Background/ Experience:

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

Likes:

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

Dislikes:

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

Voting:

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

Congressional:

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

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

Hi everyone! I want to make sure you are all exceptionally prepared before round so I have included my paradigms below! If there are ANY questions about these, please ask me prior to your debate start and I am more than happy to elaborate!

Framework: As a judge, your job is to convince me to support whichever side you are on. I will bring no personal beliefs, biases, or extra knowledge beyond the basics into the round. Framework can be an important tool to frame my perspective of why I should be voting a certain way. If you choose to debate without your own framework and your opponent has one of their own, your case will be subjected to their framework and it will factor into my decision at the end of the round so be prepared to defend under different framework perspectives!

Clarity and Organization: I value clear and organized presentation of arguments. Debaters should articulate their points concisely, use effective signposting, and maintain a logical structure throughout the round. I am experienced in flows and use my computer so if I miss an argument due to spreading, it means you're probably going to fast (I type quick). As the round goes on, you should go down the flow and hit each sides points so that I have a clear view of the round at the end just by looking at my flow.

Evidence and Warranting: Evidence is crucial in supporting arguments. I expect debaters to provide credible sources to bolster their claims and to warrant their arguments with logical reasoning. Debaters should critically evaluate the quality of their evidence and explain how it directly supports their position. I prioritize substance over quantity when it comes to evidence, and I encourage debaters to engage in meaningful analysis rather than simply reciting sources.

Clash and Engagement: I value substantive clash between debaters. Debaters should engage directly with their opponents’ arguments, identify points of contention, and provide clear rebuttals supported by evidence. I encourage debaters to actively listen to their opponents and respond thoughtfully to their arguments, rather than relying solely on pre-scripted speeches or ignoring opposing positions. Every round is unique!

Respect and Decorum: Be kind and be respectful. I have a zero tolerance policy for disrespect both in and out of the rounds. Disrespectful and rude behavior could be grounds to downvote and will be noted in the decision.

Voting:I want to hear voters in your final speech. This could just be 3-4 things that you beat your opponent on during the round and why this should mean I vote for you at the end of the debate. I typically value things such as: why your contentions meet the framework better, impact analysis, dropped arguments, etc. but I leave this to you! Convince me!

Best of luck! And most important, have fun!

Policy-Maker

Welcome! My name is Sean Ewalt He/Him. I had competed across 4 years during my time at BHS and BWHS, now a varsity debater at North West Arkansas Community College.

Speaks-

I ALWAYS ALLOW LOW-POINT WINS

Poor speaks will never be the sole benefactor on a side loss, as long as a thorough argument is created with an adequate claim, warrant & impact, and points are clearly refuted.

In an age where good speaks is so highly valued over being technical and being able to communicate a concise message. It's important to allow a team to be competitive, even if they aren't amazing speakers within a circuit.

Case-

FrameWork- Please provide a framework and I will provide the flowing through of a framework if carded and met by an uncarded framework.

Contentions: Please always communicate the author's date and year, this will be severely beneficial since I will have access to all information to better form my post-round decision.

Link: Important to provide a well-defended and carded link since, along the lines of the credibility of a card, your opponent will attack the link to enable the dropping of a contention/impact.

Impacts: I cannot stress how important it is to have down to earth impact, unless given the ability to defend it to the ends of the earth please make it simple for yourself. It's easy to get "swathed" in the technicalities of clashing impacts, Recency=Scale=Likeliness, this will be a round-by-round decision based on the impact considering how important it is to flow a certain impact through.

Summary: Please extend all arguments or will be dropped with little leeway. Ie. For a refutation is not important to be re-addressed though please if major implication it would be important to bring it up just in case anyone forgets (Surprisingly lacking perfection I know my bad)

Questioning: I will never flow through questioning, it is detrimental that if an important advancement is made that it is major within a round, please bring it up in your speeches and flow it through.

Any further questions please contact me @- EwaltSean@gmail.com

Thank you! I hope you the best in your competition in academia.

Best Regards, Sean W. Ewalt

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.

Hi!

My name is Brandi. I have a Master's in Business Administration, a SHRM certification, and I am currently finishing my doctorate in strategic leadership. I will graduate in May.

1. Spreading will not be flowed. If I can not understand what you are saying, I will not write it down. Speed is ok, but it has to be articulate and understandable. Disclosure theory will not be accepted as an alternative. If there is too much information in your case, cut it. I will not flow what I can not understand.

2. Any Ad Hominem attacks against your opponents will bottom out your speaker points. Similarly, any blatant disrespect towards your opponent will earn you an automatic loss. I don't care how good your arguments are if you personally attack your opponent. Any comments of a sexist, homophobic, racist, or xenophobic nature will earn you a loss as well as a meeting with the tournament director.

3. Do not try to put me or your opponent in a double bind that implies that your opponent racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. If you lost, it was because either you failed to do your job as a debater or your opponent did a better job.

4. I will only flow an argument as dropped if someone points it out.

5. I am a traditional LD judge. I will not flow your Kritiks, Adds or Dis-Adds, or Theory Shells. If you want to use a Plan or Counterplan go ahead, but do not expect or imply that your opponent needs one to win the round. If your arguments are untopical I will not use them to weigh the round. Neither debater has an obligation to provide a Plan or Counterplan.

6. Framework (V+VC/WM) is an important voter in every round. I will only flow framework as fallen or upheld, not if the framework flows to the other side. If both sides uphold their framework (or vice versa), I will vote for the side that has the better general argumentation.

7. Case Argumentation is an essential voter to emphasize on in the round. The Affirmative needs to present, uphold, and rebuild upon their own argumentation in order to win the burden, the framework, and ultimately the round. The Negative should provide on case arguments that help them clash with the ideas and arguments that the Affirmative is presenting.

New to the judging scene.

Previous Quiz Bowl student - daughter now in high school IPDA.

Army Veteran

PUBLIC FORUM

I will evaluate Public Forum as if I am a jury of 12 and you all are the lawyers. Pro is the Prosecution and Con is the Defense. What is on trial is the status quo in relation to the topic at hand. Pro/Aff in any debate round advocates for a change. Pro accuses the Con side of creating a risk with complacency in our current condition. Pro must present that change implied in the resolution has lower risk and higher benefits, and do so in effective qualitative ways, as opposed to a quantitative approach in policy debate.

Now, unlike a courtroom, Pro does not necessarily have to prove their side "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead, "on balance" - which basically means I have to find 51% or more favor to their side. I will look for the Con team to punch holes in this effort and basically convince me that either A) change is not necessary or B) the change the Pro side advocates is bad.

My ballot goes to the side that presents the least risk, and a better future outcome than what their opponents call for.

LINCOLN - DOUGLAS

I judge components of LD in a hierarchy of burdens each debater has to fill:

1) FRAMEWORK - Value first, criterion second. I need to know the "what" of importance as related to the resolution before you tell me "how" that importance will be met in your criterion, and ultimately your case. If either side drops framework, it makes the round very difficult for them to win.

2) AFF CASE, BURDEN OF PROOF - The affirmative is the side advocating change. They therefore establish the arena that everyone plays in. They need to show how their perspective on the case represents the value the best and how that value substantiates a deviation from status quo. I need to see legitimate, topical blocks that fortify framework. Dropped aff arguments are devastating.

3) NEG CASE, BURDEN OF REJOINDER - The negative case has the responsibility to refute proof when aff has met their burden. Silence is consent. The negative cannot simply ignore or blatantly dismiss affirmative arguments, logical substantiated claims and warrants are a must for me to determine an aff point or subpoint has been refuted.

The side that best upholds framework, and also has the strongest aggregate amount of legitimate arguments standing at the end of the round gets my ballot...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

What I will be looking for from competitors in Congressional Debate is speech structure, relevant, reliable evidence and content uniqueness. Repeating talking points from prior speeches without enhancing discussion of the question is worse than saying nothing. Build onto prior points, refute prior claims, or create new angles of discussion. Be a part of the process, and do not aim to slow it down with parliamentary tricks. Use the procedure to benefit the procedure.

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!

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading alone but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here. Don't try to run Progressive theory before the resolution or run Disclosure Theory, won't hold water with me.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

He/him

I'm a former debate student from last year, and I have experience in everything except LD. I focus on both your arguments as well as your speech/tone. My only real issues are if you're impolite to your opponent or if you personally attack them instead of their argument. My general specialty is informative. That's about it, have fun :)

Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach

I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.

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

I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.

I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.

PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.

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

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

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

Hey guys! My name is Sarah Waller, I don't have much background with speech and debate, but i am currently on the undergraduate mock trial team for the University of Arkansas. So with that when judging i looked for skills in presentation as well as coherent ideas!