I have competed in Speech and Debate for 4 years, I was a captain and I know what's going on. I'm not a lay or parent judge, if you know what your doing and show it and I will be able to see it.

Be clear and concise with your arguments, if I can't follow it then I'm not flowing it.

I will be fair as long as you are respectful to your opponents. I get their is tension during heated arguments but remember this isn't that serious in life so their is no reason to make enemies. Shake hands after the round it shows sportsman ship, I'm not requiring you to do that but I love to see it.

I don't typically judge policy, so I'm not really a fan of that level of spreading but I'm not opposed to it. But again if I can't follow it, I'm not flowing it.

If you have any questions feel free to email me or ask in before round!

Good luck to all!

alayna.j.a.k@gmail.com

I like to flow every debate I watch to make sure the burden of rejoinder is clearly identifiable, but I will not flow a dropped argument without being told. You should be flowing as well. If it is not CX, then I don't want you to spread. I don't mind speaking fast but I want to really hear your arguments and have time for you to persuade me.

Kindness and tone go a long way. If you are belittling someone else it does not help to prove your point. There is a difference between being assertive and flat-out demeaning.

In Congress, I am not a fan of rehash - I want to hear rebuttals and debate, not a new speech that doesn't address what the aff and neg speakers have brought to the chamber. I think it is completely appropriate to respond in your speeches to arguments by referencing the name of the representative/senator as long as you are tasteful. It helps me keep up with the round.

How you treat your PO and your attitude towards them also go into judging you as a competitor. If you have problems, you have every right to call a point of order, but being snide and hostile makes you look weak.

In IPDA, the resolution is paramount. You must show, using the weighing mechanism, how your case and arguments outweigh your opponents. In questioning, please refrain from dismissing each other or being overtly aggressive. Remember I am flowing but you have to direct my attention and give me a road map.

I have not judged CX in ages. But many moons ago, I was a CXer and I can flow. I don't perceive that I will be judging CX at any point.

As for Forensics events go - I was also a Forensics kid and have been a Theatre Director, Dancer and Interper for over 29 years. I am looking for solid real performances where the intent is routed in thought. I do not like when emotion is faked or pushed. Please perform from a place of honesty. All movement should be motivated and character driven. Variety and the ability to demonstrate clear distinct characters is essential. In OO, Extemp or Info - These are Speech events. Sometimes performers add more interp friendly content into their performances. This is where I am quite stern. There is a fine line between performing and speaking, please remember I enjoy the fact that these are SPEECH events. You are actually speaking to the audience, not performing for us. Remember that.

Competed/ Graduated in Oklahoma under the GOAT and now NSDA Hall of Fame coach Michael Patterson

As far as policy and all debate goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful.

"racism....its bad kids...don't do it"- Michael Patterson

No spreading if possible your judges should still be able to understand almost every word and enunciate.

I don't think the debate should be a monologue of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me I'll laugh, All while still keeping decorum.

Any NBA jokes are appreciated! you won't get any extra points, just my laugh.

I am a previous debater in specifically IPDA and congress. I have also done speech events as well! With this in mind I have a good idea of how both speech and debate events should be judged! I will always do my best to judge fair and in debate events if you tell me how to judge your round with reasoning this will be my upmost priority! In speech events I encourage you to feel comfortable in your piece and let me see that you truly enjoy what you are doing!

debate events :

do these things

• have good professionalism throughout your debate
• have good sportsmanship throughout your debate just as you would with any other sports or activities
• use all of your time even if that means just giving a run through of your points! This ensures your opponents and your judges fully understand what you are debating!
• Tell your judge why your case matters and why you have won the debate

avoid these things

• spreading: it creates a misunderstanding between everyone in the room. If I cannot understand what you are debating I cannot judge your points and your opponent more than likely will not be able to have a clear debate with you!
• avoid backhanded comments or remarks during speeches or questions even if you completely disagree with opponents points!
  
  

speech events :

do these things

• have good etiquette when spectating! I do not like whenever I see people not actively engaging in their opponents pieces. It does not show good sportsmanship!
• give me the name and author of your piece before you begin
• provide me any time signals as I will always give them accordingly as long as you provide me with them!
• give me a heads up if you are double booked so that we can get your piece done and you can move on to your next round

avoid these things

• making fun of or speaking bad about an opponents performance. We all have our own opinions and ideas but I will not tolerate any disrespect towards an individual as it again does not show good sportsmanship!
• walking in or out of the room during an opponents piece!

HAVE FUN AND BE FAIR! MAKE SURE TO BE ENCOURAGING YOUR OPPONENTS AND HELP PEOPLE WHENEVER YOU HAVE THE CHANCE! GOOD LUCK IN YOUR ROUNDS AND I HOPE ALL OF YOUR TOURNAMENTS CURRENTLY AND IN THE FUTURE GO WELL!

Background/ Experience:

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

Likes:

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

Dislikes:

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

Voting:

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

Congressional:

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

Hi! I´m Savannah and super excited to be your judge, your round will be one of if not my first time judging so I´m not too particular on round expectations. I will say that kindness, preparedness, honesty, and manors will show if you deserve to win or not. please be in your room in time for tech check! good luck!

specific behavior expectations; Be respectful to your judge and your opponent, rude comments and hateful speech can land you a loss so keep that in mind. try your best always!!, it is also good to take your time on speaking if you struggle with talking to get the most speaker points and to provide me a way to give sufficient flowing and feedback:) there will be either me or someone else keeping time but I do ask that you as well keep time, we are human so mistakes with time can happen, it is also good practice for times you might be the one responsible for keeping time. please try your best, and I wish you the best of luck!!

PF/LD: I will say I will be looking for a good framework, and who´s argument is best intact at the end rather than convincing, so please respond to all attacks/arguments in your opponent´s speech/rebuttal. also, be prepared when it comes to having adequate and reliable sources

ways of contact: chartsavan25@cps.k12.ar.us please use if needed; such as problems during the debate but if there are problems my email will probably be the last resort, and the text box or oral communication the first.

When I’m judging, I look for a few key things across the board. First and foremost, I want to see good content. Your arguments need to be well-researched, logical, and supported by credible evidence. Whether it's a speech or a debate, the depth of your analysis is important.

I’m looking for confident and clear speech, with appropriate tone, volume, and pacing. Body language, eye contact, and gestures can really enhance your presentation, and how you handle cross-examinations or questions is something I take into account.

Your argument should have a clear structure and flow smoothly from one point to the next. I expect to see good transitions so that I can follow along easily. Make sure you're using your time wisely and staying within the limits.

When it comes to actual argumentation, I expect strong rebuttals and clear engagement with your opponent’s arguments. Clash is essential, especially for the negation side—show me that you’re directly addressing the points being made and refuting them strategically.

I expect a level of respect throughout. Maintain a respectful tone, listen carefully, and engage in a way that fosters good vibes in the room. Constructive, respectful dialogue goes a long way.

Maintain a solid pace throughout. Be aware of how fast you are speaking and do not spread!!! If you speak too fast, I can’t flow and follow your argument. This will hurt how I weigh the round.

As this is my second year of judging on the circuits, I feel better prepared to accurately judge rounds based on the technical merits of cases. I have spent quite a bit of time judging Public Forum, and I continue to refine my skills in Congressional Debate. Assessing weight and impact are ongoing tasks, but I feel confident in my decisions based on a review of my flows. I have not judged a Critical Theory round to date, but I have sat in on one or two. I try to actively judge in tournaments, as it is through judging I learn how to better assist the students in our program.

I am more confident judging forensics' competitions as this is where I have more practical experience. I enjoy the diverse variety of the interpretive divisions. There are so many different ways students can showcase their talents and skills from interpretation to improvisation to acting. While it is difficult to quantify inspiration and creativity, I always enjoy watching how these remarkable young men and women respond to a challenge.

As a judge, I prioritize logic, adherence to the resolution, effective rebuttal, and speaking ability. Here's a breakdown of what I look for in each of these areas:

1. Logic: Logical reasoning is the number one most important thing in debate. I appreciate debaters who present well-structured arguments supported by evidence and sound reasoning. Clear and logical organization of ideas helps me follow the flow of the debate and understand the debaters' positions.

2. Adherence to the Resolution: It is crucial for debaters to engage with the topic at hand and demonstrate a clear understanding of the resolution. I expect debaters to provide arguments that directly address the resolution and support their position. Debaters should avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not contribute to the central debate. The ability to effectively link arguments back to the resolution is essential.

3. Rebuttal: Debaters should actively engage with their opponents' arguments, identify weaknesses, and provide strong counterarguments. I value debaters who can effectively refute opposing arguments while maintaining a respectful and constructive tone.

4. Speaker Points: I assign speaker points based on factors such as clear and dynamic delivery, organization, use of evidence, and overall effectiveness in conveying their arguments. Higher speaker points are awarded to debaters who demonstrate exceptional communication skills and make a strong impression.

Here are some common mistakes that weaken a debater's performance:

Speaking too quickly

Choosing definitions that do not align with the spirit of the resolution

Setting a framework, then neglecting to reference it throughout the debate

Lack of humility.

Remember, this paradigm is specific to my judging preferences. Other judges may have different priorities, so it's important to adapt your approach accordingly. Have fun!

To those running the tournament: My preferred styles to judge are Congressional, IPDA, and I'm happy to judge forensics/speech. Putting me in policy is a bad idea and I don't like policy at all. In terms of Individual Events, I do best with Humorous, Duo, and Dramatic Interpretation, and worst with Poetry.

To competitors: Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, and hate speech of any kind will earn an immediate loss of my ballot. The most important thing to me in a round is that you respect not only me, but your opponent, other judges, spectators, and anyone else. Please don't spread. If I wanted to try to make sense of spreading, I'd do policy. I don't do policy, so I don't want to hear spreading. Please just have mercy and talk at a decent pace. I'm looking for a well-established argument with well thought rebuttal. I want a respectful debate with clash and good delivery.

I have judged for about two years on the Arkansas circuit everything from Forensics to Case debate (excluding policy). I probably lean toward appearance judging and focus on logic, clear presentation of points, well cited evidence, and organized rebuttals.

Do not spread I can not flow spreading - keep your debate speed intelligible if you want to win my ballot.

At the end of the day this is a speaking competition and you should be a superb speaker with your strong evidence - not just running as many warrants as fast as possible in your limited time.

Buena Suerte!

I was a policy debater in West Texas in the late 90's. Competing and doing well in both UIL and TFA. Afterwards, I spent four years competing in two forms of limited prep debate at the collegiate level (IPDA and Parliamentary)

TWO DIAMOND COACH:

In 17 years of coaching, we have competed and won in Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, World Schools and Big Question. We are the only small-school ,from Arkansas, that has been consistent at qualifying for Nationals.

In the past 17 years, we have attended TOC 4 times and NSDA Nats 8 times. We have made it to nationals in everything from Oratory, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions and World Schools debate.

I have judged; 2020 NSDA PF FINALS, 2023 NSDA WSD FINALS, NSDA finals rounds of Individual events, NSDA Nats World Schools Debate, Big Questions Nationals Semi-Finals Round, Lincoln-Douglas.

TOC PF and everything that you can think of on our local circuit.

This activity and its associated community give me life. It has led me from a life of poverty into a prosperous one that allows for a completely different world than I was raised in. I am honored to be judging debaters of your caliber and degree.

My View on debate:

It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.

I ,therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation , words used and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their own social or political commentary.

If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.

In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."

Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass.

This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced based argumentation. I prefer a well warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence. [this is not to say qualification don't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased] Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter.

Paradigms:

• Speed is fine. "Spreading" is not. Your breathing shouldn't become markedly different and noticeable because of your rate increase. The pitch of your voice shouldn't also change dramatically because of your delivery. If you are clean, clear and articulate then you are free to go as fast as you wish.
• Don't just extend cards with Author name. "Extend Samson '09". You need to explain why that argument is a good answer to whatever you are extending. For me, debate is more than just lines on a page. Your words matter. Your arguments matter.
• I feel that the first two speeches are solely for setting up the case in favor or opposition to the resolution. If an answer happens to cross-apply as a good answer to their case that is fine. But, I don't expect PF teams to divide their time in the first speeches to offer counter-arguments.
• No new in the 2. Core arguments should be flowing out of the first two constructive speeches. If it isn't covered by your partner in the second constructive or by you in the summary speech then it is dropped. Too little, too late. This isn't football and a Hail Mary will not occur.
• While I view debate as a game....it is more like Quidditch and less like muggle games. (*just because you win the most points doesn't make you the winner. If you catch that golden snitch....you can pull out the win! Don't be afraid to argue impacts as opposed to number of points)
• The affirmative has the burden of proof. It is their job to prove the resolution true. If the debate is a wash this means the default win will go to the negative. (low speak wins included)
• Framework: I will assume CBA unless otherwise stated. You can win framework and then lose the debate under that framework. That should be obvious. Make sure that you explain how and why you win under the framework of the debate.
• PF Plans/ CPs: Simply put. These are against the rule. You are allowed to give a general recommendation but this often delves right into plan territory.
• ATTITUDE: Humor is welcome. Sarcasm and rudeness are not.
• Evidence: Don't miscut evidence. I will call for evidence if (A) a team tells me to do so or (B) I suspect it is miscut.
• Round Evaluation: I am a flow judge. I will judge based on what happens in-round. It is your job to impact out your arguments. Don't just say 'this leads to racism'...TELL ME WHY RACISM IS BAD and what the actual impact is. Don't make me do the work for you. Make sure to weigh the arguments out under the frameworks.
• Shoo fly, you bug me:
• Don't tell me that something is dropped when it isn't. If they simply repeat their assertion in response, that is a different story. But if they have a clear answer and you tell me that they dropped that isn't going to end well for you. Don't extend through ink.
• Rudeness: This isn't a street fight. This is an intellectual exchange and thus should not be a showcase of rude behavior such as: Ad Hominem attacks on your competition, derision of your opponents argument or strategy, Domination of Cross by shouting/ cutting off / talking over your opponents.
• Arguing with me after disclosure. It wont change the ballot.
• Packing your things while I am giving you a critique.

Overall, do your best and have a fantastic time. That is why we are all here. If you have any questions about a ballot feel free to e-mail me at mrgambledhs@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

I genuinely don't care how you pronounce my name, don't worry about it.

Hi there! Hopefully you're having a good day, and I hope this paradigm doesn't stress you out!

Summary:

I'm down with you running anything, just if you do run a progressive or very complicated argument, make sure you are very clear in what you're trying to say, and you don't speak too quickly, because I am very bad with progressive arguments.

I don't have like a specific spreading rule, just be respectful of both me and your opponent when it comes to spreading - if your opponent asks you to not spread or do it reasonably, please comply. Additionally, I'm not very good with spreading, if you have to its fine, but d your best to be clear

Don't be hateful. Our world is already hateful enough, respect your opponent. Any signs of disrespect or intense hatred towards an opponent is enough to get you voted down on my ballot.

I really don't care about disclosure theory. I'm so tired of running this argument or seeing it ran, and personally I just don't buy it. Save you and your opponent some time, and don't run it.

Debate is about having a conversation, since we all know having a good one has become harder in these times. While maybe not a voter, you'll earn my respect and speaker points for trying to be kind to your opponents and not going out of your way to exclude them from the debate.

If you didn't read the paradigm, and do anything explicitly mentioned here that I just said not to do, I'm not mad, just disappointed. You won't be voted down for doing things I'm against like disclosure, but it really won't be good for your case.

In spite of all of this, I hope your not too scared or anything - I want to see every debater doing what they're best at, and I will accept all kinds of debate. Debate is supposed to be both fun and educational, and I'll do my best to be kind during the round.

I am an Arkansas Speech and Debate alum and a current college freshman living in Pennsylvania! During my time competing, I mostly did Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate.

For debate, I value a clear line of reasoning within your case and sufficient evidence to back to your claims. But even more than this, the presentation of your argument is what I will focus on the most when it comes to judging. Debate is meant to be accesible, so there is no need to over complicate your argument or speak at an unreasonable speed (this also makes the life of your judge so much easier!!!). Make sure you are well rehearsed and articulating your ideas well.

For speech/forensics, I value performance quality and (like stated before), the presentation of your piece. Speaking clearly and staying confident the entirety of the performance makes a big difference!

Moreover, please be respectful of others and do not create an unwelcoming or uncomfortable environment. This includes interrupting your opponent while they are giving a speech, insulting someone’s character, or being disrespectful while others are speaking. If I see anything of the sort occur during a round, it will impact the overall results.

To close, my biggest advice is to have fun and allow yourself to make mistakes! At the end of the day, everyone is here to learn, and the best way to do this is to fail and keep trying.

Best of luck! :)))

This is my third year as a parent judge. I have judged LD, BQ, PF, IPDA, EXT, Declamation, and Congress both at local tournaments and at Nationals . I try to focus on the speaker and only take key notes during the round. I like to see the speaker talk to the judges and not the podium (scanning all the judges, try not to focus on one judge). Be passionate about your topics. I am not to concerned with time. If you run over a few seconds I would rather you finish the sentence than stop talking abruptly. I cannot keep up with spreading.

Lisa Haddock

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

I have been working with the debate team at our school for 4 year and judging for at least 3. I am a High School/College teacher in both US and World History. This means I am very well versed in history. I am well versed in research and bias of sources. In Debate rounds I want well researched cases with strong evidence. I also like connections, your evidence needs to connect to your points and support your claims, free floating evidence does not apply anywhere in the round. I expect a synopsis for voters as well, if you don't give me voters I will use my own observations to way the round, which may not be how you want me to vote. That being said, being too pushy may push me away from your position. Give voters that I can consider and persuade me why you should win on the logic and evidence of the case. I am not a fan of spreading. I would rather have you present a case with a few strong points than a lot of little ones. I do not like it when competitors are rude to one another. No matter how heated the battle or frustrated you get, politeness goes a long way with me.

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

LINCOLN - DOUGLAS

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

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

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

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

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

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

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

I am a traditional lay judge, nothing progressive. I have a son who does debate and I stay pretty well informed on most topics. I appreciate professionalism in rounds. I am okay if you talk fast, but I am not always good at listening fast. Just do your best and make good arguments.

Experience: Competed for the University of Arkansas (2000-05); Coach at the University of Central Arkansas (2007-present). Most of that experience is in IPDA. While I appreciate and am happy to judge other forms of debate, I'm an IPDA purist at heart, and that governs my philosophy. I'm also a licensed attorney and spent seven years working for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. My job involved reading arguments with real-world consequences. While I am willing to vote for any well-reasoned argument, I'm a policymaker judge more than anything.

Delivery: I'm not a fan of speed. I sometimes listen to podcasts at 1.5x speed, and that is about as fast as I would prefer a debater go before I get uncomfortable. If it is a form of debate where speed is frowned upon (basically anything other than CEDA/Policy) and you speed, it will be reflected in your speaker points, even if I can follow you.

Don't spread. I would rather hear three well-developed arguments than 5-6 poor ones.

Speaker Points: Pretty arbitrary, especially if the ballot does not contain a rubric. If it is an IPDA round, I will have traditional criteria in mind: delivery, courtesy, organization, tone, logic, support, CX, refutation. Each is assessed on a 5-point scale. I will add them up, and that will be your total. An average debater will receive a 4 in each category, a good debater will receive a 5. I won't go less than 3 in a category unless you affirmatively do something to warrant it.

Case and Burdens: Unless it is a public forum round, the affirmative has the burden of proof, and the negative has the burden of clash. Failing to meet that burden is an automatic L before we reach the rebuttals. If it is an IPDA round and both sides fail their respective burdens, I will default to the stronger speaker.

As a policymaker judge, I would prefer to vote based on the merits/demerits of the resolution itself, especially if it is form of debate where you get to choose the topic. I'll vote on topicality, but if it is close, I'll give the affirmative the benefit of the doubt. (If you are going to run T, I'm big on framer's intent.)

I'm willing to vote for a K, but again, I would rather vote on the merits of the resolution itself. Like topicality, the affirmative will get the benefit of the doubt if it is close. Also, assume that I know little to nothing about the theory and prepare to explain it to me.

I flow the round. By the time we get to rebuttals, you should be telling me why you have won the round. Put out any fires created by your opponent's previous speech if necessary, but please don't go line by line. I'm very big on impact calculus, especially if the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, comparative advantage, or something similar.

Evidence: Quality over quantity. Better evidence beats more evidence. Explain why your evidence supports your case. I do not enjoy rounds where debaters dump numbers and stats without context. Second, source presses are a waste of time unless (1) your opponent makes a spurious claim or (2) you have evidence that contradicts your opponents. If the only argument you have against an argument is that no source was provided, you will lose that argument unless you explain why the lack of source is important.

Topic Disclosure: If the resolution is straightforward and affirmative's interpretation is in line, I will not entertain an argument that the debate was unfair due to a lack of disclosure. If the resolution is metaphorical or otherwise vague, you should probably disclose.

While I will not punish a debate who does not disclose, I will DQ a debater who gives a false or misleading disclosure. At the same time, I believe that the affirmative is entitled to use the prep time as they see fit. If your plan takes you in a different direction, you are entitled to change your mind (especially if the negative pressed you for disclosure before you started prepping your case). But be reasonable. Doing so with twenty minutes of prep left is fine. Doing so with ten minutes left is not.

NPDA debaters: I miss points of information. Please use them.

Background/ Experience:

I have competed in several IPDA and Lincoln Douglas events, as well as congressional. I won 2nd place in the National IPDA tournament last year.

Likes:

I love a solid, clear argument that maintains the clash. I also love when you can tie your case into your weighing mechanism or value/value criterion.

Dislikes:

Disrespect. The point is to not bash your opponent but to clash with their case. Please do not spread in your round, as that makes it difficult for both your opponent and me.

Decorum and Professionalism are of utmost importance, especially verbally! I do not want to see any disrespect between opponents!

This is a debate, and it should feel like one! No spreading or talking so fast that I can't understand you. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you properly.

Know your case! I don't want to feel like you are reading verbatim from your notes. Look up once in a while! If you are going to just read your case to me instead of actively presenting your case and debating your opponent, I will judge you accordingly.

Come to the round prepared! While confidence and speaking tone are important, it is not all that the round is judged on. You must present a better argument, even if your speaking tone isn't as loud as your opponent's!

Debate requires CLASH! You must be able to clearly and effectively refute your opponent's claims. No clash means no debate! I want to see passion and confidence!

I flow the round so am aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - do not claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't - it could cost you the ballot.

Please only debate the resolution you have been given and do not focus on anything else.

HAVE FUN!!! Give it your best and leave feeling accomplished in your efforts, the world will not end if you don't win this round!

On a lighter note, I love a good cross! I love when questions aren't the general "Can you state all of your contentions again...." and are used more for engaging your opponent on points they just made that you could challenge and make flow to your side!

**For Nationals Policy Paradigm, scroll to the bottom**

General Debate Paradigm:

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

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

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge.

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

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

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

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

A word about style within the round:

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

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

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- NATIONALS 2024 POLICY PARADIGM-

Going to be honest here, policy is not my favorite style. I am not a fan of spreading, speed dropping cards, and theory arguments before the resolution. I won’t buy card formatting arguments or other fringe or minor arguments that do not deal directly with the administration of the cases in the round.

Aff Burden: I am an old school Policy Judge. Aff needs to set a Plan that is well thought out, supported with cards, and a detailed and nuanced Plan that takes into account the harms/ads/disads and impacts of the Plan. Plan needs to think through all the standard planks.(• Topicality • Harms / Inherency • Significance • Solvency • Advantages / Disadvantages) If you run something that is not a plan, it is hard to address/solve the burden of the Aff which is to propose a Plan.

Neg Burden: I’m ok with the Neg focus on counterplans and but my main focus as the judge is if the plan is well supported, funded, enforced and FESABILE. Neg should pressure test the Aff plan and be able to show how the plan presented, originating from the three possible policy applications, may have flaws/shortcomings/disads/impacts that the Aff may not be looking at or see. Neg needs to keep it topical though, I will not be buying any argumentation that reducing Social Security would lead to nuclear war, or anything of the like. If Neg does not establish and maintain strong link chains and impacts its going to be hard to show the flaws and get around or past the Aff plan.

Disclosure Note: So when it comes to disclosure, I am not going to factor into a decision disclosure of cases online well before the round. I would love a copy of the case in paper or digital form before you start, I feel it is required if you plan to spread. If you expect me to flow your spreading without some form of your case I will not flow your case, I will just put my pen down. If you go at a moderate speed, I can and will flow with you but would still appreciate a copy of the case to look at in case I have questions. If you are doing a piecemeal Neg case that is Straight Refusal and line by line, then no case is needed but make sure you go slow enough that I can flow it out.

Cards Note: If you have the card, be able to provide it if asked. I prefer paper cards, but know that is way Old School so make sure I have your Linktree/Drive or something established so if I have a question on a card I can see it. If it sounds too good to be true don’t be surprised or offended if I ask to see it. Also, do not try to discredit cards due to templating, without a National template I am not the style police for carding, if they made an effort, can provide it and it makes sense it is admissible to use in the round.

Spreading Note: Honestly, not a fan of spreading, it is a choice in delivery, and not a requirement. You have 8 mins to set the case, if you need to sacrifice speed for speaking I think that your case is overloaded and you are card slamming just to give the opponents more to answer. I think spreading takes away from the communication of debate and would rather hear the arguments and experience the clash then hear someone mumble their case at me. Set the case as you choose but then give the spreading a break and advocate for why your case is a good thing and should win. If you spread every speech at me with no real application or connection it will be a hard win. Just being honest.

Importance of Impacts: I am a impacts debater, meaning I want to see the impacts that a line of argument of questioning have on the status quo or proposed Aff/Neg world. I often follow the line for impacts to a ballot so be sure to apply the impacts of your attacks all the way through. Don’t just stop at the evidence and ask me to apply it for you, show me your warrants to get that impact!

What doesn’t Flow: I flow cross if it applies to advancing argumentation. I don’t flow ad hominum/personal attacks. I will flow case side extensions but not too late in the case and will always flow impacts and stock issues flowovers if set up and backed up with cards.

Plan Planks Priority: For me the order goes, from most to least important:

Topicality, Solvency, Advantages/Disadvantages, Harms/Inherency, Significance

New coach here. I'm familiar with speech and forensics, but new to debate.

Please don't spread. I'm not savvy enough to figure out what you are saying and flow your case.

Please be respectful to your competitors.

I value truth over tech and focus on the impacts for my decisions.

I'm looking forward to your debate, best of luck.

Yes, email chain: qmwallace89@gmail.com

I'm a former debater, but I'm returning to judge after many years away from competition. As a judge, I want you to understand how I'll weigh your arguments, what will be the consequences of dropping arguments versus extending arguments, etc.

truth

You win points with me through arguing specificity. Since your job is to persuade, I expect a good clash. I'm judging your ability to argue rhetorical fallacies or consequences of the aff or neg. Again, when you raise your arguments, be consistent and extend the argument through your speech.

Speed

Speed is fine, but clarity is king.

I am a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.

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