Hello Debaters,

I approach the debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

Flow-Centric Evaluation:
I prioritize the flow & time limits as the primary tool for decision-making.
Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
I appreciate the organization and signposting that enhance the flow

Impacts Matter:
I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

Clarity and Signposting:
Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
Try to use simple words during the debates, remember, the PF should be the debate everyone can understand.
Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

Framework and Weighing:
Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

Evidence-based arguments:
I like debaters who use accurate and meaningful data & resources during the round, they are more persuasive to me during the round; In another way, I am not a fan of theory arguments.
Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive behavior & language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your final result.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide (besides the last part), and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Good luck & Have fun during the debate!

LD Debate

Value/criterion framework is essential. I believe that debaters should prioritize the values and criteria that are most relevant to the resolution and that provide the best guidance for evaluating the arguments presented.

In my view, the value should be the overarching principle that guides the debate. The value should be clearly defined and related to the resolution, and the debaters should use it to frame their arguments. The criterion should be the standard or set of principles by which we evaluate the arguments presented in the debate. The criterion should be logically connected to the value, and the debaters should use it to demonstrate how their arguments uphold the value.

Debaters should present arguments that are relevant to the value and criterion, and should clearly explain how their arguments relate to the overall framework of the debate. I will evaluate the strength of the arguments presented based on how well they support the value and criterion, and how effectively they address the opposing arguments.

Debaters should also be aware of the burden of proof, which rests on the affirmative debater. The affirmative debater must provide a compelling case that upholds the value and criterion, while the negative debater must show why the affirmative case fails to do so. The negative debater may also present their own case, but their primary task is to refute the affirmative case.

In addition, I value clarity, organization, and effective use of evidence. Debaters should present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, and use evidence to support their claims. However, evidence should not be used as a substitute for logical reasoning and analysis.

Public Forum

As a Public Forum debate judge who prefers flowing, I believe that debaters should prioritize clear and organized argumentation, while utilizing a logical structure that makes it easy for the judge to track the debate.

Debaters should begin by clearly defining key terms and outlining their case. They should then present their arguments in a clear and organized manner, with each argument logically building upon the previous one. Debaters should signpost their arguments and use clear transitions between different points.

I expect debaters to provide evidence to support their arguments, and to clearly explain how the evidence supports their position. Debaters should also be able to distinguish between credible and unreliable sources, and explain why their sources are reliable. Debaters should avoid using biased or inaccurate sources, and should be able to defend the accuracy and reliability of the evidence they present.

Debaters should also respond effectively to their opponents' arguments, by directly addressing the opposing team's key points and providing clear and concise rebuttals. They should be able to identify the weaknesses in their opponent's case and explain why their own position is stronger.

In terms of teamwork, I believe that debaters should work together to present a cohesive case, while avoiding interrupting or talking over their opponents. They should also avoid personal attacks or disrespectful behavior towards their opponents.

Policy Debate

As a policy debate judge, my primary goal is to evaluate the arguments presented by each team in a fair and impartial manner. Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Flow: I will be taking detailed notes throughout the debate to keep track of the arguments presented by each team. I expect debaters to clearly signpost their arguments and make it easy for me to follow their line of reasoning.

2. Argumentation: I believe that the strength of an argument lies in its ability to support its claims with evidence and logical reasoning. I will be looking for clear, concise arguments that are well-supported by evidence. I will not be swayed by unsupported assertions or ad hominem attacks.

3. Framework: I expect debaters to clearly establish a framework for the debate. This should include a clear resolution, definitions of key terms, and a set of criteria for evaluating the arguments presented. Debaters should be able to clearly explain how their arguments fit within this framework.

4. Clash: I believe that the heart of policy debate is clash - the back-and-forth exchange of arguments between the two teams. I will be looking for debaters to engage with each other's arguments in a substantive way. Simply restating one's own arguments or attacking the other team's character or motives is not sufficient.

5. Evidence: I expect debaters to cite evidence to support their arguments. This evidence should be high-quality and relevant to the topic at hand. Debaters should be able to clearly explain how their evidence supports their argument and how it relates to the broader debate.

6. Delivery: I believe that effective communication is essential in policy debate. Debaters should be clear, concise, and confident in their delivery. They should be able to adapt to the audience and use appropriate language and tone.

7. Flexibility: Finally, I believe that the best debaters are those who can adapt to unexpected arguments and situations. I will be looking for debaters who can think on their feet and respond to new information or arguments in a thoughtful and effective way.

I am the head speech and debate coach for Tea Area. I’ve competed at both the high school and collegiate level and have coached since 2019.

Clear, organized communication impresses me over jargon. Talk at a speed that you feel comfortable, but do not sacrifice comprehensibility. If I cannot understand your speech, I cannot vote on your points. I value professionalism throughout the entire round—in crossfire especially. I flow arguments and do factor dropped arguments into my decision; however, debaters should clearly weigh their arguments, showing what is the most important, and tell me why they win the round.

Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value is usually very helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

Hello! My name is Denise Berg and I am a former varsity policy debater, and also competed in foreign extemp, domestic extemp, original oratory, and student congress. My debate background is traditional policy. I approach debate with a focus on good substantive arguments with clear communication. Here are some aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:
• I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
• Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
• I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.
2. Impacts Matter:
• I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
• Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.
3. Clarity and Signposting:
• Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
• Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.
4. Respect and Sportsmanship:
• Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
• I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or personal attacks. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.
5. Evidence Quality:
• Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
• Know what your evidence says and do not try to manipulate it into saying what you want it to say vs what it actually says.
• Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.
6. Voters
• Please give me what you feel the primary voters are in the round, but don’t be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my final decision.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Parent judge.

I have a policy background but have been judging PF since the move away from policy in SD.

Extend warrants, offense, framing.

I will listen to anything, Ks included.

Please time your own speeches and prep, your opponents' speeches and prep, and CF. I will do my best, but I am counting on y'all to be doing this as well.

I would prefer to the extent that is possible that cards only be called in the instance of genuine concern over unfairness/cheating. Should you need to call a card otherwise, once your opponent has prepared it for your viewing, your prep starts.

graceleigh23@gmail.com

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but not crazy. I am making it a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

IE's: A quick word on IE's. In extemporaneous, I love smart introductions (perhaps historical or referencing a work of literature, a movie or a song), very solid analysis (with at least 3-4 sources cited), and of course compelling delivery. A lot of extemp speakers can speak fluently, but you need to be saying something. Don't cheat the Analysis. Try to use all your issue areas to answer the question. In Oratory, I'm looking for speakers that spend at least 25-30% of their speech on their solution. Don't short change it. And, please, more than anything, BE ORIGINAL!!

Public Forum: I am looking for real clash, sound logical reasoning and at least a little bit of quality extension evidence. I am not a big paraphrase guy and feel it can be ripe for abuse. I also place a very high premium on signposting (help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a disadvantage when they are trying to pull through arguments later in a round. In Rebuttal/Summary/FF -- Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution.Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it! That's the premium tax you pay for being second speakers.

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception (the perceived biases we all promise to check at the door) on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a huge advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as argumentation and evidence in helping me decide a round (the flow is sacrosanct), they are often THE difference maker in close rounds. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame. PF's time limits have really bumped up against the rapidly increasing trend to turn PF into Micro Policy 2.0. Word economy is at a premium and so is synthesizing the multiple arguments. Going line by line in Summary seems to produce diminishing returns. In FF, focus on Voters, links and weighting. Why do we get to those impacts?

National Circuit Norms
I consider counterplans out of hand in PF. I think Disclosure Theory is especially bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered) in local/regional PF. Don't run K's unless you are supremely confident you link it directly to the resolution, even then it's still a big lift. I have nothing against POLICY debate (I was a policy debater) and for the students who want to spread, run disclosure, or ideological K's -- policy is a great event. I sort of understand the game theory attraction of wanting to have the same debate over and over again. But, the thought of doing it every weekend for three or four years would seem to appeal to a decreasing number of students. I don't think it should crowd out local/regional PF. The declining numbers in policy that forced the creation of PF in the first place is an important lesson. Let's not waste it. If you examine the PF numbers in rural states where national circuit norms have become a regular feature in PF, it should concern you.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't. If you run K's, make sure they are intellectually honest in how they are linked to the resolution and show me how it connects to the contention debate. As a former policy guy, and mainly a PF guy now, I probably may more attention to contention debate than I should. It's difficult for me to vote strictly on Philosophy, as I find much of it subjective and contention-level debate should seek to actualize those philosophies.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would prefer 5-6 (max) in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation (in PF), I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale, probably a 2. I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread.

E-mail for email chains and/or questions: Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - evidence sharing needs to be quicker.

Be kind, we're all idiots.

Overarching attitude in Speech & Debate

Be kind, be friendly and show grace to your opponents, win or lose. Our time on this ice rock is short, embrace the joy of the time we have here and respect your opponent, their coaches and the judges spending their precious time with you.

My Role as a judge

To quote one of the most famous ballot ever from Scott Harris "This ballot represents my opinion on who made an argument in the debate that was more persuasive to me." What is more persuasive changes each round - but I neither endorse nor reject anyones arguments - you were either more persuasive that round or you weren't.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, I've voted for K's, theory, etc, but I have a low threshold for them. So if you are competing against a traditional case, winning my ballot with a K or theory will become a lot harder - not impossible, but harder.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. With that said, in some areas Policy Debate has ceased to exist. We can argue one way or the other as to why that is the case (I have my theories) but the fact is, some areas only have PF or LD. Just like LD, I'm more of a traditional judge and will probably be persuaded more easily on those types of arguments.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Either have your evidence ready to be shared or get set up on an email chain.

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I've coached multiple teams to nationals from 2002 to 2019, but Policy has died in SD, so I don't do it much anymore.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposedly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

email chain: Al.Deak@trojans.dsu.edu

About me:

I debated for four years in high school, first year in policy, last three in PF. I've been judging ever since and I'm currently the assistant coach for SFL. I'm open to Theory and K, and I try my best to vote on the flow but I also need you to have a narrative and clear voters for me. More info on prefs below.

PF:

Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card and it stops once you finish reading.

I don't flow Crossfire, you shouldn't make any new arguments in it. That being said, it's a great time to clarify your case and poke holes in your opponent's case, use it to set up an argument. Also look at me during cross, not your opponent

Good rounds come down to the final focus, don't drop an impact before/during FF and expect me to vote on it. Make sure to weigh your impacts in summary or at least in FF (heck, why not both?) Don't just tell me why your case is good, tell me why it's better than your opponent's case.

Make sure to Signpost! Road maps are good too, but Signposting is more important to me. Slow Down for tags! If nothing else, it will give you better speaks.

I don't care for paraphrasing. I won't automatically vote you down for it, but if your opponent can explain why I should vote you down you better believe I will. Same goes for misrepresenting evidence, if your opponent asks me to call for a card and it clearly says the opposite of what you said/highlighted that's abusive and you'll likely lose the round because of it.

Lives > econ (If your GDP/job loss link chain stops before you get to poverty, death, food insecurity, etc, I won't weigh it bc there's nothing for me to weigh) Economy is not an impact! it's a link.

death > quality of life (I'm very open to frameworks that question this, or any other framework for that matter, but this is my default)

International relations: Liberalism > Realism (I prefer a moral lens for discussions on international affairs rather than an amoral one)

Tech > Truth

Finally: Unless you have something akin to a structural violence/human rights framework, you need quantifiables for your impact!!!! I have, in the most literal sense of the word, nothing to weigh if you don't give me numbers for how many people you affect.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round begins!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LD: never done it, never judged it. I've only judged a couple LD rounds. I can deal with speed, but make tags clear/slower. Also please have impacts, don't drop your case and expect me to vote you up just because you won the framework debate.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Silver Bowl tournament only: dissing Kanye in your FF will get you an automatic 30 speaks.

I am a 14 year LD and Extemp coach and judge. A little PF when needed.

Just to get it out of the way, I will vote you down for speed. Typically, if I can't write it down, it doesn't exist in the round. Quality arguments over quantity. The one speech that I don't mind being a bit fast is the 1AR with only 4 minutes to get through is a lot. The rest shouldn't be rushed. Public Forum shouldn't be fast at all.

Extemp-- I am not overly concerned about your hand gestures or transitional movements. I do care that what you are saying is clear, clearly organized, has content- that is accurate, and has strong analysis/explanation to go with it. With being able to just Google whatever, I am going to really emphasize the analysis/explanation. Show me you are knowledgeable and have understanding.

LD-- Big on Framework debate in LD. If you aren't doing it and just focus on contention level, don't be mad that I agreed/disagreed with you based on a single, likely arbitrary point. Tie your points to framework to explain why your arguments are more consistent with the MORAL lens you have chosen for the debate.

PF-- Please don't just read and re-read cases. Work to get deeper into the arguments and give explanation for WHY a point is key.

At the end of the day, be civil, attentive, and really listen to each other. Being harsh, condescending, or dismissive is not helpful in winning rounds or being a good person. I don't mind being firm and holding your ground, just make it respectful.

Big Q - Keep it simple, please don't talk too fast, I don't want to miss your point. Make your Definitions, Contentions, Impacts and Points very clear. It's good to repeat the important stuff and please keep the conversation moving. Be kind. be professional. Have fun!

Congress - Be professional, Engage. Keep the conversation moving forward, if you have a similar speech that was already given, reference that (As Representative Tipton pointed out earlier, I agree and here's more support....), Listen to each other. ask questions, I would rather hear a few really solid speeches instead of a lot of long winded mediocre ones. Have fun!! At the Cavalier - bonus points if you talk about a National Park Service or Wild Flowers . And as always, talk "to" us, not "at" us.

Debate - Keep it simple, please don't talk too fast, I don't want to miss your point. Make your Contentions and Points very clear. Be kind. be professional. Have fun!

Extemp - I look for a clever intro, stating your question, 2 to 3 points to answer your question with resources (source/mo/yr), your conclusion tied back to your intro. I'd rather have it short and clean, than rambling to fill 7 minutes. Talk to me not at me. Have fun!

Interp - Talk to me not at me. Give your characters enough time between transitions for me to enjoy them. (a split second can be enough time.) I love crisp pantomime and to see your personal passion on your facial expressions behind your topic. Have fun!

Hello debaters! My name is Heather Edmunds Reed (heathermarie1218@gmail.com) and I debated high school varsity policy and LD and competed in foreign extemp, original oratory, and student congress...awhile ago. :)

*I come from a trad background but circuit style is interesting to me so if you use circuit arguments that is ok but explaining them is important to win my ballot.

Debate:

*LD rounds: "LD focuses on the conflicting values of social and philosophical issues, for example, by examining questions of morality, justice, democracy, etc." Real world examples and empirical evidence are great but this should not become a policy debate.

*RE Spreading: Don't spread, please.

Persuasion: I want to be persuaded by the power of your argument. Make sure your points are compelling and well-supported. It's not just about what you say, but how effectively you can convince me of your position.

Kritiks. Counterplans, Theory, T, Etc.:You can run kritiks or counterplans (and theory as well as any circuit argument you like) and I will considering voting on them as long as you help me - again, I'm from a trad background.
Understand them yourself, then EXPLAIN THEM, so I can vote for you.

Flowing: I can flow as a former debate person, but the point of this debate is not to spit out as much information as fast as possible without making an agrument. Speak clearly and at a pace you can be understood. Quality of argumentation is more important than quantity.

Clarity and Organization: Your arguments should be clear and well-organized. Signpost your points so I can easily follow your case. This helps me track your arguments throughout the debate.

Evidence and Analysis: Strong evidence is important, but your analysis is crucial. Explain why your evidence supports your arguments and how it impacts the resolution. Don't just state facts—analyze them.

Impact Calculus: weigh the impacts of your arguments. Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's. This helps me understand the significance of your case and makes it easier to decide the round.

Respect and Decorum: Maintain a respectful tone throughout the debate. Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior will negatively impact my perception of your performance and your speaker points will be reflected as such.

Remember, I'm here to see who presents the better case today. Good luck all debaters, and let's have a great debate!

Extemp:

Compelling speaking skills, relevant and credible evidence + analysis = great extemper!

Use real, credible evidence. Period.

Answer the question, take a stance, provide rationale for your answer.

Include some thoughtful movements and hand gestures.

About me:

Hey y'all, I did debate (LD and Intl. Extemp) for 5 years at Lennox High School in South Dakota. My main knowledge is in LD, but I know a thing or two about other events as well. I'm currently a student at USD.

LD

Paradigm :I am a traditional debate judge, framework is king in great cases. However, I also place importance on the contention level and how it links into your framework. If you just throw frame at me with no backing you won't win my ballet. You win my ballet by proving that your side best links into your framework and that your framework is the best way to view the round. Show me why I should care about issues, I don’t like when debaters just name drop a bunch of issues and never explain how this is relevant. Arguments should have a clear and valid point to be made, and should be presented as such.

Performance/Non-debate cases:I will be blunt with this: I will never vote for these cases and it will be an automatic loss. It's harmful to debate and doesn't allow for anyone to learn new perspectives on issues.

K-cases:I am not used to K-cases as I come from a traditional circuit. That being said, I will not vote you down if you run a K. A good K must be resolution, unique, and present a path to the framework.

Counterplans:I don't love them, but it's the same thing as the K cases. I won't vote you down because you run a counterplan. Be reasonable, if your counterplan is abusive and relies on implied fiat power I likely won't buy it. I also want to see clear responses from opponents facing counterplans about the issues with a proposed counterplan.

Novices: Stop reading this :), you’re new to debate and still learning, so obviously you aren’t going to sound like an experienced varsity debater right off the bat. That’s ok!!! I was once a novice too, so I’m not judging you as harshly as I would varsity. So don’t be nervous and just have fun!

If you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask before or after a round!

Hello, I’ve done speech and debate through all four years of high school, and I now compete in college. I think Speech and Debate is a great tool to initiate meaningful civil discourse, for that reason, it’s imperative that you are respectful during rounds. If you are being unkind to your opponents, your partner or to me, you will get low speaks, and possibly the down in the round.

Speed

I can handle speed but make sure you are still being coherent.

Public Forum

I appreciate well-organized debaters who use effective signposting. I keep a good flow so make sure you point out any drops. You should write the ballot for me in the last two speeches. I truly believe in the idea that anyone should be able to walk into a round and understand what is happening in PF.

Flashing Evidence: I won't take prep, but be quick with it.

LD

I have never debated it before. Most likely, I will not familiar with the topic. I have judged it before and I understand the value, criterion, and the works of LD, but I’m definitely not extremely well versed in it.

You all are incredibly talented, and I’m so excited to watch you. Good Luck and you’ll be great. If you have any questions feel free to ask me during the round or feel free to email me at abiahsg@gmail.com if you have questions after the round.

I have been judging for a while, however, I never took speech or debate in high school. I am still learning the process and terms. I look for how well you know the topic (do you know your introduction?), can you speak with different tones, speed? I am fine with off the clock road maps.

About me:

Former Sioux Falls Lincoln debater. I debated in Public Forum, and I now judge for the team. I attend Augustana University in Sioux Falls and am studying Government (with a pre-law emphasis) and Spanish.

PF:

I would appreciate if everyone timed themselves, their prep-and cross. I will be timing, however, I would rather not flag you down if you go over. If you call for a card, prep will start once your opponent shows you the card, and stops once you finish reading.

I don't flow Crossfire, you shouldn't make any new arguments in it. That being said, it's a great time to clarify your case and poke holes in your opponent's case, use it to set up an argument. Also look at me during cross, not your opponent

Weighing is VERY important, especially in FF, but even better if you set it up in summary.

Make sure to Signpost! Road maps are good too, but Signposting is more important to me. Slow Down for tags!

Lives outweigh economy.(If your GDP/job loss link chain stops before you get to poverty, death, food insecurity, etc, I won't weigh it bc there's nothing for me to weigh) Economy is not an impact! it's a link.

Death outweighs quality of life .(unless you provide a different framework, my default is CB)

Finally: Unless you have something akin to a structural violence framework, you need quantifiables for your impact!!!! I have, in the most literal sense of the word, nothing to weigh if you don't give me numbers for how many people you affect.

LD:

I’m sorry if you have me in LD.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Updated 1-2024

Please feel free to include me on any email chains or share evidence that you want reviewed via Eric@dakotahomestead.com

Background

I am a former policy debater who has coached and judged all forms of debate and speech since 2005. I am a volunteer assistant coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls with my focus shifting to coaching Public Forum debate as of 2020-2021. In my day-job, I am an attorney and the president of an insurance holding company that oversees a variety of real estate focused businesses throughout South Dakota.

Public Forum

Similar to Policy and LD, I keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, including crossfire and overviews. Rate of delivery is not an issue for me as long as you are relatively clear and understandable. I evaluate Public Forum as a Tabula Rasa judge and consider the arguments focused on by each side in the Final Focus to be the main arguments to evaluate in the round. Absent framing or a weighing mechanism proposed by either side, I default to a policy making analysis from the perspective of the actor in the resolution. Tell me why you should win based on the arguments on the flow from the round and how to evaluate them. Winning on individual arguments without guidance as to why that argument matters in the context of the resolution is a common problem I see. I prefer clash between teams on key issues compared to each side repeating their own claims without addressing the other team's.

While I primarily coach Public Forum and am familiar with the evidence and arguments on the current topic, do not assume that all participants in the round are and debate accordingly. On most judge panels, you should focus on the paradigms and preferences of the other judges as I will go along for the ride rather than advancing an argument or rate of delivery that I find acceptable at the potential expense of the round. With that said, just like with Policy and LD, I believe that the round is up to the debaters, so tell me why something matters and why you win, and I will evaluate it accordingly.

Lincoln Douglas

Prior South Dakota State Debate Lincoln Douglas Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your Lincoln-Douglas judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with Lincoln-Douglas debate: (Mark “X” on all that apply)

X A. Coach of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

B. Former Lincoln-Douglas Debate Coach

C. Former Lincoln-Douglas Competitor

X D. Former collegiate and/or high school policy debater

X E. Frequently judge Lincoln-Douglas debate

X F. Coach of Policy Debate

X G. Coach of Individual Events

H. No Lincoln-Douglas Debate Experience

2. I have judged 18 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

3. I have judged: (circle or highlight one)

Typically between 15 and 30rounds of L-D by the end of the season

4. Indicate your attitudes concerning the following typical L-D practices:

A. RATE OF DELIVERY (circle/highlight your answers)

No preference | Slow, conversational style | Typical conversational speed | Rapid conversational style

1. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? Yes No

2. Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? Yes No

B. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE CRITERION IN MAKING YOUR DECISION? (circle/highlight one)

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation. (unless advocated otherwise during the round)

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes No

C. REBUTTALS AND CRYSTALLIZATION (circle/highlight one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include: a) voting issues b) line-by-line analysis c) both (I default and usually prefer voting issues, but it is your round so you tell me what you think is important in determining a winner)

2. Voting issues should be given:

a) as the student moves down the flow b) at the end of the final speech c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are: a) absolutely necessary b) not necessary (strongly preferred but not required).

4. The use of jargon or technical language (“extend,” “cross-apply,” “turn,” etc) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable b) unacceptable c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How Do You Decide The Winner Of The Round? (circle/highlight the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round.

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

(Circle/highlight your preference)

Not necessary----------Sometimes necessary----------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Circle/highlight the option that best describes your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater’s case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

Policy Debate

2017 South Dakota State Debate Policy Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

Your experience with policy debate (Mark all that apply with “X”):

X A. Coach of a policy debate team

______ B. Former policy debate coach

C. Policy debater in college (Where? )

X D. Policy debater in high school

X E. Frequently judge policy debate

______ F. Occasionally judge policy debate

Which of the following best describes your approach to judging policy debate?

A. Speaking Skill D. Hypothesis Tester

B. Stock Issues E. Games Player

C. Policymaker X F. Tabula Rasa

Circle (or highlight) your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

RATE OF DELIVERY (X No Preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Rapid

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS (X No Preference)

A few well-developed arguments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments

the better

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive issues

most important most important

TOPICALITY – I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely vote on topicality

COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

OPTIONAL: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses to items 3-12, write those comments LEGIBLY on a separate sheet of paper.

Eric Hanson’s Additional Comments

I truly believe that each round is the debaters to do with what they want. Evan so, here are my preferences and some common criticisms I have for teams:

When running theory and Kritik’s, just prove to me you understand them and how they apply in this round. Do not just read a shell that someone else has prepared without understanding the underlying criticism that is being levied.

Please write out Counter Plan and Perm text.

I have a very expansive view on Topicality. I will listen to and vote on in round abuse, potential abuse, and competing interpretations. That does not mean that I vote on potential abuse or competing interpretations just because you say those words. You must actual prove to me that your definition is the best one for debating the resolution or that the other team’s is just so flawed and abusive that it cannot stand.

When extending warrants, it is preferable to say more than just “Extend my partners warrants.” Take the extra few seconds to actually state the warrant of the argument.

When considering impact calculus, I give weight to all three parts (timeframe, probability, and magnitude). If a team tells me to give little weight to a massive DA impact because the probability is so small, that will factor into my evaluation.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

As a Tabula Rasa judge, I really appreciate it when the 2NR / 2AR actually explain why the win the round and in what framework / paradigm I am supposed to view the round when evaluating.

You probably do not want me to guess at how you wanted me to evaluate the round.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

I am a true public forum judge - I expect your case and your delivery to be clear, accessible, and layperson-friendly. I will be displeased if you speak too quickly or use too much debate jargon. Treat your opponents and their case with respect, as I don't appreciate snark or condescension. Roadmaps are "on the clock".

Answering questions or critique with as much specificity as possible - names, dates, sources, etc. - will positively affect my evaluation of your case. 

Finally, as a historian I really like to see you using specific evidence, particularly context and background information, to weave a narrative that I can walk away from the round with. I don't need a framework as much as I need you to give me a theme or big takeaway.

I debated 20+ years ago when Policy Debate was in it's glory and we carried totes of paper evidence vs. laptops into rounds. A Deuel High School graduate I take pride in how Debate doesn't separate small from large schools when competing. I learned volumes from the people I debated and wasn't limited by school size. I am comfortable judging all events and levels.

Prima Facie - traditional judge - Sign post and be reasonable. Speak loud and proud. Remember this is a game - play the game, but don't play dirty. Sell me on the "why" behind the "what" of any side you are taking. Each issue stands on it's own.

I like to see good clash on issues and give me something to weigh. I vote on what's debated in the round.

I prefer Aff sit at my left and you are always welcome to time yourself. / Seeing kids develop in an activity I love gives hope for the future.

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and I’ve been teaching coaching speech and debate for Brookings, SD for the last few years.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision. I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

CONGRESS

Congress is one of my favorite events and I even had the pleasure of serving as the parliamentarian in the 2024 NSDA Senate Final! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. When it comes to judging speakers, I'm looking for clear structure and well utilized evidence. The Authorship/Sponsorship/First AFF and First NEG speeches should set the stage for the corresponding side of the legislation while the following rebuttal speeches should ADVANCE the debate rather than consist of canned speeches that have little if anything to do with what has been said in the session. If you give a crystallization speech when you see debate is dwindling that's a nice plus along with references to the wording of the legislation or comments made by specific legislators. For PO, I'm more than happy to include a great PO in my ranking and will do so if I feel they were vital in the running of the chamber. A good PO keeps consistent times, gaveling procedure, accurate precedence/recency, and, most importantly, maintains decorum in the chamber.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

LD: I tend to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. My background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

CONTACT ME: livvyjo11103@gmail.com

ABOUT ME: Olivia She/her (21) I am currently an individual events coach at Sioux Falls Jefferson! I graduated from the University of South Dakota in May with a BA in Sociology. I graduated from Central High school in 2022 and was a member of the debate team for all four years of high school. I come from a policy and public address background with a few tournaments of public forum.

Don’t be offended by my RBF its just me concentrating – you will know when you have upset me.

DO NOT ASK ME TO READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOU.

TLDR: I tend to lean more tech over truth - and I am very open to experimental debate, within reason. Debate is hard, please have fun and after the round, shake it off and never let a down bother you!! Make sure you weigh properly and utilize a strong roadmap. I usually end up voting on FW for both PF and LD. PLAY NICE. There is nothing worse than a round where I as a judge feel flustered because of how the debaters are treating their opponents. I will comment on this, and I will give you lower speaks because of this.

SOUTH DAKOTA MAIN SEASON ONLY: DO NOT CONSIDER IF DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Policy debate has my whole heart – it is the reason I have loved this activity for 7 years, and I was heartbroken when it stopped in South Dakota (I was in the last ever policy round in SD for reference). With this, I prefer some of those arguments to stay in that format. This includes CPs and DAs and even some Ks. Just be respectful to policy, don’t become the reason another form of debate has less participation. I am extremely sorry you never got to compete like I had the chance to, but it does not excuse turning Public Forum or Lincoln Douglas to mirror that format 100%. If you are to use these arguments, make it work.

PUBLIC FORUM: I vote on Framework and voters, if the flow is messy I get really frustrated. Coin flip = happens with me in the room, don’t do it by yourself in the hallway.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Value and Criterion debate is extremely important to me, and will be my overarching voter. I will only solely vote on contention level if FW is too muddy to follow. You must uphold both or you lose. You must attack your opponents, or you lose.

extra info about style :)

- EVIDENCE SHARING: Speechdrop and email chains. If Tab has one pre set up even better.

- EVIDENCE VIOLATIONS: I am ALL for the educational level of debate. If something is not true, please say something as I will not catch it like you do - because I am less experienced in the topic, and do not have the card in front of me. I will look at all cards brought to me, but I will not ask if you do not say anything. That being said, if this is not quals or state, idc about cards in prelims, unless it is a MAJOR issue. Do not yell at me to call a card - cause I probably wont unless the argument is a blatant lie.

- CPs, and DAs: Make sure you are explaining these in order of event - like if you have 2 DAs that are triggered by something, or solved by the CP, make sure they make sense to me. Explain if your opponent does not know what you're talking about, as not everyone normally debates circuits, on the traditional level these do not exist. Be courteous.

-K’s: I am a fan of non-trad debate and get excited when I have the privilege of judging a K debate round. That being said, I am a little picky on how they are run.

1 - Make sure the role of the ballot makes sense and is written properly - I can’t vote if it does not produce change. (Also it would be nice to be encouraged to make a change rather than being told if I don’t vote for you I am solely responsible for genocide or whatever it is).

2 – Have all parts of the K. You cannot run a K without an alt, or try and say that it is not a K.

3 – Avoid arguments based on presumption. Do not presume I feel or identify a certian way. That defeats the purpose.

4 – IF YOU ARE IN SOUTH DAKOTA MAIN SEASON, please ask before running it. I am open to listening to anything - within reason. We want to avoid hurting other people in our community. That being said, if I politely decline, its not against you, it in protection of myself.

5 – Please don’t run a K just cause. These types of arguments are supposed to open up the realm of conversation, and by running them because you know the lay judge in the back will feel bad if they don’t vote for you takes the education and fun of the arguments out.

- TRICKS: Avoid, I have no experience, but not unwilling to learn.

- POLICY & LARP: Gotta make it work/explain what is happening. Just make sure you frame the round in a way that makes sense to me as a judge.

- PHILOSOPHY:YES. I love these types of arguments - it allows me to frame the round in many different ways. But again, make it work. If it does not make sense or is not the most important thing in the round I couldnt care less.

- THEORY: Go for it - just be clear!

- SPEED: IDC if you spread (I'm an 8/10 on speed) - slow down on tags and cards so I can follow. Please share your speech doc with me if you spread it so I can look back if I need to.

- TAG TEAM CX: Dont love in PF, and if you ask I will most likely say no.

DO NOT try to make any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, discriminatory, and generally anything else you think I would get upset with. I will stop listening and will contact your coach. I do not have a poker face, so you will know if you have made me upset.

I'm the 1st year assistant debate coach for Brookings. I did not do any form of Speech & Debate in high school, and have no experience before this year. I have judged enough rounds that I know what is happening, and I can keep an acccurate flow. I believe that there is NO PLACE for circuit debate in PF. I will not judge a kritik, and think they are automatically a losing point. Similarly, I believe that Public Forum, as the name suggests, must be accessible to the Public, and so I will vote down spreading. I am pragmatic in my ballot; please give me the most straightforward argument. Keep the link chains simple, and cut the B.S.

For this Topic, I've been judging all year, so I know what things are, and get arguments, but to restate, will always prefer the most logical and straightforward claims.

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

I have not been judging on a regular basis recently, so speed should be kept under control.

I am open to most types of arguments.

Be sure to do the basics.

Be clear on tags and sources.

If you extend the source, add a bit of the tag. (See sentence one)

Explain why the warrants you want to extend matter to the round rather than just telling me to "extend the warrant of our "WhateverAuthorWeUseInThisCase" Card because they're fantastic." Be sure you've said what the fantastic warrants are.

Work to go down the flow logically and consistently. (See sentence one)

In the past, I was comfortable with critical arguments, but they need to be used consistently throughout the round and it's the debaters' responsibility to illustrate how they fit a particular resolution. I'm also fine with the basic social contract theorists, the Kant, utilitarian, and virtue ethics arguments if the they fit.

Work to avoid the "they said, but we said" arguments. Instead, clash with the argument directly and explain why your data, analysis, source, methodology, or first principles are superior to the opposition.

If there's going to be risk analysis, work to win on timeframe, magnitude, and probability not just magnitude. At least try to win two out of three. (Feel free to insert Meat Loaf (R.I.P) reference.)

Please work to sum up the story of the round. Don't ask a judge to think or assume that a judge will make the same conclusions that you have. Explain what to think and why that conclusion is the best option in the round.

hello!

aadil ali’s mom ????

i have judged PF on an off. i would consider myself a “flow-lay”. i keep a decent flow and can keep up with some debate terms, but i will require proper convincing to vote for you. don’t speak too fast.

[Overview]

I did Lincoln Douglas debate my senior year, did public forum for 3 years, I’ve done congress, and then big question (very very poorly) for a hot second, so you don’t have to dumb down jargon.

I don’t disclose rounds, so don’t ask me to or try to persuade me into disclosing, you're just wasting time.

I know what it’s like to have to carry teammates in a debate, and just how excruciating the whole thing is so I have zero tolerance for it if I see it in round.

Also I make faces when I think about things which makes me look very angry and like I’m scowling, ignore that I just have a RBF it doesn’t relate to how you’re doing a majority of the time.

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

If you want me to take the evidence you have into consideration in voting you have to carry it throughout all your speeches; you can’t give evidence in Rebuttal, drop it in summary, and then try and bring it up in Final Focus, I won’t flow it. If someone asks for a card, give it to them.

LD:

it’s the same as stated before just change the speech names.

/Speed and Performance/

I don’t like spreading, don’t do it (I have audio processing problems). My preferred speed is a moderate pace, aka a 6-7/10. Just make sure you speak clearly as far as performance is concerned.

/Time/

TIME YOURSELF. You need to use up your speech time, I hate it when there’s a minute or more left on the clock so try your best to get as close to the set time as possible. If you can’t think of anything else to say about your opponent's case, go over your own case and explain why it stands or your framework, something to fill your time if you have no more evidence to read. I will time your speeches, I will also time your prep but I tend to get distracted during prep so don’t tell me a set amount of time. If you want a set amount of prep then you can time yourself and then just tell me when you're done using prep and I’ll stop my timer.

/Speaks/

High: you did your best and you tried and gave good speeches, I will only give you a 30 if you are absolutely perfect on everything you do and have a good amount of debate etiquette but you are also assertive and don't let your opponents walk all over you.

Low: You went silent for a majority of the speech, you had an abusive argument, you showed disrespect/lack of care. If you are abusive to your opponents you will get as close to 0 speaks from me as possible without getting a full 0, and if you make your partner carry you the entire round and do nothing you will instantly get the lowest possible speaks from me.

/Framework/

PF:

If you're going to use a framework and want me to vote under it then you need to bring it up in all your speeches so you don’t drop it. If your framework outweighs your opponents explain to me why, same goes with why it completely goes against your opponent's case and why you win under it. Although I don’t like it if you only drop your framework in rebuttal but carry it through your summary and final focus I’ll vote under it, but only if you use all your time up in rebuttal.

LD:

I AM BIG ON FRAMEWORKS!!! PLEASE tie this into what you’re saying in round and have it actually make sense, this is the thing that really differentiates ld from pf. If you’re running a framework it should never be both deontological and consequential, that’s not how frameworks work. Just carry frameworks through the round as its a main thing that I use to vote in the round.

/Case/

With cases just make sure it’s understandable and set up in an organized manner. When I say this I mean state your contentions and subpoints so it’s easier to flow and judge the round. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps so I know which case you're going down and so it’s easier to flow and judge on what you’re saying. If you’re using an off-the-clock roadmap then actually follow it.

/Variation/

For novices, I completely understand that you are new to debate so I’m more lenient on things that I wouldn’t allow, from Judging a practice round for Varsity for example. I tried to make my paradigm all-level friendly so it doesn’t matter what level you are.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

College Student at South Dakota State University.

Debated all 4 years of high school at Sioux Falls Lincoln.

Flow judge that is tech over truth. (Extended arguments that were dropped by the opponent are true.)

Likes to see extensions.

Doesn't need voters in summary.

Won't weigh new arguments in FF.

Weigh impacts please.

Unless you consider yourself sufficiently well-versed in the history, culture, and politics of the Levant, I don't want to hear about it. I will dock speaker points for far-right and far-left talking points. If said talking points show up in your voters, I may speak with your coach about it. If you manage to venture into racist or antisemitic territory, we will be having a chat about it after the round.

** I may be wearing headphones or earplugs. I promise I am listening to you. Sometimes, I need to block out environmental sounds so I can focus on your words and arguments. If you speak normally, I will have no problem hearing you.

LD-

I am a very traditional LD judge. You have two jobs in the round, 1) establish what a moral world should look like, 2) explain how affirming/negating can get us to that moral world. You could have all the best evidence and arguments, but if you don't connect it to your framework, you haven't done your job.

I love niche philosophy and ideas taken to their extremes.

Not a fan of speed. I can follow it, but will stop flowing - so proceed at your own risk.

Plans and solvency don't exist in LD - no one in the round should be solving anything, you are using reasonable empirics and outcomes to help determine the ethics of a choice

You must debate the resolution. If you would like to speak to a judge about a different topic you are passionate about, there are speech events you can enter in.

PF -

I don't coach PF and I rarely judge it. Which is perfect because PF is meant to be debated to a "pubic forum". Make the topic make sense; make it easy for me. Don't make me fill in the blanks, explain your warrants and impacts and credentials. If you have an argument that would confuse your mom, don't bring it into PF.

Not a fan of speed. I can follow it, but will stop flowing - so proceed at your own risk.

Big Questions - Hi there, I've been coaching and judging BQ for four years and I keep a decent flow.

Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you build your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them, focus on wherever the important clash is.

For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing.

I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I want to know the credentials for your sources. I can handle a bit of speed, but I'd rather you stay conversational for a BQ debate - this isn't policy or circuit; you shouldn't be speed-reading evidence at me.

if you have any questions about a round I judged you in feel free to email me at Samuel.markley@coyotes.usd.edu

If you need accommodations during the round please let me know. I am fine with you timing yourself on your phones and sitting while you deliver your speech.

My paradigm is long but just know that I am genuinely here to make the round and debate as welcoming and accessible for you as possible. ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked Dakota Debate Institute for 2020-2023 which has seen several state champions, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

Besides the benefits to your education, it is competitively advantageous for you to know how Ks function. Here's a link to NSDA's K lesson that you can watch at your own pace. Even if you don't want to run a K it teaches you how to engage with and refute them responsibly. If you have any questions my email is always open.

NSDA K Lesson

——> tl;dr<——

Quality of arguments > quantity. I don't feel like it's my place to tell you what to run unless it's discriminatory. I will listen to K's and Counterplans and I am familiar with how to evaluate them. BIG ON FRAMEWORK. I'm good if you want to workshop something new, I like to think I provide good feedback and pointers.

——> PF <——

I've been thrown in to PF more and more lately so I figured I should add this. Know that I primarily focus on LD so PF is a less familiar realm to me.

Two things I've noticed that make a difference in my evaluation is that the first and second speaker should not have contradictory advocacies. I should see a clear line between what the second speaker says in rebuttal and how the first speaker carries that through in their next speech. I am quite harsh when it comes to previously dropped arguments suddenly rematerializing or a new argument being made in the second to last or even last speech.

Secondly, I really need the summary and especially the final focus to do weighing. Talk to me with jargon. Use timeframe, magnitude, probability, framing, all that fun stuff. If you're winning an argument but your opponent is winning a different one I need you to explain to me why I should prefer your winning argument over theirs.

——> LD <——

tech > "truth". But don't drown your opponent in blippy responses or run an argument that is exclusionary.

I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms if you're running a consequentialist framework. If neg util is about decreasing harms, then you have a moral obligation to decrease harms, but if you don't show how the affirmative world decreases harms... then how are you fulfilling your moral obligation? What's the impact for me to vote on?

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 3+ minutes alone on framework in the constructive? Let's do it! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly.

You don’t need to win YOUR framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use (after T/Theory/ROB arguments). The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted, and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

That being said, if you're citing an empiric, that probably needs a card.

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I have opinions on this that are too long for a paradigm that range from fairness, education, advocacy, and my role as a judge and educator. You can still argue theory against these and say they are abusive or non-topical, but you need warrants as to why beyond "this doesn't belong in LD." That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, including when a traditional debater wipes the floor against a K.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions. I also think it is fair to make the K accessible to traditional, less familiar debaters to some degree. Essentially: don't hide the ball from them / move goalposts.

WHEN EXTENDING AND CROSS-APPLYING YOU NEED TO SAY MORE THAN JUST "Extend Horowitz '21". I don't flow authors. Explain to me what Horowitz is saying and WHY it adequately refutes their point.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

My opinion on topicality debates

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, ableist, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

My personal comments to you are mix of "here is how I am evaluating the round after a speech you give" to walk you through my thought process, along with pointers and recommendations I would give that didn't necessarily factor into my evaluation of the round or how I voted. So if I mention something in there and you're thinking "This was never something my opponent brought up? Why did he vote on this?" the answer is that it wasn't something I voted on but is rather a recommendation on how to strengthen your case or a speech.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

On the note of speaks: I tend to rarely give low-point wins. I gauge speaks not just on how smooth you talk but also the strategic decisions you make in round. A boost in speaks generally means I think you made strategic choices, gutsy calls, controlled parts of the debate, pulled up blocks quickly, and still talked smoothly. So essentially: Delivery is just one part of how I calculate them.I will very rarely dock speaks for "aggressive" argumentation unless you are being genuinely mean, and at that point I'm likely going to a coach. I used to be more strict with this but I think judges have been doing a poor job of checking bias when we determine which debaters come off as overly aggressive compared to being "passionate", and I don't want to play a role in that. This section is subject to change once I think through the issue a bit more but until then I'm exercising the precautionary principle.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

My standard on paraphrasing is basically reasonability. My ideal world is that every paraphrased source has the piece of direct text copy and pasted underneath it so I can see directly what you're pulling from.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make 1-2 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. Now, if you go fast and blitz out seven well-warranted arguments then I'm down. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

I did ld and extemp both my junior and senior year of high school so i have a decent amount of experience. To preface this, i am a very traditional judge.

IEs: i did extemp for 2 years so i have a good amount of experience in this. When judging rounds for extemp, i’m looking at not only how you speak, but if you can provide credible sources for the information you are providing to me.

Any other speech events, i am not super experienced in these but i do understand the basics. Interp- I am looking at how you convey your speech throughout, and your delivery of said speech.

LD: I did LD in high school. When deciding who wins the round i’m looking for

-framework: this is very important to rounds for me. tell me why your framework matters in the round and how it relates back into your case

-sign posting: please please do this. it is very easy to get lost in a debate and keeps it easier for the judge to follow what you are referring too and where you are at on the flow

-voters: THIS IS ALSO A MAJOR POINT IN THE DEBATE. without voters, i don’t know WHY i should vote for you. please give this at the end of your speech and tell me why you’re winning the round.

-flow: i will not flow anything that is dropped unless it is brought up by your opponent.

-speed: while i am not a huge fan of spreading or super fast talking, i can understand the fast pace as long as you annunciate. preferably no spreading, but if you’re going to make sure you are very clear and concise in your speaking.

PF: while i didn’t do pf, i do understand how pf works. when i’m decided who winds a pf round i look for who was able to convince me the most as to why we should or shouldn’t do this. be the most convincing, and provide good evidence as to why we should or shouldn’t do something.

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as weapons JUST to win a round, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative. In other words, go full K or do not run it at all.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot. I will not make a decision until I hear voters. If it is not there for me all the way until the end, I will not weigh.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: angelica.mercado-ford@k12.sd.us

I have been involved in speech and debate since 2015 as a competitor and have been coaching since graduating from high school in 2018. I was more heavily involved in speech events at first and then slowly gained knowledge on debate events. This means I often prioritize speaking skills and clarity of information with strong warrants and links over other techniques. Please, do not speak extremely fast, to me that says your arguments are not strong enough to let your competitors hear them and have actual discourse, but I do understand that it is a technique. I am pretty open-minded to all types of arguments, although avoid using logical fallacies and keep your arguments based upon reality and probability as much as possible. I typically flow as much as possible and use it to reflect later, I typically don't like to disclose my picks in rounds unless it is required.

Debate In General

Be Civil.

I prize good clash and Clear Arguments. I dont like speed.

Framework in PF is moot to me.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. Value and Criteria Clash are paramount. Criteria should be ethos driven and provide a clear road to achieve the value and measure the achievement of the value

I don't care for progressive LD.

Evidence in LD is less of a concern to me than reasoning.

Cross Examination is also very important to me.

I am a flow judge, so if you want it on the flow, speak clearly.

Observations are moot to me.

I'm a judge who likes to see clear links between framework and contentions. I probably lean more tech over truth as I try to remove myself from the decision as much as possible. I keep a pretty rigorous flow and jot down thoughts, so if I don't look up, I promise I'm still paying attention! I am open to hearing RAs, theories, and kritiks, but they are certainly not automatic wins. I want to hear anything you have to bring to the debate, but if you lose the argument, you will lose the round. I am fine with a quick pace to the debate, but that should not be a hindrance to your case or the clarity of your framework; if your speed is a pitfall (i.e. spreading), that will be reflected in my speaker point allocation. Even if both sides have unclear frameworks, I'm inclined to go with the side that has the best framework. Your arguments should be as well thought out as possible. I would like to remove myself from a decision as much as possible, but if there is no clash, then I will have to pick a side; please do everything you can to have some clash so that I can flow arguments through the round to make an informed decision. I am more likely to vote in favor of arguments that have been fleshed out as opposed to thrown in at the end of a round. If it doesn't get fully addressed in the round, I am likely not to flow it.

It's important to maintain a respectful tone throughout the debate. I won't tolerate racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc., and it will result in lower speaker points and a likely loss.

For prep time, I'll call 30-second increments and count reading/calling cards in your prep time. Please don't bring up new arguments or cards in the 2AR - it's not fair to your opponent if they can't respond. If new arguments are proposed in the 2AR, I am unlikely to weigh them in my vote and will also reduce your speaker points as I see fit.

email: nolan.ortbahn@k12.sd.us

Background

I started speech and debate in the 7^th grade and continued it through high school and still compete at the collegiate level. I am going into my 10^th year of speech and debate experience and have done just about every event possible.

LD:

I competed in LD for two years (7^th and 8^th grade) as well as have worked with previous Groton high school students on LD.

In round I will be looking for strong morals/values and criterions with evidence to back them up. I also do pay attention to defense of moral and criterion and expect for them to be upheld throughout the round without letting them fall but also do not make stupid arguments just because.

The majority of the time I will vote down a K case, unless you successfully prove that it has merit it is rare they will win.

PF:

I competed in PF for three years (9^th-11^th grade) before my partner graduated and I was unable to find another.

I will be looking for strong and concrete arguments that are kept consistent throughout the round without any fluff arguments being made. Keep track of time other than prep but ensure that you are not abusing your time, or I will cut you off once time has elapsed.

Both Debates:

I judge off of flow, I myself can talk at a very rapid pace and can understand information at a rapid pace, but do not abuse that. These are not policy rounds and the goal isn’t to get the most information out rather the best information. I also look for clean rounds, do not be rude to opponents especially do not talk over one another and be polite and conscientious of time during cross-ex.

IE’s:

I have done basically every single IE that is offered at the high school and the collegiate level with the exception of storytelling, I will be looking for not only your intro supporting your literature but also good preparation and interpretation of the literature.

I have done extemp for over 8 years now and will know if the question is not answered, I do not promote pretty talking rather looking for a strong analysis and argument, with varied sources used.

Info and oratory will be content, and delivery based, looking for good flow not only in the spoken words but also the speaking pace and how the information is used.

If there are any questions, feel free to reach out to me at samantha.pappas@jacks.sdstate.edu

I’m a former LD debater and am pretty open to all styles of debate. However, to be a bit more helpful, here are my specific preferences.

1) I’m a big framework guy. Therefore, if you don’t have a framework at the end of the round it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are some of my favorite arguments and if done right can do a lot towards gaining my ballot.

2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points. With me in the back, you won’t be able to get away with grouping everything on the contention level if it doesn’t actually group... Also, like framework, I love a good turn on the contention level. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.

3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand. Slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions. It’s worth noting, however, that I normally vote off of argument quality and not argument quantity. Yes, winning the flow matters, but if one argument your opponent makes outweighs every little argument you won on the flow it’ll be hard for me to vote for you. Don’t get too carried away trying to spread. Stick to good argumentation!

4) Respectfulness during a debate is crucial for the educational value and competitive integrity of this activity. Yes, you can still be savage in cross-x, but that doesn’t mean be rude... There’s a big difference! If I see any disrespectful behaviors I’ll most likely be voting you down on the spot.

5) For PuFo, I don't really judge it all that much but I do know how a round should operate. I usually tend to vote on impacts and magnitude. However, I do love framework and will follow a framework if one is debated well and used as a weighing mechanism.

Hopefully this helps y’all out!

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 38 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg

I am a down to earth judge. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar! Civility is a must!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

My background is largely in policy debate; however, I have been judging Public Form and LD since 2001.

My preferences:

1) I do not need a roadmap. If you have one, I prefer it to be on the clock.

2) I prefer moderate to slow speed; if the whole round is fast, I will gladly keep up, but I prefer the competitive edge to come from stronger arguments and not from a faster speaking style.

3) Tell me why arguments matter. I would like all rebuttal speeches to include weighing. If you tell me how to evaluate the round, but the other team doesn't, I will default to your framework. If there is competing arguments, whoever can best explain and carry through an explanation of why their argument is better will likely win that argument.

4) I prefer realistic impacts to outlandish, daisy-chained larger impacts.

5) In LD, I want a strong focus on value and criteria as well as a slower to moderate speed.

TLDR: I’m a tech judge who’ll vote on anything

Long Version:

Junior at SF Lincoln in South Dakota

VBI ‘24

Elims at many bid tournaments sophomore year

i finally got a silver bid lol, half my wins were reading theory cause apparently i suck at substance

Policy at NSDA Nats ‘24

I'm solely responsible for the spreading of full evidence disclosure to the state of Nebraska

If you have any questions pre round PLEASE email. I know you might have specific strategy questions and if it’s like if I’d listen to a certain prog arg or something that’s not something you want to ask in front of your opponent send an email. Cause that’s part of the debate game.

Also, you can obviously email me for any other thing to do with the round. I just wanted to have my strategy rant.

Chain: cw4397@k12.sd.us

I hate speaker points, if you ask for a 30 I will probably give it to you (don’t do anything generally considered unacceptable/bad). Honestly, if you don’t ask I’ll probably give lower speaks because I’m probably more critical than I should be when it comes to speaks. Try to average 28.5.

I'm so sick of boring overviews, please read offense in the 1A/NC. If you read an overview that isn't offense there better be good strategic reasons for it or I revoke my auto 30s. Strategic OVs could be like extinction OV or framing. Also, super subjective but if you do anything else that annoys me I’ll take away the 30, however it won’t affect the ballot cause that’s dumb.

There’s a chance my rfd will be short and to the point. If it is please ask about anything else. I’m not gonna write an essay for an rfd in tab.

I SWEAR I DON'T SKEW AFF, people just read defense on neg where I judge lol. And I'm not voting for defense.

To quote one of the people who fostered my love for debate and brought it into my life “If someone runs an identity K/aff and you assert that they don't care about the argument or cause itself, you will lose. If there's a clear perfcon, then maybe; otherwise, telling a student that they don't care about something as personal as their own identity argument is destructive and something a student shouldn't have to hear.“ - Tony Welter

For me this also applies to things like theory, I've seen a2 disclosure with people asking why don't you read it every round if it's that important to u.

Also, thank you to him for bringing debate into my life as a random freshman taking Debate 1, it changed my life.

IF YOU SAY "TAKE PROG BACK INTO POLICY" YOU'RE ACTUALLY GONNA CATCH AN AUTO L because the people that killed off policy are also the ones saying that and it's very hurtful.

Be good people, none of the isms please y'all. We are better than that.

My Opinion on the State of Judging in PF:

I’ll disclose the decision and please post round.
i firmly believe that

1) If a judge can’t tell the debaters who won to their faces they shouldn’t be judging

2) If a judge isn’t willing to be post rounded they shouldn’t be judging (and just ask questions because there’s a chance I had some feedback on something niche that I forgot to say)

Everyone can talk about lay adaptation but at the end of the day when both teams are going as lay as possible; lay judges are unpredictable, biased, and sometimes don’t care (especially online). And until we mandate judge disclosure this will only become worse. If we could mandate judges flowing and sharing their flows that’d be great too (at the end of the round you can ask for mine if you want, I’d be happy to give it to you).

This starts with the big schools with resources, put in good judges, you have the money and connections there is no excuse. Parent judges without experience coaching/debating should not be judging.

TLDR:

If this is circuit pf I’m basically your standard tech judge on normal substance. I come from a lay circuit (I usually left my state to compete tho, so I mostly debated on the weird midwet circuit that is like watered-down tech) so unfortunately I feel the need to explain these things.

Do good weighing and implicate it will help u win - that’s my big thing. Oh yeah and good extensions lol.

My prog prefs are below the substance stuff

Debate Basics

Weigh, Weigh, and Weigh (easiest path to the ballot tbh)

Love a good link in or short circuit

When I debate I live and die by timeframe weighing (extinction short-circuit)

I want ballot directive language and implications on offense. I get you win the point, but what does this mean in the scope of the round, that’s why I struggle to judge novice/jv so much. Cause I desperately don’t want to have to intervene here cause this can definitely impact the decision.

This meansIMPLICATIONSandBALLOT DIRECTIVE LANGUAGE. You could be losing all but 1 piece of offense in the round and if you weigh it and tell me why this offense wins you the round you’ll get the ballot.

Unpopular take maybe, but if there’s been no weighing in the round up until the speech you’re about to give, I’ll flow and eval weighing u give. It could be 2nd Final for all I care.

Tech>Truth.

Win the flow. I’ll eval whatever is on it.

If you start you case with “our sole contention is” I’m gonna be disappointed. Have multiple ways to get offense on your case please, I love seeing teams make strategic decisions on their cases that win the round.

Close for anything, it can be your case, a turn, a double turn, a perf con, or anything else you can implicate as offense.

Extensions

Make sure to extend, I need UQ, link, and impact. Any internal links and all warrants should be in the extension. Not every team meets this bar tho so I’m probably a little more forgiving than I should be. If you are meeting it and your opponents aren’t point that out, it’ll help you a lot. Pre-Write the extensions and put them on a doc and you can spread them for efficiency.

2nd rebuttal doesn't need to extend, I've seen some judges expect that lately. I just feel like it's unnecessary, it's good but I feel like it creates too big of a timeskew. Although, obviously frontline. I hate to say this because it makes me feel like a trad judge, this should just be obvious. The 2nd rebuttal extension note did feel essential to me tho.

Warranted Evidence > Warranted Analytic > Unwarranted Evidence > Unwarranted Analytic

UNIQUENESS >>>>>> Everything

(I love uniqueness overwhelms the link args)

Cards need to be cut, highlighted, and cited. Otherwise, it’s paraphrasing. If it’s a direct quote just take more sentences from the source and add it in to make it a card. I’m not a fan of paraphrasing. If your opponent is paraphrasing please see my theory section. Also, you’re not winning DTA on paraphrasing in front of me.

While, I prefer you set up an email chain before the round, I won’t take prep for calling for cards, as long as no prepping is being done and it’s not an excessive amount of time. Calling for evidence should be encouraged to check evidence ethics and compare pieces of evidence. This makes for a more educational and fair debate space, so I think running prep for that is counterintuitive. Just don’t be sketchy while doing it.

DON’T SPREAD A BUNCH OF OFF DOC ANALYTICS (also please signpost when you’re off doc giving analytics and slow down)

I look for clash; when you can explain to me conflicting arguments and tell me why to prefer you, you're doing yourself a great service.

Collapse, that’s all I have to say. Anyone who says to not collapse doesn’t understand warranting and how to properly extend anything. If you aren’t collapsing and not extending you’re not getting my ballot. I wouldn’t go for anything more than 2 pieces of offense, if there’s multiple layers tho I’d be fine with a lot getting extended, just make sure you tell me the order of the layers.

I can handle speed well, I’ve been in enough full spread rounds so I'm pretty used to it. However, if I'm not flowing slow down, I will try like I’m not gonna quit. It may not even be that you're speaking too fast, it may be that you're speaking at a pace that makes you lose some of your ability to speak clearly. If you speech doc, spread is fine. I’m not gonna flow off the doc, but I’ll be able to stay with you then. I’ll be wherever on the doc you are at in your speech reading along with you. And tbh I’ve gotten better at flowing spreading so like you should be fine. There’s a chance I could be rusty, look at my recent judging record for that info or ask pre round. If your opponents ask you to slow down, provide a speech doc with everything prewritten (and go as fast as you want), then go lay-flay speed on any analytics. If I miss your analytics that's not good either, so slow down there in general too.

Even if you aren't spreading I want speech docs. No whisper spreading, it’s annoying. This includes rebuttal.

If you skip cards you need to call it out in the speech and send a new doc after your speech. If you cut cards short say “cut the card there” cause if you’re clipping I’m not gonna be happy.

Use off-time road maps and signposting. It'll help me and your opponents flow your arguments which makes a better debate round, which is really what's important.

I do like weighing and comparing of impacts; tell me what I should vote on, don't make me choose. Like whoever wins weighing is where I’ll start my eval at. You win weighing and you win your contention you’ve basically got the ballot locked up. I get super annoyed anytime a judge starts a rfd with contention talk, you have to eval weighing first. Comparative weighing makes me happy. Speaking of impacts, offense will win you the round. Defense is nice and all, but offense is where I'm going to vote. There’s very few pieces of defense that are terminal in my opinion, if you can explain why they aren’t then that’ll help you a lot.

I don’t want to call evidence, it only leads to judge intervention. Break clash please. If I’m calling evidence then I looked for any other path to the ballot and couldn’t find one. If your opponents evidence has significant issues though tell me. I will look at that.

i’d prefer cross stays with the designated speakers, but if the other speakers jump in a bit that’s cool. Flex Prep is good, you have to answer questions in flex prep, I’ll trust everyone to time and keep regular prep. But, I’m gonna tell you how long time was for flex prep (I don’t like how your opponents can waste your prep with long, convoluted answers). 90% of cross question can get answered in under 15 sec if we try to make it efficient.

prog - Rewrite the rules of debate it's on y'all to make this is best it can be

the resolution exists if u want to engage with it

im happy to evaluate that round

but…. i love me some prog

1st rule: CALL TKOs PLEASE! Save us all some time please!

Framework = Weighing mechanism. It’s not offense. Weigh under it please. If your opponents read one, don’t drop it. Please give a counter framework. If there’s 2 frameworks you should weigh under both. SV vs Extinciton rounds are fun. Framing can be offense if you make it pre-fiat. If someone runs a framework in 2nd constructive, 1st rebuttal can run one too. You can run generic framing in rebuttal always tho, I think it's a good use of time if you got nothing else to say.

Frameworks need a ROB and warrants. Trad circuits are full of teams saying things like we “prioritize stopping terrorism” without any warrants about why it’s the most important issue. These things drive me crazy because A) They’re self-serving and B) Because it’s not what framework is meant to be used for and C) It’s not even done correctly. If you read a framework without warrants in the constructive your framework will remain without warrants on my flow the whole round.

I default magnitude, if you want me to start somewhere else make the argument. I probably don’t care for your generic nuke war impact defense. If you wanna fight them on the internal link tho that’s fine. Probability weighing is mostly fake, if you win your link you get 100% probability. If you try to use it as new impact D in summary I’ll be so annoyed.

I love and have a soft spot for Impact Turns. I’m most familiar with climate change good and Spark/wipeout. I’ve also done some ddev, but any impact turn is fun as long as you aren’t double turning yourself or saying something messed up.

Theory: Set Good Norms thru Theory Please, whatever it is, if you think it’s a good norm, go for it. I’ll vote for anything if you win it.

These are my preferences (which I acknowledge are heavily pro theory, but I'll vote for anything if done right, I think the only fair way you can eval theory is tech>truth, where I can acknowledge there is some basis to truth on substance although I disagree with it.)

Also, you need to extend the shell in rebuttal. Unless, it's conceded that you're opponents get new responses in the 2nd rebuttal I'm not gonna go for anything new, so you're safe to collapse onto 1 or 2 standards.

To put it simply, go for it, disclo good, paraphrase bad. I could be convinced otherwise tho still tech > truth. I’ve debated it a lot, please weigh your voters. Love a good theory debate. (If you've never read theory before and are considering it, I'd say that you should go for it, and if you have any questions about it you should ask, I'm super down to give advice on it).You Should Prob OS rebuttal too. I think it's good.

Please read disclosure on full texters, if there's ever a debate I'd hack in it'd be that one, it's actually a norm we need to kill. I actually am always so nervous to read it on people who full text.

I’ve only ever seen one person (who had multiple TOC auto quals) sufficiently defend paraphrasing and it wasn’t even offense. So, like please don’t paraphrase, there’s a super small chance you’ll be able to defend it well enough for me to feel comfortable not voting on the shell.

Also, theory is effective. It helps spread norms because people have a fear of hitting theory. That’s how I spread the norm of full ev to Nebraska.

My only thing about disclosure tho is the viability of the Interps. I think disclosure is great, but I’m just worried there’s too many holes in so many Interps. Although, I will say that it takes at least 20 min to prep out a case, so a CI that is less than 20 min before the round will not be solving standards like clash and ev ethics in rounds I judge. It’ll solve library and breadth tho. Honestly, full ev/rebuttal might actually help these issues now that I think about it.

Also, your opponents not contacting you asking for disclosure is not terminal defense. This really has nothing to do with the round, but just me trying to explain to people that do this that it’s dumb. Contact Info is such a weak CI (I think it fails to solve most of the shell and creates other problems). If you can win it tho good for you. You aren’t gonna lose to disclosure theory. I’d recommend you read disclosure bad CI or a disclose over email only CI (this is what I usually read when I let people read disclosure on me for practice). These seem to be the strongest from what I’ve seen at winning disclosure rounds. Open to anything tho. If you go for reasonibility good luck lol...

I can’t wait till I graduate and get to vote for disclosure theory in South Dakota, shout out to Maximillian Peters the first person to ever vote for it in SD.

I’ll vote on any shell (yes look down a little further, ik what you're thinking)

Make your interp clean please. High-Level theory debates between 2 good prog teams can be so confusing, please weigh, I know it can be hard, I’ve been there before (especially with mega theory prepouts). I don't want to have to use the 2 ships passing analogy in theory rounds.

I wish there was a good way to define what spreading is for spreading theory, if u read it it’ll probably be visible on my face whether I think ur opponent is spreading or not. I’ll probably intervene on the violation debate about what I believe is vs isn’t spreading tbh. If they don’t provide a doc my bar for what violates spreading goes way down. If you deny a doc/email chain I'm not voting on spreading theory.

Here’s things that aren’t theory answers

1) We don’t have a coach

2) We are a small school

3) Idk theory (look online lol it’s not hard to learn at all, I’d argue theory is relatively easy to understand once you know what the theory jargon means)

4) This isn’t a norm where I’m from

5) we aren’t allowed to disclose

6) what’s a wiki

7) our coach didn’t teach us

8) this is pf (if u do this I'm actually giving as low speaks as I can)

9) I could list more but I think I’ve done enough

I self-taught myself theory, u can too.

If I haven't said it, default Competing-Interps. Honestly, I hate reasonability. I ain’t gonna intervene, and I will try to be the most tech > truth here, this is definitely where my lowest bar is for a team reading theory to meet.

Theory on Novices is cruel, but if it's a division that gets u a TOC Bid (or is just a varsity division in general) everything has to be fair game I think.

RVIs, I don’t know what counts for an RVI honestly. Some people say if you win the yes/no RVI debate then you get RVI, but some people say you have to win that and then read an RVI after that. I honestly have no clue which one is right. However, I don’t like RVIs, I don’t think you proving your fair is a reason to up you. However, I'm not against voting for an RVI (I'd rather not). I probably would default to evaluating other pieces of offense before it unless u tell me why the RVI uplayers substance (outside of just t>sub).

Just read an OCI, if you're collapsing onto only the theory flow you can probably concede yes RVI lol (I always did at least).

OCIs win against theory more often than defensive CIs. You don't have to win yes RVI for me to vote on an OCI.

You better believe I’ll vote on risk of offense on a shell over an RVI.

IVIs are not my favorite thing. But, IVIs are good for debate generally. I do love a good theory debate, and while it is rare, IVIs can make good theory debates. Don’t run blippy IVIs, they’re obviously just a time skew. Unless it’s like a short version of a real shell, like a paraphrasing IVI, although I’d prefer u just run the real interp. Please use them for real issues though.

You have to have voters on your IVI. Too many people read these without voters and even if they win the IVI I ignore it cause there’s no clear offense to me.

I’ve known too many people who abuse outing IVIs on disclosure. Please don’t run it. I don’t really wanna vote on it. Cause ik u def don’t read identity every round. Also, if you refuse email disclosure and then read identity ur cooked on theory. Your opponent should get a chance to prep ur K cause that'll increase clash on the K which is really what is important in K rounds.

Don't care for DTA (even if you're paraphrasing 1 card), if you're violating on something bad you should lose. If your opponents have any bad ev just like IVI the ev. I won’t buy DTA unless you flat out drop it. Especially if you warrant why norm setting only works if a teams wins/losses.

Nothing is friv, everything is just theory

(theory is good, bad norms will lose, good ones will win)

ROB: Idk what to say, in rounds where you need a ROB make one up… do analysis of why your ROB is better for some reason. I like arguments about how one ROB collapses into the other, so that’d be pretty cool.

T: You can read Topicality if you want. I feel like it’s rare that it needs to come up in pf, but if your opponents are being abusive about the resolution, go for it.

Oh and Ig you can read it on non-t advocacies, make sure you got a TVA. Personally, I feel like topicality is usually bad against Ks unless the TVA is like really strong. Random Thought but switch side is dumb.

Speaking of the resolution, the aff gets durable fiat. I wish I didn’t have the say that. And in general don’t be fiat abusive, neg can fiat any alternative to the plan in front of me (for a K or a CP).

Being abusive about fiat in anyway that harms the quality of the debate (regardless of it being interventionist) will hurt your speaks at a minimum.

Ks: I’ve debated enough Ks to know what’s up. Slow down and default to over explanation, I don’t really know the lit. Some of the more basics Ks I do know decently well tho. K debate is good, keep it accessible, please. T > K for me, you can easily have this debate in front of me a win k>t tho. I probably have more K exposure then I’ll admit, it just kinda comes to chance of hitting one because I either need to really know the lit of a non identity-k or I can’t really run Ks because neither me or my partner really fall under any identity k boundaries (speaking of respect these boundaries y’all). Down for a good K-Aff always.

Truth Testing: I’m good with it. Explain it well please because it can be confusing the first time you hear it. I like it against Ks personally.

CP: If you are running a CP good for you. I wish more judges were open to them. If you got a good one let it rip. I better clarify that if you lose to CP bad theory then I will down you (and probably laugh at you). If you win tho goat status. Also, this better be actual theory, idc what the nsda says about CPs, I want a theory debate about counter-plan legitimacy. If you win theory you’ll be good. Although, have a plan text obviously. Develop it please, I want to understand how it interacts with the aff.

(DON'T BORE me with 50 states or concon). I want this to be fun.

Tricks: I don’t even know anymore. Read them and I might vote on them, I might not also. Polls, Paradoxs, or whatever else is escaping my brain rn. I won't go for eval after the 1AC tho. please ask before you read (if u don't I'm not voting on them).

Presumption: If there’s no offense I’ll presume, I will try my absolute hardest to try to find offense before presuming. I presume 1st speaker. Although, if you see the round heading this way please read presumption warrants, I’ll take them as late as first final honestly (this will convince me away from my presumption preference). Although, I do hold exceptions to my policy if one team reads prog, I’ll presume against them probably (I do not give up my ability to make exceptions, and I’ll explain it if I do).

Have fun! That's what debate is about.

Email Chains: cw4397@k12.sd.us

If I’m on a panel with 2 lays, I’ll be sad, but I’ll respect the lay appeal. If you people are sick and both teams agree to it I'm down to try to be lay judge for fun. Don't spread on 2 lays to try to get my ballot and then complain about a lay screw.

LD:

If I'm judging LD something is off, sorry for your loss. No, not really actually. Just make it as much of a policy round as possible, if you can do that you’ll be good and I’ll make the right decision. If you start doing trad LD stuff you’re gonna lose my ballot real quick.

My quick rules:

1) DO NOT DO TRAD LD- the simpler the fw the better I’ll eval. lol honestly read util please. Extinction would be even better. Familiar with SV too.

2) Have a plan text please

3) I’m voting on impacts

Here's a cheatsheet for prefs:

Policy - 1

Theory - 1

Topicality - 1

Tricks - 4.15

Trad- Strike

Kritiks - 3

Phil/High Theory - Strike (I hate Phil it’s stupid)

Truth Testing- 3

Don’t treat me as trad LD, just run policy, larp. If you say it's larping time auto 30s no matter what for everyone in the round. Tell me FW and then just debate on the sheets. Run DAs, T, Theory, CPs, Ks (I’m not the best here, try my best), and anything else. Generics are good. If I don’t know anything about the argument then please explain it to me real good.

Other People that have really made an impact on me in debate: Grant Wiessner (I actually never could have asked for a better partner) and Brady Wheeler (he’s the goat) and Alonso Ramirez (he’s honestly helped me understand debate in a whole new way then I ever thought possible. I don’t think he even knows he did this for me, I’m so proud I got to be a part of his growth in debate).

Have Fun Debating. It doesn’t last forever.

Public Forum debates:

1. Enunciate and be clear in your first constructive speech. Speed isn't an issue as long as I can hear you clearly and take note of your contentions and subpoints. If it's too fast to process or has too much debate lingo, I won't be able to track your argument.
2. Signposting - C1, subpoint A, etc.. much easier for me to follow with what you're saying and/or attacking.
3. Voters - always a great way to end your argument! Be clear and concise.
4. Be repetitive with your framework and contentions throughout.
5. I do pay attention to what is said during crosses.
6. Be respectful and professional when debating. It's okay to be passionate and get a little spicy, but remember to attack the case and not the person.
7. Keep up the great work! I love hearing all the hard work you put into your debates.

Junior at SF Lincoln

Email chains: gw3256@k12.sd.us

VBI '24

Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Weigh

Weighing is (in my humble opinion) the most important thing in a debate round. You win weighing and I'll evaluate your case first, simple as that. I'll default to Magnitude, but don't you dare let that happen.

Extend

For me to vote on something it's gotta be extended in both backhalf speeches (Summary and Final Focus). I have a pretty high bar for extensions, by that I mean I'd like to know when you're extending something. You can do this by just saying "Extend ..." and then summarizing your argument. I need an extension of the UQ, Link, Internal Link, and Impact.

Drops

A dropped argument is a true argument. That's how debate works. That being said, if your opponent drops an argument you have to EXTEND IT for it to matter at all.

Collapse

I don't care if you're winning every argument in the round you simply just can't go for them all. Pick the ones you think you can most easily sell to me/win the flow/weigh and go for those ones.

Speed

I'm good with speed. I speak fast, I've had many many opponents speak fast. BUT, I would like to get speech docs so add me to email chains please. My email is at the top.

Break Clash

Please, please, please break clash. This can be done in so many ways, just do it.

Evidence Exchange

I don't run prep for calling cards and exchanging evidence as long as nobody is prepping. If I see you prepping during that then I will probably ask you to stop and drop your speaks.

Impact Turns

Impact Turns are great, I will listen to all of them: Warming Good, Spark, Wipeout, Dedev, I'll listen to and vote on. If it's on the flow, you win it, and it doesn't degrade anyone's human rights then I'll vote on it.

Framework

Read Framework if you want. I've run it, I've debated it, I know how it works. If your opponent reads Framework don't drop it, read a counter-framework like CBA.

Theory

I've ran theory a very decent amount of times. I love a good theory debate, please run it. Open Source disclo is good and paraphrasing is bad, that being said I am still tech>truth on theory so I'm not gonna hack for disclo or paraphrasing. "Friv" isn't a real thing, if you think the norm your opps are trying to set is bad then win that on the flow.

K's

I have practice running K's a bit and prepping them a good amount. I've hit a few K's and I've judged a K-Aff round. I will gladly vote on a K, but I don't have the lit memorized like some of these K judges. I strongly understand the basis of a few K's (Cap, Security, Borders, Set Col), but am open to hear others. A debate space where critical arguments can be run is key to positive and progressive education for the children of the future. :)

Other Prog

Honestly I'll listen to anything, put in on the flow and win it.

Presumption

I'll presume 1st speaker in PF. Anywhere else I'll presume Aff. Read warrants though if there's gonna be no offense.

Have Fun. Make me proud.

I graduated from Aberdeen Central last year, and I now study at USD under a Music Education degree. I competed in speech, but I've judged a lot of public forum. To that degree, I will judge the round on an analytic side, but I will also hold some weight on pace, projection, and tone. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. Don't be afraid to talk to me as well!

My Experience - I did speech and debate all four years of high school at Aberdeen Central. I’ve done PF, LD, BQ, INFO, ORT, StuCo, and a little bit of extemp so I’m familiar with pretty much everything. I was 14th in the nation for extemp debate in 2022, and the BQ runner up in 2023. Speech and debate is incredibly important to me, so I will not tolerate anyone making it unsafe or unwelcoming to anyone else. That being said, this is fun! Enjoy yourself, stay conscious of the fact that you have a captive audience, and do your best!

LD - LD was my jam as a competitor, and I know what a good round should look like. I judge a round from the top down. In LD your first and most important job is convincing me that your framework is the one I should use to evaluate the rest of the round. You can have the best evidence out there, but if you don’t give me any way to weigh it it doesn’t matter. Contentions obviously matter too, but framework is what I judge on first and foremost. I am okay with a quicker pace, but if I can’t get it on the flow, I won’t remember it when making my final decision.

PF - It’s been a while since I competed or judged PF, but that’s kind of the point of the event. Once again, speed is fine, but I can only judge on what I hear. I prefer arguments that are more realistic. Most arguments don’t logically impact out to nuclear war, and saying they do takes credibility away from what you’re saying. Kindness is key for me here. Be respectful of your opponents, partner, and judges especially during cx. I most likely don’t really understand any PF topic, so slowing down and making sure everyone in the room knows exactly what you’re talking about will gain you points.

Speech - I don’t know why you’re reading this. Please don’t change your speech for one round. Have fun!

I absolutely do not tolerate hateful or prejudiced speech. If you cannot argue your case without being hateful or discriminatory: CHANGE YOUR CASE

You will be voted down if you make the round unsafe for any other participants.

Above all else: Enjoy yourself!