conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

University of Denver Sturm College of Law

University of Denver Debate

Add me to that email chain: chrisbass41899@gmail.com

POLICY:

Introducing an abundance of new evidence quickly calls into question the validity and quality of that evidence.

If AFF, must provide evidence of topicality and a good interpretation. After doing so, move on.

If NEG, if case is topical, move on. If it is not, provide a good interpretation in the construction. After doing so, move on.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

Introducing an abundance of new evidence quickly calls into question the validity and quality of that evidence.

If AFF, must provide evidence of moral framework and good interpretation. After doing so, move on.

If NEG, must provide evidence of moral framework and good interpretation. After doing so, move on.

Both AFF and NEG can value clash during the debate; however, it should not be the primary objective of the debate. Instead, the primary objective must be flowing the value through your case, not getting caught up on the frameworks themselves.

she/her || kylie.berg@yale.edu || fairview AB '24

2020–2024: high school PF at fairview

• we did quite well in colorado and okay on the circuit (toc g x3, nsda nats x3)
• i think there is a problem, especially on the circuit, where recent grads cannot separate their personal impressions of schools/teams from the way they judge, and engage in reputation-adjusted judging (i will make every effort not to do this)

2024–current: college parli at yale

if i’m judging you in colorado, don’t worry about reading this whole thing unless you want to. aim for a fun, smart, kind debate. collapse and weigh as much as you can. don’t lie, i’m flowing.

with that said! i once read that tabula rasa is a myth, so the best thing a judge can do is articulate the ways in which they’re not tab. here is my effort to do so.

preferences:

• clarity > speed; assertion > aggression. make debate accessible and respectful. my personal threshold for speed is fairly high but i won’t flow off a doc. thus if you're actually spreading it’s unlikely that i’m flowing as well as you want me to.

• tech ≈ truth. in that the bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.

• clean collapses/weighing > going for everything. you're never winning everything and you don’t have to. going for every argument in the back half of round will spread you very thin and take time that could be spent on good weighing.

• your analysis > my intervention. the more you collapse and the more you weigh, the more uncertainty you squeeze out of my decisionmaking process. the more analytical work i have to do, the lower the chances you'll like my decision.

• strong evidence > strong analytics >>>> weak evidence > weak analytics >>>> no response.

• probability > magnitude. i default p > m on impact calc if a round comes down to it, feel free to convince me otherwise :)

• topical rounds >>> k debate >> theory. before running a k: 1. does it actually link? 2. can you explain it well? 3. is it cool and interesting? before running theory: was there in-round abuse? i feel that lots of claims/counterclaims in progressive debates are difficult to resolve without some level of intervention. disclo is always zzz

• paraphrasing ≈ cut cards. if you’re paraphrased in CO, be able to pull up the card and what to ctrl+f for. if you’re paraphrased on the circuit, be able to pull up a cut card. if you can’t provide the evidence i drop the argument. if there's a compelling reason to think you lied about the evidence i drop the debater(s). lmk at the end of the round if you think your opponents lied and i'll call the cards/make a decision.

pf:

• frontline turns and as much defense as possible if you're speaking second, otherwise you've dropped their attacks and your paths to the ballot have narrowed considerably. this is a good norm that helps offset the massive advantage of speaking second.

• signpost often and extend cleanly, both your evidence and the warrant/implication. if you want me to vote on something make sure it's in both summary and final (maybe in the same order too!), make sure i know what ballot you're asking for.

• annika and i always did a heavily narrative-based style of debate. and so i am a sucker for good narrative debates. paint a picture of a world with the resolution and a world without - are we trading short-term economic prosperity for long-term generational damage to millions of americans? increasing the number of rags-to-riches stories at the expense of the middle-class masses? sacrificing quality of life the poorest communities to further enrich a wealthy minority? disguising a poverty trap as a progressive policy? tell me about it :)

ld:

• fw clash unfortunately often devolves into mid attacks like "my value pre-reqs theirs" or "my criterion links better into their value." i would be delighted to listen to some more substantive fw debates! if you and your opponent chose different words to encapsulate what’s functionally the same value, please skip the fw debate, don’t waste everyone’s time.

• fw is not a voting issue (obv), its a lens that i use to weigh your impacts. i know ld is all about phil and ethics but you still need impacts. impacts ≠ millions of deaths. they can be quantifiable, sliding scale, whatever you want, just weigh them well.

• i'll look for you to make a pointed decision about where you want the round to go with your 1ar, same with the 2nr (humongous amount of time to progress the fw debate, respond to the 1ar, decide where you want the round to go from there, and crystallise the debate down to some main issues). please give me voters at the end of the 2nr, and probably the whole 2ar (some time on fw at the beginning is ok). if you make the cleanest, coldest collapse mankind has ever seen in your last speech = things are looking good for you.

speaks:

• certainly the most subjective part of debate. usually <28 if you say something problematic or communicate very ineffectively, 28-29 if you give nice coherent speeches, >29 if you impress me, make me laugh, or bring me a slice of gum.

Firstly in application to all debates please be respectful to your opponents as much as humanly possible, this especially applies to CX periods if you're not nice during these you will be jacked for it, debate should be fun for all. As it is exactly what I do I am more than okay with fast speeches and cases, but please make sure to signpost everything you are doing and make sure your opponent is okay with you speaking quickly.

LD: Luckily for you folks, LD is the debate I am the most versed in. Meaning I am more than capable of keeping up with shorthanded terms and difficult topics. As it is specific to LD I will often vote on the framing of values; show me why both cases should follow your framework. I flow very closely and will be able to see arguments if things aren't attacked. If you point it out and are right that almost always secures a win for the round. In your case, if the link chain is strong that's an early advantage. Overall, I will vote on frame, the spread of arguments, and more importantly tech over truth.

PF: Very important for PF kids, please tell me where cards are from and why they are credible. If they aren't explained and your opponents call that out it looks bad on the flow. In PF the use of questioning periods is so important. If you can use it to your advantage and tie back to the questions that's a likely vote for you. Make sure to flow arguments if you aren't I am and I will see when things aren't attacked/defended. If an opponent doesn't attack or defend something point it out and I will probably vote on that. Importantly I will vote a lot on tech over truth.

Primarily, I consider "clash," or direct engagement with the opposing argument and defense of one's own.

Equally though, I value coherence, or the logical consistency and organization of an argument, as well as the support of objective facts from credible sources.

Of secondary importance I look for civil, respectful demeanor, and delivery that is accurate, grammatical, confident, and expressive. Please don't speak so quickly that I can't take notes.

I prefer an argument built on solid evidence and reasoning, rather than one hung on formalities or technicalities. Whoever presents the most convincing case, and does the most thorough job of attack and defense, wins the round.

Quick Notes

My email is bradbry1@gmail.com. I am open to talking about results, feedback, questions, concerns etc.

I give out event specific paradigms before rounds.

I am fine with the use of technology in debate rounds. However, I will stop you and check if I feel you are using any tech in an inappropriate way (i.e. Looking up info in the middle of a round)

Speak clearly and fluently for the sake of myself and your peers

I can understand spreading or other forms of complex and speedy speech, but I won’t give you points based off that. If you know how and can speak clearly while doing so, feel free

I will not do the work for you in any round. Especially in important debate rounds. I won’t draw connections, fill in blanks, or preform any action that is not directly pointed out by you as the speaker. (i.e. Cross-applying arguments, linking impacts or points, etc.)

TRUTH OVER TECH!!!

Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive environment. I will not tolerate aggression of any form in my rounds. I will DQ anyone should they attempt to preform any action (verbal or physical) that attacks another. Just be kind, respectful, and courteous

Paradigms

-Speech Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

The way you preform your speech (The physical actions, verbal speaking, etc.)

How well you address your topic

I do not judge based off…

My personal interest of the topic

Props. However, in the case of Informative, I will give points for a creative use of boards to emphasize speech

-Interp Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The way you preform your acts (Verbal speaking, physical actions, etc.)

You will not be judged based off…

Which pieces you choose

-Debate Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

Your arguments

Your examples (including citations)

The linkwork you do (I will not do any linkwork)

Your Impacts and Warranting (This is included in weighing)

How you preform in the debate and follow debate format (Clash, formatting, etc.)

Speaker points

Way Below Average – You’ve preformed aggressive actions against others

Below Average – You performed poorly or in a manner that negatively impacted your room or event

Average – You performed okay and upheld the standard in your room or event

Above Average - You performed well or in a manner that positively impacted your room or event

Way Above Average – You performed incredibly and had mad major positive impacts to your room or event

Public Forum

Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.

Judged in SCU & North Bay.

I prefer no off time road maps, and I put a large emphasis in properly citing your information, and in cross examinations.

Hey all! I am so excited to be back and judging because Speech and Debate is one of my favorite activities. I only did Speech and Debate my senior year of high school because I used to be a big running person. After I injured myself I thought I would give Speech and Debate a try. I loved it! I primarily did Info, Drama, and Poetry but I also had a Humor at one point. I double qualified for nationals in Info and Drama and I took my Info for my qualifying event and then poetry as a supplemental. I broke to the quarter-finals in Poetry, and I was super ecstatic about that. So that is just a little about me, but here are a couple of things to remember in the round.

1. There will be no bad-mouthing of anyone. EVER. You are all part of the same community. One that loves everyone no matter what. A community that wants to inspire change in our young people. It is ok to respectfully not like someone's piece but that doesn't mean you get to bad mouth them. Everyone has worked hard to bring a unique perspective to each tournament. Be kind because kindness is free
2. Please be respectful of others. Everyone has worked super hard to be there and it is super disrespectful to talk during someone else's piece. I'm sure you would want everyone to be respectful to you, so please listen and see if you can take something away from their piece.
3. If you have to leave because you are double-entered please do so between performances and politely excuse yourself. Otherwise, I would encourage you to stay and watch all of the performances
4. Just remember to have fun. Speech and Debate isn't all about the awards and placings. Speech and Debate is about inspiring change one audience member at a time. It's about making new friends that will last a lifetime. So if you like someone's piece go talk to them! Tell them how much you enjoyed it and you never know what might happen :)

Hello! I have been judging for about two years, and I competed for two years before that. I have a few main paradigms:

please time yourself, try to avoid interrupting each other as much as possible (accidents happen), treat each other with respect, and I allow for a 30 second grace period. My main goal is to support a healthy, strong, and respectful debate! I want everyone to be able to finish their questions during cross as well. If you speak quickly, I will do my best to keep up, but please try to speak at a conversational pace just so I can fully take in what you're saying. I try to write as many notes as possible. I focus on both the quality of your case and your presentation combined. In the past, my favorite debates have been those that have strong cross questions and responses, as well as those that have strong cards.

Signposting and roadmaps—It's super important that you signpost and do roadmaps (off-time is fine) whenever applicable. That way, I can keep up with your arguments/parts of your speech.

CX (Policy)- Speed/spreading is fine, but it needs to be understandable. I won't flow it if I can't understand where you are. I judge based on stock issues and am mostly a flow judge, so convince me why you win on both, and you'll win the round. I will flow important things in cross, but if it's important enough for me to vote on it, bring it up in a speech.

LD- I'm a core value judge, tell me what I should be judging you on and how to do that (value criterion), and exactly why you win and I'll give you the round. I don't flow cross, but I will pay attention, so if it's important, bring it up in a speech.

PF- I'm an impacts judge, tell me why you win on impacts and you'll win the round. I enjoy well-structured cases, clear cards, and clear rebuttals. I don't flow cross, but I will pay attention, so if it's important, bring it up in a speech.

Signposting and roadmaps—It's super important that you signpost and do roadmaps (off-time is fine) whenever applicable. That way, I can keep up with your arguments/parts of your speech.

CX (Policy)- Speed/spreading is fine, but it needs to be understandable. I won't flow it if I can't understand where you are. I judge based on stock issues and am mostly a flow judge, so convince me why you win on both, and you'll win the round. I will flow important things in cross, but if it's important enough for me to vote on it, bring it up in a speech.

LD- I'm a core value judge, tell me what I should be judging you on and how to do that (value criterion), and exactly why you win and I'll give you the round. I don't flow cross, but I will pay attention, so if it's important, bring it up in a speech.

PF- I'm an impacts judge, tell me why you win on impacts and you'll win the round. I enjoy well-structured cases, clear cards, and clear rebuttals. I don't flow cross, but I will pay attention, so if it's important, bring it up in a speech.

Patrick Coggin (he/him)
patrickcoggin4@gmail.com
_____________________________________________________
Retired Director of Debate @ Cheyenne East High School, 3rd year trad PF debater.

General Paradigm:

Please. Just ask, "Is anyone not ready?" Wait a moment, then you can start speaking.

Just be kind to your opponents. I understand that CX can get heated, but just know that there is a clear line between obviously being rude/attacking the opponent and asking questions pertaining to the debate itself. Along with this, constantly talking over each other (reasonable if an opponent talks for a minute or basically tries to filibuster), yelling, or saying statements instead of questions will definitely play a factor in the ballot.

I'll just give you the L if you just feel like being rude to your opponents. I could care less if you had a school rivalry with your opponents for decades, we're all here to enjoy a debate.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you need clarification on anything! Good luck!

PF Paradigm:

tl;dr - how to win my ballot
1. warrant out your arguments, it needs actual backing instead of some weak claim with no evidence backing it up
2. be responsive when refuting arguments, should dedicate some time to this
3. weigh args/impacts along with comparisons, implicate, and also tell me why i should vote for your arg over your opponents
4. solve clash with clarity (it doesn't matter if you're a pretty speaker or not, but clarity does go a long way)

in-depth stuff:

K's/Theory does not belong in PF. PF was designed to be a fun debate to understand (usually). Policy exists for a reason.

I prefer off-time roadmaps so please don't ask me again in round. The only road map that should be used is "our case, their case" or "their case, our case" because I understand that either way you will be attacking, extending, frontlining, weighing, defending, etc.

I can understand fast-paced debates, but I don't understand top-speed circuit spreading. More cards spreaded ≠ a higher chance of winning.

Do not bring up new evidence in the last summary speech.

I understand that the Wyoming circuit doesn't share cases, cards, etc., but just set up an email chain before the round if you plan on calling for cards. If this doesn't happen, god forbid, start using prep once your opponents locate and give the evidence to you.

At a minimum, read the author's last name and last two digits of the year for each card you have.

Signpost throughout the round. If you want me to vote on the flow, you need to be very clear about what contention/card/argument you are extending.

You should weigh in the round so you can summarize why your arguments outweigh your opponents. Please provide an actual explanation of why you outweigh and not just say, "i outweigh so i win."

Tell me why dropped arguments matter. Along with this, develop arguments by warranting them out, refute arguments, weigh impacts with comparativeness, and resolve clashes with clarity.

Truth over tech. :)

i never judged ld or cx so i'm sorry if i your judge in those events

I look for competitors that always maintain professionalism. If you attack an opponent you will lose my vote.

I am a traditional judge and honestly prefer you to use as little jargon as possible, use it one to establish what you are doing/running then break it down so your grandmother would understand what you are saying.

Speech & Debate are communication events so speaking is very important to me, however, just because you sound the prettiest that does not mean you necessarily won. I only listen to logical arguments, meaning just because you found one person or source to say what you're wanting to argue that does not mean I have to by it. This is not judge intervention, this is you not persuading me enough with your argument.

For example, if you found someone, regardless of their credentials, stating that if JFK was born two months later then he would not have been assassinated and due to his leadership there would be no need to now defund the police. Did you read a card? sure. Do I believe this? not in the slightest.

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

I Debated primarily traditional LD in high school for all 4 years at Cherry Creek (‘24) and did Extemp, but I have experience with all events.

TLDR:

My job as your judge is to adjust to your style of debate, not the other way. I am try to be as much of tab judge as possible. I write this paradigm understanding I have preconceived notions and I found them helpful when I competed, so I offer this offer this as guidance.

Feel free to skip around and read the sections that are pertinent to your round with me. But to be clear you do not need to read this to win my ballot by any means, good luck with your round.

________________________________________________________________________________

Order by how likely it is to come up when I’m judging you: General debate preferences, Traditional LD, PF, CX, Circuit LD, Speaker points, Extemp, WSD, and a final note

General debate preferences:

- Respect is essential. To me, your opponent, and everyone else involved. This certainly can be an aspect of speaker points.

-Clarity > Speed. I don’t mind speed, to the point that you are actually articulating words clearly. But being clear is more important. I talked about spreading in further details in the Circuit LD and CX sections. Also, please don’t spread if it's traditional LD or PF, or your opponent asks for a lay round, debate is meant to be accessible.

-Tech > truth, to the extent that it is not the job of the judge to interfere in the arguments, but it is much easier to win arguments based in reality. If the argument is dropped, I’m inclined to buy said argument but make sure to extend and weigh it.

-The more analysis and warranting as to why you win the round will make it much easier to vote for you so please give me voting issues.

- For the sake of Cross, let the person answer the question before you cut them off. It's your time to use, feel free to cut them off, while you’re questioning them but don’t try to make cross into an extra speech

-Please give an order or off-time road map, no need to ask. Also, it's nice for everyone when you get confirmation that everyone is ready before you begin speaking.

-Each speaker is responsible for their time, I don’t plan on keeping time unless I'm told to or you ask me to. Also, make sure to specify how much prep you used. I like flex prep when it’s the practice of the tournament.

-If the tournament allows it and both debaters are ok with it, I am happy to disclose my decision. If not allowed I am happy to offer some feedback, within reason and not revealing my decision.

Trad LD

-I evaluate arguments and thus which side wins under the framework that is most effectively argued for.

-Winning the round doesn't come down to winning the framework, but I will vote through the lens of the winning framework/a blend of the two if they are similar and which arguments weigh better under lens

-I don't flow CX other than filling in holes in my flow, so if your opponent concedes something make sure to bring it up in the 1NR or 1AR.

-Voting issues are beneficial and can be brought up in whatever manner.

-Please don't lie about evidence.

-All you need to do to introduce cards is to last name and year/say if it is no date (Lichtman 24). You can give me the author credential but unless there is a debate on evidence quality, it's probably not worth your time.

PF:

-Most standard debate things apply from above.

-I never did PF in HS but I have judged it and watched many rounds. I will vote based on the impacts (under whatever framing provided other wise presuming cost benefit analysis) considering probability and magnitude.

-Extend arguments if you want them to be considered.

-Collapsing and kicking are great, but try to be clear that is what you’re doing.

-I look for crystallization and weighing especially in later speeches, and then voters.

-Signposting and road maps are really helpful

-As with LD, I won't flow crossfires so make sure to pull through concessions in the next rebuttal

-Please don’t lie about evidence. If your opponents ask for a card or I do, please give it.

-Crossfires should be split equally for the sake of both sides being able to ask questions, but that’s on the teams to do.

(If the debate skews circuit pf style, I am happy to evaluate under whatever framework provided and I have no belief in arguments that can or cannot be ran in PF)

CX:

-I never did CX, but I have some experience with policy through LARPING and World Schools, I have watched many rounds and studied it in HS through my debate class and I interacted with it through my friends who all did it. I also have experience judging this topic.

-Most of the Circuit LD stuff applies and the same with the general practices of debate

-I’m open to your interpretation of the debate and whether it is policy with stock issues, or it becomes a debate with Ks, theory, and other things

-Order is really helpful for me before each speech

-Add me to the email or speech drop if you’re doing it (I will give you my email at the beginning of the round)

-Spreading is probably necessary, but try to be clear enough that your opponents and I can understand. You may say clear to your opponents or I will if necessary.

-I don’t have many preferences for CX but make sure everyone talks. It’s kinda awkward when only one partner answers questions, especially when it comes to speaker points. They can be open or closed.

Circuit LD (Mostly applicable to CX):

-Add me to the email or speech drop if you’re doing it (I will give you my email at the beginning of the round)

-Spreading is probably necessary, but try to be clear enough that your opponents and I can understand. You may say clear to your opponents or I will if necessary.

-In terms of how the arguments are weighed when voting I would default to Theory > Kritiks > Substance, obviously framing is important in this regard and may change the results. Also, my ability to evaluate each of those arguments is not really in that order.

-I like good, well thought out theory arguments that actually weigh and link. The more substantive the better, but like please don’t run frivolous theory. T-arguments are good, but the more specific the violation the better.

-I think the practice of disclosing cases before round is standard and thus should be done by all opponents. I think the entire debate isn’t fun for anyone involved so please just disclose. I am not really inclined to vote either way on it, so it’s more situational than anything.

-On kritiks, I never ran one in High School, but I faced some and saw them get run. I’d prefer a specific link and obviously, winning on framework is really helpful. I am more familiar with the literature on Cap, Fem, Set Col, and a couple of others, but the more you explain any and all kritiks and the literature behind them the better. Also, make sure that you can explain the K in the cross and actually understand the Literature. The more specific the alt the better, but I’d rather it not be just drop the aff.

-I think LARPing is fun, but I think it can sometimes be weird when the topic is something along the lines of a “moral obligation” or the “Primary Objective ought to be,” but to each their own. Make sure to have a plan text, and to win the stock issues.

-I like counter plans but make sure to also read plan texts. PICs are a little weird to me, but if you can explain it well and actually warrant I’ll vote for it

-I’m open to vote for Condo bad theory depending on the round and how it is run. RVIs are interesting and I’m not really inclined to vote for them unless there is a really good reason but feel free to run them.

Speaker points:

-I try to be pretty generous with speaking but the actual amount depends on the norms of the tournament, event, etc.

-I would say your points come down to strategy, fluidity, and substance in that order.

-If I’m allowed to, I am not opposed to low speaks wins.

Extemp:

- First note unrelated to judging, I believe Extemp is an incredibly challenging but invaluable event so props for doing

-I try to stay well informed and know what you are talking about, but I will mostly judge as if I don’t know what you are talking about for the sake of fairness

-I am open to doing whatever time signals you want and am amenable to whatever grace period the tournament gives you

-I appreciate a funny intro and smooth transitions, but I think stylistically the more you are comfortable with said style, the better the speech will be.

-I don’t have a singular method of ranking speakers. I factor in speaking quality, fluidity, Quality (less importantly number) of sources, efficacy of blocking and gestures, and other methods that make the speech persuasive and informative.

World Schools:

-I have never judged World Schools for a tournament, but I did it, and will arbitrate the round based strictly on the "rubric"

-I prefer attempting to make more POIs than less and accepting at least 1 or 2

Conclusion:

Thanks for reading this, I'll make myself available before the round if you have any questions.

Feel free to shake my hand if you’re comfortable and you can refer to me as a Collin or judge, but it's up to you. I am excited to watch your round and will do my best to be as objective as possible. I try to provide helpful feedback and a clear RFD and again if you have questions after the debate, I am happy to answer them after I submit my ballot. But please don’t be rude after round, especially if disclosure is involved, to me or your opponent.

I debated Policy exclusively for 4 years in high school, I won 4A state in 2006 and went to Nationals 3 out of the 4 years. Pick your position and defend it, then defend your evidence. I'm a tab judge, I'm open to any issues and all schools of thought, this is your debate and I want you to own it even if that means taking a few risks.

Stock Issues: Don't expect me to make any assumptions;

CX Time: Please use it, this is your chance to shine;

Speed: Go for it but don't be sloppy, I can still flow;

Discursives, PICs or Ks: Be firm in your stance if you're going to go this route because I am happy to entertain them;

Time: Keep your own but I'll be tracking.

Speech and Debate is one of the best activities you could participate in, I won't say "do what you want" but that is how I feel. I believe debate should be accessible to all and should foster inclusivity - even if you're winning the flow, racist, sexist, homophobic and/or other problematic speech will be voted down. Have fun!

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

Pick your position and defend it, then defend your evidence. I'm a tab judge, I'm open to any issues and all schools of thought, this is your debate and I want you to own it even if that means taking a few risks.

Stock Issues: Don't expect me to make any assumptions;

CX Time: Please use it, this is your chance to shine;

Speed: Go for it but don't be sloppy, I can still flow;

Discursives, PICs or Ks: Be firm in your stance if you're going to go this route because I am happy to entertain them;

Time: Keep your own but I'll be tracking.

Speech and Debate is one of the best activities you could participate in, I won't say "do what you want" but that is how I feel. I believe debate should be accessible to all and should foster inclusivity - even if you're winning the flow, racist, sexist, homophobic and/or other problematic speech will be voted down. Have fun!

1st year parent judge, new to debate. Be slow and clear when you speak and try not to use tech language.

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

Hello! Thanks for reading these!

I am currently a student at UW, majoring in Finance and Business Economics. I have competed in Oratory, LD, Congress, Extemp, and Public Forum. I've gone to nationals in Congress, USX, and PF. I will give you good feedback I promise!

I have a ranking for the most important things I see in a debate:

1. Speaking: I am opposed to spreading, you can talk a little fast but you must be understandable. The presentation of your points is the most important part of debate. (I also hate disclosure theory in CX, anyone should be able to present their points clearly, and those not speaking should be paying attention). You shouldn't pre-write almost any of your speeches (other than cases) and read them off with your eyes glued to the computer. I expect you to speak naturally, make eye-contact, speak convincingly, and connect with me.
2. Flow coverage: You guys have to cover the flow in a logical order and ensure that every argument is addressed. Most importantly, if you drop points, I will not vote on them, everything you want me to vote on must be said in your voters.
3. Tech>Truth.
4. V/VC clash (LD only) IT MUST BE ONE OF YOUR VOTERS!!
5. Consistency, (especially in PF and CX). Partners need to be on the same page, even with phrasing your arguments. If each speech is saying a totally different thing, the debate is super hard to follow.
6. I prefer traditional debate, in CX you can make some stuff work but it must be really well articulated, but in PF and LD, I like a traditional, clean debate.

For congress, everything is on quality of speaking and engaging the room, later speeches must be nuanced takes, if not entirely unique.

If y'all have any questions on paradigms or on ballots please ask! my email is anu.glennie123@gmail.com :)

Good Luck!

Add me to the email chain: eadriang17@gmail.com

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

Last updated for Worlando Beach- 1/10/25

Debated for:

University of Wyoming 2021-23

Cheyenne East- 2017-2021

I have more knowledge and experience with policy rounds, but am not opposed to clash or K v K rounds- you guide the direction of the debate, not me

Things to help win my ballot

1. Impact Calculus- Succinct, well warranted impact calc is the key to my heart and can easily steal rounds away. Too many rounds happen where the aff assumes I hear something in the 1AC, and automatically assume their impacts are bigger than the negative's, that often not the case. Without explanation of why I should evaluate your impacts over your opponents, my path to victory should be obvious. The first 20 seconds of the 2NR/2AR should be what I write on my ballot.

2. Communication- If I can't hear you, I can't flow your arguments. This is especially true as we're mostly online, but I was never good at flowing 16, unlabeled arguments under one subpoint anyways, so probably best to slow down, even just a little bit. I'm okay with speed in general, but I'm not a machine, and if you're spreading to the point where nobody can understand you, it's impossible for me to evaluate those args. Especially on tags and in theory debates- noticing a trend of folks failing to take a breath, which in theory debates SUCKS for you :)

3. Timing- Grace periods aren't a thing. Who let y'all get away with this? When the timer stops, you're welcome to keep yapping, but know I've stopped flowing and I'm gonna give you weird looks until you sit down.

Argument Specific Stuff

Condo- probably good, but don't overdo it. I find debates where mooting as much of the aff as possible and then owning them on a thing you weren't going for anyways to be very sad, but it's a tool in the tool kit, so just don't abuse it, and for those aff teams out there who think three means go, I'm probably your guy. Also, this is probably the only theory argument that is reject the team, not the arg.

Kritiks- I'm down, just know my K lit base knowledge in general is terrible, and topic specific stuff is even worse. That doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't go for these arguments, it just means you need to do more explanation so I get the gist. Also, probably have an alt.

Tech > Truth

Theory args at the bottom of flows- I'll cry if your 3rd response to the CP is theory, your opponents will cry, and if you have another argument, followed by another theory argument, I'll cry some more. If theory becomes more developed we all need space to write them down, trying to sandwich your subpoint z as to why condo is a good thing between other spots on the flow is messy and unfun for everyone.

Judge Kick- I don't do it unless told otherwise by the neg, and can be convinced by the aff not to do so.

Tech- I'm probably like, medium tech on the scale. I get most complex args, but I won't pretend like my eyes don't glaze over a little bit in some clash rounds, or 20 minute framework overviews on a Kritik. Part of this is absolved by slowing down on these more complex topics (see above) the other part is absolved by not going off the rails.

Meta Debate Stuff

Don't steal prep. I will be upset if you say you're done taking prep, and continue to click things on your computer for up to a minute afterwards, especially if it's obvious other people are prepping. Save you and your opponents the shame of stealing prep and just learn how to save a word document in less than an hour.

Be kind- the world is sad sometimes, the last place we need it is in this activity where hopefully most individuals are really brilliant people. Don't be sexist, homophobic, ablest, or racist.

I was a former PF-er, Extemp-er, and congressional debater. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

1. Spreading is for cowards. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will most likely win).
2. DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. I’ll start ignoring you and think about my wonderful mother nagging me to do chores. I won't flow args that start after the clock runs out and I'd needed I'll verbally cut you off
3. Every time you don’t signpost, weigh or have voters a small puppy dies. In addition, if you reframe, or clip cards the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a small kitten gets adopted into a loving home.
4. Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win. I have the right to choose if something is too out of wack aswell
5. I don’t disclose after round. Do not ask me to.
6. Friv theory, no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks needs to have solvency and topicality. (Unless you are doing funny friv, then it might slide, case by case)

7. Sure, time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time.

8. At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented and NSDA was intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

PF:

Public Forum debate is a style of debate in which a mass of people, the "public" can enter a "forum". A forum for the public should be easily accessible to the average person, thus I judge this debate as such. evidence should be easy to view & understand by both sides. Aslong as that is mentioned in speech and/or agreeable between teams, there will be no issue.

1. PF is card-heavy, please, create an email chain with your opponents before the round! or not! just be amicable and willing to give cards in a timely manner. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).

2. The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and have impact analysis. You have four minutes, use them!

3. 1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).

4. The crystallization speech needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all) not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).

5. If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it. If your questions takes 15 seconds to ask, ask a different question ???? please

Extemporaneous Speaking (and other platform + impromptu for that matter):

Overall, a better speech wins, I first and foremost judge on content

1. Extemp values thinking on the fly, I favor speeches that include TOPICAL and TAME humor, sure i enjoy an untame joke. But; that SHOULD NOT be paired with something to be taken seriously such as the Yemeni civil war.

2. When push comes to shove and 2 speakers have equally good speeches, I do judge on the smaller important distinguishing skills, like the walk, the hand gestures, the pacing, etc.

3. When talking about your points I want to see impacts or how it may affect me or the world around me.

4. I count and check sources, if I catch you making them up, you’ll be bumped down a placement for each source wildly incorrect. I've been a speaker I get it's hard to remember or funny. You'll slide with other judges but not me.

5. I value uniqueness of a speech, if you find roundabout consequences or theory id love that to be included as extemp values thinking outside the box, just don’t be frivolous. You’ll be favored over the same monotonous recycled 8 points.

Congressional Debate:

1. Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread, you are failing in every aspect.

2. PO must follow basic parli pro and must make the session a fun environment for everyone. If the parli doesn't do so they'll be knocked points, Congress should be in some instances a more fun and light hearted event

3. Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech has an expectation to respond to arguments from speeches prior. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they'll need to respond to previous arguments on top of their new points).

4. To get a high ranking in the chamber you need to engage (speeches, questions influence on chamber).

5. If your questions suck, I’m going to place you lower than someone who doesn’t question, as what you add to the debate has been touched on already and all you do is waste time.

LD:

1. The framework is everything in LD. the framework needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong v/vc clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF for one, yuck!

2. Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I hate hangnails, and I will hate your case, and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).

3. The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework, rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.

4. I hate counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.

5. I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

Policy

1. My first general rule applies, especially to CX. Cowards don’t deserve to win. DO NOT SPREAD!

2. I don’t want people in public flashing me, and I don’t want teams to flash cases to each other. Please share THE ENTIRE THING or make it ACCESSIBLE. It's NESSISARY for a more complex event such as this!!!

3. I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue they win. Unless they run a counter plan. Then the round is just a comparative analysis on ads and disads. Which is not bad either.

4. In terms of stock issues, topicality is the most important for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside of the room and let you think about your actions.

5. Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

Hey y’all!

I was a Public Forum and World Schools competitor for high school. I’ve been mostly out of touch since starting college, so assume I know absolutely nothing about the topic.

PF Specific:

- I’m a flow judge (probably would be considered more flay if it's a big circuit tournament) - I would consider myself to have a decent speed threshold but also this is PF. The goal of the activity is to work on communication skills… understanding what you are saying is important. If you want to spread at me, go do Policy. If I need a speech doc to keep up, you are going TOO FAST. I’ll say clear ONCE if it's too fast, after that it's on you if I don’t hear your arguments. For flowing, I often focus more on catching all the content than following author names, so if you are reading dozens of sources at me make sure they are extended with explanations of what they say later in the round… no I don’t remember which of the cards Smith 20 was unless you tell me. Please signpost so I know where to flow, short off-time roadmaps are fine! You have a 10 second grace period, after that I’m not flowing (you’ll see me drop my pen) so please cut yourselves off.

- Tech > truth usually (I have my limits). If you have the evidence, as long as the link chain is clear, then feel free to run crazy arguments. BUT do know that if one team gives me one sketchy card and the other team gives me an ironclad warrant then I am more likely to buy the strong logic. Don’t just card dump on me without warranting!

- If something is dropped through rebuttal, it's dropped in my eyes. Responding in the second summary is too late. Arguments need to be extended all the way through summary and ff or I won’t vote on them. Please collapse when applicable - we don’t need to be covering 6 contentions in a 2-minute speech at the end of the round! Front lining should be happening in second rebuttal!

- Please with everything in me I beg of you to WEIGH. This doesn’t mean tell me your argument “outweighs” then move on. Give me a mechanism for comparing each team's best arguments/impacts. This should start in summary and be prominent in final focus. While I will vote off whatever is presented, know that I have a soft spot for probability and uniqueness weighing (this means outrageous nuke war/extinction link chains typically are harder to win me over with). Give me nuance beyond just “I affect 150 million and they affect 100 million”!

Crossfire:

I don’t flow cx - if it's important bring it up later. To be honest usually I’m catching up on notes during this period, so I might not be catching everything. It's not a time to give speeches, it is a time to ask and answer questions so please be mindful of this. If you are mean in crossfire (acting degrading, interrupting, yelling, behaving condescendingly) then I will not hesitate to drop you. BE RESPECTFUL! This event is trending toward teams acting increasingly rude during cross as everyone fights to get a word in, and I hate it!

Evidence:

I’ll ask for evidence if it is super contested in round. But know that after round, it likely won’t change my result (unless misconstrued), so please indict during speeches! I am fine with email chains (set up before round though) or with just flashing cards. If you are doing a shared doc or email chain, please add me (halle22g@gmail.com).

Progressive Debate:

I don’t like it. I believe that it is just a way to make PF more exclusionary. If you want to debate Ks or theory, there are two other events to do it in. I knew teams who would run theory every round just so they didn’t have to prep the topic. I believe that it pushes out kids who might not be as experienced on the circuit. If you have me at a big tournament and you are there to run a ton of crazy shells, you should probably strike me. That said, I will hear out whatever argument you have and am fine watching a theory/k round IF BOTH TEAMS ARE OK DOING THAT DEBATE (ask your opponent's beforehand please). If both teams are on board - have at it, but at least make it good (and know that I am fairly inexperienced with judging that style of debate).

Other General Thoughts:

Debate should be a fun space where everyone can be included. Any offensive comments or arguments and I won’t hesitate to drop you (It sucks that this even has to be said still but some of the things I’ve heard as part of “just an argument” make me feel a need to include it). You don’t need to treat your opponents as enemies to have a high-level round. (The best memories of when I debated were when we became friends with competitors).

Any questions feel free to ask me in round before we start. I know I have a lot written, but really just do what you do, and I will try to evaluate as fairly as I can :)

Hi! So great to meet you! I'm thrilled to be your judge this round. My paradigm is pretty simple and straightforward: Be yourself, be cool, and be confident.

A bit about me: I competed for four years in high school, mostly in Congressional Debate and Public Forum, though I have experience with Parliamentary and Extemporaneous Debate. Most recently, I advanced as a Quarter-Finalist in Congressional Debate at the U.S. National Tournament last year.

General Notes:

- First, have fun! Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable activity

- Second, I like to flow. Keep your points clear and precise. Also, please don't contradict yourself in your later speeches; I'm a stickler for this

- Third, presentation is important: be confident in your position and the points you're arguing. Even if you slip up in your speech, it's not that big of a deal: catch yourself, stay calm, and continue with your argument.

Overall, you're going to do great! I've been in your shoes, so no need to be nervous! Feel free to ask me specific questions before the round

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I use a typical utilitarian paradigm that places a heavy emphasis on impacts and warrants. I also use what one would consider to be a reasonably educated person's understandings of economics, history, and politics. It is also important that arguments are well organized and clear. Furthermore, rebuttals should include impact explanations.

Hello!

I was a previous Speech kid that did Info and Extemp at Cheyenne Central High School. I only did it one year as a senior novice, but I was able to get novice of the year I joined which was the 2023-2024 year.

I have little experience with debate, but I'll list some biases here. I do like nuclear power, as that is what I'm trying to enter into as a Mechanical Engineer. So with that I believe Climate change is a problem.

Other than that more major opinion, I have also argued for some really dumb and weird things while doing Extemp, so please don't be scared to bring arguments to the room (the first ever novice tournament I did, and I still feel bad, I argued that cell phone service shouldn't be expanded to Native American reservations using a capitalist argument. I won, but I still remember it because I felt real bad.)

I hope that you have a good time and watch out for polar bears!

Debate: Former policy, I do flow and speed but have good enunciation and understand cards at a fundamental level. Cut cards with attention to syntax. Make your clash and flow clear, but explain, don't just give tags. Target the fundamental "why" issues--Impacts, Ethics, Efficacy of Solutions, etc.. Citational integrity is important. Constructions need to build the case and should not leave holes to be picked up during rebuttal. I appreciate a good Topicality and Definition argument, but I balance this with the rest of the on-case argument unless violation is egregious, and you need solid theory structure/cards to explain the purpose of this line of argument. Practice decorum and respect for other debaters and time constraints. Don't use leading questions, use Cx for open-ended investigation and speeches for points.

Interp: I appreciate creativity, experimentation, and sensitivity/consideration towards audience affect/investment. Consider aesthetic coherence of your piece and mannerisms throughout--while I admire excellent technique, it must be purposeful in context and unified in intent.

Informative (Oratory, info, extemp): Persuade me and emphasize the importance of your topic/angle. Make impacts explicit. Organize around argument, not just case studies.

Congress: Give good speeches, practice integrity, don't be rude, respect everyone's space to give a good argument. Don't use leading questions; practice respect in questioning and integrity for the topic and impacts at hand. Make impacts explicit.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (2023-present). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round (or, in parli, a new argument out of the block). I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think debaters sharing docs with each other increases the likelihood of them trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

1. Debating is about fun above all else. however any and all violations of clearly defined rules is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated.
2. I am not a “Lay” judge, the decision for the round will be decided equally among three prominent voters. If voters are not provided I will be forced to vote on a systemic basis, based solely upon which contentions stand and which attacks cause contentions to fall. (VC clash will be weighed at equal importance to contention clash in LD, and will always be weighed even in the case that voters are provided)
3. it doesn’t matter the event, if cards are not provided you will be ranked last. “topic analysis,” and anecdotal evidence will always be weighed at less value than evidence based on professional data.
4. In the rare instance, that I am your judge for a “Interpretational” or “Platform” Event I will easily be defined as a “Lay” Judge. Any and all assistance to the judge in this case is heavily appreciated and supported. Intricacies surrounding specific events will often go overlooked. The round will be judged on content of your speech and the delivery of said speech. Any and all competitors who use a “script” past October 31st will be ranked last.

Katie Jack (she/her)

I would like to be on the email chain please: katiecjack@gmail.com

I was a traditional LD debater for most of high school with one semester of Policy. I've done Policy and British Parliamentary in college.

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Please don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences, but if you're curious here are my thoughts.

Framework – Please try to engage each other's interpretations and arguments instead of just extending your own. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate – I think the case debate is really under-utilized. Case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DAs/CPs – I'm definitely the most comfortable with these types of arguments.

Kritiks – Please don't assume that I'm familiar with your literature base. I think kritiks are most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC, so I appreciate specific link analysis that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I don't really like K affs.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Nontraditional Debate – I am not the most comfortable with this, but as long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do what you'd like.

Speed – I'm not the best flower. I would prefer for you to slow down, but I can handle speed if that's what you wanna do.

Biography

I have a MA in literature from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and am familiar with many of the writers cited in K's. It excites me to see young people still utilize this philosophy; however, it does not excite me when people might run a K and then also run a counterplan that the K would also critique. I am all for theory, but be genuine about it. Fred Moten wrote in The University and the Undercommons, "The prophet is the one who tells the brutal truth, who has the capacity to see the absolute brutality of the already-existing and to point it out and to tell that truth, but also to see the other way, to see what it could be." A K is that willingness to speak the brutal truth and then invest in the alternative of what it could be. A K is not to speak the brutal truth and then turn around and propose a counterplan that only perpetuates the systemic violence inherent in a brutal society

Lincoln-Douglas:

I value debate as a speaking and listening event and also as an education event. After all, the original Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debates were a platform for two senate candidates to meaningfully introduce themselves to voters during the 1858 senate election in Illinois. Also as a consolation to anyone who really tries their hardest in round but winds up losing: Lincoln also lost that senate election. Debate isn't just about winning and losing. Speech and debate is about growing your confidence to prepare you for an even bigger thing in your life.

I hope you as debaters also value communication and thoughtfulness in your own presentation during round by doing your best to meet the following standards:

1. Talking clearly and deliberately. I understand urgency, but you can still be urgent and intelligible.
2. Being mindful of your language. I understand a lot of debate lingo has made our community increasingly esoteric. Words such as "cross apply," "inherency," "exploding grounds for debate," etc. don't mean much of anything to the outside community. They certainly wouldn't have won neither Douglas nor Lincoln any votes. Please do not throw your case or rebuttals full of a lot of jargon. Don't just say "cross apply my Jackson '24 card to their contention 1" when doing a rebuttal. I flow and take notes, but I am not making sure I copy down authors; instead, I'm doing my best to follow your argument.
3. Being mindful of your language (part 2). Please don't use a phrase like "my opponent is being abusive." Abuse is a very specific physical, emotional, and psychological horror. Just say your opponent is being unfair.
4. Doing the work for the audience. Give me clear voter issues that crystallize the round and properly weigh what has been said. I'm still flowing though, so be mindful that you don't strawman or misrepresent your fellow debaters' positions! I really dislike it when a debater says another debater "dropped their whole contention 1" when in fact they probably did address it.
5. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate. For Colorado debaters, this means no grace period for speeches! Secondly, during cross if someone asks a question at 2:45 or so, that other person can respond, but please keep the response concise.
6. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 2). I do not participate in email chains or case sharing. My role as a judge is to listen to each debater communicate their case verbally to an audience including myself. Speech and debate is a speaking event. It's not like the US Court of Appeals where over 80% of cases from the appellate are decided by just three judges reviewing written cases.
7. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 3). If you suspect dishonest behavior like misrepresented or powertagged evidence, slow it down and make the case. Don't rely on debate jargon like "the internals of the card do not support their warrant." Break it down for me and spell it out. Also, tell me you want me to pull this card. I don't intervene as a judge unless I am explicitly asked to.

Public Forum Debate (formerly known as Ted Turner Debate):

The original category for PF debate suggests its interest in being arguably the most accessible form of debate. Named after media mogul Ted Turner, PF should give the audience an approachable view of the topic that is ultimately educational. Imagine you are on some distinguished network like PBS and you represent the very best of advocates for your position--like David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart for example (on PBS). All seven of my interests from LD apply to PF.

Policy Debate:

I do not participate in email chains, dropboxes, etc. All debate events are communication events. Debate events are not like the US Court of Appeals where over 80% of all court cases are decided solely by a judge reading briefs.

I enjoy the freedom policy debate provides its competitors where everything can be done from performances and spectacle to augment the rhetoric of a given case to critiquing the resolution to splitting hairs and debating topicality of proposed plans. All of that stuff is incredibly worthwhile and essential for a future adult life enriched by critical thinking, observational skills, and listening.

All seven of my interests from LD apply to Policy.

Experience:

Two Years High School Congressional Debate

Two Years Collegiate Public Forum Debate

Two Years Various Collegiate Speech Events

LD Debate:

By my own admittance, my experience in LD is limited. However, I do have a few main things that I favor when judging. I like to see clash, so make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments. Make sure that you are using both offensive and defensive strategies, as I will ultimately judge based on which side has more arguments still standing. However, keep in mind that not all arguments are equal. If you can prove that your argument bears more significance, or that your opponents' have less, I will count that in your favor. If your opponent drops a point, call them out on it. You can speak fast, I can keep up, but make sure you are still speaking clearly- I can't give you points for things I didn't hear or understand properly. Finally, don't outright lie about what your opponents have said. Misunderstandings happen, and it's fine to attempt to underplay what your opponents have said as well (if they don't call you on it), but do not claim that your opponents have made an argument that they clearly have not, or that they have not made a certain argument that they clearly have. You will lose lots of points from me if you do this.

Congressional Debate:

Speakers- For your speeches, as long as you deliver your points well and make your case clearly, I don't really care what conventions you break for the most part. However, I do have a few things I want to see:

• Make your arguments clearly, and in a way that is easy to understand. Additionally, don't make assumptions about what I know, lay everything out
• I'm here to hear your arguments, not other people's words. Relevant quotes and direct quotes from evidence both are useful and have their uses, but if that's all you have to say in your speech, then I'm not hearing you speaking. I value logic and chaining evidence together to create a full argument much more than just quoting a bunch of sources and letting them do the talking.
• Please speak clearly, structure your speech, and signpost. If I can't understand what you're saying, or I miss how things connect in your speech or where you transition to different points, I can't properly judge those parts of your speech.
• Having several points is good, but I do prefer more in-depth analysis of a few key points than a vague overview of a lot (quality over quantity)
• Finally, be respectful to your fellow competitors. I like to see clashes between speeches, but be respectful and courteous while doing so

Chairs- I respect chairing a lot, and I know how difficult it is to do, so I'm not going to place you low in the chamber just because you made a mess-up or two, as long as they are fairly minor and you handle them well. At the end of the day, as long as you keep the chamber moving smoothly and make good decisions when needed, I'll rank you fairly high. However, I will rank an excellent job chairing much more highly, and on the flipside, if you really mess up, I will rank you much lower.

Public Forum Debate:

In Public Forum debate, my judging is fairly straight-forward. Clash with your opponent, make sure that you're attacking and defending instead of just one or the other, I value how you connect evidence more than the evidence on its own so make sure that you're clearly connecting all your evidence to your argument and not just reading off a bunch of cards, and make sure to be courteous to your opponent. In addition, however, I do have a few things that I do not want to see in rounds:

• Please do tell me why you win and your opponents lose, but don't outright lie to me about what has or hasn't been said in the round. If your opponents didn't make an argument, don't tell me that they made that argument. If your opponents attacked one of your points, don't tell me that they didn't address that point. Instead, in the former case, tell me why your opponents' stance leads to that conclusion, and in the latter, tell me why their attacks/defenses weren't sufficient.
• In crossfire, don't dominate the time, and keep questions and answers brief and to the point. Also don't get off topic, or use crossfire as just more speech time, I will mark you down severely for this. Furthermore, once again, be courteous. Don't interrupt others during crossfire unless they are taking far too much time.
• Additionally, regarding crossfire, don't use loaded or leading questions (loaded questions being ones that have an assumption built in to them, and leading questions being questions framed to force a certain answer that is disingenuous). I will dock points for such questions, and you are within your rights to refuse answering a question that seems to be of either type. However, I do also commend debaters that are clever enough to turn these questions to their benefit.
• I am fine with roadmaps either on the clock or off the clock, whichever the competing teams would prefer. However, if both teams disagree, my default will be on the clock.
• Don't talk a-mile-a-minute. If I can't understand you or can't keep track of your argument, I can't tell how good of a job you actually did. Slow down a bit, focus on enunciation, and make sure I can follow what you're saying.

Also of note, I will be flowing debates, and I will be keeping track of where arguments go and what is countered where. If you drop points, I will notice, however it is still the duty of the opposing team to point out what points have been dropped. Basically, I'll flow the debate so I can properly judge it and so that I know if someone is disingenuous, but it's still up to the debaters to give effective summary and final focus speeches that tell me what points stand and why they win and their opponents lose.

Dartmouth

Email chain: doyunkim8500@gmail.com

*Act like I'm a 5 year old and tell me exactly how to vote*

Tech > truth, fine with speed, little to no topic knowledge

Policy Debate at Northwestern

Add me to the email chain: kevindkim9@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

Debate how you want to debate

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched some rounds on this topic.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

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.

steve.larue@frontrange.edu

I judge regularly in Colorado, usually around 60-70 debate rounds a year, somewhat less this year. I've judged at Nationals for many years.  I've coached debate as an assistant for about 20 years.  What surprised me most in reading other paradigms is how much the PF paradigms sound like Policy paradigms.

I will be looking for:

Being on the e-mail chain.

Tab judging philosophy -- teams set the framework, and it's a debatable issue.

Weighing the round -- teams can collapse if they strategically decide to do so, depending on how the round is playing out.

Speed is not a problem. Clarity is better.

She/They pronouns please!

Last updated for the Holiday Classic

Add me to the email chain - MeliaLever@gmail.com

Don’t ask me if I’m ready, ill tell you if I’m not.

All debate summary

This is your show and run it how you want. Don’t be problematic in in round. If you are I'll vote you down independent of the rest of the debate, that’s about as much judge intervention I'll ever do. Tell me why you win the debate at the end. Lots of impact calc, lots of judge instruction. I don't like to do work for either side but will if I'm not given anything by the debaters. Ill vote for K affs if they’re topic specific and there's warrants as to why the K aff should be allowed.

Tech over Truth

Any reference to Brian David Gilbert and his series on polygon, "unraveled", or Dimension 20 fantasy high will make me like you more.

The winner gets a 30 for speaks and the loser gets the closest value to 30 the tournament will let me assign.

CX - This is my main event. I know the most about it (tech wise) and can track anything you read. I'm good on speed, dont go 100% online. Don’t assume I know the topic. Meaning with T debates you should spend some time explaining why the aff isn't topical.

Counterplans

Condo is the only reason to reject a team, all other theory arguments (assuming you win them) are reasons to make the argument go away

K’s

The bar for a K is high, but not impossible to reach. If your opponents drop arguments or just ignore it then it’s the same as every other dropped argument so long as its properly extended. Otherwise, lots of work needs to go into the alt debate to explain to me why it does solve. I’m compelled by the argument that “discourse does nothing” so if you’re alt is “reject the aff and talk about the problem” that’s gonna be a hard debate to win (assuming the aff has the evidence). But if the alt results in material action in the world (I.E., revolution to overthrow a capitalist system), then it’s easier for me to vote on. Mindset K's are also a hard one for me to vote on. I struggle to believe that reading the K in front of just the room will eventually spillover to the rest of the world.

K aff's need to relate to the topic, otherwise the threshold for T is low. So long as you relate to the topic and can explain how (even if its tangentially) then I'm willing to vote for you.

For both I would also prefer if you kept the K’s away from broad, overreaching topics and narrowed it down to the nitty gritty of the debate. I understand that’s not always possible, but the more you explain the links, impacts, etc. then the easier it is for me to vote on.

PF and LD

I have judged these debates but know very little about them. I’m not totally sure how either works, or the theory behind arguments. You shouldn’t treat me as a lay judge, but don’t assume I’m going to be the single greatest judge you’ve ever had either. I know and understand debate. Lots of what I said for policy applies. Make sure you extend arguments, explain warrants, etc. Otherwise, you can do whatever.

From my days competing, I have experience in Info, Oratory, and a bit of LD. I can judge Extemp since it's a platform event. If absolutely required, I can do LD or PF. Here's the breakdown of what I do and what I'm looking for in debate rounds.

I do not intend to give my decision at the end of the round unless the tournament requires it. You will have to wait to read your ballots.

Do not spread. It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest. If I cannot understand your super-fast arguments, I will not take note of them and I will not acknowledge them in making my final decision.

I flow as fast as I can. One of my problems competing in LD was that I could never write fast enough to get key details of every card, but I will take note if you bring them up in cross-examination or in a rebuttal. During the affirmative, I try to catch main arguments and if they are backed up well. I do not flow cross-examinations. During attacks, I really like to see where the opponent fails to support their own case and actually supports yours. Do NOT drop attacks in your defense. If you don't defend against an attack, I will assume you could not defend against it. In LD, really emphasize your framework; this can essentially be two out of three of your voters. Speaking of voters, do NOT bring up new information and cards in your voter speech.

In LD, I really like to see arguments concerning how the opponent's framework flows to your side.

Be polite to your opponent and to me. What happens in the debate room stays in the debate room.

When sharing cards during online debate rounds, read them. I do not like it when a link is sent in the chat for your opponent to read. Read the card yourself.

Overall, of you're well-researched, it will show.

Have more fun than I did when I was a debater!

I value logic and reason and appreciate a clear rationale for every argument.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I will judge to the best of my ability, however I will judge based on what I hear or understand. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable speed.

Tabula Rasa

Road maps are always on the clock.

About me: This is my third season in speech and debate. My primary events are Original Oratory (OO) and National Extemporaneous Speaking (NX), though I have competed in various other events across speech, debate, and interp. I generally care a lot about delivery and am primarily persuaded by statistics and numerical evidence.

General expectations: I expect competitors to be kind and supportive of one another. Respecting opponents is extremely important to me-- avoid using electronics during the round and actively engage in others’ pieces. It is incredibly challenging to deliver a speech to a stoic audience, and I think that it is courteous to laugh at jokes and nod along to lines of reasoning you are interested in. These same standards apply to spectators. I will always allow spectators to watch if competitors are comfortable, but classify spectators as extensions of the competitor they’re supporting. If a spectator is being ill-mannered or distracting during the round, it will likely influence my round ranking.

A strong speaker enunciates and talks at a digestible pace. In all speech events, the primary goal is to educate or persuade the audience, which cannot be achieved if you are spreading. If you are confident, your audience is inclined to listen, so avoid fidgeting and please project so that the room can easily hear.

Original Oratory: OO is my favorite event to watch; I like hearing about an array of topics and creative arguments around them. I really value diversity of topics, and having heard hundreds of OOs over the past few seasons, appreciate a novel idea. I’m not an oratory purist, and appreciate a creative structure to a speech. That being said, all oratories should focus on a thesis and convincing the audience of a problem. While background information is valuable, it should not overwhelm the argument. I think that it is critical to establish the importance of your topic, so emphasize why it matters on a broader scale but also to your audience. Solutions should be specific and realistic so that the audience as individuals can help change the problem.

Successful oratories hinge on good presentation skills; I want to see varied pacing for emphasis, a conversational tone, and physical differentiation of ideas. Gesturing has the potential to enhance ideas, but over-gesturing and repeated movements become distractions. Especially if you choose a niche topic, 10 minutes of information can feel overwhelming-- break it up with some entertainment. I always love jokes but also other creativity in speeches (I always incorporate a flip into my oratory). I think adding a personal anecdote can make a speech funny or poignant, but is not necessary for a successful OO and I find it easily detectable when a story feels forced or disingenuous.

Informative Speaking: Generally, I have the same expectations for Info as for OO, though obviously an info should not be persuasive. Shy away from subtly pushing a narrative or argument in infos, I think that somewhat defeats the purpose.

I always love seeing cool visuals and they can certainly differentiate speakers. Please make sure all text is large enough for audiences to read and visuals only have words when necessary. While I love some visuals, the quality of writing and delivery is far more important to me than the quality of visuals. I understand that posters, stands, and supplies can be expensive, so I’m not expecting a professional level info extravaganza. Even as speakers continuously return to their visual, I want to see some version of the speaker's triangle or differentiation between points.

Extemporaneous Speaking: I evaluate extemp speeches based off of clear structure, analysis of the argument, use of sources, speaking ability, and entertainment. When responding to the question, I want a clear roadmap outlining the arguments somewhere in the introduction. If there is critical background information, even if it may seem like common knowledge, it is crucial that speakers vocalize it near the beginning of the speech. It is easy to get lost in a heavily technical or unfamiliar argument, so please signpost with point changes (and move to a new spot). It’s okay to have just two points, but I expect the arguments to be genuinely different, focusing on different policies, areas, factors, etc.

Each point should have a couple of sources. Citing sources and providing statistics makes a speaker seem more credible and their argument more compelling. Even if a strong argument is presented, I won’t rank a speaker well if the argument is not clearly in response to the question; please make sure you’re actually reading and answering the question.

Ultimately, extemp is a speaking event. I expect good fluency and confidence, even if you use a notecard. Sometimes seven minutes of straight information gets boring, so I appreciate some level of humor or creativity. Successful jokes and emotional appeals differentiate good and great competitors.

My extemp ballots tend to focus more on delivery, argument structure, and broader trends in your writing, as I think that feedback translates better to improvement when answering new questions. That being said, nuanced arguments and sources will be primary drivers of round ranking.

Contact: If you have any questions about ballots or want further feedback on speeches, please reach out via email to zachariah.nagle@gmail.com

Policy Maker Judge

- Weigh the advantages versus the disadvatanges. Impact calculus is a GREAT way to frame the round. Stock issue debate is still important, but my decision will likely be made on impacts (if it is solid and well defended).

- Strong communication and clearly articulated points will win the round. A winning team will adapt to the judges preferences and make it obvious as to why their position is superior.

- That being said, I will do my best to provide quality feedback for the rounds. Good luck, and I'm super excited to hear your ideas and speeches!

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Raj Pattabi

I am a parent Judge and excited to be part of this judging process.

What and how I judge are as follows

• Assess the strength of arguments that includes the clarity of the thesis, quality of evidence, and logical coherence
• How well debaters respond to counterarguments and whether they maintain a logical and consistent position
• Consider the persuasiveness of debaters, presentation style, research and evidence
• Assess the debaters’ cross-examination skills, overall delivery and style

Updated Jan 18 2021.

Hello! I'm Jessica. I am always extremely happy to be judging:)

I am a former LD debater from Wyoming! I qualified for Nationals in Big Questions, World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. I did CX PF and Parli in college briefly as well.

I am not looking for anything wild in terms of the way you choose to debate. I trust debaters to do what's best for them and persuade me to vote your direction. If you tell me what I should vote on, I will listen, but if you don't I will just weigh the arguments made in round considering the impacts of all arguments, logic of the arguments, and overall coverage of major arguments. Logical arguments will always outweigh cards if you do not provide your own explanation of how the evidence applies to the round. Please provide voting issues for me.

- Please be as polite as possible:)

- Off clock road maps are dandy. Online - I'd also be happy if you said your name and side before you started speaking so that if I happen to not be looking directly at the video I can still tell who's who.

- You can talk fast if you need to, I do understand speed but it will make me sad in anything that is not CX.

- I will not read the evidence in the docs (except in CX), especially if you are not reading them at a speed that I can understand probably, but you sure are welcome to send it to me, and if you specifically tell me to "look at ___ because," then I will.

- I will listen to arguments made in CX, and please be sure to bring them up again in another speech.

- If you are debating LD, please debate LD, not policy. This is not to say I won't vote for you if you are running a counter plan, or talk fast, it just means your debate needs to be centered around ethics.

Email - jessicapetri@gmail.com

I am a coach-adjacent (married to one) judge, and I have been judging policy, PF and LD for 18 years. I was also a policy debater in the last century. That said, I am not necessarily dialed in to the most current strategies and shorthand, especially in policy. My overall approach is basically tabula rasa- I will consider any argument that you can explain in terms of engagement with your opponent, i.e. if you can tell me WHY what you are bringing into the round should win my vote. That could be evidence, impacts, kritiks- whatever- I just need to know that you are listening to your opponent, engaging them directly and weighing their response to you. I’m not really drawn to debates about debate (theory?) in a debate round, but I value thoughtful kritiks about the appropriateness and shortcomings of topics/resolutions in the real world. I will vote on topicality, but it needs to be rigorously adapted to the case in round by specifying exactly why something is non-topical. I’m well aware of the implications for educational purposes.

In terms of mechanics, I can flow fairly speedy rounds, but I have always been a quality-over-quantity judge. Debate is still about communication and persuasion, and presenting a great volume of evidence/sources accomplishes neither goal. Having a some background in technical fields as well as philosophy makes me also appreciate strong analytical arguments.

For Public Forum rounds, much of what I like to see in policy applies, only more so because the time to make arguments is so abbreviated. The winning team will have narrowed their best argument down to one or maybe two by final focus, and will keep it TIGHT, clear and concise.

In LD, I am old school, and I appreciate the idea of a ponderous, reflective and challenging philosophical discourse on a contentious topic. I want to see well developed cases and arguments that explore the moral implications of respective sides of a resolution. A good LD round, in my view, is one in which both participants can speak like orators and use the power of language as well as rigorous analytics to bring the listeners to hear the righteousness of their position.

I believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.

Paradigm for Speech

Background:

• I have participated in Impromptu and Original Oratory competitions during my high school years. I have been judging speech competitions for the past 2 years. I enjoy judging speech competitions and my favorite is DI where I get to see talented youth deliver such wonderful performances.

Core Values:

• While judging I pay attention to effective communication and persuasive skills.
• While delivery matters, where applicable, I seek prioritization of the strength and originality of the content.
• I encourage diverse perspectives and approaches, valuing inclusivity in topics and performances.

Judging Criteria:

• Content (40%): Clarity, originality, and relevance of the argument or theme.
• Delivery (30%): Use of voice, body language, and overall engagement with the audience.
• Structure (20%): Organization of ideas, coherence, and flow of the speech.
• Audience Connection (10%): Ability to connect with the audience emotionally and intellectually.

Feedback:

• I aim to provide constructive feedback that highlights strengths and areas for improvement.
• I aim to provide clear, actionable suggestions that participants can use for future performances.

Hello all! Just wanted to get a few official things out of the way first!

I will be weighing your arguments based on the evidence that you provide with them (if you give me 6 statistics but do not explain how that corresponds to your argument, that argument will stand as if there was no evidence provided). Correlating your evidence with your argument should be a skill set you already have.

Please do not falsify statements and actions made by the opposing side. I will know and I will mark you down for it, so just don't do it.

During your final focus, I expect everyone to explain to me why they have won this debate. Advocate for yourself, tell me why you deserve the 1. It can be anything from "My points are better" to simply providing me better reasons to prioritize your plan above your opponents. All I want to see is some form of self-advocation.

Keep things clean and professional! Abusive tactics are a huge no no. We are here to have fun, not to beat someone else down. With that being said, I want all of you to have fun! Enjoy the nature of the debate. It should be a good time for all parties involved.

Good luck, and have fun!

I'm not impressed by sophistry.

Table of Contents

General Info

LD Paradigm

PF Paradigm

World Schools Paradigm

General Dislikes/Notes

Theory Issues

General Info

Started Judging: 2008

Started Coaching: 2010

Events Coached: LD, PF, Policy, Extemp, World Schools

Delivery: I don't want emails, flash drives, or printed copies. This is a speaking event and I plan to judge your argument based on your delivery of your case and rebuttals. I can handle fast talking, but no longer try to keep up with spreading. There is no educational merit, and many downsides, to encouraging students to speak at vastly accelerated paces.

Cross (excluding World Schools): I expect debaters to be polite during cross, but do not consider interruptions to be impolite. I understand cross time is limited and if you have the information you want and wish to move on to another question I understand.

RFD - If the tournament allows it, I will be happy to give my decision and discuss as long as competitors want/tournament time allows. If the tournament doesn't allow it, I will not disclose. If you try to get me to disclose at a tournament that doesn't allow disclosure I will take points away from you.

Lincoln-Douglas

Overview: LD is a moral debate that is meant to look at the underlying value of an issue. I favor a broad based approach that looks at the totality of the resolution vs. cases that over-focus on single examples or instances.

Values: I expect both debaters to have a value/standard/etc that clarifies the moral principle they are pushing for. Broadly speaking, I recognize values as automatic principles that don't need additional defense. If you tell me the most important moral issue is ensuring liberty/equality/artistic expression/self-actualization, I'll accept it as good. Having a sentence or two to explain the value/why you think it is important can be very helpful, but I don't need a long defense of the concept.

It is very hard, though not impossible, to disprove a value during a debate. Generally I expect to see the debate be about whether each side actually accomplishes the value they have outlined, not whether the value is morally good (the latter question becomes very hard for any person to judge without bringing their personal feelings into the debate).

Burden: Each side in LD has an equal burden. There is no Aff presumption that they get to set the terms, nor is there any Aff burden that they have to prove more than the Neg.

Flow: While I expect debaters to argue on the flow structure, I'm more looking to the upholding of the central principle (value) then whether debaters covered every contention.

Plans: I don't want to hear a plan and they usually don't make sense within the context of LD. That said, there are two very different types of plans that come up.

Broad explanations: Presume the motion: 'The US should end fossil fuel subsidies.' If the plan was that that US would end all payments to fossil fuel companies over the next five years, that would be fine. That's a common sense interpretation of what the motion is asking. I consider that more of an observation on the burdens of the resolution.

Narrow Plans: Taking the above motion, if the plan was 'the US will end payments to coal companies', to me that would be a bad plan. The Aff in this instance is trying to unfairly narrow the debate. The resolution's burden was end fossil fuel subsidies, not to end one type of fossil fuel subsidies. In such an example if the Neg said the Aff hadn't upheld the resolution, I'd almost certainly agree.

Both sides in a debate have an obligation to argue the entirety of the motion. Single, narrow examples on either side that don't relate to a broader principle are not enough to prove your side correct or the opponent's side incorrect.

Public Forum

PF is meant to be delivered to a general audience, not to people experienced with debate. Thus I will judge it as who did better communicating to a general audience. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum.

Final Focus is meant to narrow down the debate and explain the most important issues. It should be between 1 and 3 points. A final focus should not try to explain every single contention.

World Schools

Scoring - My ultimate decision will be holistic - I evaluate the round based on which team won the overall debate. This is not a debate where 'what is true at the end of the round' wins the debate, the entire debate is evaluated.

Unless I hear differently at judge instructions my scoring standard is -

68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.

64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.

71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.

Above a 75 is reserved for truly amazing speeches. On a level of "I ran out of the room to tell other people how amazing it was".

Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.

What I'm looking for in each area:

Content - Logic, analysis, explanation, and evidence. Good content should be backed up by logic and explanation, but also thoroughly explained for how it helps your side. Just stating an opinion, even of an expert, on an issue isn't enough; it needs to be explained and tied to the overall argument.

Style - This is scored just like an oratory. I look for things like eye contact, understandable speed, clarity, emphasis through tone/volume changes or pauses to call emphasis to key points, and emotion and interest. Humor and/or emotional intensity may gain points if appropriate for the motion.

Strategy - Was the speech well put together? Was time well spent on the key issue, or where minor portions of the debate given too much attention? Did the speaker belabor arguments he/she had already won?

POIs - I expect a speaker to take around two POIs during his/her speech. These should be spread throughout the speech. If the first two are taken, and all others ignored, I will not count that as taking a good number of POIs.

Taking excessive POIs will hurt the strategy score. The only exception to this is if the speaker is winning (improving their side) when taking POIs - in that case continuing to take POIs is acceptable.

If a team is not trying to ask their opponent POIs, or asking very infrequently, then obviously the requirement to take two disappears.

POIs should be no longer than 15 seconds. That is the absolute max amount of time I think you have a right to take from an opponent. The speaker has the right to cut the POI off at any point and answer/continue.

Barraging - I think it is reasonable to stand 12 to 15 times during an opponent's speech (this is for the entire opposing team). Even going up to 20 could be acceptable. More than that though and you are taking away from the opponent's right to give a speech. For online WSD this should be cut in half.

I will take away/reward up to 2 points per speaker based on quality of POIs. A bad POI is one that the opponent is able to use to strengthen their own case or just a waste of time. A good POI strengthens the case of the deliverer or points to a weakness in the opponent's argument.

Framework/Terms of Debate - The prop has the right to set the framework for the debate. I define framework as an explanation of what the motion means, what, if any, specific burdens exist, what, if any, things are trying to be achieved, and what, if any, mechanism is being used (if any of those are not being done, because they don't need to be, you don't need to tell me, I'll understand). This framework must be fair and reasonable.

Fair - Does it give both teams an equal chance to win. If you try to define the debate in a way that substantially benefits your team I will consider that a bad framework for strategy scores.

Reasonable - Was this framework something that a person would consider the motion to mean upon hearing it? This framework should be based more on a common understanding of the words, not strict dictionary definitions.

Example - If the motion was 'THBT the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes' and the prop tried to argue that they only had to show a single example, that would be a bad framework. It's not fair to the opposition and no person who was asked that motion would think they were being asked about a single hypothetical instance. If the proposition defined it as 'only in cases of premeditated murder' or 'for war crimes or crimes against humanity', either of those would most likely be fair.

Challenging Framework - If you believe the framework is unfair/abusive/unreasonable, you may challenge it. If you want to make a slight adjustment/clarification/addition you may also do that, but here I am focusing on a challenge to the entire framework proposed.

Alternative - You should offer an alternative framework. This must conform to the above standards of fair and reasonable.

First Thing - The challenge to the framework should be the first thing in the speech. If the prop disagrees with the opposition framework, it should be the first thing in their speech (and so on until there is an agreement on framework or we're out of debate).

I don't like framework debate. If the proposition framework is fair and reasonable and the opposition challenges it, the opposition will probably lose. Likewise if the proposition proposes an unfair framework, they will likely lose.

Other Issues:

When a speaker finishes, the next speaker should promptly proceed to wherever speeches are being given. There is no prep time. You may organize your materials, but you should not be having a conversation with your teammates. Once you get to the speaking position please confirm that I am ready for you to begin.

General Dislikes (All Debates)

If a team falsifies their evidence I will always vote them down. I do not care about the level of impact it had on the debate or whether the mistake was done via maliciousness or negligence. I see falsification as any of the following:

-Creating a piece of evidence

-Changing the wording of the evidence to alter meaning

-Cutting the evidence in a way to leave out arguments that might hurt your case.

I will also punish misinterpretations of the evidence, though the degree of penalty is determined by the level of misinterpretation. I see this as situations where the speaker makes substantial errors about the quality of the source, who paraphrases the evidence in a manner that is not accurate, or misunderstands the point the author was making.

Things I commonly see that I dislike

"My opponent did not attack X contention, therefore they must agree." This isn't true. If an opponent hasn't gotten to an argument in the time allowed for them to make their initial arguments, they can not offer any new evidence, but that doesn't mean they agree. The fact that they have their own case means they have principles that disagree with you and they can always argue why their side is more important. Also, many times people will claim their opponent hasn't attacked a certain contention when I have on my flow that they have.

"If I can prove just a 1% chance of this impact, I should win this debate." This is a profoundly silly line of argument.

"My evidence says I'm right" "Well, my evidence says I'm right", "What my opponent is forgetting is that my evidence says I'm right". I commonly see debates that just become a circle of the debaters going back to the evidence they read that backed their side and inherently presuming their evidence is superior to their opponents. During evidence clashes someone has to explain why their evidence is superior: more topical, better source, more logical, etc.

If you have an important piece of evidence, please explain the validity of the source if the name doesn't explain it (major news organizations, magazines, politicians, college institutions, could have an explanation, but don't need one per se). If I just hear 'According to Williams in 2017', I have no idea who Williams is. I'll evaluate whatever you say as if you'd delivered it without a source if you don't explain why the source matters.

"My evidence is more recent so you must prefer it." In certain cases recency is important, but it has to be explained why.

Theory

Theory issues are a check for fairness. Ideally, theory should never come up in a "good" debate, but they do need to exist.

I define theory as arguments that in some way deal with your opponent(s) having violated the structure of what a "good" debate should be. Examples: they are off topic, their delivery is inappropriate, they aren't providing their evidence, etc. Issues that don't have anything to do with the core resolution/motion, but based off how they are dealing with it.

To me, if you run theory you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating/being abusive. This is the most important issue in debate, but one that should only be run if you believe it to be true. If you run a theory argument that is itself abusive (ex: topicality against an obvious topical argument), I will hold it against you.

I am very new to judging. English isn’t my first language so I prefer if you guys would talk at a slower pace and use less debate jargon for me to understand.
Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.

I place big emphasis on quality of speech and sound reasoning, along with response. A good debater is a respectful debater so I will not tolerate interrupting or disrespect in round. No spreading, no off-time roadmaps. Just so you know, my background is in public address and extemp, so I look for both quality information and sound delivery.

I enjoy clear, succinct arguments.

Think fast speak slow.

Volume and tone matter.

Respectfully communicate.

(Paradigm Updated November 14, 2024)

Hello, Speech and Debaters! I am excited to be your judge for this upcoming round, and I look forward to hearing your speeches and debate arguments.

I participated in Speech and Debate in High School with four years of debate experience. Three of those years were spent in Public Forum Debate and my final year was in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I was lucky enough to have made it to Quarter-Finals in LD during my Senior Year at the Wyoming State Speech and Debate tournament. Additionally, I participated in Extemp for four years and had finished 3rd and 5th at Wyoming State in my Junior and Senior Years of High School, respectively. I am also a one-time qualifier in Extemp to the National Speech and Debate Tournament. I also participated in a little bit of Congress, Oratory, and Informative Speaking. Nowadays, I still continue my public speaking path by participating in Toastmasters International where I have learned new public speaking strategies and ways to improve my presentation skills. In Toastmasters, I have made my way to the District level in their public speaking contest.

In the past, I used to have pretty tough paradigms for debaters, but I have changed to be a bit more flexible. I understand that debaters have many different sides/perspectives of arguments and that they may use different strategies/approaches as to making their case stand out versus the other's. Generally speaking, however, I will make a decision directly on the debate flow and which side tends to have the more "offensive" arguments instead of the defensive arguments. This means that I am looking for how you plan to attack your opponents case via cross-applications, impact calculus, argument turns, etc. While I understand the need to have your points pushed across, I do ask that debaters speak a little slower that way I can catch all of your points. The main thing to know is that if I don't catch your point, it may not be an argument that I consider (especially if it ends up being dropped on my flow).

I try to provide the best feedback that I possibly can based on my past experience. If there is anything that you are not certain of or you would like more clarification as to why I thought one way or another, you are always free to send me an email to spence0310@gmail.com! I will read through it and provide a response back to you as soon as I can.

Thank you and good luck in your rounds!

Spencer Travis

As a judge, my primary focus is on who demonstrates the best command of the round, which I evaluate based on three main criteria: content, organization, and delivery.

1. Content: The strength of the arguments presented is critical. I am looking for arguments that are well-researched, logically sound, and thoroughly explained. It’s not enough just to present a lot of information; I need clear, well-supported points that directly address the issues in the round.

2. Organization: Clear structure is essential. I expect debaters to present their arguments in an organized way, with each point flowing logically to the next. Strong debaters will make it easy for me to follow their case and respond to the opposing side. This includes not only the initial arguments but also how well rebuttals are organized and how each speaker builds on or refines the arguments as the round progresses.

3. Delivery: Debate is a public speaking activity, so effective presentation matters. I will pay attention to how well you communicate, including clarity of speech, pacing, and your ability to engage with the audience (or judge). A confident, composed delivery enhances the strength of your arguments.

4. Weighing: In your final speech, I expect you to weigh the arguments you've made and explain clearly why your side should win the round. This includes identifying the most important issues and showing why your arguments outweigh the opposing team’s points. A clear reason for decision is extremely helpful in guiding me towards the winner.

Overall, I am swayed by the debater who wins the substance of the debate, presents it in a structured and engaging way, and clearly explains why they should win in the final speech. If both sides present strong content, organization, and delivery, I will lean toward the one that demonstrates stronger and clearer reasoning inweighing the arguments.

I'm a traditional judge, the framework is important (so don't drop it), and I appreciate proper decorum within the debate. Please be respectful of opponents at all times without being condescending.

Otherwise, you must be pretty amazing for getting this far; so keep doing what is (apparently) working!

add me to the chain! saimaaxingwidi@gmail.com

I’ve competed in PF, College Policy, and Congress. I look for clean debates, and am usually tech over truth. Tell me why your opponents lose and you win, and give me a clean story of each world. I’m all good with spreading as long as I can understand you. I buy theory debates and Ks, but please use them sparingly in rounds that aren’t Policy and if you do use them, do it well.

That being said, a big part of my decision is based on presentation of each speaker; if you’re saying the right things but you seem particularly flustered, unknowledgeable, or are just being rude, that WILL factor into my decision. My ballot supports debaters that know how to speak, not just debate.

LD debaters: I’m familiar with the rules, times, mechanics, etc. of LD, but I definitely have less experience than other events. Just make sure you make the value/value criterion debate extra clear for me :)

LD - Prefer classic value clash debate, but only if it is meaningful. Clear case construction with logical links are important. Coverage of debate flow and respectful approach important to me. Evidence is fine, but I like philosophical debate in LD too. Please treat each other with respect.

CX - Stock Issues are important in my judging. I don't especially like spreading, but don't mind quick reading (as long as I can understand it). Prefer transparent and respectful debate. LINKS LINKS LINKS. Fine with K's, as long as they link and make sense. Impact calculus done well often sways my vote.

PF - Prefer winsome and clear debate. Respectful questioning approach appreciated. Evidence links are important. Dropping arguments is fine as long as you stay within a meaningful framework.

I've judged many debates over 10 years + of coaching, but am still learning more and more about debate all the time.

LD: I tend to favor more "traditional" flavors of LD, but I will vote on critical affirmatives and other departures from the norm if they are appropriately impacted and extended throughout the round. While I appreciate framework clash, I do not consider framework to be an independent reason to vote AFF or NEG. You should win the framework debate and then apply the framework to the contention-level debate and motivate voters there.

PF: I will flow carefully and appreciate extensions of specific cites and warrants rather than pure volume. Summary and Final Focus speeches which fail to collapse the debate to a manageable list of voters should be avoided. I don't like to intervene in any round, so provide clear reasons to vote in Final Focus. Propose and apply some weighing mechanism....

Policy: I favor policy making and stocks debates, but I will vote on anything if properly developed and weighed in the round. I tend to look less favorably on procedurals and theory shells which multiply lots of standards and substructure in the round but don't amount to much after the block.

\

Overall background on me: I've been a state legislator for 2 decades, and a collegiate political science instructor for 15 years. I can handle all sorts of crazy arguments as long as you have evidence and some thoughtful analysis to support your position- no matter how controversial. I do ask you treat your opponents with the respect and deference they are due in the competition from the first interaction until you walk out the room.

Off-time Roadmaps are fine.

I like Evidence, followed up by more Evidence, with some thought based on Evidence.

If you have cards or citations from obscure, non-mainstream, biased media (on either side of political ideology) I get a bit grumpy. Also, cards/evidence more than a decade old don't carry much weight with me unless you can somehow tie it to present or future state of affairs. I also appreciate acknowledgement of ALL opponents' main contentions. If one side has three contentions, and the other side constantly attacks 2 of them and forgets the 3rd, it will likely not go well-If you must, at least tell me you've heard their 3rd contention and it's not worthy of debate :)

Always open to any questions before a round starts.