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

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

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

include me in email chain - haddomaris25@cps.k12.ar.us or mariskahaddock@gmail.com

tech over truth

i choose the winner based on my flow- be clear about kicks, don’t drop anything

focus on impacts!

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

don’t steal prep - its unethical

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

number your arguments it makes flowing easier

public forum:

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

i love framework debate

weigh impacts!!!

don’t forget to extend your arguments

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

2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal

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

don’t be overbearing in cross

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

don't skew evidence

congress:

speak fluently and make eye contact with the judges

have credible evidence and clear impacts

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

ask questions!

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

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

IPDA:

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

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

lincoln-douglas:

framework is important and should be clearly articulated

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

weigh impacts!

any argument is fine- i can flow prog

speech:

try to be reasonably within time

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

i generally do bnb events but throw in the occasional oo

make blocking effective and not flashy

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

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

please be kind people :)

Hi, I'm Ben, and I'm a senior debating for Durham Academy. I've done debate for three years on both the local and national circuits.

He/Him Pronouns

add me to the email chain - benjaminshodges@gmail.com

TLDR - Flow judge, tech > truth, a little tired of the blippy state of flow, WARRANT PLEASE I BEG YOU

Be nice and respectful. Being rude and condescending will not make up for you not knowing how to make winning analysis and I will drop speaks. I understand debate can be stressful but try your best to make it fun. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

I evaluate rounds by first seeing what argument or impact the weighing being won is pointing me to and I see who has links into that weighing. I will not vote for an argument that has 100% conceded weighing if you aren't winning the link into the weighing. If both teams are winning links into the same weighing, I need link comparison, uniqueness comparison, etc. to break the clash

With that being said, I think weighing is overrated and prioritized way too much by judges. That's not to say it's not important. If both teams win substantial offense, I need weighing to evaluate the round, but if you are not winning a substantial link into your weighing, you can't just win off of weighing.

Everything has to be warranted and implicated in every speech and extended in the back half for me to vote on it. I will not vote for something that does not have a warrant regardless of whether it is pointed out. I'll only do this if its egregious, so I'll still vote for something a little under warranted provided the other team doesn't point it out.

Basically, read any argument you want. If you win the argument and weigh it well, I will vote for you.

Technical Stuff and Preferences:

No new arguments after 1st summary and you cannot add parts of an argument that were missing when you first read them. If an argument didn't have an internal link in case or rebuttal, it can't suddenly appear in summary. I'm quite picky about having parts of arguments when it comes to case. If you do not have a warrant in case, I'm not letting you materialize it out of thin air in rebuttal (assuming your opponents point it out).

I'm okay with speed. If you're going over 1050 words for a 4-minute speech, I'll need a doc to flow off of. Go faster than that at your own risk but I should do fine provided I have a doc.

The state of evidence in PF is really really bad. I won't vote off of evidence that is bad or unwarranted over a good, thought out analytic

Progressive Debate:

Not a big fan of theory but you are more than welcome to run it. I'll objectively evaluate most procedural theory like para and disclo and have experience debating it. I have a high threshold for theory and likely will not vote off of friv like shoes so don't be mad if I drop you for running that.

You can read Ks. I have a good bit of experience debating against them but not running them so please explain your literature and WARRANT it. So many K rounds I see have negative warranting and just devolve to the K team out spreading under warranted claims and attaching the word epistemological or pedagogical to different arguments without ever explaining to me the judge how I should be voting. Please give the issues Ks discuss the quality discussion they deserve, because when done right these can be some of the best debates.

Speaks:

I will try to make my speaks determinations based on your technical decision-making, organization, sign-posting etc ---- essentially how easy you make it for me to follow you and know how to vote. I will not make my determinations off fluency. As someone who struggled with stuttering a lot, I understand how speaks can punish people with different abilities and will try to stay away from that.

That's it. Have fun!

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’m Jack (he/him), a 4th year pfer at Durham Academy (class of '24)

General Stuff:

My email is 24vail@da.org for email chains or questions.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misgender anyone, etc. It’s an L and minimum speaks for anyone who is discriminatory.

If we’re in round early feel free to talk/ask questions. Same with postrounding, I’ll always answer questions about my decision (time permitting) but the ballot won’t get changed.

Speed <250wpm is probably fine but if you plan to go that fast send a speech doc. I will not flow off a doc so I have to be able to understand you. The more I can clearly hear and process what you're saying the more likely I am to vote on it. I will clear you.

Time yourself and your opponents for prep and speeches, I usually do too but might forget.

Substance:

I'll vote on any topical argument, but that doesn’t mean you can’t warrant (the less true the argument, the lower my threshold for a response).

Extend the whole argument (with warranting) for me to vote on it in both backhalf speeches. This is non-negotiable. I don’t usually flow evidence names so explain what your evidence says in the extension.

You should collapse by summary, please don’t make all our lives difficult by going for all your case arguments and four turns, just pick a few things you’re winning and win them.

When I vote I look to weighing first and then whoever best links, so do good weighing and meta-weigh (tell me why your weighing is better than theirs). I will not vote for an argument with 0 risk just because you win weighing however.

I listen to cross but bring up important points in your next speech. Let your opponents speak and don’t lie.

Evidence:

I won't vote on misconstrued evidence that is either called out or that I read myself (note: misconstrued evidence is different from bad evidence).

If something violates NSDA evidence rules I’d rather you challenge it than read an IVI or shell about it.

Please be able to share evidence quickly, it's really annoying to sit around and wait for someone to find/send a single piece of evidence. Similarly, please only ask for evidence you need and don't call for excessive evidence to get extra prep or throw off your opponents. It makes it easier to just send docs before speeches but I don't require that.

If evidence is important to my decision I’ll call for it, otherwise I probably won’t unless you tell me to.

Theory/Ks:

I’m definitely not the best judge for these rounds, I have some experience with both but not a lot and am not particularly familiar with critical literature. I can flow these arguments but will make no guarantees about my ability to evaluate them correctly, so if you go for them make sure to explain everything really well and slow down. The more complex, the slower and more explained everything should be.

If you don't understand the argument/can't make me and your opponents understand it by final focus, I won't vote for it. If you're reading a K I expect you to understand your literature/arguments very well and you should be able to convey that understanding to myself and your opponents.

You should have really good norms if you read theory.

Interps should be read in the next speech after the violation.

For theory I have no strong preference for yes/no rvis or counterinterps/reasonability. I default text over spirit and that will be hard to change.

I don't have a strict rule about when to/not to read these arguments, but I don't think anyone gets anything out of a round where a newer team is just shelled with progressive arguments and will be receptive to arguments about that.

I won't vote for tricks or theory I think is frivolous.

Speaks:

My speaks will probably be higher than other judges. I reward good debating (strategy, partner cohesion, etc.) and don’t particularly care about presentation (sitting vs. standing, eye contact, fluency, etc).

I like humor and won’t tolerate rudeness towards your partner or your opponents.

Random Thoughts:

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline what you plan to collapse on and turns, anything not covered is conceded.

Defense isn't sticky, you have to extend everything you want in your final through summary.

There shouldn’t be anything new in final focus.

I will not evaluate any arguments made in round from AI.

I would rather start early.

If you use a beeping timer hold yourself to the same standard as your opponents and let it beep at the end of your speeches as well.