;

2. Evidence analysis is necessary.

3. Clash is everything.

4. Don’t just name-call.

5. Always flow your arguments.

Lincoln Douglas

**NEW to LD**

Lincoln Douglas argues morals and philosophical ideas, your arguments should always tie back to that. You need to clearly (And preferably slowly) describe your argument, to do that you also need to clearly signpost as we move from every part of your speeches—without that, I cannot fully understand your argument.A strong delivery will help with arguing philosophical ideas, strong annunciation, steady and consistent tempo, etc. will do that. Remember that I cannot flow your argument without that.

Your rebuttals should tell me not only why your opponent’s philosophical idea is incorrect, but then tie back your arguments to it. It is not strong to merely just rebuttal arguments, but also to secure your own.

Public Forum

**NEW to PF**

Start with a clear and logical constructive, everything flows from that. Be sure that you are explicitly stating your impacts during the round as well, I cannot make conclusions. Evidence is also key, be sure that your evidence helps you build the bridge to your impacts.A strong delivery is key. During rounds always remember to have strong annunciation, steady and consistent tempo, etc. without that I cannot flow your argument.

Speech:

Interpretation:

Interpretation events like POI or humorous each have their specific device(s) that are looked for and judged upon. But generally, this is what I look for:

Does the speaker fit the piece? Is it something that you generally feel comfortable performing, and or understand the content or its themes? How confident do you feel about the performance? And how does that affect the overall piece? Are movements done with ease and smoothly? Are the characters distinct and properly fleshed out? Does the story make sense?

(This is a general way I judge interpretation events, however, I tailor it to each specific event!)

Public Address:

Extemporaneous,

Generally, extemp speaking needs to have a strong thesis and argument structure. If your argument isn’t clear in your thesis, the speech will struggle to answer the question. And vice-versa, if the structure doesn’t follow the thesis then your answer won’t be as strong. Also utilize humor, and complex argumentation—remember your speech needs to also be engaging.

Originally-Written,

Overall for originally written speeches I generally judge on these questions. Is the speech engaging? (Not just humor!) Is the structure/thesis clear? Are the visual aids effective? Are visual aids a crutch? (Remember V.A.’s are supplemental to informative) Does the material make sense? Is persuasion effective?

I prefer a normal debate speed as opposed to spreading/progressive debate.

My ballot goes to the debater who supports their contentions with viable sources, logical impacts, and the successful refutation of their opponent's counterclaims. Similarly, refuting the points of the opponent is absolutely necessary.

I weigh arguments at the end of the round and base my RFD on overall execution in the round.

Hello! I have been in speech and debate for four years, and was president of my schools speech and debate program. My events have been Public Forum (four years), Original oratory (two years), Lincoln Douglas (one year), Duo Interpretation (one year), and World Schools Debate (one year).

Overall I prefer quality over quantity in regards with scoring. In debate rounds one strong piece of evidence can outweigh smaller ones. I will be following the points of the round, however speaking voice, intonation, and emphasis will also be important in my decision. You can have good points, but I can only score on what is said in the round, while an extent of common knowledge is acceptable, I will be looking for clarifications and definitions to help the flow and lay of the round.

In speech, a healthy amount of repetition is good to help solidify your claim or belief, but too much makes it seem unprepared and shaky. The things I look for the most in speech is a thorough understanding of your topic, a speaking voice that reflects the points that need to be emphasized, and an understanding of the speech that is being performed. Things like stumbling over words don't affect my scoring to an extent, however if it reflects a lack of preparedness, it will be scored accordingly.

Bio:
kandacegill04@gmail.com- feel free to send me any questions bc i love talking about debate

she/her

2 years of PF in middle school ????

4 years of LD in high school

I also competed a few times in worlds schools, congress, info, oratory, impromptu, commentary, extemp debate, and big questions

I currently do parliamentary at William Jewell College.

This is all mostly stolen from Trent Dixon bc they r the goat

TL;DR-

I'll flow what you say--do with that what you will.

***None of the preferences written below are strong enough to change the outcome of a debate, but adjusting to these preferences will increase your chances of winning, and most likely raise your speaks.***

• Being rude/condescending will most likely lead to docked speaks.

• 80% of the time tech over truth- I'll listen to almost any argument as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, transphobic, etc.

• I am cool with speed (3-400 wpm), but you need to be clear. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing until I can understand you.

• Speaker points start at 27

• I tend to judge based on who won the biggest argument in the round- you just need to tell me what it is and why you won it

Post-round if you want. I should have to defend my decision just as much as you should have to defend your case.

Also, I don't care about your speaking style at all. I only care about what you have to say, not how you say it. Because of this, I don't look up much.

Dont do:

​​don't. steal. prep.

Don't say anything sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/etc-90% of the time auto loss, 100% of the time you will get as low speaks as possible

Don't use problematic language--Trigger warnings and alternate cases should be available in applicable cases.

Don't be rude (direct and assertive is fine) to your opponents/teammate/me/other judges-Everyone has worked unbelievably hard, so you should treat them like it.

Don't refuse disclosure.

Don't be mean -- being an aggressive debater is amazing -- don't step over the line.

Don't shake my hand. Please.

If you have any questions email me :)

Policy

o/v- I never did policy in high school, but Parli is basically just extemp policy so don't feel like you need to debate down for me.

DAs

Turns case args need to be carded.

I have a high threshold for new 1ar arguments and must be able to draw a line.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2nr.

CPs

Condo debate should be condo is good/bad - not sure there's a "good" number of condo

PICs are generally good unless the opps prove they aren't.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc.

Perms aren't advocacies; they are tests of competition, impact out perm theory.

I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory. Just win your arg.

This isn’t important at all but I think assassination CPs are really funny and make an interesting debate.

K

I LOVE A K DEBATE.

I'm probably gonna understand your K--with that said, please don't expect me to know all of the lit of your K--explain it.

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K.

Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework to justify the performance.

Fiating your cap alts is funny and people should do it more.

I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise "Justify your epistemology and THEN weigh the aff" is my favorite counter-interp.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action. I hold alts to pretty much the same standard as a plan/CP.

If you read a K you don't understand I probably wont want to vote for it

K Affs

The best K-Aff teams beat framework on a) a counter-interp with a strong defense of the resolution under their model or b) a convincing impact turn to neg standards.

I've noticed an increase of K affs without a real "ballots key" argument that should definitely lose to the ballot PIK. That trend is probably not good for y'all without a plan.

You do you. Do what you like, and tell me why I care about it.

I love K affs but am also sympathetic to a good framework shell.

Loss of procedural fairness is an internal link, you need to give the impact.

T/Theory

Be topical. Or don't. Just win why your approach is good.

I default to competing interps, but if you win that reasonability is good i will use that in my decision. Overall, though, i really don't like intervening in the round more than I have to.

Extra-resolutional procedurals are often frivolous and silly and should most likely lose to a predictability/"I'm sorry I'll do it next round" argument.

Disclosure is infinitely good. Please do it.

Case debate

Teams underestimate the importance of case debate. The neg should put lots on the flow on case.

Impact turns are one of my favorite arguments.

LD and PUF

Even though I was an LD debater, i’ve become more of a policy fan lately, so the closer to policy the better lol. Heres some overall pointers on what I like to see in my LD rounds

• every claim needs a warrant. please. please. please.
• please do not stop at the internal link. your impact should not be "economic downturn" or "decreased democracy." that doesn't mean anything for my ballot. Tell me that economic downturn causes death or something. I want to know the material differences between the two worlds. If we wake up in the world in the aff/neg tomorrow, what is going to be different about people's lived conditions? This information should be in the final speeches of the round.
• if you put both offense and defense on their case then I will be a happy kandace
• I will not be flowing cross; bring it up in your next speech

Any other necessary info is in my TLDR

Value/criterion (LD only)-

I do not typically care about your value framework. I tend use consequentialism to evaluate the impacts at the end of the round, unless you give me a reason not to. (like I said, closer to policy is best)

SO many LDers waste so much time on the value debate in my opinion. Probably 80% of the time, debaters dont create any *real* value clash I want to vote on, so spend your time on case instead.

With that being said, if you do want a traditional, philosophical LD debate, I am definitely down. Please know that I will hold you to the following standards:

• I am I need you to have a specific value rooted in actual philosophy, not a dictionary. For example, instead of using merriam webster to define justice, use Rawls theory of justice.
• You need to tell me why your value is distinct and preferable, followed by why your criterion is best to achieve it.
• I also need to know that you know what your philosophy actually means. It’s really annoying when people choose a random philosophy and then say it means whatever is best to win the round. Because I study political philosophy, I have probably read your authors original material. I will be able to tell when you misconstrue your authors ideas.
• There's no point in spending your time on your value only at the top of your case. If you want a philosophical debate, your philosophy needs to be deeply integrated into your contentions.
• Side note 1: If you opt for the more philosophical model of LD, and your value is “morality,” I am probably annoyed. The point of LD is to figure out what philosophical system is moral. Morality is defined 8 billion different ways, so i’m going to need you to give me a real value that can lead to morality.
• Side note 2: if you are going to use the social contract theory, you need to specify which author and why you chose that author. Do not give me Hobbes warrants if you are labeling it as Rousseau. The social contract theories are not the same at all, and It totally undermines what you are saying if you do not understand the original source material.

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Some personal details: I have been coaching Public Address (Individual Events) and debate for 25 years, and have enjoyed significant success at the state level.

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone who is reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation. I will seek to hear you and follow along and flow, but I may miss something; remember, I can only judge what I understand. Practically, if you break the speed limit it will be up to your partner and your opponents to clarify your points, which of course, puts you at something of a strategic disadvantage.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts; make your impacts rich, explain them, give them depth.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

And pay attention to the question of Rhetoric, above.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

I have been competing for about 5 or 6 years now. I started in Middle School and am now a Senior in High School. I have helped coach middle school and novice competitors. I have served as my team's speech captain, and currently serve as the middle school coordinator.

As a competitor, I have qualified to, and competed at, the NCFL National Tournament for 3 years, NSDA National Tournament for 2 years, TOC once, and NIETOC once in Original Oratory. While I have competed mostly in OO, I also have competitive experience in Info, OI, IMP, and Duo.

As a judge, I have judged the 2024 Middle School National Tournament.

For rhetoric events (non interp):

When judging rhetoric, I focus more on the content of your speech and your speaking ability. I like to pose the following questions: "Was the speech well researched? If not, did it need many sources?" "Were they confident in what they were talking about?" "Did they add varying inflections to their performance to enhance certain points?" "If they had gestures, did the movements distract or contribute to their speech?"

When I write my ballots, I try to be specific with my feedback. I try to give more specific advise on how you can improve your performance, as well as how you can improve the content of your speech.

For interp events:

When judging interp, I focus more on your performance and your ability to convey your message. I like to the following questions:

"Did they clearly define a message or reasoning behind their piece in their intro? If not, was an impactful message still made?" "Were you able to transport the audience into your piece?" "Could we feel the emotions that you were trying to convey?" "If there were multiple, were the characters easily distinguishable from each other?" "Was there a story that I could easily follow portrayed?"

Once again, I try to be specific with my feedback. If there was a specific weakness I felt that you had in your performance, I try to describe why I thought it was a weakness, and what I think you can do to improve.

Clarity and Structure:

I value clear, well-structured speeches. Make your points easy to follow with logical organization and transitions. I appreciate strong introductions, clear signposting, and impactful conclusions.

Argumentation:

The strength of your argument matters most. I look for persuasive reasoning supported by credible evidence. Be sure to explain how your evidence connects to your overall argument and why it matters in the debate.

Engagement:

Effective refutation is important. Engaging directly with your opponent’s points and demonstrating why your position is stronger will give you an edge. Be respectful, but don’t shy away from firm, well-reasoned rebuttals.

Impact and Weighing:

Give me a clear reason why your impacts should outweigh your opponent’s. I want to see a comparison of the consequences or importance of both sides. Strong impact calculus can be decisive in close debates.

Delivery:

How you communicate is as important as what you say. I value confident, articulate, and persuasive delivery. Speaking too fast or being unclear can hurt your effectiveness. Eye contact, tone, and pacing also matter.

Role of the Judge:

I evaluate only what is presented in the round. I’m not looking for external knowledge or personal opinions. Stick to the arguments you make, and I will judge the round based solely on them.

Respect and Professionalism:

Be respectful to your opponent and maintain decorum throughout the debate. Courtesy goes a long way.

I will base my decision on a balanced view of argument quality, engagement, and delivery.

• Clarity: I value clear and understandable speech. Articulation, pronunciation, and volume are important to ensure your message is effectively communicated.

• Engagement: Keep your audience engaged. Your delivery should be captivating and hold my attention throughout your performance.

• Preparation: Evidence of thorough preparation is crucial. Demonstrate that you have practiced and are well-prepared for your speech.

• Avoidance of Cliches: Originality is key. Avoid overused phrases and ideas, and strive to present fresh and innovative content.

• Substance and Depth: Your speech should have significant content with depth. I appreciate well-developed arguments, insightful analysis, and meaningful examples.

• Time Management: Adhere to the time limits. Ensure your speech is well-paced and fits within the allotted time without feeling rushed or dragging on. I will also keep time.

Update for Presentation 2024(updates to LD sections and overview)

Themost important thing you read from this paradigm is my view on speech docs. Do not assume at any point in time that I am on the speech doc. I will download it etc so I can use it if necessary, but I am absolutely not reading along your speech doc while you speak. I will listen to you and flow the best I can, but if it's not on my flow then it's not in the debate.

If you want me to look at your evidence for some reason, you can do that in a few ways. You can put the evidence at issue in some manner (author quals, evidence comparison, evidence indicts, evidence ethics, etc.) or you can literally just say "go look at the X card" (and not "go look at the entire affirmative case").

This is just forward notice! What this means is please do things like pause when transitioning between arguments or flows, indicating clearly when you are reading new evidence or analytics (examples below), and generally slowing down during analytics that are important for you to win the debate.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate.

Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am currently one of co-coaches for Team USA through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated October 2024]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., LW (living wage) that are topic-specific or super niche Act titles)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Speaker Points:[Updated October 2024]

Biggest things to do while debating in front of me that will get you better speaker points and increase the chances I understand your arguments:

(1) SLOW on taglines, EXTREMELY slow on author names/dates, and I am flexible on top speed through text of cards if you are clear and emphasize key warrants

(2) I need to understand an argument, at least with some surface level understanding, to vote off of it. You can heighten the chance I can understand it by explaining the function of your arguments (perhaps this is "judge instruction" but if it's a way you canwin or a way your opponent canlose, it needs to be flagged)

(3) Have fun, establish your presence in the debate, and try not to be rude to your opponent! Even if they started it!

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points:for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Andrew Hutchinson

4-year debate and forensics alum from Manhattan High School

4-time Kansas state finalist

2-time NSDA Qualifier

1-time NIETOC Qualifier

Current student at Kansas State University

Email chain - andrewhutch5@gmail.com (please use speech drop if possible)

I have preconceived biases towards left-leaning arguments

I can keep up with arguments but please please please roadmap and signpost. Nothing makes me angrier than when I miss an argument. Preferably just use speech drop and that will make all of our lives easier.

Debate is a place to have fun don't take it too seriously. As far as arguments I'm relatively well versed in most forms of argumentation but as a good rule of thumb just explain well because, at the end of the day, I don't know everything.

DA's- I used to be a DA maestro just lock in and make sure you link, and your impacts outweigh.

CP's- I'm not against CP's as long as you're not contradicting yourself.

K's- I would lean on the side of not running a K because I haven't dived too deep into learning K's, that being said if you do have a K that you really want to run go for it. Just make sure you lay it out for me because there is no way in hell I have read any of your obscure literature base.

Overall just have fun, we're all still people at the end of the day so treat each other with respect.

Middle School National:

I personally do extemp but have judged all different events. Follow the rules, perform how u practice, and do your best! Good luck!

Regular Paradigm:
email chain: n41785@student.ghctk12.com

debate is an educational activity that can bring a lot of benefits, it can be a game as don't take it super super seriously, but also don't "not" take it seriously

LD:

• prefer trad debate, understand common Ks or theory like set-col, disclosure, cap
• typically won't for disclosure theory
• no spreading, i won't follow ur doc, i can keep up with fast talking (if your gasping for air you're spreading)
• i flow
• i don't like when debaters say "extend card Doe '24", i won't extend anything for you unless you tell me what it is about
• weigh and give voters
• tech -----|----- truth, i don't think i can be completely tech, but empirics and evidence are always important, but also how you argue and debate about

Hello my name is Avery Jessen, I have competed in speech for three years. In that time I have competed in Informative speaking and Communication Analysis. I am also the Captain for my team and have won numerous awards for my speaking. Competitors should be respectful and kind to their fellow peers. Double entry speakers should wait outside of the room until the current speaker is finished to prevent any interruption. In speeches I look for if you met the requirements and if your speech is effective.

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 8 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

Marist School (Class of 25')

Hi y'all my name is Faiza!

here is my email for chains: faizakhaled25@marist.com

I’m a fourth year competitor for Marist! I primarily compete in POI & INFO (and other speech events) but did a little policy way back when and also judge public forum, so I understand the debate basics. It is to your benefit to treat me like a lay judge, but that being said, there are a couple things you can do to increase your chance of winning

1) Slow down! Your goal is to be persuasive, not make as many arguments as possible. Use your time to your advantage, but remember, quality over quantity. A short but fully developed speech is much more impactful to me rather than a lengthy speech that regurgitates your case redundantly and doesn't extend or weigh the opposing sides case or show any impact. Clarity over speed.

- On the note of time, respect the time of both your judges as well as the other competitors. This applies to everyone in terms of being prepared to start the debate on time as well as during the debate round, especially during prep time.

2) Signpost, if you tell me to write something down I’ll definitely be included on my flow.

3) Use cross to highlight important parts of the debate, if I hear it more often I’ll remember it.

4) Weigh! I think that weighing your case with the opposing side is a fantastic mechanism to contest the opposing argument while creating nuance within your own argument in a effective and efficient way. Also, extend every part of your argument and show its impact.

5) Extend.

6) Speaking points will be based on clarity and quality.

7) Unless it is serious, theory should be avoided.

Remember to have fun and be respectful! If an argument seems true it will be more likely to decide my ballot. I’ll only evaluate arguments made in the round, but I come from a background that emphasizes persuasion. Good luck!

I'm a 2025 graduate from Billings, Montana. I was the 2023 Montana state champion in DI, and took third in state and second in districts this year. Speech and debate is my passion, it has helped me find so many new friends and made me a more confident person. I want to inspire more students to love this extracurricular like I do.

My biggest advice is to be confident! It will take you so far and improve your performance so much. Enunciation and poise can immediately enhance your piece.

if you want to add me on the email chain at leevivian859@yahoo.com

the UBER basics -

use humor, be bold, and have fun!!

Just explain links well, I am fine with wonky arguments as long as they're logical, & tabula rasa

if you use racist, ableist, sexist language I will be very upset

please don't interrupt your partner in cross, also let your opponents answer your questions lol

I did policy, pf, speech, oh and I do british parli and speech in college at the U of U

I go by she/her/hers

pretty basic right ...

policy/debate in depth -

the K debate, I am a huge fan of it. I enjoy a good K debate, just make sure you're prepped for fw and T. I am not a huge fan of voting for T against K, but will do it if ya know needed. I think that lots of the K's I have seen this year aren't linking to the motion very well, neg in specific hasn't been linking to the affirmative . SO like please just make it a clean debate for everyone in the room.Debate is supposed to be a safe space, mentally as well. I can follow most args, I do personally believe debate should be a space to have a voice and be advantageous of this unique space ie identity politics and what not. I do not like to see identity or traits of a case/person used or commodified to win the ballot.

oh if ur alt is rage pls give me a headsup but I am still 100% okay with running it. I just wanna know ahead of time lol

Topicality- I think t debates are good, although procedurals aren't my favorite form of debate. if youre going to read t, read it offensively not for a time suck. I won't vote on it if there aren't violations or voters/reasons to prefer. easy right. oh t is always an a priori issue

t- theory I think theory is always good, it brings a little fun to debate. once again there needs to be a reason its read, not just because you wanna

politics da, if your da is a year old its prolly too old. things are changing, so these da's need to be following what is going on or being relevant.

cp - for this topic specific I don't really like the parole cp, I think courts makes more sense, but once again you do you. I am fine with whatever. so perms in this topic are a little funky, bc its still something you should do going against one.

whatever other da. like cool, I get it, go for it. Gotta go for some basics right. OHH if you read a meme da and it makes me laugh, higher speaks to you, and if its good even more kudos. (this doesn't mean you should read it because you think ill like it more or whatever, I just have this because encase YOU want to run it, that's okay)

pls do voters/rob I do listen to those and heavily weigh it out. I am fine with tag team cross x, I love performances, and clash. clash. clash.

if case goes uncontested, I usually pay heavy attention to that. make sure youre clashing with the case, why its bad, why it won't work, at least something pls.

if you have more questions about pls ask.

ok 👍 still kinda simple paradigm lol I know

I have been in speech and debate for 4 years I am a now graduated senior, and was a sitting president of my schools Speech and Debate program for the 23-24 school year. I have competed in, Public Forum, Congress, Info, Duo Interp., Dramatic Interp., and Storytelling. I am a two time district and conference champ in storytelling and the first alternate in congress for my state.

I usually tend to be more of a flow judge when it comes to debate events, I much prefer quality over quantity cases and points.

For speech I usually center to lots of audience/judge focused speakers and overall appreciate all forms of speech/speech events.

I go into round with no biased opinions and will never sway my vote on previous knowledge, all information brought up during round is what I will judge off of.

Having personally participated in various speech / music competitions and drama productions, I can empathize with what it is like to be a contestant and the enormous amount of effort and energy it takes to compete. Also, I know how invaluable these learning experiences are. Congratulations, no matter how you are ranked during the competition, you have already won!

While contestants may have been working on a debate or speech topic for many months, keep in mind that judges are hearing the subject matter for the first time. Present the information in a way that is easy for judges to understand.

Stories are powerful. They help paint pictures of what the world has the potential to look like if positive action is taken.

Know that in my comments I try to plant positive seeds in hopes that even though a contestant may not win a competition, they will gain valuable insight that will serve them well in the future.

Always do your best, find something positive in every situation, keep trying new things, and be kind.

I am a parent judge who is just learning about debate. I'm excited to get to hear some great debates! Please be sure to explain the topic to me and persuade me with the arguments, while also being good speakers. I do not appreciate spreading. Take time to connect your arguments back to your value/criteria very clearly!

No spreading please.

LD is a value debate so I will be looking for the debater who best connects their contentions to the value and value criterion in their case.

Hello there, everyone!

My name is AmandaLesly Miranda, and I am a former debater from Wildwood, Florida. I am a debate alum, three-time Nationals Qualifier for World School Debate, and I do mostly debate events. I want to ensure that my judgment is good enough for you and that your expectations are met and hopefully exceeded. There is no need for a debater to be worried about who their judge is and what their qualifications are, so hopefully these qualifications are good enough for you.

For my judging, I always like to go based on the rules, but I will also add my personal opinion. My opinion does not affect your score unless there is a tie, and then I will consult myself to see which one I liked more and which I felt met the standards in a better way, however, I have yet to encounter a tie. If there are any discrepancies with my judgment, I always want to improve, and I will happily take feedback.

For clarification, I wanted to specify what I look for in rounds. For any event, regardless if it's a debate or speech event, I look for appeal during your speech. Whether it's appealing to your judges, audience, or competitor, or appealing to the story that you're saying, you want to keep everyone engaged during your performance.

When it comes to interpretation events, I like to see the fluidness of your speech. Of course, you may stumble or stutter, and I personally don't judge too harshly for this unless it's excessive. But, memorization of the speech, long pauses during its delivery, etc. will definitely affect your score in my eyes. I'm also looking heavily at its delivery, such as speaking tone, speed, and interaction. For me, eye contact is a huge portion, as it gives you a connection to your audience, but I would definitely let it slide if eye contacttechnicallydoesn't fit into your piece. Other than that, I stick with the other general rules given by the NSDA.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, concerns, or anything else about my judging, there are two ways to reach me: Skimmy425@gmail.com (Primary email) and Mandawritesall@gmail.com (Work/Secondary email).

Thank you, and good luck!

Hi, my name is Teddy! I am currently the JV/Varsity coach at Tartan Senior High School and the Head Coach at John Glenn Middle School. I've been coaching Policy Debate in some capacity for the past 4 years. I've also coached/judged LD, PF, and various speech events. I debated in high school for 2 years and college for 3.

Pronouns: He/They | Email: tmunson.debate@gmail.com

Topics debated: Arms Sales, CJR, Anti-trust, Legal Personhood, & Nukes

Topics coached: Water, NATO, Fiscal Redistro, IPR, & Arctic

Paradigm:

I think that debate is a game which tests hypothetical actions aimed at resolving problems outlined by the resolution and/or the 1AC--the affirmative should identify an issue, propose a solution, and then prove that that solution resolves the issues identified. The burden of the negative is to disprove the 1AC. I generally default to tech over truth, but I can be persuaded to adopt an alternative lens as long as it's substantiated.

I prefer when links are unique or specific to the 1AC/plan. I don't think you have to win the alt to win the K if it's been articulated as a disadvantage to the 1AC. I don't think I'm the best judge for theory debates--slow down your spreading and send out your blocks. Framework & theory arguments framed around education are particularly convincing to me. Rhetoric matters.

If you're an LDer reading this paradigm, all of what I said above/below still holds true to the way that I'm going to evaluate your rounds.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Additional notes:

If your position requires a trigger warning, don't read it in front of me if it's graphic/describing traumatic situations.I think ridiculous tech/AI impacts are really entertaining (3-D printed WMDs <3).

Debate

In HS, I competed in PF and WSD but was primarily a PFer - I've competed on the national and local level. I'm generally okay with any arguments, but you have to lay them out well for me to vote for them. Speak clearly and signpost - I go off the flow but need to understand the argument and/or attack. I'm okay with speed as long as you articulate. I appreciate weighing and establishing clear voters!

Speech

I've dabbled in speech but was primarily a debater - when judging speech, I mainly look to delivery. Be confident and respectful!

Good luck!!

I’ve competed in mainly HI, as well as POI, USX, WSD, and CON. I’ve competed in HI at the national and local level.

For Speech - Just try your best and be confident, as confidence goes a long way!! One of the biggest things I judge on isn’t the piece itself, but it’s your delivery of it and how you convey your emotions. As for interp, this means making sure you know your acting and blocking, as well as your characters and postures. For PA, this should look like conveying your speech in a clear coherent sense that makes it easy for me to follow what you’re saying, but also keeping an interesting tone and not being super monotone.

For Extemp: Don’t worry if you need a notecard!! I do too, so just try your best and know you are doing a very difficult event.

I will not be judging based off of what you are saying necessarily (to a certain extent), but more HOW you say it, so don’t worry about politics or personal beliefs. I am generally understanding about things like this, so don’t worry about trying to win me over politically.

Good luck, have fun y’all!!

Put me on the chain: jamespiazzaiii@gmail.com

Topicality

I like good T debates, but they can get messy pretty easily, so clean line by line here is important. Competing interps are probably good. I am most persuaded by predictable limits in that it shapes prep and probably is the best internal link to clash filled debates and education.

Counterplans

CPs specific to the aff are always preferred. Condo is probably good, but if there is in round abuse story, theory can be convincing. Otherwise, I'm fine with cheating process counterplans, but they should probably have solvency advocates/a lit base.

Disads

Read them! I love politics disads, but anything case specific is probably better. I think each part of the disad can be reduced to zero percent. Smart analytics can beat cards. Do impact calc.

Kritiks

I'm familiar with most of the basic Ks (cap, security, fem...). I'm fine with high theory stuff, as long as you make it clear what you are critiquing and the impact to that. Weighing the aff is probably good, so I err aff on framework, but I'll try to stay as unbiased as possible. Good/specific link analysis is a must ! I will defualt to plan focus.

Planless Affirmatives

If you don't read a plan, make your method or advocacy clear in how it functions and what a world post aff looks like. You can weigh the aff against framework. I will be more persuaded to vote for you if the aff is in the direction of the topic, in the case of immigration you advocate less restrictions on immigration, however if you go the other way that's fine as well.

I do apologize that my judging history is missing. The league that we are involved with uses Speechwire. I am a first year judge and focused on speech events.

Background

Debated: Wayzata High School (2015-2019), Concordia College (2019-2020), University of Minnesota (2020-2024)

Coaching: Edina (2021-2024), Thomas Edison (2024-Present)

I wasn't the most competitively successful debater, but I did both local and national circuit debate in high school and qualified to the NDT twice in college, so I would like to think that experience makes me at least relatively qualified to judge your round, whatever its content or style may be. I have been judging the high school IPR topic all year so I have a general idea of the major arguments that teams have been reading, but still be sure to explain your acronyms and terms of art.

I use he/him/his pronouns. You can call me "Judge" or Caleb - I don't really have a strong preference.

prostc3@gmail.com for email chains - I would prefer that over SpeechDrop.

Three Most Important Takeaways

1. I would be proud if people described me as a “clash judge” – while I won’t pretend that I’m free of biases, I will try to hold your arguments to an equal standard regardless of what side of the imaginary “policy”/”critical” line they fall on. I’m firmly tech over truth, so please don’t change your pre-round or in-round strategy just because you think I’ll like it more; any preference listed here can easily be overcome by good debating. “Don't overadapt, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine.” – Rose Larson

2. Please be clear – I’m serious. I won’t flow off the doc, so I need to be able to hear every word you say (including on the text of cards) and you need to have some differentiation when you’re switching between cards, arguments and flows. I find it extremely dissuasive when people think that the person who is supposed to be evaluating their speech doesn’t need to be able to understand all of it. Despite this, please don’t get psyched out if I call clear – it doesn’t mean you’re going to lose, it just means you need to speak more clearly.

3. Please try to be kind to each other – while I won’t enforce any strict standards of decorum, debate is just so much more enjoyable as an activity when people treat each other with respect. To that end, if your strategy is based around trying to intimidate, demean, or bully your opponents or anyone else in the room, please strike me.

K Affs/Framework

My voting record is pretty even in these debates, so just explain your arguments and we’ll be good.

I tend to be skeptical of affs that, for lack of a better term, “don’t do anything” – having a clearly explained method (examples appreciated) that solves a clearly identified impact will help you a lot. If you can't do that, then I tend to find presumption quite persuasive.

On T-USFG/Framework, I tend to prefer aff strategies based around a counter-interpretation (definitions appreciated) instead of ones based solely around impact turns. This is mainly because I find it much easier to conceptualize a debate between competing interpretations than a debate between an interpretation and "topicality bad".

Fairness can be an impact, but you actually need to explain why it is – just saying that it’s an “intrinsic good” isn’t going to cut it.

I tend to be most persuaded by clash impacts on T/Framework, but feel free to go for topic education, portable skills, deliberation, agonism, or whatever other impacts you want.

Both sides need to explain what debates will look like under their model.

I’m definitely a good judge for “soft” T args, like T-Tactics, if the aff actually violates your interpretation.

I can be persuaded that there’s “no perms in a method debate”, but it needs to be actually warranted.

Ks

Framework is really important on both sides, and I need judge instruction on what winning your interp actually means in the context of the debate. I won’t decide on an arbitrary middle ground between interpretations unless the two interps aren’t mutually exclusive (i.e. if the aff says “we get to weigh the aff” and the neg says “we get reps links”).

Winning framework does not mean you no longer need to win a link or explain that link adequately. The link is always the most important part of the K.

K tricks (fiat illusory, floating piks, serial policy failure, etc.) need to be more than five words in the block for me to vote for them.

Death K is fine by me, but if it approaches "death good" territory I would appreciate making sure that everyone in the round is alright with you reading it.

Policy Affs

I appreciate specific solvency advocates and well-explained internal link stories.

You need to at least reference the impacts you want to be evaluated when extending your advantages.

Impacts that aren't "extinction" are relevant.

Case debate that’s more than impact defense is great and people should do it more – most advantages suck, so make smart analytic arguments and your speaks will thank you.

I like impact turn debates but if you’re reading something that’s patently ridiculous (i.e. warming good) it will definitely require more technical debating to win my ballot.

CPs

Not too much to say here – I like advantage counterplans, topic counterplans, case-specific counterplans, agent counterplans – do whatever you want.

I’m capable of evaluating technical process counterplan debates but I don’t have too much experience with them – if you want to go for tricky competition args or funky perms I’m going to need a little more explanation.

DAs

Read whatever you want – I’ll evaluate a topic disad the same as a rider disad.

A good DA + Case 2NR will make me smile.

I’m not a member of the cult of turns case – those arguments can be important, but debating on the substance of a disad tends to matter more in my decision.

I'm fine with politics disads, even if most of them are pretty illogical.

Topicality vs. Policy

I don’t have a disdain for these debates like a lot of people seem to, so feel free to go for T if I'm in the back - just make sure to weigh your standards.

No strong preference for what impact you go for – this is my way of saying I haven’t drunk the “limits over everything” Kool-Aid.

Theory

I’ll vote on any theory argument, even if I personally think it's dumb – if you win the flow on new affs bad or no neg fiat, then you’ll get my ballot.

I’ll default to reject the arg not the team on non-condo theory args unless I’m given a warrant as to why I should reject the team.

Conditionality: I’ll vote on it, but I don’t really have a strong preference on whether it’s good or bad in a vacuum – debate it out!

My predispositions on judge kick are as follows: If the neg goes for a conditional advocacy in the 2NR and there is no debate over judge kick, I will judge kick by default, as I believe it is a logical consequence of conditionality. If the neg goes for a non-conditional advocacy in the 2NR, I will not judge kick unless told to before the 2NR. If the neg goes for an advocacy in the 2NR and its status is not clarified, I will not assume the advocacy is conditional and as such will not judge kick. If the neg goes for an advocacy in the 2NR and its status is not clarified, but other advocacies have been read and kicked as if they are conditional, I will assume the advocacy is conditional and as a result will judge kick. The easiest way to avoid me defaulting to these predispositions is to tell me whether to judge kick or not before the final speeches.

I think disclosure is an objective good, so feel free to read disclosure theory, but you still need to win the arg. The more egregious the instance of non-disclosure, the more likely I am to vote on it.

In theory debates I tend to find myself focusing a lot on the interpretations that both teams forward, so make sure to make those clear if theory is an argument you want to go for.

Ethics Stuff

If clipping occurs, I will stop the debate and give the offending team an L and the offending debater a 25. I don’t follow along on the doc, so if you want to make a clipping accusation you need a recording. If the tournament rules don't specify what is considered clipping, I will default to assuming it is when a debater skips 5 or more continuous highlighted words in a piece of evidence without verbally marking/cutting the card at the word they stopped reading the card at.

For all other evidence ethics issues (straw person, cut in the middle of a paragraph etc.), unless it’s something that is specified in the tournament rules, I will default to letting the debate play out and won’t stop the round. If it is a novice or JV round, I will adopt a much more lenient stance, as I would like to maximize the amount of speeches given for educational purposes.

I feel uncomfortable administering justice with my ballot for offenses that occurred outside of the round. However, I do care about the emotional and physical well-being of students, so if you have me in the back of a round that you would really prefer not to occur due to the out-of-round actions of an opposing debater, please talk to me before the round and we can talk to tab.

If something occurs that is actively harmful to students in-round (i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, violence or threats of violence etc.) I will stop the round and give L 25s to the offending debater/team. If something occurs in-round that you feel should be an independent voting issue but isn't normally considered egregiously offensive, I encourage you to debate it out, but please make sure to isolate 1. What exactly the other team did, 2. Why what they did was bad, 3. Why me punishing them with the ballot is good, and 4. Why me tanking their speaks is not enough.

Miscellaneous Notes

I will probably take a while to decide if the debate was close at all. I have ADHD and my thoughts often bounce around in my head like a pinball machine, so as a result I like to type out my RFD before I give it. Even if the round wasn't very close, I will still almost always take a couple of minutes to type out my decision. This is probably better for you in the long run, as if I have to give my RFD off the top of my head I often sound pretty incoherent.

I won't give you a 30 just because you ask for it - I won't dock your speaks or anything if you do ask, I just don't think my speaker points are the prerogative of the debaters to decide.

Giving a rebuttal completely off the flow is awesome and will result in higher speaker points.

I like jokes and appreciate bold strategic decisions.

“Have fun, try to learn something.” – Fred Sternhagen

Hello!

I am currently an assistant coach for Flintridge Preparatory, The Westridge, and Speech and Debate institute (SDI). I am also a former Public Forum Debater as well as Speaker in Dec, HI, DI, and Impromptu where I competed for 5 years.

PF

I believe in keeping Public forum debate in a format that is, as initially intended, in a format that is accessible to the public. That being said, rounds can still be techy and competitive just keep it clear and respectful. I am not a huge fan of speed in PF but if your style had moderate speed that is fine, within reason (do not spread), as long as you maintain understandability and enunciate you are golden. I will be flowing and comprehensively listening, therefore make sure to your contentions and rebuttals flow through otherwise they will be dropped. Remember, state your arguments clearly (have clear claims and links) and DON’T FORGET TO WEIGH. IMPLICATE YOUR IMPACTS/ RESPONSES!

*Speaks: BE RESPECTFUL, this is an educational learning environment therefore it is not a space for yelling (passionate speaking is different), being rude to opponents, or underhanded comments. If I am distracted away from listening to content because of overly aggressive debating it may cost you the round. (Don’t Spread)

K’s

I am open to hearing Ks as long as they can be justified and can clearly link in. I would highly suggest you only run K’s you are passionate about. (I will only mark you down if you are using these arguments in an abusive manner).

I believe that forensics, as an activity, is a special space where we have the opportunity to engage in dialogue and discussion with others---where, for a set amount of time, someone or many people must listen to what you are saying. To be able to speak and to be listened to is something that is absolutely vital and precious. I value always engaging in this activity in good faith, reciprocity, and with empathy.

For the last years I've coached and directed forensics (debate, limited prep, interp, platforms) in California and Illinois. I was a policy debater for CSUF in college. graduated in 2018. 'My paradigms for debate and speech are below:

Debate Paradigm

I have the most experience with policy debate. I've also done and coached Congress, LD, public forum, parli, spar, and MSPDP. In college, I mostly ran K's and performance affs/negs. I also read traditionally structured affs and negs at times. I'm fine with any style of debating as long as your arguments and engagement are done in good faith. I vote more on principles rather than empirics. I think empirics can help reinforce principles, but I look more for what principles are established within the round and how that dynamic is negotiated by the debaters.

In terms of delivery I imagine that my grandma, for who English is her second language, is in the back of the room listening to the debate. If I can imagine that the ideas and arguments you are making could be understood by my grandma, that's my metric for clarity of your ideas. If I think my grandma can understand you, you're good. That being said, not everyone's grandma does policy debate/LD and would be fine with how fast that style can be. If you do spread/speed read, I still look for comprehensible speech, clarity of arguments, use of pause and slower analysis to ensure your ideas are flowed.

As a final note, I tend to not react while judging, so dont let my non-reactions to what you are saying make you lose confidence. It is likely I am focusing on flowing and feedback. Stay confident, and good luck!

Speech Paradigm

I only formally competed in Impromptu and Extemp during high school. However, since my start in coaching and directing, I have studied all interp and platform events, and have helped coach national finalists in middle school and high school.

I believe that in addition to the script itself, the introduction is an especially important part of the performance for me. It's where I hear your voice, so I look for clarity of ideas, exigency, and passion during this part. The introduction has at times separated my 1 from my 2. It is a part that I believe should be handled with a lot of care to leave your impact in the round.

(more to come, still working on this paradigm)

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

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

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

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is ssspindler97@gmail.com for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :) No one really takes me up on this but the likelihood I forget to edit your ballot is really high, so please consider emailing me a back up option if you want clarification.

Background

Right now, I'm studying to be a HS English Language Arts teacher in a Masters of Education and initial licensure program at the University of Minnesota. I'm on track to be in the classroom by Fall 2025 and can't wait to get a policy team started wherever I end up!

Backing up a bit, I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 4 years and judging for 7. I am currently a policy coach at Washburn Senior High in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is part of the Minnesota Urban Debate League. I also coach speech and debate at the Harker School in California.

I've also worked full time for the Minnesota Urban Debate League and coached policy part-time at Edina HS, Wayzata HS, and the University of Minnesota.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread. That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

a) when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

b) In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down; it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

c) instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow (I'm serious do a one-Mississippi in your head)

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Planless aff vs. T/framework: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs have a clear model of debate to answer framework with, whether or not that includes the topic. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Plan aff vs. K :If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K: I find framework helpful in these debates as well and remember that even if I know the critical theory you're talking about, I still expect you to explain it throughout the debate because that is a significant part of the learning process and I want to keep myself accountable to the words you are saying in the debate so I don't fill things in for you.

LD -

judge type: consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading: also good

"traditional"LD debaters: lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.

PF -

I think the biggest thing that will impact you in front of me is I just have higher expectations for warrants and evidence analysis that are difficult for you to meet when you have a million tiny speeches. Quality over quantity is a beneficial way to think about your approach in these debates!

Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Here is a collection of my most recent paradigms for each event I have judged. I'll try my best to keep my current tournament at the top.

CX (ASU 2025)
I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school and then did a semester of speech in college. Beyond that I’ve coached for the last four years. I competed in policy for one season, but never went to a debate camp. Most of what I know from the event has come from judging and coaching kids who are far better than I ever was. It would be accurate to say that most of my experience as a competitor was in speech. That being said, I know how to flow, I know how to evaluate kritiks, theory, couterplans, dissads, etc, so run whatever you please. Your best course of action is to treat me like an experienced lay judge. I know what I’m doing, but I won’t be able to keep up with the highest levels of competition.

I also have some unpopular hot takes about policy debate you should know about:

· I believe debate is an activity built around oral communication, and I want to hear you speak. Because of this, I will likely not be reading your speech doc unless an issue arises. Ask yourself this, if you’re talking so fast someone needs to read your script to keep up, is it even a speech? Or is it just an indiscernible collection of words to satisfy a technicality. Speaking with a rapid pace is fine, but I ask that you maintain clear enunciation during signposting, taglines, and anything that isn’t strictly the body of evidence. You’re free to spread however you see fit, but I leave you with this wisdom: if you want me to write it down, slow down and give emphasis.

· I believe that debate is more than a game. I see debate as a place where some of the brightest young people in the world can discuss incredibly important issues. It’s for this reason that I’m not too fond of convoluted impacts scenarios. Not every policy arg needs to end in a nuclear war and not every kritik needs to end in some foolishly assumed global revolution. There are authentic and tangible issues that people suffer through every day that are neglected for the sake of having a bigger impact. It’s a silly arms race that scorns the real problems happening in the world. “To ignore the plight of those one might conceivably save is not wisdom ─ it is indolence.”

· I believe that cards are not truth currency, and not all arguments are created equal. While you may have the ability to find impact evidence for almost any scenario imaginable, I expect you to critically evaluate who or what qualifies as a credible source. Overall, I’m tech over truth, but if your argument stinks and lacks basis in reality it won’t take much from your opponent to convince me. And please, do weighing. Applying X card to Y argument does not tell me why their argument is wrong, it just tells me you have a massive block file. Spell it out for me.

Speech (MS NSDA 2024)

To put my experience briefly I did two years of debate and one year of FX, placing at HS Utah state finals in 2019. I've been coaching and judging on and off ever since.

I have one simple rule: entertain me. If the speech is entertaining and memorable and well executed you will get my vote. Extempers, bring good sources, I will be counting. I expect a good structure and an introduction as well. Impromptu, if your speech feels canned at all it'll not get a good reaction from me, you're better than that. Oratory, the floor is yours for 10 minutes, go wild, but please don't abuse the grace period. Interps, I expect an overall compelling narrative not just overstimulation for 10 minutes.

PF (Jack Howe 2023)

Something I should say right off the bat, I have zero experience judging or coaching this particular topic.

I have 3 years of high school competitor experience doing public forum, policy, and extemp. I also did a semester of various speech events in college before the pandemic. I was an assistant high school coach for the 2022 season and have done a variety of coaching and judging for just about every event since.

What I look for in a public forum debate is accessibility. Feel free to call me archaic, but I believe that this event should stay true to it’s name and not become a hyper-competitive and hyper-meta space like policy. What I look for is great speeches with thought out articulation, not just a slew of cards thrown at me down a line. That being said, I’m flexible with the arguments you can run and don’t carry much bias in that regard. I’m perfectly fine hearing arguments that are a little out of the box and not just stolen from a brief somewhere, the variety is nice. I also weigh your demeanor and respect for your opponents heavily when it comes to speaker points.

One bias I like to be transparent about is that I am a scientist by trade. I am perfectly capable of accepting tech over truth in a debate space, however, if the round is close, being on the side of truth will be advantageous to you.

Debate smart, be polite, be truthful, and remember to have fun!

Quarry Lane, CA | 6-12 Speech/Debate Director | 2019-present
Harker, CA | 6-8 Speech/Debate Director | 2016-18
Loyola, CA | 9-12 Policy Coach | 2013-2016
Texas | Assistant Policy Coach 2014-2015
Texas | Policy Debater | 2003-2008 (2x NDT elims and 2x top 20 speaker)
Samuel Clemens, TX | Policy Debater | 1999-2003 (1x TOC qual)

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.
-the current D tier link/solvency to core IL to greatest hits of all time impact spam 1AC construction makes me sad. The resolution as plan text model also does. Am happy to zero (or near zero) affs in these debates if the neg comes prepared.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

In terms of experience, I competed in some collegiate IPDA tournament's, but I mostly competed in platform and interpretation events. I competed at Mt. San Antonio College and we just recently won Gold at our national Phi Rho Pi tournament. My experience in forensics as a whole allows me to know specifically what I look for in a speaker.

Some general rules:

Do not be rude while you’re speaking or while anyone else is speaking.
You do not need to change your style for me. I will be able to keep up.
I appreciate off time road maps.
No spreading and I do not disclose after the round is over.

In general, I’m here to help you grow and thrive in this event. I hope it is fun and rewarding!

email is megan@adcominc.us

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

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

Hey! My name is Ella Kate Trundt and I am a senior at Mountain Brook! I am typically a PF or big questions debater, and qualified for nationals in BQ last year. I also had the opportunity to judge speech at Middle School Nationals and always enjoy listening to everyone's great speeches! For LD, please consider me as lay as possible. Explain your arguments well, and if you use theory, I need it to be clear and easily understood.

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.

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

I have over 10 years of judging experience, primarily in Individual Events. While I have judged debate rounds, I do not judge debate often and may not be as familiar with highly technical or specialized debate strategies.

Debate Preferences:

• Clarity: I value clear communication. Please avoid spreading and aim to engage as though you are having a conversation. If I cannot understand your arguments due to speed or unclear delivery, I will not be able to evaluate them.
• Language: Reduce jargon as much as possible. While I understand general debate terms, excessive or overly technical language can detract from your persuasiveness.
• Engagement: Approach the debate with a focus on logical argumentation and respectful clash. Make your points accessible and easy to follow.

Evaluation Style:

• I will take notes on the key arguments presented by both sides and evaluate them holistically.
• Persuasiveness is key. Strong evidence, common sense reasoning, and connections that resonate with a broad audience will carry significant weight in my decision.
• Impact comparison is important. Clearly explain why your arguments matter in the context of the round and how they compare to your opponent's.

Overall:
My goal is to fairly and objectively assess the arguments presented. Please focus on clear communication, logical reasoning, and engaging delivery to make your case.

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate. I won't tell you what to run because it's your round, but I will tell you I prefer traditional arguments. If you run ks, they need to be articulated with clear alts.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless evidence exchanges are the others).

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Speed: case-spreading is fine, esp if I have speech docs, but slow down in rebuttals.

Reasonability over competing interps.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995

Qualifications/ Recognitions:

Authored 3 sets of lesson plans in the National Speech and Debate Association's series found here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/start-here/

Member - Emory University Gold Key Society

Follow the rules! I have no specific preferences, but I do follow rulesets. For each category, I make decisions based on the guidelines and should know roughly what the best version of that event category is. If your event requires you to behave a certain way(Ie. Blocking, Card cutting vs no card cutting, etc), I will expect you to do so.

Speech: Get into it. Give me flavor and character. Give me complexity!

In select debates with more flexibility, I would say I'm somewhere farther from lay and leaning towards tech. I never mind a devil's advocate approach or a silly strategy, but caution that you choose to do so wisely.

What am I looking for?

1/ Signposting: Using transitions and naming the contention is general good practice

2/ Strong links: your argument, in speech or debate, should be logical and trackable.

3/ Fun. I might not smile, but I am looking at your dedication and your happiness. We are here to learn and I will do my best to give you adequate feedback.