I have done world schools for more than 2 years, and have competed at the highest level like at TFA State or Nationals. I usually do the Third speech so I really admire good Thirds since they can be really helpful in deciding the round.

The most important things I look out for in a good round is if you are engaging with the other sides argument on their highest ground, and at the most current state of the argument. I also really like clash in the second and third speeches to help sum up what the debate was centered on, and how you are winning. Also weighing is crucial, explain why if both arguments are true why I am still going to be voting for you.

Other than that be respectful, charitable, and most importantly have lots of fun.

Experience: I am a first-year at Yale University and work with the New Haven Urban Debate League to teach and coach local secondary school students in debate. In high school, my event of specialty was World Schools Debate, and I competed in the format domestically for Westchester Academy and internationally for USA Debate. I also dabbled in Big Questions, British Parliamentary, Impromptu, and Senate Congressional Debate over the course of my high school forensics career and earned a variety of accolades including reaching octafinals at 2023 and 2024 TFA State, finaling at Bluebonnet in the same year, and advancing to eliminations rounds at Greenhill and the Winter Holidays Open as a senior. I am also among the top 20 World Schools debaters ranked nationwide.

WSD/Parli Paradigms: True debate can only occur with engagement, that is, valuable engagement. However skewed a motion may seem, never opt for an abusive characterization or stance that offers your opponents minimal ground because that makes for an uncharitable and uninteresting debate. Characterization should neither take precedence over your argumentation nor be neglected, and framing debates are not the most enjoyable. In the event that you face a team that has made such a blunder, clarify the error succinctly and do not spend an unnecessary amount of time proving why your opponents got the definition of a motion term wrong. Time is especially valuable, so always use those 8 minutes to your best advantage.

Remember to never assume anything in a debate, and always provide warrants and mechanization explaining why an argument is true. Weighing should not be limited to the 3rd/whip speech, but used down the bench when interacting with the opposing team's content.

Style is also very important because debate is ultimately a game of persuasion. The PM/LO speeches are meant to be more than dramatic readings of case material and refutation. Purposeful inflection, eye contact, hand gestures, and rhetoric all contribute to whether the path to the ballot is yours. When talking about big impacts, you always want your tone to reflect the magnitude of those ideas. Make sure to always regard your opponents with respect and leave ad hominem remarks out of the debate.

Reach out atjonathan.barnes@yale.edu for any further inquiries.

This is my 3rd year competing with Westchester Academy and in WSD. I'm a two time NSDA National and TFA State qualifier, and am ranked both Nationally and in Texas.

When judging a round, I enjoy seeing engagement, warranting, mechanization, and impacts from both sides. Engagement is especially important because that's what the debate is all about. It becomes very difficult to vote when both sides only defend themselves and don't prove why the other side is worse. It's also important to not just argue against your opponents, but convince me, Your Judge, why I should be voting for you. Don't just say an argument is important or true, give me an explanation as to why. Weighing should be down the bench as well.

As for style, be confident but not aggressive. Spreading and/or yelling will lose you style points. Make sure your speech is engaging by using rhetoric and inflection to help me understand your arguments in a way that helps your side.

Be kind and respectful to your competitors. Attack their arguments, not the debaters themselves. It's important to be charitable when interacting with your opponents arguments. You will not win by being mean or condescending.

Overall, I would want to reward teams that present a logically coherent and well-supported case, communicate it persuasively, identify and engage with crucial issues, and employ an intelligent overarching strategy - all while exhibiting strong teamwork. One person won't be able to carry the team.

Per the Worlds School Debate Rule, I will be awarding the winner based on Content, Style, and Strategy. I find these to be equally important to the round.

Content:

• Have you provided logically sound arguments with solid reasoning?
• Have you substantiated your arguments with well-researched facts and evidence and considered what the motion asked for?
• Have you effectively engaged with and rebutted the opposing team's arguments?
• Does your case tell a coherent and compelling overarching narrative?

Strategy:

• Have you prioritized the most important issues and made wise choices on what to concede?
• Have you clearly identified and tackled the key points from the judge's instructions?
• Have you used your limited speaking time judiciously and managed it well?
• Have you been able to adapt your strategy in response to your opponents' arguments?
• Have you made intelligent strategic decisions on where to expend effort?

Style:

• Have your speeches been clear, structured and easy for the audience to follow?
• Have you used persuasive rhetoric and impactful language in your delivery?
• Have you delivered your arguments in an engaging and adaptive manner?
• Have you and your partner exhibited effective teamwork and division of roles?

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

My debate experience primarily consists of World School's debate. I've competed both domestically and internationally in the format and am willing to hear most interpretations of it. That is to say, I don't believe there's one set way to give a 2 or 3. If you are having fun and doing it well, I'll listen and weigh appropriately for the context of the round.

Debate is about having fun and trying to learn something. Do that, and we will have a great round!

Former National Qualifier in LD; Head Coach; Senior Debate Instructor for Capitol Debate

General: No spreading, no K's

Lincoln-Douglas

I am an old school LD'er. I want a lot of value clash. Your case should be supported by philosophy. I think evidence cards are important but I don't believe that you have to be doing evidence clash the entire round to win. Usually, the person who wins the value debate wins the round.

Every contention should tie back to your value and criterion. Bringing up cross examination in your rebuttals is a plus.

The NR should just be 3 minutes of defense, and 3 minutes of voting issues. The 2AR should only be voting issues.

Public Forum

Have a weighing mechanism. Definitions and Observations are good if applicable to the resolution, and I do want you to revisit them in Summary and Final Focus. Rebuttal should include evidence clash. I may call for cards if I question the validity of the evidence. I do not like "nuclear war" impacts. Your impacts should have a high probability in order to be impactful.

In Crossfire, please be polite. While I don't flow crossfire, I do consider it in my final decision.

Summary - go over main points from rebuttal, collapse on main issues

Final Focus - voting issues only.

World Schools

I'm very big on framework. Definitions and burdens will be very important. If it's an esoteric resolution, it would be nice to get some history/background info before delving into your argumentation.

I like hearing arguments that can tie into the real world - per the NSDA, Prop and Opp teams should engage with the debate on a principled level and a pragmatic level. While evidence is good, it's also good to be able to argue your position on a logical level.

I don't really like it when teams reject every single POI. While you don't have to answer every one, you should be able to answer at least one per speech. Answering POI's can strengthen your argument if you are prepared.

The reply speech should just be voters/crystallization.

Finally, I really value clear, succinct speaking without too much repetition.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying, which is grounds for penalties to speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. this is not negotiable.

overall, "takes his job seriously, but not himself."

the safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). you should not attempt to test me on this.

i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. i've been in debate since 2014, and in my competitive career i won little but learned lots. in high school, i went for politics disads and advantage counterplans while reading niche plans, usually with a process advantage. in college, i read exclusively planless affs starting sophomore year, with most of my 2NRs being the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i have coached every argument imaginable at some point at every level of the game.

"tab" judges don't exist, because every judge thinks some arguments are better than others, which inevitably modifies the thresholds for winning arguments relative to each other, even if unconsciously. this paradigm is not an attempt to convince you i have no biases, it is an attempt to make those biases explicit and explain how to overcome or adjust to them. i am happiest when the 2NR is a card-heavy disad or K with lots of case against an aff with a plan, but debate is for you, not me. I am more concerned with the structure of high-quality, well-warranted arguments and lots of judge instruction than the content of your positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can all produce vertically dense, interesting debates, and they can also produce nightmarish slop. i flow diligently and value "technical" execution and refutation above "truth", but bad arguments are still bad. ergo, dropped arguments are true, but only as true as the argument itself. impact calculus and judge instruction matters a lot to me, and debaters should explain their core offense in comparison to the other side's. at the end of the day, i am an incredibly die-hard 2N from D3, which probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. i will do my best to give detailed decisions and actionable feedback, as debaters deserve no less than my best effort. both coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i understand that passions run high, but i struggle to understand the utility of being angry with my RFD for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge and save us both the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- inserting cards is fine if it is an indict of the same card they read and its implication is explained – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. i can be convinced to strike excessive insertions, especially when most amount to nothingburgers.

- functional competition is good and likely all i will care about. textual competition is confusing. positional competition is emotionally upsetting. solely competing off of immediacy/certainty makes me skeptical - the idea these are key to neg ground is a hard sell when never assumed by real-world literature. adding a plank to ban the plan does not make non-competitive things competitive. i vote for them anyways pretty often, because teams fail to make the good arguments for why these things are bad.

- state of counterplan (and plan) texts is an atrocity. this should matter more than it does in most debates. people get away with murder on solvency these days - evidence quality is paramount.

- i would consider myself medium-good for intrinsicness, but also think most "intrinsic" perms are not actually intrinsic.

- will judge kick if told, but only if told. generally think splitting the 2NR is bad though – I’ve never once kicked the counterplan and had it help the negative.

- "perm shields the link" and "links to net benefit" are the most underrated arguments in debate. however, most permutations seem to be nothingburgers in the 2AC, making debates unacceptably late breaking - the less i understand these arguments before the block, the more spin i give the 2NR and the less spin i give the 2AR. this is solved by reading fewer, better developed permutations - "do both, shields the link" is a tag, not an argument.

- uniqueness controls link and vice versa should be debated out contextually. extremist opinions on either side (i.e: "no offense without uniqueness" and "don't need uniqueness") both seem silly.

- impact turns often have overly totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest more time in these questions in addition to the impact debate proper.

- i care a lot about turns case in both disad and K debates. these arguments are ideally carded, but should at minimum be thoroughly explained with reference to which specific 1AC internal links/impacts they interact with.

- i don't know who introduced the idea of "meta-weighing" into the lexicon, but they owe us an apology for making debates worse. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" is a non-argument if the disad isn't faster than case in a way that actually matters, and if it is, just say that instead of pointless abstractions. i feel similarly about "try or die", at this point - i don't know why the aff impact being really bad and unmitigated means solvency deficits go away. if you mean "the aff impact is a higher risk than the disad", just say that and prove it.

- k teams that are very technical and read lots of detailed evidence should pref me highly. less technical/performance teams can also pref me highly with the understanding that this is not my wheelhouse, but i would consider myself much better for them than this paradigm would suggest. ideally, negative teams have a link that impact turns some 1AC premise or mechanism with an impact that can outweigh the net benefit to a permutation, an external impact that turns and/or outweighs the case, and a well-defined alternative that is both competitive and solvent.

- framework arguments should answer the question "which parts of the 1AC should be the basis for rejoinder and competition?" – “weigh the aff” and “reps first” are both non-arguments. i will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – i usually find these models to be both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus seems like it gives the negative more than you want (I am unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets links to both “reps” and the plan). This also means I am fine with “delete the plan” if won, but usually think the negative can win with a more nuanced framework push that gives them links and the alt without doing so.

- I vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more than I vote against it, but this is less ideological bias and more because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. when controlling for quality, I probably vote for the best K teams and framework teams equally often. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact appeal to me much more than “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps are equally winnable, but both require detailed explanation about how voting aff solves your offense. i think debate should be valuable beyond competition, but competition is still axiomatic. using the language of impact calculus (e.g: “turns case/their offense”, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot.

- i'd probably enjoy a good K v K debate more than a framework debate, but bad K v K is pure slop. judge instruction, organization, and specificity are paramount. i care a lot more about "turns/solves case" than "root cause". exact same ideals for policy v K debates apply here. i'd much rather both sides invest in explaining how i determine what is offense, what competes, etc (e.g: framework arguments) than say it's too hard for me to evaluate them (e.g: "no plan, no perm"). aff teams often benefit from a "functional competition"-style argument, since the meta seems to be to spam word PIKs and call it "frame subtraction" these days. the "ballot PIK" should never win a debate against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates when executed by a sufficiently prepared and knowledgeable 2N.

- critical affirmatives with plans and "soft left" affs should be much more common. teams that take me for this historically do incredibly well, but only when they actually answer neg arguments (i.e: the disad doesn't automatically vanish when you say "conjunctive fallacy")

- I care a lot about evidence quality for topicality - a more predictable and precise limit is better than a more “debatable” one, since literature determines what is debatable. that said, a marginally more precise but massively underlimiting interp is probably not a winner - risk of links and size of impacts should be weighed like any other argument, and in the context of defense. "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" is a much better 2NR than "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability is about the counterinterpretation, not the specific aff, and is good when framed as an offensive argument about substance crowd-out against silly violations, but bad when explained as "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum is probably good as a check against extra-topicality violations, but less convinced in other contexts. i am extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- I would consider these arguments theoretical non-starters if near-evenly debated: disads that link based on “riders” to the plan or being "horse-traded" (not how fiat works), counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (yes, this includes the states). i am unconvinced either are not solved by dropping the arg, and aside from these, you should consider me un-get-able for basically any aff theory argument if well answered. i consider conditionality a divine right bestowed upon the negative by heavenly mandate, and will defend it with the appropriate religious zeal (read: unless wholly conceded with an actual 2AC warrant, don't bother). "RVIs" get a verbal "stop it". neg theory is usually a total non-starter.

- terrible for LD “tricks” – beyond being unwarranted garbage, most of them (skep, a prioris, permissibility) are just fundamentally defensive.

- much better for well warranted, carded phil positions than you'd expect. Kant has a high win-rate in front of me these days.

- judges i generally tend to agree with if the above is insufficiently detailed include Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (my former coaches), Brett Cryan (my former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (my best bud in debate).

procedural notes

- I have hearing damage in my left ear, and I don’t flow off the doc. i consider myself extremely good at flowing, but given these two things, clarity matters a lot to me – you get two free "clears," then I stop typing. debaters tend to go through tags and analytics too quickly – i will take pen time whether you give it to me or not. you are welcome to ask to see my flow, but my shorthand is probably incomprehensible to you (i usually don't write vowels).

- I have a terrible poker face. you are free to treat facial expressions as real-time feedback on your speech and adjust accordingly.

- i have autism. what this means for you is that i may close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. i promise i'm still flowing. i also make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc is fine and good, but I will only read cards extended in the final two speeches – attempting to sway my evaluation of the debate by including extraneous evidence will be harshly penalized with speaks.

- CX is binding and mandatory. i will flow things i think are important. "lying by omission" is just smart CX practice, but direct dishonesty will prompt intervention (i.e: the 1NC reads elections, 1A asks "was elections read", and you say "no", i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch that flow).

- having a personality is good. i am unconvinced arrogance and self-righteousness count as personality traits, especially when you can be funny and intelligent instead. it's a game - you should have fun with your fellow players.

- prep time ends when the speech doc is sent. the amount of prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile a doc and send it efficiently, i suggest Verbatim drills - this is not a joke. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing additional prep time penalties for excessive dead time while "sending the extra cards" and such (thanks for the idea, Shackelford).

- there is no flow clarification timeslot – “what cards did you read” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the cut cards marked” is fine question to ask without prep or CX, because the team that cuts evidence should provide marked copies, but “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” is a question that the other team can say “no” to, because it is your obligation to flow (or you can burn CX time asking if they read elections or not because you didn’t - i don't care). the amount of not-flowing you do negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself. flow.

- related to the above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. I am beyond serious about this. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks are solely decided by me, based on my assessment of the quality of your debating + how enjoyable you were to judge (i.e: being respectful, having fun). 28.5 means i think you should go about 3-3. i have been told this is at the low end of the speaker point distribution for HSLD in particular - i don't really care.

- not interested in adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- any and all grumpiness above should not be read as without consideration for experience, i.e: I am not docking speaks because a novice accidentally answers a skipped disad or sends an extra card in the card doc. generally, how harsh i am (and how harsh you can be) is inversely related to skill level. trolling an opponent of relatively equal skill in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- ethics challenges (clipping, evidence issues): only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the burden is to reasonably prove criminal negligence or malicious intent. omitting multiple paragraphs in the middle of a card that conclude neg fundamentally changes the argument of a card; accidentally leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. i am open to alternative solutions - i'd rather we strike a card that was cited incorrectly than not debate. you can ask me if i would consider ending the round or some alternative appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording for me to evaluate the accusation, and is always an instant loss (as there is no other way to resolve it) if it is shown to be persistent enough that it substantially altered functional speech time (again, criminal negligence/malicious intent). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency on this issue. if the debate is ended, it will not restart, and i expect all evidence to be immediately provided to me and then for everyone to shut up - any attempt to sway my evaluation of the issue by debaters or coaches will result in an instant loss. the result will be solely decided by me, with losers getting an L0 and winners getting a W28.5/28.4. all of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do something else.

- disclosure is likely good, but increasingly arbitrary and demanding standards for it seem counterproductive. disinterested in voting on it in the absence of deliberate misdisclosure. unconvinced by mandating disclosure of unbroken affs or anything in the 1NC before the 1NC starts.

- edebate: it still sucks. i will keep my camera on as much as possible. in the event my wifi connection is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth for debaters, but will always turn my camera back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present before your speech starts unless you either see my face or get a verbal confirmation. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compressions means debaters should go slightly slower and focus more on clarity than they normally would.

- please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine.

- i like music. feel free to recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time. enjoyable music gives everyone in the room +0.1. music i dislike receives no penalty.

good luck, have fun!

pat

Please add me to the email chain: valeriegutierrez491@gmail.com I'd prefer an email chain over speech drop.

I recently graduated with a BA in political science and Latin American and border studies. As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments in policy and LD.

I am the co-head coach at Irma Rangel YWLS along with kris wright.

TLDR:

I will evaluate any argument in the round, meaning you should take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, instead of it limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs.

General notes:

• Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probably won't know what you mean.

• I’m very persuaded by an overview or a story of the link chain.

• Simply saying they dropped something without explaining the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw.

Logistics:

Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand.

Timing- if you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness.

In case you have questions about a specific type of argument:

WSD - Please give a roadmap or some form of signposting. You cannot ask POIs during protected time which is the first and last minute of the first three speeches. Also, no follow up questions in WS are allowed. I think often debaters lack weighing under the framework, please do this weighing and comparative work of impacts, or reasons to prefer your side of the motion.

Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, (aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates in policy and LD) I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework.

Policy- if you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact.

Criticisms - know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me. Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism.

Performance - The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, especially how it functions under a rob/fw. If you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech.

Theory/ T - I am least comfortable judging a theory/T round. With that being said, if you run theory you should have a complete shell (interp, violation, standards and voters), a clear violation and abuse story. I am not compelled by frivolous theory and I usually tend to lean towards a reasonability claim if made.

hi! my name is mariska haddock, my pronouns are she/her, and i’m a junior varsity debater at cabot high school.

TLDR: -read if you're short on time!

be kind people! discrimination of any type is not tolerated and will result in an automatic loss.

include me in email chain -mariskahaddock@gmail.com

tech > truth

i choose the winner based on my flow- be clear about kicks, defense isn't sticky (extend pls)

focus on impacts!

flex prep is okay! i prefer cross but if you want to use flex prep it won’t affect my decision

don’t steal prep - its unethical

off-time roadmaps are recommended (unless it’s worlds lol)

world schools:

the big thing i’ve learned from wsd (done it since freshman year) is COMMUNICATION!! make sure that you’re on the same page with your teammates throughout the debate. you don’t get prep, but you are allowed to talk with your teammates. use that to your advantage. however, don’t be disruptive. the opponents and i should not be able to hear you

remember that worlds is about respect to your opponents- hold them at their highest ground and be respectful

content:

be consistent, but don’t just restate what previous speakers said. expand on it and give thorough analysis of WHY it’s important.in prepared motions, i expect quality examples with good analysis that ties them back to the thesis of the argument. in impromptu rounds, try to be as thorough as possible and offer quality analysis. don’t be abusive with burdens and definitions

style:

be persuasive, be engaging, be creative. worlds speeches are similar to oratory’s: each speech is a performance. make eye contact, use body gestures, use vocal inflections, speak at a conversational speed, use humor (but don’t be condescending)

strategy:

be strategic with both asking and taking poi’s. you don’t have to accept every one, but at least acknowledge the person asking (ex. wave them down, verbal “no thank you”). try to take at least 2 though.

be smart with how you allocate your time to cover the most important issues in the debate. try not to spend too much time on one singular issue.

again, BE CONSISTENT. debate like a team, not 3 debaters.

be organized. speeches should be easy to follow.

public forum:

i do PF, so i focus heavily on argumentation and how strong the arguments presented are and the weight of their impacts

i love framework debate

weigh impacts!!!

don’t forget to extend your arguments

try to keep your rebuttals in a line-by-line format

2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal

in summary speech, extend terminal defense and offense; extend anything you want to mention in final focus

don’t be overbearing in cross

final focus should provide clear weighing ground- lay out my ballot for me.

don't skew evidence

congress:

speak fluently and make eye contact with the judges

have credible evidence and clear impacts

do not attack other reps or senators, only attack their arguments. it’s okay to reference other delegates as long as it’s in a respectful manner

ask questions!

don’t be repetitive with arguments- reply speeches help the flow of the round

be familiar with robert’s rules of order- i don’t expect perfect knowledge but be familiar with it and try to only make correct/germane motions

IPDA:

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

weigh impacts! make sure that it’s clear to the judge why your impacts are more important than your opponents

lincoln-douglas:

framework is important and should be warranted

weigh impacts!

i've only really run theory and k's but i'm good w anything as long as it is warranted and extended throughout

speech:

try to be reasonably within time

don’t freak out if you stutter once or twice- it’s normal

i generally do bnb events but throw in the occasional oo

make blocking effective and not flashy

i love good cutting- the debate kid in me comes out when pieces are cut effectively and efficiently

drive your point home- similar to debate, make sure your message is clear and impactful.

please be kind people :)

Dear Gentle Readers,

I thoroughly enjoy all aspects of speech and debate, so when I judge you, I don't want to leave with a frown. Keep it fun!

My Debate Career:

• National Qualifier
• TFA State Qualifier
• HUDL Houston City Champion
• 3rd year of debate
• 30th WSD Debater in the Nation

Debate:

Generally, I consider myself to be a standard judge, but with the caveat that I know what I'm doing so you probably aren't going to get anything 'iffy' by me. That doesn't mean I embrace my bias however; I always try to enter a round without guessing what the teams are going to give to me as substantive material. What it does mean, is that YOU MUST BE DOING THE DEBATING. No matter how ridiculous of a statement the opposing team makes, unless you say its false, the moon may very well be a ball of cheese... Remember, you are convincing me, not each other, so if I don't hear why something is bad, I'll assume its good.

I won't "come up with" stuff for you (very often). Assume that I can comprehend everything, but until start speaking, I know nothing. That is to say, I expect thought out reasoning and linking for your arguments.

And remember, its not enough to be on offense the entire debate. Unless you defend your arguments, your side looks weaker by default. That's not to say to immediately decides the round (just keep it in mind).

WSD Specific:

In WSD, I expect at least two arguments: preferably one practical and one principle, but I understand motion needs vary. For practical arguments, I need to hear impacts, or what exactly happens; for principle arguments, I need to be proven why its important or relevant to the motion.

As an experienced debater, I can weigh your arguments if I have to, but let it be clear that I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO. Try your best to weigh your arguments against your opponents and tell me why the are more important, so more, are unique, etc... If you are winning, say it clearly. I will always take both sides for what they give me, but if one side tells me that their arguments are more important, the other lets it slide, I will take that into account in my decision.

Personal Notes for WSD:

• I admire a good speaker, and will award points accordingly, but that does not outweigh the actual 'debate' in my RFD.
• Consistency will always give you a better chance. I don't like crossing out what your 1st speaker said when your 3rd contradicts them (unless you give me a good reason).
• Clash is good. Its a DEBATE. If you people are just talking at me the entire time, I get sad a bored. You don't want to bore out your judge; it does not reflect well in your speaker points.
• I like substance debates. Do NOT devolve into a framework or definitions debate.
• Spreading is a No No. I can handle it, but I don't want to have to.
• Remember, WSD is both debate and speech at the same time. Unlike LD, you don't have allocated time for questions, so your speeches are longer. You are talking for 8 minutes straight, so I would advise you to try to maintain my attention. I want to "want to" vote for you.

Basic Info: I am a high school senior and mostly do speech/congress with experience in worlds and am new to judging. I will try my best to flow rounds.

Stylistic preferences: Don't spread or use too much jargon. Make sure you are clear in what you mean. Big words don't mean better chances.

Impacts are everything: I will vote on the big picture of the debate, not splitting hairs on technicalities. Keep your links solid. I will prefer smaller impacts with stronger links over extinction with weak links. Compare worlds and prove why your side's world is comparatively better than the other side's.

All arguments can be valid: I think that any argument can be valid so long as you can link it back to the debate. If you want to make an argument about the color of my wall go ahead, but don't expect it to flow through without really solid links and warranting

Answer your opponent: I want to see clashing with your opponent's points and cards. Don't just reread your case; that isn't a rebuttal. Simply saying your opponent's points are non-unique or unwarranted isn't enough. Warrant why you win.

Be respectful: Don't be rude in CX or say outright offensive stuff in speeches. Similarly, don't try to tempt your opponent into doing so.

Disclosure and Feedback:Tournament policy takes priority. If tournament rules say don't disclose or offer feedback, I won't and you can expect to see it in Tabroom. If I am allowed, I may stay a little longer to offer feedback without disclosing.

My debate knowledge is strictly in World Schools. I was a national runner-up in 2023, a state champion in 2024, and a national octafinalist in 2024. You don't have to worry about other debate conventions messing with the way I judge the WSD round.

In terms of speed, I am okay with fast talking as long as it isn't excessive. I shouldn't hear you gasping for breath. At the same time, overly slow speaking is a red flag for me--it makes me think that you don't have enough substantive material to fill the time.

Make sure that you are being charitable in regard to POIs. I would like to see you take at least two. There's not much you can do if the other team doesn't give them, but you can always offer to take any points if they stand (I won't condemn you for not doing this though).

Don't bring up entirely new arguments or important clash points during protected time. It's unfair. In a similar vein, don't completely change arguments or bring up a new one in your third speech. Regardless of how good the argument is, it's far too late in the debate for me to care about it.

I will be flowing the entire round. Good luck!

I am the parent of a debater. I also competed in policy debate in high school in California, where I was a finalist at the Tournament of Champions in 1989, and in college at the University of Michigan, where I was a National Debate Tournament finalist in 1991. I taught at numerous summer debate institutes in the 1990s and 2000s and coached college debate at the University of Michigan from 1998 to 2000. I have judged hundreds of debate rounds, but I have not judged much over the past decade or so. I currently teach political science and international relations at Stanford University, and I have served in several national security positions in the U.S. government.

Although these experiences undoubtedly shape my outlook on the world, as a judge I make every effort to be neutral and unbiased. I do not have a rigid judging paradigm and will take my cues from the debaters regarding the framework I should use to evaluate the debate. In the absence of a framework provided by the debaters, however, I will default to a policy making approach that weighs the advantages and disadvantages of proposed ideas relative to the alternatives.

Just to give some background on me. I was a Speech and Debate competitor for 2 years in middle school and 4 years in high school including 3 years of World Schools Debate. I am also an up incoming debate coach.

To give information on what I look at, I have experience in World Schools so I look at World Schools Norms. Which means I expect World Schools terminology. ( I.E Substantive instead of contention, Prop/Opp not Aff/Neg)

I look for a casual debate with good clash. I strongly discourage spreading.

Respect is also key. Be respectful and mindful of your opponents as it is conversational.

“Going down the flow” is important to start but I expect the debate to narrow into key points towards the end.

Impact weighing is important and I also frown upon definition or framework debates.

I look forward to Judging you all and good luck!

Style:

1. A clear and loud volume is nice

2. Remember to maintain a constant and timely speed without spreading

3. Use different tones/ranges for emphasis

Content:

1. Good roadmap, what can I expect from you?
2. Examples are fine but tell me WHY they matter and analyze their relevance in the case
3. Make sure that clarifications are made when they need to be
4. Make sure that your arguments have are warranted, have impact, and are WEIGHED

Strategy:

1. Set your frame work according to the action the motion is implying (ex: regrets should have comparatives)
2. Make sure that EACH speaker is doing their designated job (ex: second extends and third weighs)
3. I VALUE overall team effort than individual reliance meaning that all members should be trying their best and not expect to win based on a singular members performance
4. Identify the main point of clash and make it CLEAR to me what I should be prioritizing and WHY you win
5. Take 2 POI's AT LEAST!!

Debate:

• Don't commit any of the "ism's" or "ist's" in your round otherwise you will be docked
• Be respectful (you're representing your school so do it properly)
• Make sure to sign-post
• Be organized and concise so if you're speaking too fast I will stop typing until you slow down
• Work as a team!
• Have fun!
• If I’m judging you it’s most likely WSD, since all of my background is in WSD I expect the round to run like a worlds round. This simply means that I want a STORY, put me in YOUR WORLD. Too frequently, I judge a lot of event hoppers (especially ones from LD and PF) that come to worlds and bring their forms with them, this simply shouldn’t be. I’m not here to judge a round that isn’t specifically the one your in, so act like it. Give me your best story and put me in your world.

Speech:

• Be clear when talking
• If you need to take a pause do so
• Try your best not to make up lines because I can tell and it will effect your score
• Have fun!

I have been coaching speech and debate since 2000.

First of all, I believe that debate is a communication activity. Consequently, I will be looking for effective communication that includes effective eye contact, diction, inflection, projection, and gesturing.

Furthermore, I expect debaters to speak at a normal rate. If you spread, I will vote for your opponent. My reasoning:

• People do not spread in the real world.
• When you speak at a normal rate, you are forced to prioritize your arguments. Choosing arguments is part of the learning experience in debate.
• When people spread, their syntax frequently suffers.

Finally, I will not fill in the blanks for you. Even if I understand what you are trying to say, it is your job to say it effectively. Likewise, I expect debaters to clearly connect their evidence to the points they are trying to make. Be creative with your arguments, but it is your job to help me understand your arguments.

One last thing: I don't mind esoteric arguments, but I put a high value on practicality, especially when discussing real-world issues and policies. Sometimes, debate can seem disconnected from reality, and it shouldn't be.

In LD I am a tabula rossa traditional judge that decides on values, criterion, solid contentions, and warranting. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose speaker points.

In WSD, I am a tabula rossa judge in terms of reasoning. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose style points. RFDs are based on principle and practical substantives, reasoning, examples, evidence (where appropriate), models (where appropriate), burdens, weighing and clash.

In PF, I am a tabula rossa judge that decides on contentions that are brought through the round and contentions that are dropped (You have to argue whether they are critical or not). Rounds are based on reasoning and relevance of the evidence presented.

PF Judging,
I score the speaker points according to the outlines by the tournament and the debater performance.

Most of time, speaker points are between 24 and 30.