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

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

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

Hi! My name's Karen Akins, and I'm excited to be judging you today.

• I prefer to see debaters stick to the given topic.
• If I can't understand what you're saying (i.e. too fast), I won't be able to understand your argument. (In other words, spread at your own peril.)
• Be respectful! In my opinion, this is the greatest benefit of competitive debate--learning to craft a compelling argument while still showing civility to your opponent.
• Have fun!

Good luck!

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

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

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

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

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

1. I am new to judging, but I’m so looking forward to serving in this capacity.

2. When I read, I listen to audiobooks, so I absorb language best by listening. That being said, please use your strongest voice so that I can hear you. Having been an English teacher in the past, I can understand most jargon and technical language, but I feel that much of that kind of language loses listeners quickly unless you explain the meaning.

3. I will do my best at note-taking by writing down key arguments, but my focus will mostly be on what you are saying and on your delivery.

4. I value argument and style equally. Delivery styles about which a speaker has personal experience and/or passion is most persuasive to me.

5. The specific criteria that I consider when assessing a debate is that speech is confident and remains respectful to all parties throughout.

6. My expectations for the in-round conduct of debaters is that they come prepared and stay positive throughout the round.

John Block: block.john.b@gmail.com please add me to email chain, thanks

LRCH ’09

Missouri state State ‘12

Last Updated: March 2024

General:

I am currently completing my final year of pediatrics residency so I have been out of the judging game to some extent so be aware that acronyms/the latest K lit I may not be up to date with. That being said I assist LRCH and judge practice debates/listen to practices. I believe that my job is to be a reactionary presence in the room. I do have my own opinions which I’ll get to in a bit but I should be receptive to basically anything you are doing. Being nice goes a long way. Make my job easy. If you can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR I would be happy for you to do so. Even if statements are phenomenal, no one will win 100% of the arguments, recognize and embrace that.

Digital debate will be an adjustment to all. I have watched some debates but they were conducted over Zoom so I will be new to this software interface so please be patient if and when glitches arise.

You don’t need evidence for an argument, although it helps.

Specifics: T/Framework-I am not exclusively a policymaker. I’m just a person evaluating a discussion of ideas. That being said I went for Framework quite regularly in college and have voted on it multiple times. Be interactive with the other side, don’t just read blocks at each other. TVA’s are important and so are aff visions of the topic that are navigable to the negative team.

Theory: bad theory arguments are just that, bad. If you want to go for theory great but I am pretty easily swayed by reject the argument not the team. If you want to read consult/conditions style arguments I can get on board pretty easily. If you want to read multiple CPs without solvency advocates to simply skew the 2AC’s time I’m less on your side.

Case Debates-crucial to a good round. You can make my threshold to vote negative significantly lower if you have good case args, these don’t have to be supported by evidence but again it helps. Ev analysis has gotten somewhat lost in my opinion over the years. Read the text/read who this person is, discuss why one piece of evidence should be prioritized (does it assume the other team’s ev? Is it newer? Is it better analysis etc?)

DA’s-PTX is fun, elections is an exciting time to be reading it. Otherwise topic DA’s are great too. Don’t forget to have specific links to the aff and a good internal link. Similarly, don’t forget to identify flaws in the internal link chain or why your aff is different than what the link evidence assumes/why it would be perceived differently.

CP’s: having a solvency advocate is good but not necessary. I read a lot of hyperspecific CP’s in my day but also think a lot of it can become esoteric. If you have a great counterplan to read go for it, if you have a generic CP, go for it. Delay is questionable from a theory level but I’ll certainly listen to it.

K’s-Guide me through the K and what it means for the hypothetical world of the aff vs the hypothetical world of the alternative. Explain what specifically the aff does, specifically what the 1AC said or the assumptions that went into it. I may not be hip to the latest high theory K’s but I hear of some of them by proximity to debate even if I haven’t sat in the back of rounds in recent times.

K Affs: Most of what I wrote in the K area applies here. I think I am slightly K leaning as far as my threshold for voting on T or F/W so keep that in mind. What is the ballot and why does it matter for whatever the aff is. I am a bigger fan of embracing the K side of the aff and not as crazy about “soft-left” affs as I have been in the past.

CX-don’t just use it for prep. A good CX can end a debate round early on. This may be difficult with virtual debate and people just trying to talk over each other.

Cheating: If I suspect it I will report it. I will often read along and will likely do this even more because hearing specifics of spreading may be more difficult virtually.

Hello there and welcome to this judge's paradigm!

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

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

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

Excited to hear what the future holds. I look forward to hearing what these bright young minds have to say. Looking forward to a fun and exciting debate.

I want to emphasize the importance of respect in this competition. It is not just about winning or losing, but about having respect for your opponents, for the judges, and most importantly yourself. Treat every individual with kindness and understanding, regardless of their performance. Remember, we are all on this journey together.

I want to encourage you to take your time and speak clearly, ensuring that your words are not only heard but felt by those who are listening. Let your passion and emotions shine through your performance, captivating the audience and judges.

Hi! Just a few things about me, I did debate for 5 years, started in 8th grade. My main debate event was Public Forum, but I have also competed in IPDA, congress, and BQ as well. My main speech/forensics events were prose and DI, but I can have experience in every style there is. Any questions about my paradigm is welcomed in round and I can't wait to judge your round!

Debate
My paradigm for a debate event is pretty universal for all events. I ask that everyone stays very respectful. Debating should be fun! We should always be respectful and friendly to each other.
I'm a firm believer in having analysis, evidence, and impacts. I want to know what is important, why, and how. Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches. I will not make any assumptions or draw a conclusion to any loose ends. I want to be told, everything should wrap up like a pretty present.

I ask that you respect the rules of your style of debate and run it the way it is supposed to be run. I am familiar with every rulebook, I will be judging with that understanding in mind.

For LD& PF, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I want to see them clash.

I do not love spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing. I want to hear the argumentation clearly.

The ability to persuade will win you the round. If I am convinced, I have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this. Clear speeches, sign posting, and confidence are all big factors to a win. Although, anything can happen in a round and I will leave both competitors plenty of notes about my decision.

Speaker points ARE important so everything stated above WILL have a major factor in my decision. Another factor is the pace of your speech. If you are talking so fast I cannot comprehend what you are saying, I will not be able to flow your speeches to get the content written down. Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will not aide in your points. I won't vote a debater down for spreading but in any style other than policy, I feel it only keeps the debate from hitting full potential. Use your time wisely and insure that each word you say is heavy hitting.

Debate jargon is mostly acceptable for me... I say this with a few exceptions. I know my fallacies and biases, feel free to throw those out in a round. I do stand by the idea you need to explain the concept so EVERYONE knows what page we're on. As long as there's analysis to every claim you make in a round, jargon should never be a problem in round.

Most importantly, this is a fun activity you get to do. I'm excited to see all of the super amazing work everyone has put in and wishing the best of luck!

Speech/Forensics
When it comes to speech and forensics events, I expect everyone to be attentive to their fellow competitors pieces. I do look at performances based on the generalized standards per the event. Don't over stress it, do your best, I'll respect you owning your piece more than anything. Hi to any forensics kids reading this!

Thank you so much for this opportunity to see you in this arena.

I am a parent volunteer, but I bring a background of performing arts, writing and literature, marketing, and education as a foundation for my judging. I am incredibly passionate about helping young people improve their thinking and communication skills and would love to discuss anything with you after I've submitted scores for your competition.

DEBATE

As I become more familiar with structures of the various styles, I will provide more specific feedback on those. But for now, my perspective will be based on the following:

✅Strength of argument- TARGET: argument is clear and structured in Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format, sources are reliable and relevant, fallacies are avoided

✅Strength of rhetoric- TARGET: standard structure that flows from point to point, audience consideration, strategic word choice and phrasing, variety of methods of argument (ethos, logo, pathos), tone is respectful (see below)

✅General presentation- TARGET: clear and interesting vocalization, professional and confident body language, professional and clean dress, etc.

✅Rebuttal/Cross- TARGET: paying attention during opponent's speech, asking clear and specific questions that undermine their argument, answering questions asked

✅General civility to opponents and other viewpoints- TARGET: Verbiage remains respectful and collaborative. Any language or attitude/tones that marginalize others, belittles others' viewpoints, etc. will result in lower ranking/score. Examples include:

❌using religious perspectives in the argument where not specifically warranted

❌using phrases like "pipedream," "ridiculous," and other phrases that are more subjective and belittle others rather than creating a relevant argument

❌microaggressions, ableist language, etc.

These are tactics used by many news outlets and their followers, so it may be that your influences imply these are ethical ways for argument, but they are not. In fact, they weaken your own argument when in the presence of logical debate.

FORENSICS

As I become more familiar with structures of the various styles, I will provide more specific feedback. But for now, my notes will be based on the following:

✅Elements of performance- TARGET: Volume and enunciation vary as appropriate for the piece and allow audience to hear clearly; careful considerations for tone, inflection, characterization, etc.; using space to enhance the performance

✅Strength of rhetoric- TARGET: standard structure that flows from point to point, audience consideration, strategic word choice and phrasing, variety of methods of argument (ethos, logo, pathos), tone is respectful (see below)

✅Consideration of the audience- TARGET: Piece is selected with judges and peers in mind; performance engages audience through eye contact, vocal interest, etc.

✅Intention- TARGET: Performance steps outside the safe zone to make an impact and further reinforce the intention of the performance. It's a risk, but so is playing it safe.

✅Strength of argument (where applicable)- TARGET: argument is clear and structured in Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format, sources are reliable and relevant, fallacies are avoided

✅General civility to opponents and other viewpoints (specifically to those events that are argument/information based)- TARGET: Verbiage remains respectful and collaborative. Any language or attitude/tones that marginalize others, belittles others' viewpoints, etc. will result in lower ranking/score. Examples include:

❌using religious perspectives in the argument where not specifically warranted

❌using phrases like "pipedream," "ridiculous," and other phrases that are more subjective and belittle others rather than creating a relevant argument

❌microaggressions, ableist language, etc.

These are tactics used by many news outlets and their followers, so it may be that your influences imply these are ethical ways for argument, but they are not. In fact, they weaken your own argument when in the presence of logical debate.

Please send any requested information to my email at taracloudclark@hotmail.com

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

For LD:

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

PF:

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

Speaking:

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

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

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

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

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

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

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

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

Misgender folks

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

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

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

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

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

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

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

t/framework

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

Topicality

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

Perf Con.

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

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

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

Conditionality

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

DA's

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

Presumption

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

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

I am a parent judge and former debater in Student Congress and Model U.N. at the high school and college levels.

I am looking for speakers to be clear and concise. Be poised, organized, and confident. When making arguments I look for good research/statistical data that supports the points that you are trying to make. Speakers should be easily heard; projection and pace are important. Speaking too fast or using too many ums or ahs can detract from the points you are trying to make.

My advice is as follows:

Take a deep breath before you start - it provides your brain with oxygen and will help you think/process.

Speak slowly, but not too slow. Make sure the judges and your audience can understand you. If you speak to fast we might miss an important argument, point, etc. Take breaths as you speak after each sentence so that your speech is not a like a single run-on sentence.

Be confident. Do your research, study, prepare. Try to make sure that you are ready. The more organized and prepared you are the better you will be.

Learn something new each time and try to improve each time you speak. Read the judges comments and use those to help you the next time.

Finally, and most importantly, have fun! It is serious and you learn a lot but make sure you have a good time. Make connections with your peers. Enjoy life and make good memories that will last a lifetime!

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

I am a new judge. I will judge on a good mix of delivery, persuasion, and developed points with sources.

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

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

In a debate, I expect rules that are set to be followed. I will not tolerate abuse.

I expect it to be fun and the most important thing is to be respectful of your opponent.

Your case needs to stand through the whole debate and rebuttals need to be strong

Be sure to speak clearly.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Hi! I may be new to the debate event scene, but I am no newbie to arenas where logic reigns supreme. My educational background is in engineering, where your primary job is to be very technical and solve hard problems, but equally important is being able to explain what you are doing and why to non-technical folks. Therefore, my focus during these rounds will be 1) do your arguments make sense and connect with one another to build a story of what you assert? and 2) are you able to do so in a clear and concise manner, even to someone unfamiliar with the ins and outs of debate procedure and jargon?

Practically speaking, use the time needed to get your point across then sit down; I do not value verbose arguments. Also, given my lack of experience in this formal setting, I appreciate all efforts to speak clearly (not at the speed of light) and to guide me through your points as you go by highlighting each one along the way.

Looking forward to hearing what y'all have to say!

Hello,

My name is Mark Konschak, and I am truly honored to be here as a judge today. I want to start by thanking each and every one of you for being a part of this incredible experience.

As a 21-year military veteran and have served as a diplomat for the US Department of State for 16 years, and now for the US Department of Agriculture as a Group Manager. I have had the privilege of living and traveling all over the world. It has been an incredible journey, and it has shaped my perspective on the importance of effective communication and respect to others.

This is my third year as a judge and I must say, this platform has given me the opportunity to witness remarkable talent and dedication, my daughter has been participating in forensics for three years now, and I could not be prouder of her accomplishments. She even made it to nationals last year, and it was truly a joy to see her shine on the big stage.

It is my hope that each of you competing today will have the opportunity to experience that same joy and sense of accomplishment in your own journey. Whether it's your first time or your tenth time competing, remember that every moment is a valuable and opportunity to grow.

I want to emphasize the importance of respect in this competition. It is not just about winning or losing, but about having respect for your opponents, for the judges, and most importantly yourself. Treat every individual with kindness and understanding, regardless of their performance. Remember, we are all on this journey together.

I want to encourage you to take your time and speak clearly, ensuring that your words are not only heard but felt by those who are listening. Let your passion and emotions shine through your performance, captivating the audience and judges.

Above all, have fun! This competition is not just about the victory, but about the joy and fulfillment you gain from participating. Enjoy the process, embrace the challenges, and cherish the memories you create along the way.

Good Luck to each of you. May this experience be a meaningful and transformative one!

Candy Linde

This will be my first time judging a debate competition so I will not know the nomenclature. I do have experience with public speaking and debate, I was an instructor in the Navy for 4yrs and while on my ship we would have to do presentations for the captain and other officers that would ask questions.

I have an analytical mind and an argument should be backed by supported, peer reviewed claims and not your opinion or Wikipedia. Speak clearly and with eye contact to the audience, staring at a card and reading can be done by anyone.

Don't give me a problem without a solution, the solution should be clear and concise. Please enunciate, I'm old and don't appreciate mumbling as the sentence drops off. Be professional and confident, avoid arguments that offensive but I encourage controversial subjects.

If you want to ask me questions don't be afraid to come speak with me.

Good luck and try to have fun!!

Me:

• Former Debate State Champion and Nationals Qualifier
• Former United States Marine Corps Combat Correspondent
• Veterans Advocate
• Spokesperson
• Former Congressional Military and Veteran Liaison

The Basics:

• Have fun!
• I'm fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.
• Procedurals / theory are fine as long as you articulate the abuse.
• I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.
• I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise.
• Please tell me why you think you are winning in your last speech.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I like it when debaters directly engage with each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization is very important to me. Please road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around if necessary but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Unique tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik.

I will also mention that I'm not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards thing in parli. If you don't understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I'm in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli, speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you cant do these things AND go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear ...please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were able to effectively.

Online Tournaments: Speed and web based debate does not work. Slow down or everyone will miss stuff.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is antithetical to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call "clear" or "slow." That said, if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me your stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

NFA-LD SPECIFIC THINGS:

Files: I tend to feel paper only debate hurts education and fairness in the round. I also worry it is an ableist practice as some debaters struggle with text that can't be resized and searched. If you only use paper I would like a copy for the entire round so I may read along with you. If you can't provide a copy of your evidence digitally or on paper, you will need to slow down and speak at a slow conversational pace so I can flow everything you say.

Disclosure: I'm a fan of the caselist. I think it makes for good debate. If you are not breaking a brand new aff it better be up there. If it is not I am more likely to vote on "accessibility" and "predictably" standards in T. If your opponent is anti-case list you should run a wiki spec / disclosure theory against them. I think that teams who chose to not disclose their affirmatives are abusive to teams who do.

LD with no cards: It might not be a rule, but I think it is abusive and bad for LD debate. I might even vote on theory that articulates that.

Specifics:

Speaker Points: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 26-30 range. If you do the things in my General Approach to Judging section, your speaks will be higher.

Topicality: AFF, make an effort to be topical. I'm not super amused by squirrely cases. Ill vote on T in all its varieties. Just make sure you have all the components. I prefer articulated abuse, but will vote on potential abuse if you don't answer it well. I'm unlikely to vote on an RVI. In general I enjoy a good procedural debate but also love rounds were we get to talk about the issues. That said if you are going for a procedural argument...you should probably really go for it in the end or move on to your other arguments.

IPDA:

In IPDA I prefer that you signpost your arguments and follow a logical structure for advantages, disadvantages, contentions, Counter-contentions, etc. If it is a policy resolution you should probably fiat a plan action and argue why implementing it would be net-beneficial. I think it is generally abusive for the affirmative to not FIAT a plan in the 1AC if it is a resolution of policy. Please note the official IPDA textbook says the following about resolutions of policy "With a policy resolution, the affirmative must specify a plan that they will advocate during the debate. The plan of action should consist of at least four elements: agent, mandates, enforcement, and funding." (pg 134)(2016). International Public Debate Association Textbook (1st edition). Kendall Hunt Publishing.)

You get 30 minutes prep, you should cite sources and provide me with evidence. Arguments supported with evidence and good logic are far more likely to get my ballot. I will vote on procedural arguments and other debate theory if it is run well in IPDA, but you should try to explain it a bit more conversationally than you would in other forms of debate. Try to use a little less jargon here. I flow IPDA just like I would any other form of debate. Please respond to each other and try not to drop arguments. A debate without clash is boring.

At its heart IPDA is a form of debate meant to be understood by non-debate audiences and skilled debater audiences alike. Argumentation theory exists under this framework, but certain strategies like critical affirmatives, spreading, and complicated theory positions are probably better situated in other forms of debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a relatively new speech and debate judge. Because I am still relatively new, I don’t understand all the debate jargon. If you believe you have to use some “insider” term, make sure I understand what you are talking about. Think of it as trying to explain your position to your parents, not your experienced debate coach!

I do not like spreading. When I judge, I listen for the points that you make in your arguments, but I also listen for how you articulate them. A weak but well-articulated argument can be more persuasive than a strong argument that I can't understand. Speak clearly and distinctly. Don’t go so fast that your points get lost in the shuffle. I can’t judge what I can’t understand. I prefer to hear a few well-articulated justifications for your arguments rather than a word salad of unrelated ideas. Make sure that your arguments tie back to the resolution and the framework. If I don’t understand the argument or can’t figure out how it relates to the resolution, it’s hard for me to evaluate it.

I also expect courtesy and respect from both sides in an argument, not just toward me but also toward your opponent(s). When your opponent is speaking, you should listen to their arguments to make your rebuttal as effective as possible. Do not spend the entire rebuttal period with your head buried in your notes or talking to your partner. It is disrespectful to your opponent and me, especially if your chatter becomes a distraction.

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

Experience:  Debate competitor in high school in policy debate, student congress, and extemporaneous speaking 1990-1993.  

I am a detail oriented person and will be flowing the rounds.  I will be looking for good organization of your arguments and  supporting evidence.   A confident posture, eye contact, and clear articulation will get my attention and go a long way towards winning your debate.   I also ask that you respect your opponent and speak to them the way that you would like to be spoken to.  

Have fun and use all of your time, I want to hear what you have to say!

I'm new to LD so please be clear and concise with rebuttals and why you should win the debate. I would appreciate some help with time. So as to ensure that you all get the alotted time allowed and give me your best presentations. Good luck!

I'm a realitively new judge. This is only my second time at BWHS and 4th total time juding speech and debate. I am fair with my judgement and won't take sides based on my own preferences. I'm looking for people who have the best thought out questions and facts. My biggest pet peeve is spreading. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are saying it so fast, you will be docked.

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

For Congress:

Know what you're doing.

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

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

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

Have fun!

I have been competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. However it has also been 20+ years since I competed, with the exception of work, sales, or at home with my wife. This is my second year judging. I specialize writing and telling stories to children, and conversational debate with respect to politics and religion.

Cosequently, speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Eye contact with those in the room can help sell your points. Make clear arguments and focus on line by line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team/individual with line by line argumentation.

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

Make sure you link your proposal to your arguments which should flow to resolution clearly. I do not want to hear how many cards you have or why I must judge in your favor. Rather, tell me about source and why they are relevant.

Forecast ..... where are you going

Make your point or argument

Signpost where we've been

Repeat ....

Link all in your resolution

These instructions flow to nearly every speech category.

While I can listen quickly, this can lose you points if you are unclear and your diction is not crisp. I have a 30% hearing loss in some ranges, so look at my face occasionally to determine if I look lost.

Be respectful. If you demean your competitor or use any Ad Hominen attacks you will lose points.

DONT USE JARGON OR ACRONYMS. Use complete terms. For Example: H.U.D. could mean "Heads up Display" or "Housing and Urban Development". (There are more meaning than these two.) DONT ASSUME I KNOW WHICH YOU MEAN. Some jargon has changed since I last competed.

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

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

I am a parent judge.

I prefer debaters to debate the Resolution. A great debater will address contentions but will stay focused and ensure they bring them back to the Resolution. I encourage you to repeat the resolution during the debate keep the topic the topic.

A great debate will have active cross-ex and respond to others debater’s contentions and they will develop and mature their case based on the opponents case. To often debaters only debate their case and it is two ships passing in the night.

If you speak at a rate I can not understand you will lose. It is more important I understand your points then you says more points.

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.