Hi,

I'm Ksenia (she/her)

Current BP debater and I debated pf, parli, and ethics bowl throughout high school. In general:

• Weigh!!!
• Please include me on your email evidence chain and if you have questions after a round, feel free to reach out: kbaatz3@gmail.com
• If you promote sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, classist, etc... arguments then I will, at minimum, drop the arguments from my flow and dock your speaks.
• If you are in an online tournament, please don't show your phone timer on the screen unless your opponent is exhorbitantly over time (30 sec or so). This is just a personal pet peeve. I will also keep track of time.
• Well explained, reasonable analytics > random cards.
• It is totally reasonable to indight evidence when giving refutations, but try to go further. Provide logical arguments for why their contention is outwieghed, incorrect, turned, etc...
• I am open to voting for more creative and out-there arguments as long as you can reason them out clearly. I started debating in policy so if you want to go for big impacts, be my guest, just be sure you can logically substantiate it.
• I'm comfortable with progressive argumentation (particularly K's, T's and Theory). The only prog argument I would discourage is disclo theory because it is often used against less experienced debaters to get free wins for varsity teams. Also, disclo debates are often less interesting because everyone uses the same exact arguments. Be creative.

I did high school policy debate all four years in the late 90s and early 2000s and then took a very long break. I'm getting up to speed on the "new" arguments. I've judged a few middle school tournaments this year- mostly varsity or JV and a few novice. I'm pretty well versed on most disads/arguments/topicality etc. and am willing to vote on most things as long as they are argued and explained well.

SPEED: No problems with speed but you must be CLEAR. If I can't understand you, your argument may be missed and go unflowed which means I won't be able to weigh it it come decision time. If I can't understand you during your speech, as a courtesy I will say "clear" a couple of times but if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing. I encourage you to slow down for the tag and author but it's fine to speed up in your cards. Try to make distinctions between each arguments with either numbers or a "next". Same with line-by-line.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/K: I think there are better arguments to vote on than topicality but if you have a compelling argument and the aff is clearly in violation, I will vote on it. Same with theory. I'm not super current on the new theory debate or K's but if its run well and is accurate, I will vote on it.

Language is fine, be nice to each other and remember that it's JUST a debate round so while your cards may all say "nuclear war" for everything, I can assure you that the world is not that dramatic :)

kailey --- they/she

strongpowerfulmenwhocandebate@gmail.com

tech>truth

--------speaks--------

---be respectful to your PARTNER, OPPONENTS, ME, COACHES, and importantly: YOURSELF.

---do line by line and signpost when you're moving from argument to argument

---make funny jokes about: will sterbenc, saad khan, vivi webb, reagan subeck, raman mazhankou, or any niles north folk

--------don't do these things--------

---stealing prep [preparing for speeches without running prep time]

---any of the isms: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, yk all the phobias. that's ground for me giving you the lowest speaks i can, auto L + emailing your coach

--------the actual debate--------

T/L

---roadmaps: give them! "i am just going to respond to what my opponents said" is not a real order.

---i will vote on things that are straightup not true if they are warranted out correctly/dropped

AFF

---i am a 2a with an extremely high aff elo- MY RECORD DOESNT LOOK LIKE IT BUT I AM A GOOD JUDGE FOR THE AFF!

---k affs shouldn't be read by novices. if you read one in front of me, you better entertain me, because i will be sad

NEG

---please condense in the 2NR.....go for one thing!!!

---topicality: i love these debates...as for this topic, RAHHHH it's s2 and there are still no limits on the topic...i feel bad for u 2ns, the closest we get to limits is t strengthen or subsets. i am sympathetic to thse debates

---counterplans: judge kick if you tell me to, i <3 cheaty process cps, i normally go like 9 off in my own debates but i'm also p good for condo on the aff

---kritiks: i'm bad for these esp like less techy stuff (like even the cap k in front of me is pushing it)

---disads: underrated asf. innovation or patents bad cracked on this topic. if you're going for the squo you should probably mitigate the case

---impact turns: mwah but no death good in my rounds please

Walter Payton '27 -- 2 years of high school debate (1 year novice 1 year Varsity)

Maximilian Dan (call me Maxi)

mpdan@cps.edu

Tech >>>>> truth

I'm a debater at Walter Payton College Prep (you should go here for high school!!). This is one of my first times judging any debate, as well as my second time using the middle school rules instead of the high school ones, so let me know if i'm doing anything wrong.

At the middle school level: I don't think you need to change any aspect of your debating to please me. Please just speak clearly and understand the basics.

But, if you want a better chance of winning / to get a head start on high school debating skills/ to make my life easier, here are some aspect of debate to focus on.

1. Clash---PLEASE try and specifically answer the other team's arguments. The team who can exploit weaknesses in the others' arguments and explain why they should win because of them is probably the team that I will vote for. Go after their evidence, their authors, their link chain, their logic, etc.! Most cards aren't as good as the tag makes them out to be. I'd rather vote on 1-2 cards supporting an argument with good analytical reasoning why they constitute a win over 5 cards with no reasoning whatsoever.

2. The 2nr/2ar should explicitly tell me why that team should win and give me a reason why your arguments are better than the other team's. Impact calc is amazing and it can get you an easy win if you do it right.

3. If the other side dropped an argument, you need to clearly tell me that they dropped it and how it affects their other arguments/your arguments.

4. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll say "Clear". If I have to say that 3 times, I'll stop flowing your speech -- clarity > speed

5. I value the quality of the arguments over its presentation. The only exception to this is if I can't understand what you're saying.

6. I'm completely fine with Jargon and tech language

TL;DR:

• Josh, Friess, whatever, but ideally not "judge" (he/him)

• Coach at Avery Coonley, a Chicago-area K-8 school with a middle school program (our more experienced kids often compete in HS JV-ish) and a start-up high school club

• Former national circuit high school policy debater from the mid-1990's, ~20 year break, getting close to fully back up to speed now. I've worked to ensure my speaks are very close to modern national norms despite my age.

• Good for policy args, T, theory, CP's, all that

• That said, less jargon, more explanation on theory is helpful

• I've been told by “K debaters” that I am "not good for the K". (You know who you are… :-) ). I think this approximately half-correct, with some key nuance attached:

• I’m actually quite willing to vote for your arguments, on either side, which is heavily supported by my actual voting record. The primary issue is that I often don’t understand your arguments.

• You can help this dramatically and therefore substantially enhance your odds of winning by:

• Slowing down – like, maybe even way down.

• Using less jargon and instead explaining your arguments in as simple of terms as possible.

• Offering more thorough explanations than you might otherwise.

• Having arguments that are well-organized -- signposted and responsive to the other side.

• Creating and explaining a linear path / logic chain to the ballot that is supported by the flow.

• If you’re unable or unwilling to do the above, while I will do my best to be objective, there’s a reasonable chance my RFD is “I didn’t understand your argument, I’m voting for the other side.” This is true even if you clearly "sound" better.

With all that said, my general approach is to assess the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters, with as little intervention by me as possible, and where tech dominates truth. The remainder of this paradigm should be viewed in that light -- that is, it's a heads up on my general perspectives on debate that may or may not be helpful to you, but if we're all doing our jobs well, my perspectives shouldn't really matter and shouldn't enter into the RFD.

The specifics below are really intended to highlight a handful of areas where my own views or capabilities may differ from other judges.

********

Flowing / speed / clarity: I flow on paper. Please don't start your speech until you've given a roadmap, and until it's clear that I'm ready.

If you're an experienced high school debater, please know that my ear for speed is maybe only 90% of what it once was. I would suggest going a little bit slower everywhere except the body of cards. (That said, I do pay attention to what is read in the body of cards, and only consider a card to be evidenced to the extent that it is actually read in the round.) You certainly don't need to be at normal-person conversational speed, but taking 10-20% of your speed off may be helpful to you.

It is extremely helpful when debaters include some sort of unambiguous verbal indicator at the end of a card and before the following tag. A very brief pause is a start. A simple and clear "Next" is better. While it may be old-school, and very slightly inefficient, I'm still partial to some sort of number or letter in early constructives, particularly because numbers and letters allow for easier signposting in the line-by-line in later speeches. (Though, I also tend to hate 1-a-b-c, 2-a-b-c, etc., unless the sub-structure is highly related to itself, e.g., CP theory.)

There's an extent to which line-by-line seems to be a lost art, as does flowing. To an extent, I'll try to do the work for you and see if a given argument has in fact been dropped, but the best way to ensure that my flow has you covering everything is to signpost everything, and respond / extend in the order of the original line-by-line, i.e., the 1NC on-case and the 2AC off-case.

Please send speech docs. Ideally, we should be using share.tabroom.com, speechdrop.net, or similar. If for some reason that is not possible, I will provide my email address before the round. In middle school and high school novice, my standard policy is to *not* follow along in the file, and I won't read cards unless I need to do so at the end of the round in order to assess some question of evidence. At the high school JV and Varsity levels, I'm more willing to follow along in the speech doc in order to do my part to adapt to you. But, I still expect clarity, signposting, and modulating speed on tags and cites.

Also, particularly at the high school JV / Varsity levels, I would strongly advise against reeling off multiple blippy analytics in the course of several seconds. If you do so, then if you're lucky, I will get one out of every four arguments on my flow, and it may not be the one you want the most. If there's a round-winning argument that you need me to understand, best to explain it thoroughly rather than assume I will understand the argument based on just a handful of words. This is all the more true if your delivery relies excessively on debate jargon, the more modern forms of which I may not yet be familiar. Please trust that I'm doing my level best, and that I'll be able to follow you when you're explaining things reasonably well.

In the end, if it's not on my flow, I can't assess it as part of the round, even if it's in your doc.

Kritiks: I have no principled opposition to voting on kritiks. This includes kritiks on the Aff. I do think Aff has the burden of proof to win definitively that they do not or should not need to have a topical plan. That is a burden that I have seen overcome, though the more of these rounds I see, the tougher this sell becomes for me. Regardless, in the end this is a question that I'll resolve based on the flow.

I'm arguably not clever enough to understand many kritiks -- I dropped the philosophy major because I couldn't hack it, and became a physics/math major instead -- so persuading me to vote on the basis of a kritik may require a fair bit more explanation than you would typically offer. I will take no shame in telling you that I straight up didn't understand your argument and couldn't vote on it as a result. This most likely occurs if you overly rely on philosophical jargon. If anything, my lack of experience relative to other judges in this particular debate subspace probably provides a natural check on teams reading arguments that they don't understand themselves. I'll posit that if you can't explain your argument in reasonably simple terms, then you probably don't understand it, and shouldn't win on it.

I'll say as well that I've judged a number of K teams that seem to rely heavily on blocks that have been prepared fully in advance, or maybe very slightly tweaked from what's been prepared in advance, with little attempt to actually engage with the other side. First, I find these speeches pretty tough to flow, since they're often extremely dense in content with little attempt to engage with their audience. Second, I happen to think this over-reliance on advance-prepared speeches is rather horrible for the educational value of the activity. It pretty severely undermines the "K debates are better for education" argument, and it also acts as a fairly real-time demonstration of the "link" on "K debates are bad for clash". I'm likely to be highly sympathetic to an opposing side that has any reasonable degree of superior technical execution when K teams engage in this practice.

It might be worth you knowing that K's were not really a thing yet back when I was debating. Or rather, they were just in their infancy (particularly in high school), rarely run, and/or they were uniformly terrible arguments that I don't think are run much anymore (e.g., Normativity, Objectivism, Foucault, Heidegger). Teams argued the theoretical legitimacy of the Kritik, and whether or not they should be evaluated as part of the ballot, but these arguments weren't unified under a notion of "Framework". Alt's definitely weren't a thing, nor were Kritiks on the Aff at the high school level.

Disads: I've quickly grown wary of Neg's erroneously claiming that their disad "turns case". There's a crucial difference between a disad "turning case" (i.e., your disad somehow results in the Aff no longer accessing their own impact, and in fact, causing their own impact) and "outweighing case" (i.e., your disad simply has a shorter timeframe, higher probability, or greater magnitude than the case). I've become increasingly convinced that Neg's are simply asserting -- unwarranted both in fact and in claim -- that their disad "turns case" in the hopes of duping the judge into essentially making the disad a litmus test for the ballot. If your disad legitimately turns the case, then that's awesome -- make the argument. However I think bona fide claims of "turning case" occur far less often than Neg's want us to believe. In the end, this is not much more than a pet peeve, but a pet peeve nonetheless.

Stolen from Yao Yao: "Uniqueness only 'controls the direction of the link' if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately." -- Yes, exactly this. I'd go a step further and claim that on certain disads where uniqueness is probabilistically bound to a range that is far from both zero and 100% (e.g., elections, which is usually at best 70% unique and at worst 30% non-unique) then uniqueness is effectively irrelevant, and only the direction of the link matters. At the end of the day, I'm trying to evaluate net risk.

CP's: Counterplans need a solvency claim/warrant, but not necessarily a solvency advocate, per se. That is, if the CP's solvency is a logical extension of the Aff's solvency mechanism, no solvency evidence should be required.

Rehighlightings: I am perfectly fine with you summarizing why the other side's evidence doesn't say what they say it says. I do not see a need for rehighlightings to be explicitly "read into the round". Why not? Well, if Side A is reading evidence that is mishighlighted, taken out of context, etc., Side B should have to do as little in-speech work as possible to make the argument. Side B shouldn't need to waste their speech time reading the correct parts of Side A's poorly highlighted evidence. Side B still needs to explain what Side A's evidence actually says, and tell me what I should be looking for in reading the card. In other words, it's insufficient to simply state "their card is mistagged". But, "their card is mistagged; the author is actually saying X,Y,Z; here's why that matters" is generally sufficient. Of course, if Side B is the one who's actually misunderstanding the evidence, or worse, intentionally mischaracterizing it, that's not a great look and is likely to result in lower speaks.

Theory / Ethics / General Behavior: I tend to be more sympathetic to teams launching legitimate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly-explained theory arguments than it seems many more modern judges may be, up to and including "reject the team, not the argument".

When it comes to ethics and general in-round behavior, it seems that many paradigms contain a whole host of info on what judges think debate “should” be, how debaters “should” act, and/or the judge’s perceived level of fairness of certain tactics.

My own paradigm used to contain similar info, but I’ve since removed it. Why? Because I think including such info creates a moral hazard of sorts. Debaters that are predisposed to behave in certain ways or deploy certain tactics will simply not do those things in front of judges that call them out in their paradigms, and then go right back to engaging in those behaviors or deploying those tactics in front of judges that don’t. To the extent that judges view themselves at least in part as guardrails on acceptable behavior and/or tactics, it seems to me that a better approach to rooting out negativity might be to put the onus on debaters to be considerate, ethical, and reasonable in deployment of their strategies and tactics – and then, if they aren’t, to mete out appropriate consequences. I do not feel obligated to state ex-ante that “X behavior is an auto-loss” if reasonable judges would conclude similarly and respond accordingly.

Don't worry: I'm not looking to be arbitrary and unreasonable in exercising judicial discretion, nor am I looking to insert my own opinions when teams engage in behavior that's debatably unfair, but goes uncontested by the other side. Just be thoughtful. It’s great to play hard. But if your tactics are questionably fair or bad for debate, be prepared to defend them, or reconsider their use. If the other side is deploying tactics that are questionably fair or bad for debate, make the argument, up to and including “reject the team”. I will evaluate such arguments and their implications based on the flow.

******

With all of that said, I consider myself to be in the midst of getting back up to speed in the modern norms and conventions of our activity, particularly at the high school Varsity level. I'm more than willing to be convinced that I should rethink any and all of the above, whether as part of an in-round debate or out-of-round conversation.

email: aimanimran1314@gmail.com

please be nice to each other and yourselves

NILES NORTH HIGH SCHOOL

!!!VERY IMPORTANT!!!

---i will NOT be called anything but "Bucko"

nilesnorthmk@gmail.com

will vote on literally anything

pls flow

tech>>>>>truth

defer to Raman Mazhankou's paradigm if you don't like mine ;(

Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles

nickloew14@gmail.com

You should read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for. None of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me.

Tech > Truth. Complete arguments require warrants to substantiate them.

T vs Plans- I enjoy well-researched and substantive topicality debates. On the other hand I dislike contrived and unpredictable interpretations that are arbitrary in nature. (T LPR on the HS immigration topic > T substantial on the college alliances topic).

T vs K Affs - I almost always was on the neg going for T in these debates. In front of me the aff is best set up for victory by presenting a counterinterpretation that seeks to solve the negs offense alongside impact turns to the negs model, although of course you can also win with impact turns alone. For me I will say the latter is more difficult as I struggle to vote aff when there is no counterinterp extended in the 2AR to solve some amount of limits/ground.

CPs - I enjoy specific CP strategies that include topic/aff specific evidence. In competition debates I likely lean affirmative when there is relatively equal debating and the neg has presented a CP that generically competes off of certainty or immediacy.

Ks - I like Ks with links to the plan and alternatives that attempt to solve the links impact compared to Ks that rely entirely on framework strategies. That being said, I have still voted for positions that were solely critiques of plan-focus or fiat for example. Overall, I think I’m alright for most critical positions on the neg.

Theory - Often I find myself deciding that conditionality is good.

If you have any specific questions feel free to email me.

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

Lincoln Douglas:

I strongly believe in affirmative disclosure.

Theory: I am mostly unfavorable towards/dislike one sentence theory arguments that seem and are arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, I am unlikely to believe that most theory arguments aside from condo are reasons to reject the debater (ex: solvency advocate theory/states theory/agent CPs etc… is not a reason to reject the team).

Please attempt to be clear. I have found this to be a problem more often in LD likely because of the short speech times.

FAQ: (Copied from Jasmine Stidham's paradigm)

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you. Theory thoughts above.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments however I do not judge many phil debates. You may need to do some policy translation/over-explanation however so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: Avoid reading evidence from debate blogs. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. T whole-rez generally is fine.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'aspec' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. I am annoyed by strategies that rely on your opponent dropping analytics that weren't sent in the document.

Q: RVIs? No 1AR theory?

A: Nope.

hi! please add me to the chain: katelynndebates@gmail.com / klshaw3@cps.edu

I'm pretty cool with whatever! In middle school, I exclusively went for the DA (I was a 2n) and loved case-debating, now I read Black Fem lit on the aff (go 2as!) and still love case-debating.

I'm tech>truth by default but I think in very close debates, the tiebreaker for me is truth.

Forms of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. will result in a 25 and you lose the round. Be kind to your peers; this is a communicative activity; be mindful, please.

Will Sterbenc (pronounced like 'disturbance' but without the di)

sterbencdebate@gmail.com

he/him

Niles North '25

"tech>truth" -Kailey Cabrera

I had a super long, serious-sounding paradigm for the last like 6 months but it's really not that deep. I'll flow every argument you make and I'll vote on any argument. Have fun! Be nice!

20250944@student.nths.net

they/them - call me Skye, not judge

I will not vote on sexist, racist, homophobic, or death good arguments.

Tech>truth.

Arguments need a claim and a warrant. Rounds where arguments don’t have both of those things will end up being very difficult for me to decide.

almost none of the below has actually been relevant in my rounds.

T:

PTV is bad. Very bad. I’m not as anti-ptv as Whitmore, but I do not understand how it doesn’t justify massive effects T.

Personal preference for ground, but I’ll vote for limits any day.

I hate this topic with a burning passion. As such, if you’re aff, you have a better shot going for w/m and reasonability with me.

K:

Explain your K, win framework, and have a link that is something more specific than ‘ip bad’ or ‘state bad’, and I’m okay with voting for you.

That being said, please don’t get too technical. The team that starts their 2R with ‘here’s your ballot if you have no idea what’s going on’ is far more likely to get my vote.

Aff teams: no preference for fairness or clash.

CP:

Process CPs: aff leaning on perms, neg leaning on theory or solvency.

All other CPs: really depends on aff construction. If your 1AC has three or more solvency cards, I err aff on solvency. If it has two or less, I err neg. Very neg leaning on perms. States CP and agent CPs are part of our game.

DA:

Why are people reading perms on DAs without uq cps? Your link doesn’t have to be specific to the plan, it just has to be to the plan.

That being said, I’m coming around on perms to DAs with CPs. I don’t love it, but the innovation DA really might not be competitive against certain affs.

Timeframe. Timeframe timeframe timeframe. Please.

I will dock your speaks(i give high speaks) by 0.1 if you say the words ‘our impact outweighs on magnitude because it’s extinction’ or any version of that. I’m still pretty sure I’ll hear it at least five times in this five round tournament, though.

Theory:

Will vote neg on condo/process cps/neg fiat/etc in basically all instances.

If your ASPEC shell is hidden and something like ‘aspec - they didn’t - that’s a voter for fairness and clash’, the 1A gets new answers.

Disclose your 1AC and past 2NRs- you don’t need to disclose the 1NC.

Relax. Have fun.

Jeremy Wilner (He/Him/His), ACS '24

TECH OVER TRUTH

Exactly what the section title says. Arguments can be stupid. They can be ridiculous. But if you don't say anything in response, I have no choice but to accept it as fact. It won't make me happy. But I absolutely will. I try to bring no personal bias whatsoever into rounds. I have no emotional attachments to any arguments. The only thing that informs my vote is the round. If something absurd is brought up during the round and left unanswered, I am forced to treat it as truth. Please don't make me sad by dropping stupid arguments that would be easy to answer.

TOPICALITY

Some judges think it's weird to run topicality in a core file league. I think it's a perfectly fine argument - IF YOU EXPLAIN WHY I SHOULD VOTE ON IT. Neg, try to come up with something other than predictability - you can obviously predict everything they're running. Aff, if that's their only voting issue, then call them out on it. They aren't being blindsided by your case. They've already pored over it for hours at a time.

However, tech over truth. If the neg claims that they couldn't predict your case, that's obviously untrue. But if you don't say anything about it, you lose.

SPREADING / DELIVERY

You can speak quickly, as long as you're clear. "THUSTHEPLANTHEUNITEDSTATESFEDERALGOVERNMENT" is fine, but "THUSEDJKFHLKAHSFDJSLKFHKLDJAJMENT" is not. Running lots of things (is there a name for this?) is fine in a core file league. There aren't that many things you can run, at least not to the point of being unreasonable.

PERSONAL

A lot of judges don't like being called "judge". Personally, I don't care if you refer to me as "Judge", "Jeremy", "Mr. Wilner", or something similar (as long as it's respectful. Not "dude". Not "bro").

CONDUCT

Be good people. Rounds and arguments can get heated. Some arguments can stray towards being personal. But ultimately, the round needs to be self-contained. Throwing insults, intentional (purposeless) disrespect, and other general rudeness is not acceptable, and I will nuke your speaker points. Swearing is absolutely unacceptable at this level. (Even at high school levels, I think swearing is completely unnecessary and ridiculous, but that's not my place to dictate guidelines.) Expletives are not emphasis, and you just come off either sounding silly or sloppy. I will take off speaker points.

EXTRA / I COULDN'T THINK OF A SECTION NAME FOR THESE

• Yes, I would like a roadmap. You don't have to ask.
• Overviews and impact calculus are both very appreciated.

You've made it to the end of the paradigm. Good for you! Probably feeling pretty good about yourself. That was a lot of reading. Now you know everything you need to win the round. I'm rooting for you!

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for seven years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum and am starting to judge Congressional this year. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last four.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the cross-ex can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Congressional:

Outside of the sponsor speech, you are not getting a 5 or 6 unless your speech is DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE to the arguments already raised. I want to hear you call them out and directly compare your points against theirs. If you are the fifth speaker on a point and don't even mention the arguments raised before you, you are going to get a 3. And no, just mentioning their names doesn't count as being responsive...This is debate, not speech. I should hear some actual debate being done.

I'd also like to see some passion in the speeches- please work on being expressive (and loud enough I can hear you in the back of the room). Use the hands, the facial expressions, etc. Eye contact is good too.

Public Forum:

Please make sure you lay out your contentions clearly, add some emphasis on your claims, and make sure you are doing the work to analyze your sources. Much like my policy statement below, I'm evaluating you on your ability to clash with your opponents. Make sure you are matching them argument for argument in your rebuttals. I'm going to be convinced by your weighing of the evidence, not just reading the evidence to me (or just repeating your points... I took notes, I know what you said in the first speech...)

Policy

Ok, after my last tournament, I have to add this. If you don't argue or signpost the name of your off-case argument, I'm immediately lowering your speaks. I don't want to try and figure out what is the point of your argument from poorly labelled cards. Also, label your uniqueness, net benefit, alt, role of the ballot, etc. Please don't make me try and guess while you are going full varsity speed. This is my new pet peeve. It would also be nice if you tell me what they are in your off-time road map rather than just giving me "nine off, then case" and hoping i can figure it all out.

Two other things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation. If you are running a "K," I want an overview of the theory before you launch into it. This is especially true if I haven't seen it before. I'm not going to get what I need from your light speed reading without some background.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a cheaty "K" Aff on me. I'm not big on the "K" Affs to begin with, so this had better be solid. If I feel like you are running a K so that you can not engage with the topic and deliver the same same thing every round (or possibly every year you have debated), I'm not going to be inclined to vote for you. You better prove that you did more than switch out a link card before the start of the match.