Hi, my name is Chris and I am a college student with a history of BP, LD, and PF debate in HS.

Add me to your link chain: cblaschak15@gmail.com

I’m open to voting on any argument. My explained preferences just based on the styles I'm most familiar with. If you run something outside of these, that’s cool, but you need to explain it more clearly for me to evaluate it effectively. If it’s well explained, I’m willing to vote on it. If you spread pretty fast please let me know beforehand so I can preflow. If I can’t understand I’ll yell “clear”; I will knock off speaks if done multiple times.

General Prefs:

FW/Phil 1

Theory 2

Ks 2/3

Larp 3

Tricks 3

Trad 6

Speaks: I'll start at 28.5 and adjust from there.

Trad: Simple and straightforward; this is fine, just kind of boring and tedious for me. "My opponent doesn't have a card for that" is not an argument I'll vote on; provide warrants for your arguments.

Framework: I like these. I’m familiar with most common frameworks: Kant (interps like Korsgard work), any form of util/consequentialism, any libertarian like Nozick or Rothbard, realism/Machivellianism, Nietzsche (be careful if you run this). I also like Aristotelianism & Scholasticism if you want to be really unique; your choice.), just don’t expect me to know every niche philosopher. However please I would prefer if you don't read PASSIVE nihilism, morality=bad FWs, death=good, determinism etc, unless you want to start off with a low bar.

Theory: I'm fine with theory. I'll eval shells, just don't run friv (ie. Fortnite) or anything. Also please don't give me a CI without clash; I am not inclined to vote on the CI unless you give me warrants why it's better.

Tricks: I’m open to voting but skeptical and also not too familiar. Just please explain it to me and give me some good warrants.

Kritiks: I’m open to critical theory (preferably linked to the aff), please don’t pref me if you are gonna run a disorganized and sloppy K. I'm most familiar with setcol and cap K's, including anything related to (neo)marxism, french postmodernism (Foucault), accelerationism (Nick Land, Mark Fisher)

LARP: Definitely a lot less boring than trad, but if you’re mainly a LARPer I wouldn’t suggest putting me up for high prefs. I will definitely still vote for LARP, though. Please go only around 80% speed, or tell me to preflow before the round.

PF: I'll assume generally most rounds will be lay, meaning I'll automatically weigh under impact calc unless others FWs are given. If you want to use more prog arguments I wont stop you but try to make to your args as accessible as possible to average PF people.

That’s mostly it, just remember to have fun and enjoy yourself. If you have any questions, just ask me.

Hi there! My name is Vicki Childs and I am the mom of a Varsity LD debater.

I have judged Novice LD for two years now. I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, and also, please don't spread etc - I'm not quite ready for that yet! Please keep debate jargon and theory to a minimum, and finally please be respectful to everyone in the room.

Debate Judging Paradigm

I bring experience as a former collegiate debater and a coach with four years of experience. My focus is on clarity, logical argumentation, and strategy. Below are the key points that guide my judging:

1. Clarity over Speed: I value clear communication. While speed is acceptable, spreading that sacrifices clarity may hinder your ability to persuade me. If I can’t follow your arguments, I won’t be able to evaluate them. If you spread, ensure your tags, authors, and warrants are clear.

2. Tech > Truth: I default to technical debate; I will evaluate the round based on the flow and the arguments presented. However, arguments must still have warranted impacts—assertions without explanation won’t carry much weight.

3. Framework and Role of the Ballot: Clearly establish the framework and articulate how I should weigh the round. If no framework is provided, I’ll default to a utilitarian weighing mechanism unless the debate persuades me otherwise.

4. Evidence and Analysis: Evidence quality matters but so does how you use it. A well-explained analytical argument can outweigh poorly warranted card dumps. Highlight critical evidence and explain its impact in the round.

5. Weighing and Impact Calculus: I appreciate strong weighing mechanisms and comparative analysis in rebuttals. Explain why your impacts matter most and how they outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

6. Cross-Examination and Respect: Cross-examination is an opportunity to showcase strategic thinking, but it should remain professional. I value respect and decorum throughout the round.

7. Dropped Arguments: Dropped arguments are important but must still have an explanation of why they matter. I won’t evaluate an unwarranted point, even if it’s dropped.

8. Miscellaneous: Please slow down on theory or dense philosophical arguments. I appreciate creativity but explain how niche arguments function within the round.

Speech Events (Interp & Platform)

General Philosophy:
I approach speech events with an emphasis on performance, clarity, structure, and emotional impact. Regardless of the event, I reward speakers who are passionate, polished, and purposeful in their delivery.

What I’m Looking For:

• Interp (HI, DI, Duo, POI, etc.):

  • Strong characterization and clear transitions.
  • Emotional depth (especially in DI and POI) and humor that lands appropriately (in HI and Duo).
  • Cohesive blocking that enhances the story without being distracting.
  • Clear thematic intent and purpose, especially in POI.

• Platform (OO, INFO, etc.):

  • A clear, original thesis that’s well-supported.
  • Strong use of credible sources with proper citation.
  • Effective delivery with vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact.
  • Creative or unique perspectives that avoid generic topics.

Things I Value:

• Memorization without sounding robotic—natural delivery is key.
• Purposeful movement that complements, not distracts.
• Strong intros and outros that frame the performance.

Pet Peeves:

• Overly exaggerated acting or gestures in Interp.
• Reading too much from visual aids in Info.
• Relying on shock value without depth.

Limited Prep (Extemporaneous & Impromptu)

General Philosophy:
In Limited Prep events, I value organization, analysis, and confident delivery. Speakers should showcase their critical thinking and ability to construct clear arguments under time constraints.

What I’m Looking For:

• Extemporaneous Speaking (USX/IX):

  • Direct answers to the prompt with a clear thesis.
  • Structured speech (typically 3 points) with logical flow.
  • Strong, credible evidence that supports your arguments.
  • Insightful analysis—don’t just state facts, explain significance.
  • Confident, engaging delivery without over-reliance on notes.

• Impromptu:

  • Clear structure (commonly point 1, point 2, point 3) with a strong intro and conclusion.
  • Creative, insightful connections to the prompt.
  • Use of personal anecdotes, historical examples, or cultural references to support arguments.
  • Engaging, natural delivery that balances humor, reflection, or insight.

Things I Value:

• Strong hooks and memorable conclusions.
• Speakers who adapt to the audience and make the topic relatable.
• Confident, fluid delivery that doesn’t feel rushed.

Pet Peeves:

• Failing to directly answer the prompt in Extemp.
• Rambling or disorganized thoughts in Impromptu.
• Overly scripted delivery—Limited Prep should feel natural and adaptable.

Congressional Debate

General Philosophy:
In Congress, I reward eloquence, strategic thinking, and engagement. The best debaters balance strong arguments with active participation and respectful discourse.

What I’m Looking For:

• Content:

  • Well-reasoned arguments backed by credible evidence.
  • Clear clash and direct refutation of opposing arguments.
  • Impact analysis—explain why your argument matters.

• Delivery:

  • Persuasive and confident speaking with good pacing.
  • Vocal variety, eye contact, and clear articulation.
  • Professionalism and decorum in speech and conduct.

• Strategy & Engagement:

  • Effective use of parliamentary procedure (motions, questioning).
  • Active and respectful participation in questioning.
  • Balance between speaking, questioning, and chamber engagement.

Things I Value:

• Clear frameworks and roadmaps in speeches.
• Questioners who ask probing, non-leading questions.
• Strong analysis over evidence dumps.

Pet Peeves:

• Grandstanding or dominating the floor.
• Reading entire speeches word-for-word with no engagement.
• Overly aggressive or hostile questioning.

I expect a respectful and cordial debate from all of the sides and look forward to hearing your presentation. My preferred debate rate of delivery is lower than eight.

I'm an experienced judge and current coach, with a specific focus on the speech and deliver side of the art of public speaking.

Debate:

-Affirmative/Pro please stand on my right and Negative/Con on my left

-Off the clock rules explanations and road-mapping permitted

-No off the clock argumentation

-Do not ask judge for clarification after the round has ended.

-"Spreading" arguments will not result in material point gain if the arguments raised are not fully supported or are presented haphazardly. I can reasonably flow complex arguments at a 6/10 spread rate. Anything higher becomes increasingly incomprehensible.

-Competitors will be penalized if they negligently cause other competitors to be disrupted (e.g.phone or laptop noises during opponent's speech). Competitors that purposefully disrupt another speaker will be automatically disqualified from winning the round and will suffer penalization to their scores.

Congress:

-Please state your name, code, bill number, and aff/neg before speaking. Students who fail to do so may risk incorrect notes.

-Please no spreading

Speech:

-EXTEMPORANEOUS: Please verbally confirm your speaker code and topic. If you have a written copy of your topic, please provide. It helps a lot. Sources, analysis, delivery are equally vital to your success.

-ORIGINAL ORATORY: sources, analysis, and delivery are equally vital to your success

-All IE's... have fun and adhere to time constraints.

Hello, I am a new judge, here are a few preferences:

1) Clear logic is the most important in debate.

2) Please use solid evidence to support argument.

3) Circular reasoning doesn't help.

4）Respect your colleagues and opponents.

5) Maintain eye contacts with audience, reading from notes makes bad impression

Hello, I am a first time parent judge.
Please speak at a reasonable pace, respect your opponent, and debate the resolution. My judging style will emphasize clarity, logical reasoning and effective communication.

Dornett Mullings

Please add me to the chain: jpaul3405@gmail.com.

This is a new paradigm based on my observations judging, so if I've judged you in the past, I'd rely on the below:

I have a foundation in Policy Debate, but transitioned to LD my last three debating years because listening to teams spread incomprehensibly was unbearable. For context, that was a quarter century ago, so debate has obviously changed quite a bit. Won some stuff in LD, helped start the debate program at Lafayette College (Easton, PA), and then went to UM Law. Now back as a parent judge.

I am old, so I only flow on paper. I am strictly tabula rasa, and Tech>truth. It is on you to speak slowly enough that I can flow without looking at your speech doc. I'm only going to flow what was actually said in the round. While I don't flow cross line by line, per se, it still can factor into who wins the debate.

I enjoy framework debate in LD and believe every word in the resolution has meaning and is fairly debatable. The word ought still remains in every resolution I've ever seen, and I still look at LD as value debate. If framework is punted by both sides, I will go where the debaters take me, and am fine with a strictly util debate if that's what you all want. That said, my LD roots are most definitely in philosophy. Ks are fine.

If it is a util debate, I am going to be especially interested in the quality of the cards/evidence. I prefer debaters that take the time to truly understand the evidence/studies/positions that they are espousing and avoid misuse and/or miscategorization of the actual material being read.

The flow sheet means very little to me if you don't effectively weigh/crystallize.

Be likeable.

• I'm a parent judge and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

I prefer debaters who speak at a conversational rate and avoid spreading. Define relevant terms clearly. Make your well-structured argument early in the debate. I find arguments grounded in facts and real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. I value rebuttals that are based on quality evidence and clear reasoning.

LD/PF

I'm fairly new at judging, so I will do my best to put comments in and flow. Don't spread! This might be hard for varsity and prog/tech cases, but if I can't understand what you're saying I'll take off speaker points. I would say I can deal with up to 50% of spreading speed.

I am a lay judge and would prefer you not run K's, theory shells, or trix, but you won't get points taken off just if you run them.

Truth>Tech

Obviously, don't use slurs, discriminatory language, or say things that have nothing to do with the round.

I look forward to judging your round!

Name: Brad Zinn
Affiliation: CGHS
Experience: Lay judge, parent. Three years LD Debate at St Thomas Aquinas,.. Class of 86’

I am. Dad of a Debater. I did debate at St Thomas Aquinas HS a long time ago. Many Lawyers as friends and business associates. I am no stranger to arguments of all kinds within competition in and outside of it. I believe I end up judging LD, so my paradigm is for that.

General Philosophy:

I like civility in the room, Be respectful to gain respect. You don’t need to change your style of speaking for me. But speak clearly. Not a fan of spreading. Don’t use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short, Otherwise the argument will be lost on me,

I give a lot of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that. Do not bring in controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary.

I don't take a lot notes so don’t try and pull fast ones, chances are I will catch it.

Judging:

I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist etc, you will be marked down to the lowest. No kritik (K)

Let your opponent complete their thoughts in cross before interrupting.

General:

If you need any clarification just ask, we will figure it out.

Do your best and good luck!