Hello, I did debate in high school all 4 years, with the first two being in policy and the final two in Public Forum. Thus, I know what is going on, but I won't have a ton of knowledge on the topic for the first couple of tournaments, so ease me in.

Speed/Signposting: I did policy for two years so I can handle some speed, but if you aren't signposting and telling me where I need to flow what you're saying, I'm not going to be able to flow it. With that, please signpost. Tell me where you are putting this argument on the flow. I can flow everything you are saying, but only if I know what you are saying, and where I'm supposed to put it.

Weighing: At the end of the round, tell me why you win. You could have the best defense in the world, but if you don't give me any offense to vote on, I'm going to have a tough time voting for you.

Truth v Tech: I am a big mix of both. If your opponent drops something and you point it out, I'm not going to vote for them in that area, however, if I am left with two impacts, whichever impact is more probable is the one I'm most likely going to vote on.

Framework: The only way I'm going to follow a framework is if you pull it through the entire round, if you don't pull the framework through, I'm going to default to a cost-benefit analysis.

Personal Preferences: One thing that I am picky about is pulling through evidence. Don't just tell me to pull through the impact or pull through the link, tell me specifically what I'm pulling through. Tell me the impact I'm pulling through, and tell me the link I'm pulling through. Just because your opponents drop your contention, doesn't mean you don't have to do any work on that anymore. You still have to tell me why you win with that point. Another controversial take that I have is that the second rebuttal needs to get back to its own case. To me, you can't not touch your own case from the 2nd Constructive to the 2nd Summary.

Evidence: Some things to me are unspoken, so you don't necessarily need a card for everything. I am all for analytical arguments, but there is a line where you need evidence for something you are saying. I will also call for evidence if it becomes an issue in the round. I will not call for it if it isn't called out by your opponents, but if there is a dispute, I view it as my place to settle the evidence debate.

At the end of the day, please be respectful to your opponents, don't make me not want to vote for you because you are being disrespectful. Good Luck!

Hello Debaters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck & Have fun during the debate!

LD Debate

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extend warrants, offense, framing.

I will listen to anything, Ks included.

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

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

Hello! My name is Tristan Chasing Hawk and I'm a former debater and interper.

I've competed in and coached oral interpretation for over a decade. I value honest, purposeful, and nuanced acting/storytelling. Spectacle, while enjoyable, is not something that normally decides rankings for me. I promise to give you my full attention (that you rightfully deserve) and comments seeking to uplift and improve your performance.

I also have experience competing in and judging PF and LD.

As a PF judge, I tend to refer back to the flow and appreciate clean, well organized rebuttals/speeches. I love a good framework but please please PLEASE don't let it muddy the debate. Logical arguments must be backed up well by unbiased, expert sources for them to stand in my mind. Just identify the biggest points of the round and argue accordingly for us all to have a good round.

As an LD judge, I still follow the flow closely. Value/Criterion clash is essential to my judging because it tells me how I'm going to evaluate the cases/arguments that follow. The rest of my judging is based on how well morality relates to the V/C, topic, and how well arguments are formed/responded to.

I sometimes write comments that make sense in my mind but maybe don't make sense on paper. If you have any questions on why I judged in a particular way or the meaning behind a specific comment, please feel free to reach me at tristan.chasinghawk@gmail.com

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

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

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

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. I am not a big paraphrase guy and feel it can be ripe for abuse. If you must, please include the paragraph before and after your cut card and a link to the argument. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand in PD. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

PF'S time limits have really come up against the growing desire to make PF, a micro policy 2.0. Word economy is at a real premium and so is synthesizing the multiple arguments. Going line by line in Summary seems to produce diminishing returns. In FF, focus on Voters AND links. Why do we get to those impacts.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would prefer 6-7 (max) in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation (in PF), I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale, probably a 2. I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's unless you are super confident you can link it directly to the resolution.

I am a fairly experienced “lay” judge who only judges a couple of times a year. I am interested in logical arguments backed up by solid evidence and persuasive speaking. I prefer reasoning and strong delivery over speed. I like clear enunciation and appropriate volume so I can flow speeches. I want “clash” in debates. Don’t just tell me why your side of the resolution is preferable. Point out flaws in your opponent’s arguments and evidence and explain why yours is superior.

Finally, I will reward teams that are respectful of their opponents and the activity. Debate should be fun. Do not be afraid to smile and inject occasional humor where it is appropriate. Good luck!

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

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it - but I will warn you that I am highly skeptical of random K's that don't link to the topic - at least make an attempt to tie it to the resolution.

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

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

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

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

Extemp Paradigm

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

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

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

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TLDR:

be nice, don’t drop things, and make sure you point out drops

About me:

I did four years of public forum and domestic extemp with Aberdeen Central and am now a political science major at the University of South Dakota (go yotes!). I keep pretty up to date with current events in the United States and abroad and like to think I know what is going on in the world for the most part. I am also a lover of cats, movies, and Christmas :)

Public Forum:

Drops:

I am going to be a flow over anything judge.

If you drop it and the other team points that out, then its gone and I won’t vote on it. That being said, I think it is the burden of the speaker to get back to touch everything they are going to pull through in the next speech. This means that the 2nd rebuttal speaker NEEDS to get back to their own case for me to weigh it and the summary speakers need to cover everything that their partner is going to close for or I won’t flow it. However, if your opponent doesn’t point out your drop and you repack it up then consider yourself extremely lucky. I will flow it again because drops need to be pointed out in the round for me to weigh them.

Speed:

I can handle rapid conversational just fine as long as you are speaking clearly and sign posting, sign posting, SIGN POSTING!!

Time:

I love a good, BRIEF off the clock road map. They are my favorite thing tbh.

For calling for cards I typically won’t take prep unless a team takes the card back to their area or it starts taking to long to find or read the card. Please don’t take advantage of this. I will expect the other team members not to prep during this time and will dock speaker points if you try to steal prep or if this takes too long.

Cross:

Please just be nice and respectful. I understand being fired up in the heat of the moment but there is a difference between being assertive and being disrespectful. I typically won’t vote on respect unless it is a MAJOR issue, but I will take speaker points away and give a low-point win.

LD/Policy:

I have very little experience here so if I am in the back of your round I am sorry, but I will try my best. I will be flow over anything and can handle a rapid conversational as long as there is signposting, but maybe go a little slower at first to ease me in :)

IEs:

You shouldn’t have to conform your speech style for judges, but I did do domestic extemp for four years so I have the most experience there. Admittedly, I didn’t sit through a single inform or oratory round in my four years of high school, but I do enjoy them. If you make me laugh I will give an extra speaker point :)

Public Forum

My debate background is in college debate formats such as parliamentary debate and IPDA. If you are unfamiliar with these, no sweat. Essentially, I am comfortable with both layperson debate and more jargon-y, technical debate, so you can run just about anything in front of me. I am always down to listen to a good framework argument.

I tend to vote on collapsed arguments and impact analysis, so give me some good voters! I do not like having to make decisions in the round, and you shouldn't want me to either, it may not go in your favor. Be clear about exactly why you should be winning this round.

I consider myself a flow judge, so if your arguments don't end up on my flow, I probably won't consider them in my evaluation of the round. I can handle some speed, but if you start full-out spreading in a Public Forum round, I am not the person to do that in front of. Keep the debate clean and organized. I like to see good sportsmanship between teams, especially in the crossfire.

Remember to have fun!

Lincoln Douglas

• off-the-clock roadmaps are preferable to on-time roadmaps, just make them brief.
• Ask for your own prep-time, always offered in 30 second intervals.
• Assume the judges can follow along, only ask if your opponent is ready prior to speaking.
• Ideal debater is killer but cordial. Be polite but go for the throat, make sense?
• Keep arguing framework and criterion, do not drop them. Heavy consideration is given there from me.

• Key to decipher ballots: A1a is Aff Cont.1, subpoint a. RA1a is the Neg response to Aff Cont.1, subpoint a.

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

Speed

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

Public Forum

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

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

LD

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

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

I am a theatre director with a long background in performance, writing, and directing. My area of expertise is interpretive categories.

When judging speeches and interp categories, I expect to see confident, well-prepared, thoughtful, and honest speakers. I enjoy performances and speeches filled with creativity, emphasis on communication, and a heartfelt, honest quality that can't really be put into words. For any interp piece, your flashy tech and blocking is cool, but don't forget to ACT and make me BELIEVE what you're saying and doing! Please note that I judge also on your selection of literature. Any content with sexist, racist, classist, or ableist overtones will be scored accordingly. Speeches and interpretations on pieces regarding these matters are incredibly important, of course, but we must always consider whose voice is being amplified, and what exactly we are trying to communicate. Be wise and considerate!

In extemp & impromptu, speak confidently and passionately. Make good eye contact. Address the prompt in impromptu without going on random tangents that don't tie in. In extemp, make it possible for a layperson to understand. I enjoy extemps that are kind and educational, not just filled with tons of confusing facts and jargon.

For info, the visual is important. Be creative, or at least be neat. Be funny and engaging, but don't forget to INFORM!!

For duo, I expect to see balance between partners, strong emotional content, and some interesting tech and blocking. Tell the story with heart!

For DI, I expect to see something that I believe. That's really all I'll say.

For POI, I want to see something new, fresh, and original. Binder tech is cool and everything, but what are you saying? Why are YOU saying it? Make me believe what you're doing and talking about.

For HI, be creative with characters, have clean pops, have great forward energy, use an appropriate script, and don't choose something that just bags on women or minorities. Let's do better, yeah?

For all other speech categories, this is a SPEECH contest. The writing of your piece is extremely important of course, but it is your DELIVERY that really brings it home!

Plain and simple: communicate. If you don't communicate with me and your audience, you missed your mark. I will do everything in my feedback to help you improve. I am not the kind of judge who will just destroy you with rude feedback (unless you are rude to me). Problematic content and jokes will be pointed out, I have zero tolerance for them (and I'm not talking about language, I'm talking about openly promoting oppression). My goal is to help you improve wherever you are at. If you're at nationals ready to hit the final stage, great. If you're just starting, all the more power to you. Everyone can get better at this activity.

If you desire more feedback, you may always email me at ehageman@siouxlandchristian.org.

I have some experience

LD effectuve communication

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Original Oratory at Harrisburg in my final semester of high school. At state, I competed in OO and was a finalist in LD; I also competed in LD at Nationals (2024).

This is my first year judging, and I’m super excited to be here!! Speech and Debate is supposed to be fun, so have fun with it! If you have any questions about my paradigm, don’t hesitate to ask!

General:

1. Be respectful of one another. Any racism, sexism, etc is not tolerated at all. I will vote down for this; it hurts the nature of an activity that is meant to be inclusive.
2. PLEASE SIGNPOST, PLEASE!!!If I do not know where to flow, I won’t flow. It helps everyone in the room if we know what you’re saying to what.
3. I’m good with speed (as long as you enunciate); but remember, the faster you talk, the more likely something can be missed on the flow. If I’m not flowing, I probably can’t understand you.
4. DO NOT DROP; but a drop doesn’t count unless the opponent pulls it through.
5. Off-time roadmaps are all good with me. Just don’t use that as your signposting for the whole round.
6. No K’s and Theories unless they’re really, REALLY topical. To me, you’re here to debate the resolution, so do that.
7. I’m like 90% tech over truth. I won’t evaluate blatantly false statements, but I won’t insert my own world views and biases into the round; it’s not my place to do so. I tend to not prefer very far-fetched ideas; give me pretty strong link chains if you're running something in left field.
8. Any racism, sexism, etc is not tolerated at all. I will vote down for this; it hurts the nature of an activity that is meant to be inclusive.

LD:

1. Value and Criterion are very important and it is how I make my decision. You don’t have to win on your own framework; you can show me how you win on your opponents. Whichever framework wins after clash and whoever best meets it is how I will evaluate the round.
2. Don’t make new arguments in the final speech if you’re AFF
3. I do buy solvency and anti- solvency in LD.
4. Voters are really important. You tell me why to vote for you; take advantage of that and summarize the issues of the opposing side in the round.
5. Ultimately, I give a ballot based on four big things:
1. framework
2. empirics + defense (relevant, weighed, support of claims; if your responses to the arguments made against your case were accurate, and well-done); don’t just say “it’s not true.” Tell me why, give more evidence, do more analysis.
3. impacts (the application to the real world and what affirming or negating would actually do in the world)

PF:

I am very unfamiliar with PF layout and debating, but as I am becoming more familiar, this is what I look for:

1. Weighing your evidence and telling me why your evidence is more relevant/important is an easy way to get my ballot.
2. Voters are really important. You tell me why to vote for you; take advantage of that and summarize the issues of the opposing side in the round.
3. Ultimately, I give my ballot on three main things:
1. empirics (relevant, weighed, support of claims)
2. defense (if your responses to the arguments made against your case were accurate, and well-done); don’t just say “it’s not true.” Tell me why, give more evidence, do more analysis.
3. impacts (again, the application to the real world and what affirming or negating would actually do in the world)

IEs:

I am not here to judge your topic or script; I’m here to judge your speaking and your approach to the topic or piece. I love seeing unique takes, even if it’s a “basic” topic. Just move with purpose, enunciate, give eye contact, have vocal inflections, facial expressions, and you’re good to go.

Congress/Policy/etc:

I am so sorry in advanced; I have not an ounce of knowledge in these events. I will be looking for responses to attacks on claims and validity in those statements... I think.

Background

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

Ethics

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

SPEECH EVENTS

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

DEBATE

Overall:

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

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

LD:

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

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

PF:

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

CONGRESS

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

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

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

LD -

I am a first year LD coach for Central. I did LD for three years in high school. I am more traditional for framework and arguments, but if you decide to run something more applicable to circuit style, I don't care as long as you explain it. Please explain to me why your framework is the way that I should judge the round - I don't just want to hear that your framework is better than your opponent's, I want to hear why your framework is the best way to reach morality as shown specifically through your contentions. I will vote on framework first. I will also vote on the flow, so be careful in dropping arguments. I can handle speed on the flow as long as you are coherent; if I can't understand you, I won't flow it. I sincerely appreciate sign posting, please don't make me guess where I'm supposed to flow an argument. Finally, please weigh things. Tell me why your impact is bigger or why your impact is more pertinent on the timeline.

PF -

I didn't do PF in high school and have only watched a few rounds, so please be conscious that I am less familiar with the structure and the style of arguments in PF. Same thing goes for sign posting, speed, and weighing. If a framework is presented, I will also vote on the contention level through the weighing mechanism I decide to vote on. I will lean towards impact calc in voting in PF, so please explain to me what the impacts are, why they are the most immediate threat, and how your plan actually resolves those issues/reduces the horrendous scary numbers you're presenting. Please be polite, I don't like the fact that both of you get to ask questions in CX but I will be less inclined to listen to you if you are rude to an opponent in CX.

Hi!! I'm a senior varsity PF debater at Washington, and this is my 4th year doing public forum! With that being said, I love giving feedback in my RFD because that's exactly what I wanted in my novice year. Check your results if that is something you are interested in!

Advice for your rounds with me as your judge-

-Speed: I'm okay with it as long as your opponent can understand you, and I can too. If you have to speak a little fast to fit your case into 4 minutes thats fine, but you shouldn’t be gasping for air because of your speed.

-I am a "flow judge", my vote will be based on who carried their points and effectively argued them. Dropped points will be dropped off of my flow only if you comment on the fact they are dropped. If the fact a point was dropped isn't brought up, consider yourself lucky and bring it back up. Please label whichever contention you are commenting on, such as "pro's 1st contention" or "my 3rd contention". This helps me flow effectively so I can best judge the round.

WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS!! You should be telling me WHY you win and WHY the pro/con world serves more benefits/harms. Your final focus is the perfect place to do this! I recommend bring up very few cards in your FF, and focusing on voters (main points of the round that were heavily debated) and why you won them.

I am a 1st speaker, and I realize how hard summary can be. I hear you guys! As long as you bring up every point and card you want to carry into the FF, that is good with me. I also strongly advise you to use voters, it makes it a lot easier to format your speech.

-You can be assertive, but be respectful. Disrespect will lead to a drop in speaker points.

-If you are call a card, I won’t do prep time for either time as long as neither team is prepping.

Homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ect are an immediate lose with me. This is an inclusive activity, and discrimination hurts the nature of debate.

[Overview]

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

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

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

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

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

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

LD:

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

/Speed and Performance/

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

/Time/

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

/Speaks/

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

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

/Framework/

PF:

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

LD:

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

/Case/

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

/Variation/

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

LD-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flashing- Make it quick.

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

Public Forum-

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

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

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

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

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

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

——> Experience <——

He/Him

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

If you have any questions or want advice please reach out to me at samuel.markley@coyotes.usd.edu. I try to respond at a good pace, so if I don't by the next tournament it's likely that I just simply did not see your email.

——> tl;dr <——

Quality of arguments > quantity. I don't feel like it's my place to tell you what to run unless it's discriminatory (k's and cp's are fine but theory arguments against them are also fine. Fully depends on how y'all argue it), BIG ON FRAMEWORK. I'm good if you want to workshop something new, I like to think I provide good feedback and pointers.

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

——> LD <——

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

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

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

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 3+ minutes alone on framework in the constructive? Let's do it! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

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

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

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

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

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

Please line-by-line and signpost.

My opinion on topicality debates

——> General Information <——

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

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

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

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

——> Evidence <——

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

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

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

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

——> Speed <——

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate In General

Be Civil.

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

Framework in PF is moot to me.

LD

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

I don't care for progressive LD.

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

Cross Examination is also very important to me.

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

Observations are moot to me.

I'm a traditional circuit judge who likes to see clear links between framework and contentions. I am fine with a quick pace to the debate, but that should not be a hindrance to your case or the clarity of your framework; if your speed is a pitfall, that will be reflected in my speaker point allocation. Even if both sides have unclear frameworks, I'm inclined to go with the side that has the best framework. Your arguments should be as well thought out as possible. I am more likely to vote in favor of arguments that have been fleshed out as opposed to thrown in at the end of a round. If it doesn't get fully addressed in the round, I am likely not to flow it.

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

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

This is my 3rd year as a Coach for Debate and I competed in high school for 3 years in Public Forum Debate. I am familiar with LD but have never competed in LD. I work as an AP History teacher, understanding the context behind the topic is paramount.

I flow all rounds and look for carefully constructed arguments that have a logical explanation that is clear and concise with impact. "Connect the Dots" for me to prove your logic and understanding.

Knowledge of the topic is essential to the debate; debaters must show they understand the topic and all the points they make themselves. Debaters need to be able to address all attacks on their case and provide logical defenses while also being able to address all arguments made by an opponent.

Speed- Speak at a rate that is easy to understand.

No flexible prep time- use the designated time allotted.

State impacts clearly, when making claims of fact support with evidence, avoid Fiat cases- looking for clash.

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

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

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

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

4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room, I would suggest to avoid using policy arguments. I won’t vote you down instantly for running them, but they have to make perfect sense while maintaining some connection to philosophy and the resolution. (If at a National Tournament, or outside of South Dakota, I will lean towards preferring whatever is the general style of debate in that circuit.)

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

Hopefully this helps y’all out!

My paradigm for LD is pretty straight forward. I am a traditional judge, I do not care for: Spreading, Kritiks, Plans, or Counterplans in Lincoln Douglas debate. I think that if you want to run those types of things do Policy/CX. I will heavily weigh whomever convinces me that their value and value criterion is the most important, but what really matters is the clash. Do you answer your opponents arguments with substantive points? Are your arguments valid and have magnitude? Do you deliver your arguments clearly and in an organized manner? These are what will decide a round for me.

General (I was like so exhausted writing this paradigm so ask questions for clear ups)

I am Duer Tap Assistant for Vermillion High School, Did LD for 3 years, traditional and nat circuit experience, prefer speechdrop but email isduer.tap@gmail.com for questions/chain

Speed is 7-8/10, need to have a speech doc and be clear while spreading. I know most jargon

To make ur chances of winning to be higher you should write my ballot for me and consolidate and weigh so I vote you.

Warrants need to be extended no blip extensions. Tech>Truth. Don't be disrespectful, beassertive. I love when arguments clash against one another so make sure to do that! Have Fun!!!

SOUTH DAKOTA SPECS

umm I am still tech over truth and most of that stuff below works for all forms of events. In LD I also like framework (winning framework ≠ winning the debate) it views my lens in debate. I WANT MORE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS IN SOUTH DAKOTA RUN THEM PLEASE.

PF: I still want offense and I don't care about theatrics just give me debate none of that funny speech stuff. i hate international law

LD: Framing and all the other spec stuff down there is good. No framework isn't a voter you can lose the debate but win the framework if you don't weigh.

Specs

DAs- I mean its the bedrock so like its fine overall. The link should be solid and make sense overall to get to the impact of the DA. I don't like Politics or Political Capital DAs. Make sure your evidence is legit, I will be checking but your opps should say something for me to weight the validity of ur evidence.

CPs-They are fine overall, make sure they are mutually exclusive and it should be mostly fine. Actors and PICs I am biased against but I could still vote on them tbh as long as the DAs/other args connect with the CP. Never will vote for a 50 states.

Ks-I like Ks as they are cool. Anti-black, Afropess, and Cap are ones that I am familiar with. Identity Ks should only really be read by their said identities imo but its a free country ig. Don't be basic with your alts and link to the debate as well. If you run an Identity K, you should never wave it away through condo. My threshold will be low for any theory arguments based on that. Structures of Oppression are not Pokémon to collect and use for ballots.

Aff K- I will not vote an aff k down for being an aff K so run what you want to run but be prepared for theory.

Performance- don't know how to judge this but if you can explain it and win I will vote for it

Theory/T- T is kinda of a mid and boring argument tbh. I understand its role but it be boring so much. If an Aff is being abusive plan tho like run T and I will understand it.

Condo is fine with DAs and CPs, not Ks or T. Threshold will be low for these examples.

Tricks- I will play roblox in round if you read one trick so help me god. auto lose.

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

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

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

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

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

I have two semi-serious rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.