Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as the current assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) and previously an adjunct LD coach for Lake Highland Prep (FL). I also was an instructor at NSD Philadelphia 2024.

PF

I'm a tech judge. Weighing in back half is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." Disclosure theory in PF isn't my favorite, but will vote on it. Don't read a K if it's underdeveloped and/or as a way to exclude opp who isn't prepped on it. I will not evaluate paraphrased evidence. Have fun and be nice.

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please. Don't spread if your opponent isn't okay with it.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP/Policy: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

I am Joshua a 4th year LD Varsity debater. I have a slight preference for phil but I will listen to and vote on anything as long as its explained well.

Tech > Truth unless there is some real provable abuse

jb44330@wdmcs.org is my email I would appreciate it if both the aff and neg could send their cases before the round so I could read over them quickly because I have a processing disorder.

Also because of the processing disorder please do not spread, if you do spread I just wont be able to hear you so most of your arguments will not be flowed. If both debaters spread constructives I will just coinflip

Feel free to email me with any questions

hi Im Judah Carpenter im a second year debater here are my prefs

Phil-1

K-1

Larp-3

Theory-3

Tricks-1

All vote on anything though im probly not the best for larp or theory

My name's Lilah (she/her) I'm a sophomore at Roosevelt high school and am in my second year of debate. I did PF for a while but now do LD. I'm ok with any arguments (as long as they aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything like that) just make sure you explain your arguments. I most likely will be flowing on my computer (I promise I'm listening)

general expectations and preferences

• Be nice. I understand that rounds can get a little heated at times just keep it respectful and remember that you're debating the case and arguments not the actual person.
• Time your speeches please, if you need me to I will but it will benefit you more to know how much time you have left
• I do not flow cross, if something was said in cross that you think is important, I can only evaluate it as long as it is brought up in a speech.
• Extend your arguments
• Signposting is key, tell me where on the flow we are.
• Tell me WHY I should vote for you, make it as clear as you can
• Please weigh your impacts, why do your impacts matter more than your opponent's impacts
• add me to the email chain (if you make one) lhopperhedges@gmail.com or feel free to reach out with any questions!
• Have fun and good luck!!

samuel.juhl@dmschools.org

I am in my 4^th year of coaching speech at East High School in Des Moines. I competed as a student in LD in high school. I have judged every IE event and every debate event. I primarily view debate as an educational activity. If debate weren’t a place for students to develop speaking and argumentation skills, I think debate would have almost no value and I wouldn’t be spending my valuable time away from my small children coaching and judging debate. I’ve broken down my paradigm into sections so that you can skip to the portions of the paradigm that apply to you.

LD/PF

Because I primarily participate in debate for the educational value. I am a Truth>Tech judge but I want to explain what that does/doesn’t mean to me. Truth>Tech doesn’t mean that you don’t have to respond to your opponents’ factually spurious arguments. I’m still going to rely heavily on my flow to determine the outcome of the round. I think it is fundamentally unfair to insert my own arguments into a round though I will do it if a competitor is arguing something abhorrent ie: that it is morally good to kill children or something.

Truth>Tech does mean that unserious arguments do not require a response. Logical fallacies exist for a reason and modern debate is filled with logical fallacy abuse. If in LD, you use a non-topical nazi analysis to point to some problem with a moral framework I likely won’t take that argument as seriously as a resolution critique of the moral framework. Similarly, I don’t find many of slippery slope arguments that have 40 links to some colossal impact to be especially strong arguments either. This doesn’t mean that you can’t win with these arguments on my ballot it just means that I am going to be receptive to responses that point out the problems with slippery slope arguments or bringing everything back to the third Reich when we are debating public service or something.

I expect you to fully articulate your arguments. Don’t just tell me that your first contention turns their second contention tell me why your first contention turns their second contention. Similarly, don’t just make the claim that some behavior is bad for debate, tell me why the behavior is bad for debate. A claim isn’t an argument and won’t really get acknowledged as one on my flow.

I realize that this is debate and not speech and so I don't decide debate rounds on speaking skills but rather the argumentation. However, an argument rendered incomprehensible because of the rate of a person’s speaking is the same as an argument not made on my ballot. I will not read a speech doc unless the document is an accommodation to allow someone to participate in debate. Debate, be definition, is an oral activity and I think that reading speech documents invites the judge to understand arguments that have been ineffectively articulated in round and is a form of judge intervention.

Unless a tournament tells me not to, I will always disclose, and I almost always tell the losing competitor(s) what they could do to have won my ballot in the round. I will sometimes provide feedback about how I would have argued for or against a point but unless those arguments were made by students in the round, they won’t affect my ballot.

Congressional debate

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I prefer an extemporaneous delivery. Computers/notepads should be used as a reference rather than as a script. I also prefer a more polished delivery in which eye contact is more frequently maintained and a student’s movement is controlled so that it enhances the speech rather than distracts the listener. I can handle faster speech speeds but to a reasonable limit. I need people to speak at a reasonable volume. I need to be able to hear you, but yelling is also inappropriate.

Your speech should bring up new information. If your points have already been made in round, then don't waste everyone's time by repeating them. Secondly, While I understand that crystallization speeches are popular in the congressional "meta" they have to be well done and actually work to clearly delineate why one sides arguments are preferable to the other sides arguments. If all you have done is summarize the arguments the other speakers have made in round you have wasted everyone's time.

This is congressional debate not congressional speech. While I can understand a lack of clash in the authorship speech, I believe that all other speeches in a cycle of debate should make a clear attempt at refuting the specific arguments that other speakers have made in round. Bonus points if you can set up these arguments using a questioning block to draw attention to the flaws in your opponent’s logic.

If you are speaking in the negation, please don't center your argument around a problem that can be amended away. Write an amendment. If your problem with a bill is that it appropriates 20 million dollars instead of the 25 million that it should have fix that problem with an amendment.

While the PO is responsible for running a smooth and equitable chamber it is not only the responsibility of the PO. debaters that have a clear understanding of the rules and don't disrupt the chamber by making incorrect motions or violating chamber rules will be more highly ranked.

For PO’s: I care that you run a smooth and equitable chamber. Make sure you are properly following rules for recency and precedence. Additionally, where rules/procedural issues arise I expect you to be able to handle them without relying on the parliamentarian I will say that I typically have a hard time ranking POs at the top of the chamber unless the quality of debate is exceedingly low or the PO is exceptionally proficient. However, I will usually rank the PO in the top 5 if there are no serious errors in the way they conduct their chamber.

Speech

I consider your decision of what piece to perform one of the many decisions that I will evaluate in round. If your piece is problematic in its portrayal of people with mental illnesses or you are depicting an act/event I don't think is appropriate that will affect your final rank. I am tired of judging rounds in which students mine traumatic events that happen to real people in the real world to win a high school speech contest and that fatigue will start being reflected in the final ranks I assign after speech rounds.

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I don’t judge visual aids in informative speaking. If the visual aid detracts from your speech, it will hurt your score. If the visual aid enhances your speech, it will help your score. If you have no visual aid but deliver a stellar speech I will give you a high rank.

Finally, I place a high emphasis on actually answering the prompt in USX, IX and Spontaneous Speaking. Try to make sure you answer the question you’ve been asked and aren’t doing something adjacent to it. I will rank people who do not actually answer the question at the bottom of the chamber.

My preferences for judging a debate are: 1) That debaters are not speed spreading, if I can't follow your arguments I can't weigh them. It also makes for a better debate if everyone can follow the main arguments. Clarity is more important than speed. 2) That questioning be cordial, being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose you points. 3) I prefer that your evidence support your argument, not that it tangentially might apply. That you evidence links to your warrant is important. 4) I also an extensive background in speech and debate as a high school student and as a high school Speech & Debate Judge. 5) I was a Philosophy Major in college so I do enjoy the framework, value aspect of Lincoln-Douglas debate. 6) Why should your framework and value be weighed over your opponent's is important when I evaluate the round.

IHSSA Judge Paradigm

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments making in-depth arguments pertaining to sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round. I want this in LD as well. Link your arguments back to your value and criterion for me.

I expect PF and LD debaters to make arguments related to the topic and what the impacts of that particular action are instead of just talking about general good or bad for an idea.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Nuclear Impacts: I think it is important that you know I have hard time believing that nuclear war is going to happen. If this is your terminal impact, you need to really set up the situation and chain of events for me to follow. Generally, there is an impact that happens before nuclear war or winter that is more likely, requires fewer links, and would be easier to convince me is true.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Experience:

I did Speech and Debate my junior and senior year of high school (that's when we actually got a program) I did Public Forum Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, Spontaneous Speaking, World Schools and Original Oratory.

I have multiple state championships under my belt and went to Nationals for Public Forum and World Schools Debate

I am now a student at Simpson College and am a member of their Speech and Debate Team there. I currently do IPDA, Impromptu, Extemp, ADS, Interviewing, Duo, and probably more at some point.

tldr: I know the activity and I know both speech and debate

Speech:

I got two things I like to see - Talk pretty and be unique

Be confident and comfortable, not cocky (been there and it's not a good look)

Be unique, I don't want to hear the same 8 speeches in one round. The best way to make me vote for you or rank you higher, is to make me remember you

Also, I'm all for humor in all forms of speech (unless it's a DI or something)

I'm here to have fun, please don't make it hard for me

Debate:

I'm probably more lay-oriented than other college students but I'm gonna flow. I'm not the best at flowing so one dropped argument from your opponent isn't gonna make or break a case to me, unless you tell me why it should.

Don't be an jerk. If you are rude to your opponent then I'm not likely to vote for you. Watch your volume, you shouldn't be yelling at me or your opponent but obviously you can raise your voice a tiny bit.

In all honesty, I'm a sucker for squirrely arguments. That being said, I'm not going to vote for you just because you do have a weird argument. Fight for it.

Tell me how to vote, I just might listen to you

Be respectful to your opponent. NO SPREADING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE.

Speech Drop:

If you really wanna make a speech email thing, I guess I can be on it. I will not follow along with what you're speaking on the doc. Sharing your case isn't an excuse to spread. Still needs to be slow enough to flow. Also, if you call for a card, I'm not gonna call to see it unless you or your opponent tells me to and says why it matters.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Put me on the chain: jamespiazzaiii@gmail.com

Topicality

I like good T debates, but they can get messy pretty easily, so clean line by line here is important. Competing interps are probably good. I am most persuaded by predictable limits in that it shapes prep and probably is the best internal link to clash filled debates and education.

Counterplans

CPs specific to the aff are always preferred. Condo is probably good, but if there is in round abuse story, theory can be convincing. Otherwise, I'm fine with cheating process counterplans, but they should probably have solvency advocates/a lit base.

Disads

Read them! I love politics disads, but anything case specific is probably better. I think each part of the disad can be reduced to zero percent. Smart analytics can beat cards. Do impact calc.

Kritiks

I'm familiar with most of the basic Ks (cap, security, fem...). I'm fine with high theory stuff, as long as you make it clear what you are critiquing and the impact to that. Weighing the aff is probably good, so I err aff on framework, but I'll try to stay as unbiased as possible. Good/specific link analysis is a must ! I will defualt to plan focus.

Planless Affirmatives

If you don't read a plan, make your method or advocacy clear in how it functions and what a world post aff looks like. You can weigh the aff against framework. I will be more persuaded to vote for you if the aff is in the direction of the topic, in the case of immigration you advocate less restrictions on immigration, however if you go the other way that's fine as well.

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. I competed in Public Forum Mainly, little bit of Lincoln Douglas, and tried just about every other event. I was a 3 time national qualifier and this past year became the assistant coach at Bettendorf High School. Lots of national circuit experience in PF. As far as other events go i'm not here to push my or any agenda. My goal is to interpretate your performances in the debates/speech rounds not how I feel or think. My paradigm here is just to make your lives easier. Any questions feel free to ask!!!

For email chains- Daepoole00@gmail.com

I understand that things can be tense at tournaments so I try to keep the things pretty relaxed but with that being said a few things I expect:

1) Shake hands with opponents after round

2) Make sure everyone is ready before we start

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Public Forum}

NPF-No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning.

VPF- Rock roll, just send speech docs if spreading. Better safe than sorry. Not that I can’t flow just want to make sure you are actually reading cards in case and not just like 3 words of a card.

SPEECHES:I like nuanced arguments. Clash is must Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order. But please for everyone’s sake no new in the 2 and make sure you are signposting.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Lincoln Douglas}

NLD- No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning. Unless you can clearly explain what you are arguing, keep it simple. Novice is to learn and should be treated as such.

VLD- Truth over tech. I'm pretty much a traditionalist in the sense of topical LD debates. Easiest route to my ballot is value, criterion, (definitions if needed) and contention level debate. However I do enjoy a well constructed CP or even good K if actually fighting against real issues and not using K as a chance to win ballots.

Speed: I'm okay with speed normally. Most people I have met cannot spread and they say a bunch of words but don't finish sentences Im not going to write down words you didn't say so don't try it. I like some kind of doc share just to be safe.

SPEECHES:1AR, and 1NR, should be line by line with lots of sign posting. 2NR, and 2 AR should generally go over the same issues in the same order with some form of crystallization. Give me voters and tell me why based on your last speech you should win.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it. CX should be relevant and questions should actually further the debate or be used to clarify questions not as prep time. I will not hold it against you if the cross doesn't go full time if you deemed yourself done with questions.

{Speech events}

Interp- (DI- Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Hi- Whoever makes me laugh the most along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Duo- Whoever makes me laugh the most or Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Exempt: Usually I prefer 3 main points. Good intro and outro. Sources are dated and usually enjoy when you are able to create a story out of your answering of the question.

Spon: Same thing as above just no sources.

if you do decide to do email chain pls add me to it: enram27@icstudents.org

TLDR: Slow down on tags, i know what im doing

I PREFER EMAIL CHAINS

My name is Endrit (en-DREE-tuh). (he/him/his). I am a sophomore at West High School in Iowa City. I have around 3 years of experience in policy (8th grade) and 2 years of congress. I am the Student Captain of Speech at West High.

My basic judging rules:

Tech > truth (if you say the moon is made of cheese and your opponent doesn't respond, I will assume that's true for the rest of the round)

Time yourself. I'll time but I prefer it that way.

Debate is not all serious stuff! Don't be afraid to joke around with me and your opponents/partner in an appropriate manner.

Signpost and Roadmap. I will dock speaks for this. Im serious.

My preferences:

Policy

Ks - I used to hate Ks but now I like them. Please let me read your K so i can actually understand it. If ur gonna read something like bioneuropsychology and ur alt is like “reject [thing i dont know about] and do the death drive” ima need some time to comprehend it. That being said, I have a hard time weighing with K framework so if you are gonna go for a Cap k “default neg on framework,” be ready to explain what that framework is and why i should vote for it. If your alt is the death drive and aff reads literally one solvency card i will assume alt fails unless you prove somehow that anarchy solves.

K affs are fine. Idrk why ppl hate them. That being said, IT WILL BE VERY HARD FOR ME TO VOTE ON NON TOPICAL K AFFS. “We refuse to engage in topical debate” type stuff usually is an auto loss for me unless opposition is horrible at explaining why this is bad and extending fairness/education voters.

I am fine with speed as long as you share the doc with me. That being said, I support spreading your card contents. Slow down on titles and authors. I will pre-flow (occasionally) but if you speed through your titles and authors you will lose speaks.

I can follow a theory debate but I don't prefer it. It’s also hard to flow your voters when you are talking faster so please slow down. I dont vote on interpretation if the opposing can prove double violation (i.e Aff reads “can’t talk to partner during opposing speech” but neg says that aff violates that, i don’t vote on it) Plan in a vacuum is always a voter for me. “ERR” always catches my attention.

<3 fw if comprehendible and xtended well

CPs: PICs are fine. Agent CPs are fun. Adv CPs are awesome. CP Theory hurts my brain but I definitely evaluate.

I support open cx.

I find the policy community is not very fond of aspec/costspec/fundingspec, but i'll listen

As for novice specific:

Don’t use random cards from your varsity debaters

If FW is allowed: extend all voters and prove you outweigh. If your case doesn’t link to the framework I will probably not vote for you especially if opposition links better to your own framework and can prove they can win on it. Running a fancy argument is not an automatic win.

Please dont forget judge instruction, tell me how to vote

LD:

Framework/phil- I love seeing framework clash, please try and interact with your opponents if applicable. Phil is mid, but I weigh on it heavily

Policy Style (LARP)-Coming from a policy background, this is fine to me.

Speed-I can handle most speeds. If your spreading is clear and I'm on the Email chain I should be ok. I might shout clear if it's really bad. SLOW DOWN ON CLAIMS AND TAGS PLEASE!!!

Trix-Just dont.

CX-I love CX please please please do more than ask for repeats of cards and really try and play the debate game with your opp. Especially as a novice I would love to see it. I believe CX is binding, if I hear it I assume its true for the round.

Ks- I am a K debater, so yes its great, just make sure it actually links and your K is unique. Pess is a hard argument for me especially if the alt is anarchy. Please refer to my policy opinions on Ks. If your K is too dense and like full of jargon Im really not going to want to evaluate it. please explain your lit so I can understand your argument.

Theory-totally fine, just make it not incredibly friv unless you plan to make the round funny. Defaults are as follows

Competing Interps>Reasonability || No RVIS>RVIS || Education>Fairness (I think debate should be more educational, if you want me to vote for fairness, make me think so, debate is inherently unfair for POC, queer, and female presenting debaters). || 1AR theory is fine

In general:

Signpost and roadmap

Use all your prep

I don't flow well or neatly, so I do apologize if I miss an argument. You can correct me and provide evidence after the round if I missed an argument and I will genuinely re-evaluate if it was anything of extreme substance.

Say my name correctly

Provide judge guidance. I don't want to genuinely evaluate your round unless I have to (aka novices)

30 point challenge: Name every Mitski song on her last two albums (Laurel Hell and TLIIASAW). I’m a huge mitski fan.

30 - You were one of the best people I saw all day

29 - You were fantastic but you have stuff to improve on

28 - Good job. You had good speeches.

27 - This is the low end. You were okay

26 - You struggled and didn't provide me sufficient arguments

25 - You conceded your round/said a slur or offensive thing in round

(tastefully) Roast Aahana Gupta = +0.4

(tastefully) Roast Adam Salem +0.8

This is not an objective scale, and i do speaks by decimal asw.

Hi, I'm Max. I did speech and debate for Bettendorf High School. In round please speak clearly, loudly, don't spread. If you talk too fast I might have a hard time catching everything which makes it harder for me to judge.

Add me to the email chain at cs41744@wdmcs.org

I care deeply about how interesting your arguments are. I'm more likely to vote on something I haven't already heard.

If I miss an argument because you were speaking too fast that it wasn’t clear, I won’t make any attempt to go back and flow it. I’m not going to help you: I flow what I hear. It's okay to go fast, what is important is clarity.

I'll put prefs, but don't take these too seriously because I will try to vote on anything you argue well.

----------------

Kritik - 1

Theory - 2

Trad - 3

Trix - 4*

LARP - 5

----------------

*if your opponent isn't able to engage with them, I'm not going to consider it a win for you, and it's not going either way on my ballot. If there is good clash on tricks, I love it.

I am a fairly traditional judge but will listen to most any argument as long as it applies to the Resolution.

Please listen to your opponents arguments and have your rebuttal address their arguments.

I can listen to speed to a certain extent, but would rather not to have to tell you to slow down if I cannot hear the argument I cannot judge the argument.

I have coached and judged debate for 25 years.

I will not disclose in round unless told by the tournament to do so.

larp ts pmo

email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Framework (1) > Theory (1) > Tricks (1) > K (5) > LARP (Strike) > Bad Tricks

Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before round.

My name is Lorelei Wemmie, feel free to call me Lorelei, or judge, either works.

Quick overview if you only have a minute:

If you are being/encouraging sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, that type of stuff is an automatic drop. FRAMEWORK is the thing I will analyze the most. Feel free to spread, but speak clearly. Contact me if you have questions, and just be polite.

CONTACT:

515-212-6100 - immediate response

lw49283@wdmcs.org - For in depth response

loreleiw.at.home@gmail.com - for quicker response

I do LD debate, and have gone to many tournaments.

Feel free to:

Spread, LARP, use tricks, shells are good, pretty much anything

Feel free to be funny, crack a joke, read a 'must wear costume or certain color' shell, just don't be disturbing mid-speech.

I will not vote on Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, any discriminatory acts.

i hate:

discriminatory arguments

arguments without links or warrants

if you are going to read extinction or nuclear war TELL ME HOW! If you don’t tell me how I will not weigh them

I VOTE ON FRAMEWORK

I do not need speech drop, however I can.

If you need help, or anything, ask me, I can help.

Please do not be rude to opponents I will doc points out of speech points for rude comments, laughing at the opponent, talking during opponents speeches.

If you don't know the answer to a cx question, just say so, but If you refuse to answer a question I'm going to need a why, because under some circumstances this is not okay.

email me at lw49283@wdmcs.org

Please, please, please, please, ASK ME QUESTIONS!!!! If you have a question about the round or my preferences, I would appreciate a text, I would rather get a billion emails then someone show up and and read some off-brand sexist argument that has me wondering why I woke up that morning. Questions also show me you care and can help your speaks.

If you get off topic even if its to prove a point, chances are its all I need to fall asleep and drop you.

If you don't understand the topic I wont drop you if you ask BEFORE THE ROUND

I will Fall asleep if you don't shut up about random bullshat stuff... Just stay on topic and you should be fine

I can't vote you if you do not extend.

Tell me your pro-nouns, I do not want to misgender on accident.

FRAMEWORK IS THE BIGGEST THING I VOTE ON

Use philosophers and ethics

I am sold on so many ethical arguments,

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE USE A GOOD FRAMEWORK WITH OVERALL AND PERSONAL VALUE