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!

Background

I did varsity policy debate and Domestic extemp for 4 years at Watertown, SD high school. During that time I qualified for NSDA Nationals 2 times in policy debate and was a 3 time place winner at the SDHSAA state tournament. I judge fairly consistently throughout the season.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

LD Paradigm

I have started judging more LD since policy is no longer a thing in South Dakota. I don't have a super deep understanding of all the philosophy but I do generally understand most of the frameworks I've heard. For me, I prefer a good framework debate backed up with solid contention level arguments. If you can put those two things together I am usually pretty happy. I prefer debate with clash. If you plan on both agreeing to the same framework you will need some good offense on the contention level.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

PF Paradigm

I enjoy it when there is good, legitimate clash within the round that extends past the first 4 speeches of the round. Impact things out for me. If you are going to be reading framework in the round relate your contention level arguments back to your framework. Weigh your framework against theirs and tell me why I should prefer yours.

If a card is called for, to me, this is dead time in the round. No one is doing anything. The team that needs to provide the evidence finds it swiftly, the team who called for the evidence looks at what they need to see with their prep running, and then we resume with the next thing in the round whether that be a teams prep, cross-fire, or a speech. If you are looking for evidence and your partner is prepping, your prep will be running.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

Policy Paradigm (A thing of the past in SD)

Speed- No preference. I only evaluate what I have flowed, and if I can’t understand it chances are it’s not flowed. I don’t need a copy of the speeches, I will ask for cards at the end of the round if I need to look at something.

Tag team CX- Prompt your partner, or provide tags and dates, but don’t dominate if it’s not your CX.

Prep- I don’t take time for flashing unless it becomes excessive. I will more than likely not stop prep when you ask me to, so beware of that. If you tell me to end prep, and you are still talking and typing on your computer, prep will keep going. Prep stealing will not be tolerated.

T- Don’t run it as a time suck. I rarely will vote on potential abuse, even if clearly dropped by the aff. My view is that T is all or nothing, so if you’re going to close for it, you had better be doing 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. Aff is presumed topical until shown otherwise. That being said, if they are truly not within the resolution—I will be more likely to vote on T.

Disadvantages- If you are not reading a DA on the neg you better have something to blow them out of the water. I tend to be very easily persuaded by no link analyticals and uniqueness overwhelms the link claims made by the affirmative. I think that there needs to be a clear link between affirmative action and the scenario that the neg is proposing. You the DA as leverage against the aff’s advantages. I am a huge fan of disad solves case arguments. Politics disads typically turn into a wash for me, absent a huge mistake by the affirmative. I don’t think that the link story of Congressional members ditching their parties or the whole Congressional body switching their votes from the Uniqueness that has been read are even mildly plausible.

Kritik- I was never a big fan of them when I was debating. If you are going to run one and want me to vote on it, you must do several things. First—have an alt that is very similar to a 1AC’s plan text, something that can actually happen if I were to vote negative. Second, you have to have clear solvency for that alt. I will be weighing the K against the aff’s advantages in terms of comparative solvency.

Counterplans- I think that CP’s should challenge the aff’s advocacy or provide a better method of solving the impacts in the aff case. The counterplan must be non-topical, otherwise I will almost immediately vote aff on the perm. In the same fashion as K’s I will be weighing the CP against the aff case in terms of comparative solvency. The CP must solve the impacts of the 1AC—otherwise running the CP is pointless in my mind. CP has to have a clear Net benefit that is not “It’s better than the aff”. You need to have something bad that the aff plan would trigger, but the CP avoids, this is where your generic disads come into play.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

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.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

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 and collegiate 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 nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

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. 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.

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 consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- 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.

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!

I’ve done varsity LD debate so I understand the signposting and format so we don’t really have to get formal with that.

For LD rounds

I choose the one who shows me the most on Value debate and contention level. I believe these two things are essential to having a good LD round.

For novice LDers

please use your prep time and don’t be cocky about it. Sometimes you forget stuff on the opposition’s flow because your not using this time wisely.

Also use the correct format if you can, so I can best understand and flow your case easily

especially for Novice LDers please keep it civil and nice during your rounds, you’re not gonna win because you were rude.

And my last thing for my paradigm, do NOT ask me who won, I don’t disclose rounds, do not ask me if you won, I will not tell you, PERIOD

TL;DR, be clear be confident be kind

I competed in policy for 2 years and PF my last 2, I’d rather not see PF develop into a shortened CX

I am very traditionalist. Everything you say should be fairly easy to comprehend by a person off the street as this is an educational event. I won’t vote on generic or off-the-wall impacts unless dropped or explained really well. Probability>magnitude I'm not a huge fan of extinction impacts. I only vote FW if your opponent completely drops it. Don't be abusive, anything that goes against the educational and fair nature of the event is a good way to lose my vote. Make it clear where the card ends and the analysis starts.

Constructive: Don’t have something in your case as a time filler you plan on kicking later. Don’t push the pace and please show emotion while reading your case.

Cross: Be firm but don’t be rude, if your opponent asks for a follow up allow it but after 1 it’s your job to cut them off. This time is completely yours, I’ll never vote on it. Also, you need a good poker face, try to hide your reactions to your opponents.

Prep: Use it, even if your speech is ready you should look over your flows and see if there is anything you could add. You don’t need to save 1:30 of prep for the final focus.

Rebuttal: I’m still very policy-like here, blocks are more than OK but don’t act like it’s your first time reading them. Go down the flow in a consistent manner, I love it when teams cross-apply cases but make sure it makes sense when you do it. If something is dropped point it out, otherwise, I cannot vote on it.

Summary: Start crystallizing, and try to avoid new args, especially as 2nd speaker. Don’t spend all your time on clashed args it's okay to drop them if it's unclear, use your speech to point out areas you’re clearly winning. I vote really hard on weighing so please be clear with that.

Final Focus: Voters, Voters, Voters. It’s ok to drop at this point, go all-in on the args you’re winning. Tell the story of the round, act human, and show emotion.

As an LD judge, my focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. The resolution doesn't outline the general subject we are debating but the actual question I will vote on at the end of the debate.

I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and breathe in the real world. Don't get too bogged down in debating philosophy at the expense of resolving the substantive resolutional issues.

I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions/supporting arguments, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. As LD/value debaters, it is important to integrate support of a value into your case position.

To me, your criteria is part of 'your' analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both sides but it should help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision.

Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated. My flow very much guides me when I make a decision. I try to take good notes but I don't flow sources (so don't shorthand with an author's name...use the argument label.)

I'm the assistant interp coach for the Huron Speech and Debate team. My primary area of experience is in both interp and speech events after having competed on the Huron High School team in the past. I am comfortable judging any speech round (informative, oratory, extemp, and the different interps), and I most closely look at the physicality of a piece (how are you using body language, facial/vocal expression, pops, etc. to interpret the author's original intentions). Ultimately, I want to be drawn into a piece with such realism in mind that I have to force myself to look away to make comments/critiques.

I have some experience with Public Forum debate and am able to judge it, but I cannot stand debaters that speak at mach speed. It is difficult for me to follow flow when information is presented so fast that the words themselves blend together. I will flow to the best of my ability during the round, but don't expect me to catch everything if you speak like a Policy debater. I also dislike when teams tell me to disregard entire rounds because the opponents don't have a 'framework' or other such terminology. Different teams coach with varying practices in mind, and some don't use such approaches. I prefer judging rounds that look to dismantle the integrity of the opposing side's position.

I debated 20+ years ago when Policy Debate was in it's glory and we carried totes of paper evidence vs. laptops into rounds. A Deuel High School graduate I take pride in how Debate doesn't separate small from large schools when competing. I learned volumes from the people I debated and wasn't limited by school size. I am comfortable judging all events and levels.

Prima Facie - traditional judge - Sign post and be reasonable. Speak loud and proud. Remember this is a game - play the game, but don't play dirty. Sell me on the "why" behind the "what" of any side you are taking. Each issue stands on it's own.

I am a former Democrat turned Republican by life experience - 4 kids, Catholic and married to a small business owner. Work full time and dabble with ranching/farming. Rural America has my heart. We all add value in different ways and different times in life. The lens which we see our value will shift depending on our calling and phase of life we are in.

TL;DR - Tech>Truth. I love philosophy. Offense and clash win my ballot. Weigh and extend impacts. Have good argumentation and convey it well.

Email: pandaXrider2415@gmail.com

---->BACKGROUND<----

Brookings High School '24

3 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp

1 year of Public Forum

3 Time National Qualifier

Bounced around in Student Congress and Extemp Debate too... even have World Schools Experience

| 2024 SD State Semifinalist in Lincoln-Douglas Debate

---->TECH VS. TRUTH<----

Tech>>>

I am very much a tech judge and don't believe in being a truth judge

I am a big believer in evaluating the round based on what is on the flow. Often when writing ballots I find myself writing that even if something isn’t true I will evaluate it based on the context of the round

As a judge, I cannot be bothered to try to think about my own opinion on the argument when my job is to evaluate the round based on arguments the debaters make

---->TIMING & SPEED<----

I will time all speeches and prep time. But I ask you time yourself as well to make everything smoother

I'm okay with speed as long as it's understandable... if I can't understand you then I can't vote for you

---->LINCOLN-DOUGLAS<----

Philosophy>>>

I'm pretty traditional when it comes to LD but that's not to say I don't like certain Circuit LD techniques

| Trad |

Clash on the framework. Explain why your value is most important and how your criterion best upholds it

Use contentions and the impacts to link back to your framework to show me how you uphold it

Weigh and extend your impacts!! This is incredibly crucial in a moral debate

Always warrant your cards

Uncontested turns are huge

Use voters. They do a great job of making what I should vote on clear

| Circuit |

Make sure your links and argumentations actually make sense

Disclosure Theory - 1/10. Hate it. Don't like it. Just strike me if you like doing this.

Theory Shell - 8/10. Just make sure the interpretation, violations, standards, and voters make sense.

Kritik's - 1/10. Also hate it. Don't waste time in our debate rounds complaining about NSDA rules or anything like that.

Counterplans' - 8/10. Again, if it's a solid counterplan that's carried through the entire round and holds its own merits, I'll vote on it

Disad -7/10. I do like disadvantages. Just make sure you use the consequentialist link chain and really show me how voting for the other side is a bad idea.

Role of the Ballot - 8/10. Establish good conditions and extend them.

Spreading - 2/10. Just don't. It never sounds good. If you decide to spread, then let's do an email chain or speech drop.

---->PUBLIC FORUM<----

Extend everything

Quantify and weigh impacts

I love voters. They do a great job of condensing the round into clear issues of what I should vote on

No new arguments in 2nd summary. This is done way too often... and also don't only start establishing the narrative by then... you should have the narrative present through the entire round

Have good warrants, uniqueness, and link chains. All of these are necessary for a good case

I am primarily an LDer so I do like a good framework in debate such as a cost benefit analysis or really anything as long as you find a way to make it work

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!!

Email: livvyjo11103@gmail.com (put me on the email chain, and feel free to message me post round)

About me: Olivia She/her (21) I am currently an individual events coach at Sioux Falls Jefferson! I attend USD online and work in marketing.

TLDR:

Debate is hard, please have fun and after the round, shake it off and never let a down bother you!!

PLAY NICE. There is nothing worse than a round where I as a judge feel flustered because of how the debaters are treating their opponents. I will comment on this, and I will give you lower speaks because of this.

I do not do time signals, do not ask. (Debate)

I prefer if you have time on your own (I tend to forget).

During your opponent's speech, please refrain from talking, and listen to what they have to say, even if it is the last speech. They are valid and deserve to be heard as much as you do

My debate career:

I graduated from Central High school in 2022 and was a member of the debate team for all four years of high school. I did policy, pf, oratory, and info - qualified to nationals 3 times.

PREFERENCES:

I tend to lean more tech over truth - and I am very open to experimental debate, within reason. Just ask before the round or let me know if you wanna do something crazy. That being said, i will vote truth over tech, if there is literally no warrant or link to the debate/evidence.

QUALS AND STATE: (Debate)

Lay it out for me. If I do not understand your argument I will not vote for it. Ks and Theory, are okay - just make sure they connect back. If you want to try something new, please go for it.

As always, be nice and play by the rules.

- EVIDENCE SHARING: This shouldn't take long, as we have some long days ahead - or it's the end of a super long day for all of us. It's cool if you just set up an email chain or something to make the process go faster. (but of course, add me in)

- EVIDENCE VIOLATIONS: I am ALL for the educational level of debate. If something is not true, please say something as I will not catch it like you do - because I am less experienced in the topic, and do not have the card in front of me. I will look at all cards brought to me, but I will not ask if you do not say anything.

Public Forum:

I am okay with speed. Keep things on the flow, if you drop something and do not address it, I no longer consider it an argument. I am good at following the flow. - That being said, please stay organized, it's easier for everyone to understand when you follow the order of contentions and arguments that are set up during the first few speeches.

Keep a good roadmap throughout the whole round and TELL me what I should vote for. Believe in what you are saying and why you win. Carry your arguments all the way through, if you drop something, tell me why, do not ignore it. With this - if you drop something you are not allowed to pick it back up. Consider it on the floor and I can't see it - do not bring it up in the final speech.

Please refrain from using abstract arguments such as Ks, Critiques, and CPs in South Dakota main season, UNLESS you are able to prove exactly how this relates to the resolution and your contentions. Experimental debate is only fun if it makes sense and works within the round. I debated policy for the majority of my debate career (being in the final policy round EVER in SD) so if you use them, I will know what you are talking about - your opponent may not so explain exactly what you mean. (CPs are very controversial in PF, I would strongly avoid these if you don't wanna talk about it for the duration of every speech and get debated on topicality and resolutional analysis)

LD:

I do not have any competion experience with LD, and have been juding it for the last 3 years. With this, I am someone who, like PF will judge based on your clash. Believe in what you are debating, even if it is not your own personal belief outside of the round. If you do not care about what you are saying I will pick up on it, and stop listening.

I tend to lean towards a criterion and value debate as my main voter (any framework actually), as it’s there for a reason. You drop your criterion, you lose. You don’t uphold your value, you lose. Pretty self explanatory.

CIRCUIT:

Do not be abusive to your opponent. No disclosure theory if I am in the back. You can run theory, you just have to explain why it pertains to the text, and are able to back it up.

Speechdrop and email chains, make it quick. I am not spending 20 minutes trying to set it up when you did not come prepared. Have a print-off of your case as backup.

Ks, CPs, and DAs: Make sure you are explaining these in order of event - like if you have 2 DAs that are triggered by something, or solved by the CP, make sure they make sense to me. Explain if your opponent does not know what you're talking about, as not everyone normally debates circuits, on the traditional level these do not exist. Be courteous.

Spreading: IDC if you spread (I'm an 8/10 on speed) - slow down on tags and cards so I can follow. Please share your speech doc with me if you spread it so I can look back if I need to. I used to spread myself and know how to do it in a nice way.

DO NOT ASK ME TO READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOU.

DO NOT try to make any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, discriminatory, and generally anything else you think I would get upset with. I do not tolerate hate in a progressive environment. Please do not say these things, I will stop listening and will contact your coach. I do not have a poker face, so you will know if you have made me upset.

[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.

Unless you consider yourself sufficiently well-versed in the history, culture, and politics of the Levant, I don't want to hear about it. I will dock speaker points for far-right and far-left talking points. If said talking points show up in your voters, I may speak with your coach about it. If you manage to venture into racist or antisemitic territory, we will be having a chat about it after the round.

** I may be wearing headphones or earplugs. I promise I am listening to you. Sometimes, I need to block out environmental sounds so I can focus on your words and arguments. If you speak normally, I will have no problem hearing you.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

Big Questions - Hi there, I've been coaching and judging BQ for three years and I keep a decent flow. Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you build your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them, focus on wherever the important clash is. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources. I can handle a bit of speed, but I'd rather you stay conversational for a BQ debate - this isn't policy or circuit; you shouldn't be speed-reading evidence at me.

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.

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.

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

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!

Hi everyone, my name is Zoe and I’m a former debater and was an assistant coach as well for a couple of years. During high school, I competed in oratory and informative for my IE’s as well as public forum for 3 years and Lincoln Douglas my senior year, and I competed at the 2021 Nationals in Student Congress.

Debate in General: This can be a stressful activity and things can get heated in rounds, but I am not ok with disrespectfulness, rudeness, or other uncalled-for behaviors. In a debate round, I ask that you signpost well to keep the flow clean and allow me to catch everything you are saying and want me to know. If I can’t flow it, I can’t vote for it. I will time prep and speeches, but you are free to do so as well on your own and I encourage it as well so there is no need to ask if I am ok with it. :)

Pufo: This is an event to be understood by a person who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about and should be treated as such. I will listen to whatever you are telling me, but if I can’t understand it without prior knowledge it won’t hold any weight if you can’t make it make sense. If you run a framework please, please, please debate it. It shouldn’t be something that just sits at the top of your case and doesn’t do anything else, if that’s the case I won’t vote for it. Again keep the flow as clean as possible, sign post, sign post, sign post. If you tell me where in the flow you are I can meet you there and listen to what you are saying, it works out better for all of us in the end. In your final focus, I want to hear voters. Tell me why you win, and why your opponent doesn’t. My decision at the end of the round should only be challenging because both teams used voters and made it hard to choose the winner.

LD: I don’t/won’t normally vote for a winner because of value criterion debate over contention level and vice versa. I will listen to anything and everything openly but make it make sense. You’re value should make sense in the context of your case and your criterion should uphold it and your contentions should fit within the framework you have laid out for me. If you run something wild and out there in your contention level please link it back to your framework so everyone knows what is going on, but to also make sure your case as a whole makes sense, if your contention doesn’t uphold your framework that won’t work very well for you in the end. Again please signpost for everything. Use voters at the end so I can see what you want me to weigh at the end of the round and why you think you should win, but keep it simple, 3 or 4 max will do the trick, if you have too many it just becomes a list and I don’t have a concise grouping to make my choice.

Overall, have fun and be nice!

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.

My Paradigm

Hi, I’m Lily Simonich. You need to tell me exactly what you’re responding to/talking about. If I can’t write it down then I can’t take it into consideration when I’m deciding who won the debate. Voters are important.TELL ME WHY YOU WON. If you say “I win because” and I agree with it, then you automatically have my vote.

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.

Public Forum/LD

My paradigm is fairly simple for any form of debate. Ultimately, I am looking for substantive issues to be resolved at the end of the round.

I believe that arguments need to be explained in the process of presentation. Please do not assume that I will do the work for you. Explain why your evidence supports your claims and why your argument is better or more important than your opponent's arguments.

If you have a particular way you want me to view the round, please make sure that you explain so everyone in the round understands the expectation (and make sure you meet the expectation as well). If that particular lens is important to the round, you should also be framing the round in that way the entire time (not just in your first and last speech).

While I don't have any predisposition to style or speed or structure or any specific arguments necessarily, I do prefer respectful debate where both sides are working to resolve the issues.

Please feel free to ask any questions you may have.

I competed in LD for 3 years and was a 2x state quarter-finalist. I qualified for nationals in Congress in my senior year.

GENERAL

Be clear. This is probably one of the most important things to do in order to make sure that I am able to fairly evaluate your position in the round. Also, make sure to specify what you are responding to when you respond to arguments.

Do not spread. I consider myself to be more flow-centric, so if I can't flow the argument, it won't be evaluated.

When you refer back to evidence, don't just say the citation. If you just say "Last Name, 24" when addressing a specific piece of evidence, I won't know what that means if you don't say what the card stated as well. I don't write down source citations.

Logical arguments are better than card dumps. Make sure that everything that you are reading is connected back to the framework/the resolution in general. Reading a bunch of evidence and not impacting it out is not likely to win over a few pieces of evidence that connect really well to each other and the resolution.

LD

I love framework/philosophy debate. In my mind, whoever controls the framework debate the best is more likely to win the round, especially in cases where the frameworks contradict each other. Using the framework to base how you are going to argue your AFF/NEG case is a good way to keep me on the same page as you in the round. That being said, make sure that you know your framework well otherwise your case will be weak.

K arguments are a hard sell for me. I might buy a critical argument if it relates to the topic, but if the argument is non-topical, I am not going to vote it up.

PF

I have never done PF. I understand the structure of an argument and as long as you are logical, I will probably be fine. Again, just connect back to the resolution and avoid just dumping a large amount of evidence with no logic.

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.