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.

This will be the first time judging this topic. Don't be afraid to slow down a little bit to make sure I hear/understand data that will be new to me.

I think one clear strong argument weighs more than several rapid-fire weaker ones.

I'm looking for the team that convinces me more than the team that wins an argument.

Be respectful - shading your opponents will count against you more than them.

Please don't do my job - any scoring commentary like "we get all this impact because they didn't..." goes in one ear and out the other.

I'm rooting for you to do well! Have fun!

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!

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.

General:

Hi I’m Sami, I did debate for all four years of high school. I did Public Forum, DX, inform, and oratory. I stay fairly up to date on the topics and general global events.I’m a sophomore in college so I’m not super far out in terms of remembering how debate works. I’ll keep a good flow and base my decision off of that. Please just be courteous to your opponents, me and most importantly your partner (if you have one).

PF:

Off the clock road maps are fine, if anything I prefer them if your circuits allows them.

Speed: I can handle speed fairly well, however if I’m not flowing slow down. Just because I can handle the speed doesn’t mean you should act like you're in a policy round and go light speed, if you do it will be reflected in speaker points. If you're trying to spread your opponents, trust me I can tell and again will be reflected in lower speaker points. Don’t be abusive with speed, it's not fun for anyone involved.

Flowing: I am a flow judge, if you can win the flow you can win my ballet. Please sign post, I can’t weigh arguments if I don’t know where on the flow they belong. If you or your partner doesn’t extend arguments don’t bring it up again. If your opponent tries this, call them out, if they dropped something that they’re making a huge voting issue off of it, say it was a drop. If your in second summary, don't bring up new evidence or new arguments, this is abusive to your opponents and honestly just really messes up the flow. I won't flow it and won't hold your opponents to respond to it, so don't do it. Similar I expect second rebuttal to cover both the pro and con sides of the flow, a sign of a good debate (and second speaker in general) is being able to time manage both cases and cover necessary arguments. If you drop it in second rebuttal it's going to be very hard to have your summary speaker recover the point or argument on the flow.

Calling for Evidence: I won’t run prep time for either team when calling for cards, but please don’t steal prep time, if I see this I will start to run your prep. Also please be quick about this, don't spend 5 minutes finding a card, this should be ready to go. Cards should also be cut (if not it will be reflected in speaker points)!

Framework: If you have it you better pull it through if you want me to use it as a weighting mechanism! Don't mention it in constructive then again in FF. If no framework is provided I'll default to Cost Ben Analysis. If there is clash in framework give me reason in rebuttal and summary as to why I should prefer your FW.

General: Don’t be abusive with anything in the round, please remember that this is just a high school debate round. Also remember your opponents are people too and they have feelings. Be careful with what you say when leaving the room or in the general area, keep ranting on the bus.

LD:

I’m so sorry you have me as your judge. I’ve judged LD a good handful of times but am no means up to date on topics. I know kinda what's going on but I’m by no means an expert. Stuff from PF will loosely translate for the more transferable skills.

Extemp:

Please don’t lie about sources, I’ll know. I’ll try to give you time signals. Do what you do. Like I mentioned before I stay up-to-date with the majority of topics, though I'm more knowledgeable on domestic issues. I won't hold any of my political beliefs against you, I want to hear your answer to the question. As long as you give me warrants, connect your sources to the question, give me good analysis and don't lie about your source, that's a perfect speech to me. So please don't stress about giving me a speech you think I'll like, give me your thoughts and answer to the question!

Speech:

Do you, take a breath and be confident. Have fun!

Theories/Ks:

I’ll listen to them but I probably won’t vote you up if you're using one, especially in PF. It’s my job to vote based on whoever affirms or negates the resolution better. Debate is educational, please come ready to debate a fair and educational round. Your topic may be super important but this is not the time or place and doesn’t allow for your opentent to learn or debate.

If you have any question about anything feel free to email me heggesamantha384@gmail.com. Good luck and 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.

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.

I prefer a public speaking tone and pace (no racing). No off-the-clock roadmaps - when you speak, the clock starts. Be civil! No sighs, eye-rolls, nor combative cross-fire techniques. I prefer eye-contact and being engaging with your judge. Please don’t just read from your computer.

Thanks!

General

I Debated PF for 3 years for Brookings High School

3rd at NSDA nats my senior year, 36th my junior year. 2-time nats qualifier, TOC qualifier, 2024 South Dakota PF State Champ.

Timing and Speed:

Time yourself. I will keep track during speeches but the round will be smoother if you time yourself.

PF Stuff

Tech>Truth

Argumentation>Speaking Style

- ie what you're saying matters more than how you say it

Second speaker needs to get back to defend their own case in rebuttal.

Don't bring up new argumentation in Second Summary pls

Don't Spread

-No one knows how to spread well in PF so don't do it

-you can still talk decently fast just make it audible

Don't be boring, use cross to your advantage. Strategy is something I love to see in action.

Warrant and Weigh your evidence

Progressive

I have a really high voting threshold when it comes to progressive arguments ( K's, Theory, whatever). If you choose to run theory with me as a judge, you better be sure that you will cross all your T's and dot your I's. Don't be abusive.

Extra stuff

Tell a story with whatever you are running. A clear narrative will help bridge the gap between lay and tech judges in any round.

I love clinchers at the end of speeches. A short statement that brings out the message of your argument. (Ex. Unequal Rules for Unequal Players Create's Unequal Outcomes). I'll give extra speaks if you do this because I think its that important.

The round isn't over until the final focus. I believe that the FF is the most important speech. No matter how good/bad the round has been for you, if you know what you are doing FF is where you get my vote. EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Warrants are what give you my vote over anything else. Weigh your evidence as well

Don't just say card names, explain why they matter.

If you want more info, just look at Emily Hua's paradigm. She was my partner and I agree with her on pretty much everything.

Hello debaters,

I approach 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:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. 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.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me. I will listen to them though.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • 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.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, 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.

email: patrick.pope@k12.sd.us

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.

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.

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've competed in Oratory and Inform, Inform most recently. I was 9th in the nation for Informative Speaking, and I lived and breathed my individual event all four years of high school. Considering this, I do have a high expectation, however, I will be judging you based upon you and your performance. You need to show me that you care about what you're telling me, because I know for a fact that I'm not going to care if you don't. This is your speech. Show me what you can do.

I have judged and competed in Public Forum before, so I know what's going on. I base my decisions heavily on the flow and arguments made in round. Having evidence to back-up your analysis is a huge plus. Try to pull through your arguments through the round. Don't ignore what your opponent says against your case/evidence, respond and provide evidence that your case/argument is still valid in the round.

All of this being said, even if your case and evidence is top-notch perfect, I will not vote for you if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents. This is a learning experience, and should be a good experience for everyone in the round. Do not make me vote you down for disrespecting competitors.

I am new to judging and a varsity PF'er. I have a difficult time spelling so if I make weird faces it's to myself and not to you or anything you're saying.