Hi guys! I am in my second year of debate and I have competed in IPDA and Public Forum. I am looking for confident speakers when judging. I want you to sound like you know what you’re talking about even if you don’t. If I am judging your debate round I would like to hear more sources than opinion depending on the topic. Make sure you know your case. If your topic requires it and try to be clear and slow when speaking. Overall I just want you guys to do your best and be comfortable and confident when speaking.

I really enjoy it when you expand on framework and give me a clear understanding of why you or your team should win the round.

I have done a lot of different times of debates I know the basic rules of the different times of debates.

Overall just have a nice clean and respectful round.

General things:

I vote Truth over Tech

Always be nice and respectful to your opponents. Never use any insults or derogatory language towards your opponent. Don't stress too much about debate and be sure to have fun.

I'm mostly LD-centered, so if I'm not judging you for that, I'm probably not going to be the best judge.

Be sure not to be racist or discriminatory at all.

Lincoln Douglas Traditional:

I'd personally say I prefer traditional rounds over progressive, since I feel like those have more clash. In a regular traditional round, I don't value framework too much, but in return clash is incredibly important. I'll still end up voting on FW some times but losing the framework debate isn't a loss for the overall debate, it's just an additional reason for me to vote on way. Clash is the most important thing to me in a debate, because debate's meant to be an argument and not a meeting where people disagree on one tiny part of grammar - they're really unenjoyable to watch and debate and will make me voting for you harder. Burden's are always accepted, feel free to run any wild observations as long as they're not abusive. Overall, just make sure to have good case and framework debate, and to have good clash with your opponent.

Lincoln Douglas Progressive:

I'm not the greatest supporter of progressive arguments, but I'm totally fine if you run them as long as you make sure that your progressive argument has a clear link and isn't something kind of out of nowhere. I should always know how this relates to the topic, and it should relate in a clear way. If I can't understand it or it's too vague, I'm not flowing it

On the topic of counterplans, I think they're fun and good if done well. The counterplan should be a fairly different approach to solving the problem the affirmative is trying to solve. Your counterplan should clearly have benefits and less risks than are present in the affirmative's. If you end up agreeing with the affirmative with your CP I may flow that against you since those arguments restrict clash and education within debate. I wouldn't be too worried about this if you're running a CP, and if I end up flowing your CP against you it likely won't be the round decider, just be sure your counterplans are good and well made, and that they don't restrict argumentation.

Overall with progressive, just try try to make your links clear and have clash with your counterplans. Even though I'm more traditional, don't be afraid to try new progressive args.

Hello! I'm Darby Kelley, i'm a student at Bentonville West High School and competitor for the BWHS Speech and Debate team. One thing about me is I really enjoy humor. Humor to me shows that you are confident in your argument, and it enhances your speech. Please don't make your argument confusing, if it is unintelligible, I may not flow it. Please, please, PLEASE enunciate as best as you are able. My hearing is not that great, and I will be more favorable with those with good projection and enunciation. A good, well articulated argument with weak points will be more in favor than a not well articulated, strong argument will. I am not too familiar with debate events, so please avoid using jargon unless you explain it. I am more versed in Forensics events, and I look for many things.

I look for:

• Confidence

• Blocking

• Facial and Bodily Expressions

• Pauses

When it comes down to the margin, I will pick a performer who did not pause at all during the performance than someone who maybe tripped over a word. Keep in mind, I will not be reading your cut piece, so if you don't know the next words, IMPROV! Keep in mind, I WILL NOT tolerate arguments or performances that are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc in ANY WAY. This will put you last. If am judging your duet improvisation round, please avoid using "Dark Humor" or anything that wouldn't be super appropriate. If you shouldn't say it in front of your parents, then you probably shouldn't say it in front of me. Last of all, I LOVE respect. A respectful and kind competitor will earn more favor with me, than those who don't. Talking or being distracting during performances is a BIG no-no, and I will kick you out of the room until your turn. Most important of all, have fun and be respectful!

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!

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Experience:For the past four years, I have been an active NSDA debater. I primarily do LD, PF, and Mock Trial but have also had experiences in Duo Interp, Duo Improv, Congressional Debate, Impromptu speaking, and IPDA.

LD: I like progressive arguments, although be careful if you narrow your scope too far into the resolution. I can follow K's but don't really prefer to see them in a round (as long as you do not confuse me or your competitor you will be fine). I like speed, I can follow it, just be sure to be clear and concise so there is no misdirection. If you need to email your competitor or me a copy of your case, please email it to the following to start a chain: sm041009@sdale.org.

PF: Be fun and surprising; I like unique topics and where they flow in a round. I prefer Tech>Truth, make sure to keep that in mind when I am flowing the round. Do not run progressive, save it for LD or CX. If you provide a counter-point I will automatically not carry that through the round (unless it is for rebuttal against a point that has been brought up).

IPDA: I look for structure more heavily than I look for evidence. Some IPDA topics can be heavy on one side of the debate so I will take that into consideration when valuing the weight of points. Make sure in the NEG2 and the AFF3 to crystalize and signpost or I will get lost in the flow.

General: What I am looking for is confidence, owning the space that you are in, and extending your ability beyond that of your opponent. Think outside the box. I will not disclose results at the end of the round (unless told otherwise by tab), but I will give sides critiques for speaking and about the flow in general if wanted. Any references to the PGA Tour or the Ryder Cup will earn you an automatic +1 speaker point. Most of all the debate is just a debate, not your entire life, so have fun and remember that you deserve to be here.

This is my first time judging for speech and debate and I do not know most of the terms and styles of speaking. I am fine with listening to any argument. Quick speaking is fine with me as long as you make it clear. Although I am new at this, I cannot judge if I cannot understand what you are saying.

I am a fan of eye contact. I like when speakers look at their audience and when it feels like you are speaking to us, not just reading off of and speaking into a board. Solid claims and solid evidence will gain my favor as well as having an organized debate with minimum to no jumping around between ideas.

Hello and good morning/afternoon! Just a few things to know about me, I am very well immersed in debate and forensics styles, and I am in my third year of speech and debate, serving as my team's current forensics vice captain. The events that I have competed in before or have prior knowledge on is Congress, LD, PF, and world schools, and I have prior knowledge of almost every speech event, but my main events are dramatic interpretation and poi. Just some basic overall things I like to see outside of round/ inside of round is respect, to your judges, to your fellow competitors, etc. I understand this is a fun activity, but remember to be nice to each other. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask!

Speech/forensics

When it comes to forensics styles, I like to see a good tone of voice, blocking,, and good energy. Please make sure I can hear you so I can score accordingly. When it comes to blocking, I want to see and understand what your character is doing and why, don't just stand there and speak; it makes the performance a little more dull that way. Tone of voice is a huge thing that I like to emphasize, I want to be able to feel your character's emotions through your tone of voice. And lastly, good energy, I don't mean that your script has to be happy go lucky, I just mean that inside the room, in between performances, I want to see positivity, I will not condone any disrespectful behavior in the room and will not hesitate to ask you to leave if said behavior is going on.

Debate

When it comes to debate something I look for in a speaker is confidence and persuasion skills. Show me why I should vote for you not just with your case but show me it throught your performance as a speaker. When it comes to lincoln douglas debate (LD) I am not a fan of progressive stategies like ad hominems or committing any other logical falacies and I will admit I do love when people call them out in round. I do not like spreading (speed reading) I want to be able to actually hear what you have to say and will stop flowing the round if I cannot comprehend what you are saying because you are speaking too fast. Moving onto my favorite style of debate (congressional) Again, confidence is key. not just in your speech but in questioning too, don't just give a good speech, stand your guard and power through. while I like when people use morals in their speeches please do not make that your ENTIRE speech. give me evidence, give me sources. this will truly make me more likely to rank you higher, now to expand off of that point PLEASE DO NOT JUST STARE AT YOUR SPEECH! I want all representatives in chamber to interact with their speeches, look at the people around you while you speech, look at your judges too. lastly to end off my paradigm I like formality. whether it be waiting for a judge to give you the go ahead when you speak in congress, or just making sure their are no argumentative questioning periods or in any other debate style being professional in round and thanking eachother for a good round at the end, formality just makes things better. anyways, thats all I have to say!

A little bit about me :)

- I am a public forum (PF) debater, I have done Lincoln Douglas on occasion but PF is my cup of tea.

- I have judged PF, LD, and IPDA in the past and I absolutely love judging

- I am a public forum captain so if you have any questions or need any help, feel free to email me ~ robbihaley24@cps.k12.ar.us

Now into what I do and don't like in a round. All of these go for IPDA, LD, PF, Congress...you name it

PROGRESSIVE CASES

I absolutely despise progressive cases. Don't try to run them unless you don't have another case prepared. I'm a pf debater, meaning that I like more traditional, slower, and "general audience" arguments

SPREADING

When virtual: If you are anything like me then you love to speak quickly. I feel like with the nature of debate we want to talk as fast as possible to allow us to have as much information as possible. With that being said, when debating virtually I do not like when you spread. When you speak quickly over the chromebook, your words get mushed together because the computer can't keep up. I am not afraid to stop you mid-speech and tell you to slow down. When you spread, that not only affects your opponents but it also makes it harder for me to hear what you're saying.

When in person: Feel free to speak as fast as you like but fair warning, I value content over presentation. I am not impressed if you can speak 400 words per minute. BUT if I can't get all your information written down because you are talking faster than Edward Cullen can run, then that might affect the outcome of the debate because like I said content>presentation

CROSS EXAMINATION

I do not flow CX, the only thing that I will write down is your behavior. Debate is not supposed to be a hostile activity, show your opponent respect and don't talk down to them or treat them like dirt. Standing your ground and a bit of sass is permitted and also encouraged. I love clash but if you start to be mean to each other, it can affect who the winner of the round is.

FLOWING/REBUTTALS

I expect everyone to flow the opponent's case because when you move into your rebuttal speech I strongly encourage doing line-by-line. I will always flow EVERYTHING when judging but I don't want to have to go on a wild goose chase to try and figure out what you are refuting. If something is not addressed in your rebuttal speech I WILL COUNT IT AS A DROPPED ARGUMENT, so do your absolute best to refute all aspects of the opponent's case. If your opponent doesn't respond to one of your arguments BRING IT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH. If you don't bring it up then I don't know. I will write down what you say and to preserve the fairness of the round, if you don't say it..it didn't happen.

RDF

I don't care who spoke better or who had the better questions in cross, whoever has the most of their case still standing is the winner. If you bring up arguments in your final speech it might change my decision against you because your opponent cannot respond. If you bring up any contradictions or you use faulty evidence you will not be the winner. If your plan is to reform the resolution then the other team automatically wins because you have brought up arguments that the other team is not prepared for. When giving a verbal RDF, I will tell you how it is. If you cannot handle the harsh truth then let me know beforehand and I will only put it on the ballot.

BEHAVIOR

Any offensive, discriminatory, sexist, hateful, harmful words or profanity will lose you the round. If you chose to belittle or as I call it "mansplain" words, events, or actions to your opponent you will lose. I do not tolerate people putting down their opponents based on their sex, race, sexuality, religion, culture, or appearance. Debate is meant to be a safe space so if you disrupt the peace, you will lose the round, and Selah or your coach will be hearing about it directly from me. (Which you do not want because I am very blunt.)

Best of luck to you in your rounds and I can't wait to judge for you!

I am a former high school and college policy debater. I love clash, evidence analysis, and sound argumentation. I can flow with the best of them, but spreading just because you can isn't always the best move. Be considerate of the type of debate in which you are participating. I dislike rude and snarky debaters. We all do this because we love it, so let's treat each other with respect. Manners and a good sense of humor are appreciated.